htr said:
Re power charts for the variety of K series 1.8 motors. In my reading and internet travels I've come across these.
Kseries18powergraph.jpg
[/URL]
The upper lines of each area are the stated power gains so the lower lines [green & blue] show standard power outputs for a 1.8 FL1.

The next on comes off the MGF MGTF engine option page. As it says it's for the st'd K4 1.8 motor. This motor will have a 'hotter' cam arrangement.
.

This next one is for the spare VVC motor I've already got sitting at home. [135hp]
.

These last two should be very similar to the previous two but I forget where I got them - some of you may be able to tell me. Apologies that they are harder to read.

Click to expand...

The plot for the K4 1.8 (135) isn't for the VVC engine. This is from the MGF 135 which uses longer duration cams than the standard 1.8 K4.

The lowest plot is for the VVC engine. Notice how flat the torque curve is. The VVC torque curve is both higher at 165Nm and extends over more of the usable rev range useful for the Freelander of 2500 to 5250 RPM. The VVC is only bettered by the turbo engine, which is understandable of course.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the VVC is the best na K series, I have a VVC in my MGF with aftermarket air box and 52mm TB but it could never be called torquey.
Yes it would be an upgrade in percentage terms but in the real world how often would you rev it out to 7000rpm to get the real benefits of the VVC? Would it be worth the work and expense? Maybe if you had a blown engine and had a spare VVC available.
If I were putting a non standard engine in my Freelander I'd be doing a Disco_Mikey and it would be a 1.8T.

Maybe I'm just too used to driving Diesel company cars where the power kicks in at 1800 rpm, maybe I'm just getting old.

Now were did I put my slippers? :)
 
Last edited:
For those curious I've made these power comparison graphs up for the various K series 1.8 motors.
The figures came from graphs on the MGF MGTF page and the Powerchip page. The charts are close approximations so please excuse any errors but I think they are a close representation.

Blue is the FL1 1.8XEI
Green = MGF 1.8i
Yellow = MGTF
Orange = MGF160 VVC
Red = MG ZT turbo
 
Last edited:
Nodge68 said:
I see a turbo VVC engine in the pipeline! ;)
Click to expand...

Very little point I'm afraid - the VVC works by increasing overlap, which is far from useful on a turbo setup. If you leave the VVC mech in the lowest overlap setting, then it will work... but then you may as well just fit solid cams, and fob the vvc off (but from what I've read, that's actually better for peak power anyway)
 
DastardlyDan said:
Very little point I'm afraid - the VVC works by increasing overlap, which is far from useful on a turbo setup. If you leave the VVC mech in the lowest overlap setting, then it will work... but then you may as well just fit solid cams, and fob the vvc off (but from what I've read, that's actually better for peak power anyway)
Click to expand...

Yes theoretically for a turbo engine, long valve overlap isn't ideal, especially at low RPMs. There are a few VVC engines around that are boosted that do seem to work well. I know of a supercharged VVC making some good power. Obviously turbo charging is different but I reckon, if the control of the VVC mechs can be mapped so valve timing is optimised for a given boost/ RPM, there is a benefit to running VVC. Fixed valve timing is restrictive, whereas variable valve timing is less so.
I can see a time in the future when manufacturers start making small capacity VVC turbo engines. There is already I manufacturer making a high power turbo VVC engine. More I suspect will follow.
 
Last edited:
I have a thesis paper that shows vvc on intake AND exhaust, of a turbocharged engine, can give approx 20% more low-end power, from reduced spool

Only difference is - it only actuates at below the usual boost threshold. Intake closes earlier, exhaust opens earlier ("trapping" more of the low-velocity intake charge, and releasing the exhaust to the turbine earlier)


May be possible to tweak a stock vvc to give these results to the intake perhaps?
 
DastardlyDan said:
I have a thesis paper that shows vvc on intake AND exhaust, of a turbocharged engine, can give approx 20% more low-end power, from reduced spool

Only difference is - it only actuates at below the usual boost threshold. Intake closes earlier, exhaust opens earlier ("trapping" more of the low-velocity intake charge, and releasing the exhaust to the turbine earlier)


May be possible to tweak a stock vvc to give these results to the intake perhaps?
Click to expand...

Sounds an interesting thesis.
The slight hick up with the Rover VVC is exhaust timing is fixed. Inlet timing is infinitely variable between the shortest and longest duration though. With 75 ° inlet timing swing available, there is good scope for improving on the fixed timing turbo variant.
 
Sooo are we proposing to turbo a VVC motor and fit it to a FL1?

I like this plan.
 
I suspect that if the engine had been designed from the outset to have forced induction AND VVC together, it would work quite well.

However, making them work together will be another challenge.

That said, how big would the gains be? The Turbo has more power across the whole rev range, as well as more torque.
I suspect it would be a huge headache, for not a lot of extra gain
 
disco_mikey said:
I suspect that if the engine had been designed from the outset to have forced induction AND VVC together, it would work quite well.

However, making them work together will be another challenge.

That said, how big would the gains be? The Turbo has more power across the whole rev range, as well as more torque.
I suspect it would be a huge headache, for not a lot of extra gain
Click to expand...

Quite. Or the expense of replacing the gearbox every few thousand miles.
Even a standard turbo 1.8 is putting out twice the torque, the box is designed to take.
 
Another question: In what ways would fitting a VVC motor to a FL1 with the MEMS 3 ECU differ to fitting it to one with MEMS 1.9?

Easier / harder...
 
Would that not depend on the year of the VVC? Mine is a 99 F with MEMS 1.9. A more recent engine from a TF would have MEMS 3. If you did decide to go ahead with it then fit one which matches your Freelander.
 
Am sorry guys, Gas Turbine is the only way to pep up your old Hippo. I recon the old PG1 will be up to the job.

The main problem seems to me is jet efflux velocity control, and devising an efficient after burner system for those emergency overtaking moments.

Just think of the Shell points!.
 
htr said:
I've seen that mentioned with regard to the diesels. So the later electrical system would stop that idea. Would an after market ECU be a way around that?
Click to expand...

Just use the MEMS system you got out of the Vi. The 143 Bhp VVC uses the best MEMS for the early Freelander ;)
 
More info' for you all. I've decided not to go ahead with the motor swap. My slightly mod'd 1.8 is running very well and I don't want to have the headache of figuring the intricacies of the electrical system out with that motor swap.

I've offered the VVC motor to a fellow who has n '02 FL1 with 1.8 and the MEMS 3 system. I'm thinking that he can't use that motor due to the differences in the electrical system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
2.0di engine into 1.8 k series
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
WLJayne
WLJayne
richardjeaton
  • Sticky
How to - Land Rover 90 TD to Discovery 200TDi Engine Conversion
8 9 10
Replies
195
Views
174K
kevstar
kevstar