Nodge68 said:
The turbo K4 would be the ultimate F power unit for performance. Unless the KV6 is turbocharged of course. ;)
Sound wise, the KV6 has it all sown up. I love the slightly off beat low rpm exhaust note, which turns into a howl at high RPM.
Click to expand...
+1 on both comments - completely agree.

We once had a 2.0 KV6 Rover 75. It sounded sublime even if not exactly a performance car. Many was the time I thought this would be a wonderful engine for the MGF.

MG Rover built a concept TF GT that was said would have a KV6 if it ever hit production (sadly, it never did), but the concept car itself "only" had the 160 VVC K16 fitted...
 
rob_bell said:
Yes, that's a MEMS3 :) They're wedged shaped in profile.

From the part number, it is a Freelander unit. Unfortuantely, that won't be ideal for running a 1.8T - as you'll need one for a VVC or a Steptronic. These ECUs have additional outputs which will be needed to drive the turbo hardware.
Click to expand...
The MEMS unit you'll need to find carries the part number NNN100783 :) (I knew I had a record of that somewhere! LOL)
 
disco_mikey said:
To keep the dash working, you need to run a twin ECU setup
Mine is now running a MEMS ECU, with EBC for full ECU control.
Click to expand...

Sorry for asking loads of questions but when you say twin set up, I'm assuming they are running in parallel? one is monitoring the engine and feeding the dials but with no control of the fuel and the other has full control of the fuel and boost control but not feeding information to the rest of the vehicle?

What's the simplest way of doing this? just running the turbo Ecu fully connected to the normal engine loom, then just sharing the sensor inputs to the freelander Ecu which is then connected to the cars loom? did you wire all the sensors up to both ECUs or just a few, did you get a check engine light from it?

If you have pics could I get you to private message me them? I think this is something I'm going to end up doing.....
 
Last edited:
You guys are a bad influence! More temptation to mod my MGF. :(
Do you reckon one of these could be made to fit on a KV6? Fabricating a manifold out of alloy shouldn't be too difficult,
and it could make the intake system a bit lower which would help with the fit in an MGF.

standard.jpg


The flip side :)
standard.jpg
 
Last edited:
Interesting! What is that off Rich? The KV6 has a 90-degree V-angle, rather than the more typical 60-degree (it was a modular design, intended originally to potentially spawn a V8 for the Range Rover). But that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

There is a reasonable amount of height in the Freelander and MGF engine bays - the MG is tighter. How tall is that assembly? Of course, there is nothing to stop you from modifying the engine cover to make clearance if needed ;)
 
Rich in Vancouver said:
You guys are a bad influence! More temptation to mod my MGF. :(
Do you reckon one of these could be made to fit on a KV6? Fabricating a manifold out of alloy shouldn't be too difficult,
and it could make the intake system a bit lower which would help with the fit in an MGF.

standard.jpg


The flip side :)
standard.jpg
Click to expand...
It's possible to fit all sorts of superchargers with the correct manifolds being made up.
It's worth remembering that the KV6 crank is only designed to take around 200 Bhp. More importantly for supercharging. The crank nose is only able to take about 50 Bhp.
I know of several supercharged KV6s that have suffered bottom end failure. This appears to happen after power starts to exceed 240 Bhp. Don't forget that the crank is taking closer to 300 Bhp, due to charger losses.
So from a power point of view, turbocharging is a better option. It doesn't use 50 Bhp or so, just to charge the inlet, when the turbo does it for free.
 
It`s all just a bit of fun, really. Just fantasising how to make a reliable car unreliable.
I will probably never get around to installing one on a car, or even doing a V6 conversion for that matter but
it is entertaining working things out. It could be a good retirement project when the time comes.
The blower is from a VW, also 2.5l.
The point about the crank is a good one. If I was to install a blower it would be at very low boost, 6-8psi which would
give a useful increase in power without causing major issues. (He says hopefully!)
That would do away with the need for an intercooler. On an MGF space is such an issue, and the mid-engine layout makes it harder to get rid of the heat generated by a turbo, although it has been done successfully.
 
