Nodge68 said:
It's difficult to be 100% sure. But it would follow that cleaning up the passageways to the casting marks would make the coolant flow as the designers intended. All the K's that I've done HG work on were similarly affected by casting flash, blocking ways like those pictured.
Who knows. No blocked coolant ways, could mean no HGF.
We don't rip heads of perfectly working engines to find out, do we?
Click to expand...
Perfectly working may be a bit of overkill on something that HAS failed or is GOING to fail :rolleyes:... however, whilst one may not be too inclined to remove the head on an engine awaiting an HGF.. there have been many that have suffered from multiple failures. One may also presume that there are also a lot that HAVE had the casting flash cleaned. Sometimes there is no definite cause as seems to be the case with the K series. Lot's of theories, some of which can be shown to have SOME effect in certain areas but not objective proof of the actual cause.
It would appear to me that it is more down to careful preparation and assembly than any specific item. If I had one I would certainly take the head off and clean up that area, I would also check all specifications and tolerances and change any part of the system that was suspect.. however the point is mute as I would not buy one in the first place due to it's track record and lack of any real solution after all these years.:)
 
All this talk about brakes
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
 
Resurecting an old thread here but how is the 1.8t going @disco_mikey ?

I noticed on another site you talked about going back to the original ECU, how did you do this, did you get a conversion for the signal from the different crank sensor? I take it this solved a few complications with the dials not running on the same BUS language.

I'm very interested in this conversion, having just put a bog standard 1.8k series lump in mine, i'm kicking myself that I didn't see this sooner!
 
Using a 1.8T with MEMS3 is entirely possible - the crankshaft sensor needs changing, and you'll need to have a chat with Mark Stacey to re-programme MEMS3 with an appropriate map (use a MEMS3 from a steptronic, or a very late model year car - I'll have to remind myself of the ECU number to look out for) - but once you've done this, it becomes a lot less painful - essentially plug and play.

I am not sure whether there are any tools for the Land Rover that can pair a Lucas 7AS immobiliser with the MEMS3, but another option is to get Mark to switch off the immobilier function. This is available for the 5AS, and I plan to do this for my MGF in time :D

I personally think that a supercharged 1.8K would be best for the Freelander. Not sure whether anyone has done this yet? I am thinking about an Eaton unit from a Mini Cooper S (or an SLK or similar) - but working out the drive belts with PAS etc will be entertaining...
 
rob_bell said:
Using a 1.8T with MEMS3 is entirely possible - the crankshaft sensor needs changing, and you'll need to have a chat with Mark Stacey to re-programme MEMS3 with an appropriate map (use a MEMS3 from a steptronic, or a very late model year car - I'll have to remind myself of the ECU number to look out for) - but once you've done this, it becomes a lot less painful - essentially plug and play.

I am not sure whether there are any tools for the Land Rover that can pair a Lucas 7AS immobiliser with the MEMS3, but another option is to get Mark to switch off the immobilier function. This is available for the 5AS, and I plan to do this for my MGF in time :D

I personally think that a supercharged 1.8K would be best for the Freelander. Not sure whether anyone has done this yet? I am thinking about an Eaton unit from a Mini Cooper S (or an SLK or similar) - but working out the drive belts with PAS etc will be entertaining...
Click to expand...

There is certainly plenty of space for the supercharger and would fill the bonnet nicely! :)

Out of curiosity, why the supercharger on a 1.8k rather than turbo? for the low end torque?
 
With the supercharger, would it be worth starting off with a 1.8T K series so it's already capable of handling the boost?
 
Yes, supercharger for the instant torque. And yes, start with a 1.8T block (as it happens, I have one of these without a turbo - the turbo has a good scrap value, but the engine was cheap without it).

However, the standard K can take a low-pressure with standard internals - so no real reason not to start off with the existing lump. I was thinking an M45 Eaton...
 
I have been keeping my eye on a few MG ZT-T's for sale scrap, as little as 350 down here with good HG and I much prefer the idea of low end torque, much more useful where I live and for any play days! I was thinking about an eaton M45 for my series but I don't really want to molest the engine on that.

What would the difference in ECU control be between the two or would a standard ECU be able to be mapped to accept the supercharger without any change in the ECU wiring?
 
Largely mapping. You're going a fair bit off piste with a supercharger with a standard ECU - but it can be done. Again, Mark Stacey is your man - the ECU will require a mapping session.

Fortunately, MEMS3 is completely re-mappable - it's just that not many people have the knowledge to do it. Which means that MEMS3 is a very cheap option (a few beer tokens from your local scrap yard, if you know what you're looking for). The mapping will cost you of course (as it would with an aftermarket ECU), but there is the disadvantage that you can't make mapping tweaks yourself (you're dependent on Mark's help).
 
Ok, well I've just been doing a bit of reading on another post from long ago. I see how disco Mikey got past the cam sensor issue, just wired in the sensor the ECU expects to see, which makes sense. Surely it's possible to use a mapped ECU from the 1.8T again so it can ramp the fuelling with the boost etc?

Now, how do I tell the difference between the different MEMS grades?
 
Yes - but it is a question of refining the fuelling and ignition maps to reflect the different boost profiles seen with a supercharger as compared to a turbo :)
 
Around the same point as you: I have the 1.8T engine (all ancillaries, but sans turbo), spoken to Mark (who confirmed that he could, and would be prepared to re-map to suit supercharger), done a fair bit of reading, but currently scratching my head as to what supercharger to use (current favourite, M45), where to mount it (on inlet side of engine, but would compete for space with the FL's PAS pump), wondering about an inlet manifold to suit (use half of a VVC alloy inlet manifold, with a suitable adapter?) and generally "conceptualising" (which is another way of describing day-dreaming! LOL)
 
Oh, ha ha I'm a bit further off than that but I will be ready to catch up after the new year. ( maybe a bit before, depends how the wife feels.... :) )
I think the M45 is a good choice, it isn't daft in volume and it's size is pretty small. They aren't expensive either as loads of cars have them.
 
I prefer the free power of the turbo, over the power lost driving the supercharger.
Size the turbo correctly and you'll get plenty of low Rpm torque;)
 
Yes, that's my thinking too regarding the M45. I doubt we'd need anything too hairy :)

You are probably nearer than me for the simple reason that I am also working on this:

IMG_2844.JPG

GSXR throttle bodies on a modified standard K-series inlet manifold for my sprint car. It's nearly there, but I am going to amend the vacuum manifold arrangement. Plus, I have a modified MEMS1.9 to MEMS3 engine loom to fit, so I can use a mapped MEMS3 to remain compliant with my sprint class regulations ;)
 
Nodge68 said:
I prefer the free power of the turbo, over the power lost driving the supercharger.
Size the turbo correctly and you'll get plenty of low Rpm torque;)
Click to expand...
You know well as I that a turbo doesn't give "free" power Nodge ;)

I've got two 1.8T engines - one with its turbo, the other without. I am really keen to try out the various options: turbo versus supercharger versus throttle bodies, all with a similar peak power output, but likely with widely different peak torque and torque distribution curves :)
 
It depends how off OEM you are happy to go, but could you move the PAS to where the AC pump is, remove the AC and fit the supercharger behind the block, you could run the intake over the gearbox and free up some space to route the piping into the throttle body?
 
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
393
Cyrus 200
Cyrus 200