Agreed, you cannot take the power need for a SC from the front pully on 99% of all engines in the UK - on the US v8's - yes ok - for most.

Definitely TC Forced induction. Twin are fine if multi bank.
The modern ones blow away (haha) :) - the old SC FI systems.
Joe
 
rob_bell said:
Interesting! What is that off Rich? The KV6 has a 90-degree V-angle, rather than the more typical 60-degree (it was a modular design, intended originally to potentially spawn a V8 for the Range Rover). But that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

There is a reasonable amount of height in the Freelander and MGF engine bays - the MG is tighter. How tall is that assembly? Of course, there is nothing to stop you from modifying the engine cover to make clearance if needed ;)
Click to expand...
There's enough hight in F bay. And the KV6 is shorter than the K4, which is handy for making the front mount. It is however very wide and part of the F's subframe is in the way of an exhaust manifold collector. However that is possible to get round by fabricating of a manifold taking another route.
The width of the engine is the main issue though.
Here's the KV6 dimension schematic.
kv6_k16_montage_image.jpeg
 
Wow - a blast from the past - I remember making that overlay image about 13 years ago! LOL

The KV6 will fit. Modification to bulkhead and fuel tank (might be able to heat and reform the thermoplastic fuel tank?) The supercharger should fit too - there was an Australian SC conversion for the ZT back in period, plus the US Freelander KV6 conversion mentioned earlier in the thread.

What Nodge says is, I am sure, correct: it may well prove prudent to rebuild the bottom end of the engine to cope with the increased BMEP - which rapidly makes an expensive conversion mightily expensive!!! A twin turbo might well be easier, but will run into similar issues (albeit not with the nose bearing load problems). I have a recollection that MG Rover's engineers had a working biturbo KV6 running in a ZT, but went with the Mustang Ford V8 in the end... No idea whether they had to make any bottom end changes?

All good fun. In my burgeoning K-series collection, the only engine I haven't managed to horde is the KV6!!!! LOL
 
rob_bell said:
Wow - a blast from the past - I remember making that overlay image about 13 years ago! LOL

The KV6 will fit. Modification to bulkhead and fuel tank (might be able to heat and reform the thermoplastic fuel tank?) The supercharger should fit too - there was an Australian SC conversion for the ZT back in period, plus the US Freelander KV6 conversion mentioned earlier in the thread.

What Nodge says is, I am sure, correct: it may well prove prudent to rebuild the bottom end of the engine to cope with the increased BMEP - which rapidly makes an expensive conversion mightily expensive!!! A twin turbo might well be easier, but will run into similar issues (albeit not with the nose bearing load problems). I have a recollection that MG Rover's engineers had a working biturbo KV6 running in a ZT, but went with the Mustang Ford V8 in the end... No idea whether they had to make any bottom end changes?

All good fun. In my burgeoning K-series collection, the only engine I haven't managed to horde is the KV6!!!! LOL
Click to expand...
The KV6 is my favourite engine. I'm pleased to have a low mileage, modified example in my collection of engines :)
It has ported heads. I cut the port runners in a similar patern to the VVC 160 head. I've counter cut around the valves in a similar way to the VVC 160 head too. This has given a nice increase in port flow to 95 ft per minute. There's also a set of re-ground 260° cams in there. This engine made a solid 215 Bhp in my ZS 180 with a remap and cold air intake.
I've also got a standard 143VVC engine in my collection and a bog standard 1.8 K-series too.
There's also a ZS180 gearbox, ECU and Rover 825 twin plenum manifold in storage, ready for a project.
I'm a bit of a collector of bits and pieces. The wife says I collect junk:(
 
Nodge68 said:
The KV6 is my favourite engine. I'm pleased to have a low mileage, modified example in my collection of engines :)
It has ported heads. I cut the port runners in a similar patern to the VVC 160 head. I've counter cut around the valves in a similar way to the VVC 160 head too. This has given a nice increase in port flow to 95 ft per minute. There's also a set of re-ground 260° cams in there. This engine made a solid 215 Bhp in my ZS 180 with a remap and cold air intake.
I've also got a standard 143VVC engine in my collection and a bog standard 1.8 K-series too.
There's also a ZS180 gearbox, ECU and Rover 825 twin plenum manifold in storage, ready for a project.
I'm a bit of a collector of bits and pieces. The wife says I collect junk:(
Click to expand...
You need to design a non cracking thermostat housing now
 
Nodge68 said:
The KV6 is my favourite engine. I'm pleased to have a low mileage, modified example in my collection of engines :)
It has ported heads. I cut the port runners in a similar patern to the VVC 160 head. I've counter cut around the valves in a similar way to the VVC 160 head too. This has given a nice increase in port flow to 95 ft per minute. There's also a set of re-ground 260° cams in there. This engine made a solid 215 Bhp in my ZS 180 with a remap and cold air intake.
I've also got a standard 143VVC engine in my collection and a bog standard 1.8 K-series too.
There's also a ZS180 gearbox, ECU and Rover 825 twin plenum manifold in storage, ready for a project.
I'm a bit of a collector of bits and pieces. The wife says I collect junk:(
Click to expand...
I have five engines (if I don't include the TF135 engine that is in bits - collected that as it had suffered catastrophic hydraulic lock and exploded a piston - but makes an ideal buck for trying out new manifold ideas). Two 1.8Ts (one with turbo, one without), a 143 VVC, a 118 1.8MPi (head gone soft following HGF; it once belonged to Steve Childs - he of mg-rover.org fame) and a 160 VVC. Plus spare MGF and TF sub-frames, hubs, suspension components, bumpers, dashboard...

My wife thinks I hoard junk too. She may be right... LOL
 
Just out of curiosity, is it worth at all spending time porting and polishing the head before I refit it?
Am I really going to see enough gain to warrant it, especially seeing as a turbo lump is still on the cards when I free up the money from the tractor?
 
monkfish24 said:
Just out of curiosity, is it worth at all spending time porting and polishing the head before I refit it?
Am I really going to see enough gain to warrant it, especially seeing as a turbo lump is still on the cards when I free up the money from the tractor?
Click to expand...

Polish is worth nothing in terms of power. The best you can do without a flow bench, is to copy a better flowing head. The VVC head flows well, the VVC 160 head flows better. However unless you improve the entire inlet and exhaust system, you'll not see anything worthwhile.;)
 
I guess it might be worth checking the waterways and opening them out if needed, they can be pretty badly cast.
 
Alibro said:
I guess it might be worth checking the waterways and opening them out if needed, they can be pretty badly cast.
Click to expand...

That was something I had on my list of checks, I just thought that seeing as the dremel is out I may as well keep going. if there are no real gains then I won't worry too much, just remove the flash and send it off to be skimmed.
 
Still really curious as to the parallel Ecu set up if anyone has any more details. I'd like to get everything together and built before I drop it in so there is less time not running once I have the car off the road.
 
Nodge68 said:
Polish is worth nothing in terms of power. The best you can do without a flow bench, is to copy a better flowing head. The VVC head flows well, the VVC 160 head flows better. However unless you improve the entire inlet and exhaust system, you'll not see anything worthwhile.;)
Click to expand...
Agree with you Nodge 100%

There are advantages in improving gas flow on a forced induction head (lower temperatures, better volumetric efficiency), but polishing the ports without altering the profile of the ports probably won't achieve much. :(

Sabre heads and DVA Power are two of the most respected cylinder head modifiers for the K-series - and Dave Andrews (DVA) is very generous with his knowledge in my experience :)
 
Resurecting an old fred, who knows how different the mg6 k series engine is from the mg zt k series engine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ggrupea
Freelander TD4 vacuum hose servo EGR and turbo
Replies
9
Views
690
ggrupea
ggrupea
S
Freelander 1 Turbo whistle gone suddenly (SOLVED)
Replies
6
Views
645
hd3
hd3
Z
Freelander 2 (LR2) Turbo coolant return pipe
Replies
5
Views
1K
Zebravanman
Z
htr
Freelander 1 K-series 1.8 Fly wheel
Replies
11
Views
868
htr
htr
Cyrus 200
Battery Drain
Replies
6
Views
394
Cyrus 200
Cyrus 200