19th Apr 2008, 05:23

Yes, and don't forget the torque value you get with the 2.0 astra engine... astra is quicker than the CRX.

21st Apr 2008, 04:01

Stock vs stock, a CRX would leave an Astra GTE, GSI behind. Trust me, I have raced many and they don't stand a chance. Fair enough they have more torque, but once the vtec kicks in, it's all over.

7th Aug 2008, 11:14

The reason people don t rave about the K series in the same way is because of how unreliable they are!

And I don't understand what you mean about Hondas not looking so good on power to weight, as an MG ZR 160 and Civic VTi have almost identical figures, and the Honda only needs a 1.6 to produce its 160bhp.

And in reality the only bits that don't break on Rovers are the Honda bits!

8th Aug 2008, 15:51

Yes in terms of reliability the Honda's are better. Although the only problem with the K-series was head-gasket failure, due to a poorly designed thermostat and plastic head-gasket dowel pins. It was a 1989 design however.

Why is it so important that the Civic VTi produces better bhp/l than the MG ZR Rover. Surely the Rover engine is better because it produces the same power and weighs far less??

The point is that big bore short stroke engines are conceived to make high engine speeds possible, the penalty is poor torque, the Honda 2.0 litre S2000 producing just 151 lb/ft @ 7500 rpm, a figure easily eclipsed by the 1.8 litre K equipped with Piper’s 1227 cams, which will give a very similar power output to the Honda engine. So, the Honda is not such a special engine. It does have a very strong and stiff block, being a copy of the K Series’ design, but suffers from its enormous weight of 158 kg in standard form fully dressed (figures from the Vemac Car Co.) more than 60 kg heavier than the standard K. The only really attractive part of the Honda’s design are the roller cams, which do reduce friction in the valve train, but in every other respect the K is a more efficient and effective design than the Honda.

12th Aug 2008, 04:49

Stock for stock, the MG ZS180 is faster than any stock Civic Type R, VTi etc. Also it handles far better.

12th Aug 2008, 09:09

So 70bhp from cams and a remap... don't think so! Aggressive cams and a remap will get you no more than about 35bhp. If you opt for a stupidly aggressive cams the idle and drivability will be horrible at anything other than flat out.

And no F1 cars don't use vtec because fuel economy is not important in an F1 car is it! That's what vtec is all about, power and fuel economy.

And just because in your opinion you think the 2.2 Honda engine fitted in the S2000 is better than the 2.0, doesn't make it fact. We all know the Americans are used to driving round in 5 litre V8 cars just to pick up the shopping, this is the reason they installed a bigger engine in the s2000 for the American market, not because it is a better engine.

The fact is you can talk all day long about torque figures; a bus, a fire engine, a tank and a V10 turbo diesel VW Touareg all have HUGE amounts of torque... doesn't make them fast does it? Even an average turbo diesel car has loads of torque far more than any vtec Honda, but they are not purpose built sports cars like the S2000 and Type Rs, and no way are they faster.

12th Aug 2008, 12:56

So you're saying 180bhp in a heavier car is faster than a lighter car with 197bhp?

12th Aug 2008, 19:31

MG ZS180 is a rubbish car to work on. You always end up taking the flaming engine out, and it doesn't help when Rover goes under.

Why does bhp matter? Well it does when you are going up big hills or towing a caravan, or you need to get out of the way quick.

You said why is a 2.0l 240 bhp engine that does 30mpg and weighs 160KG's, better than a 3.0l 240 bhp engine that does 30mpg and weighs 140KG.

How are you going to get 3.0l in a Honda Civic? Think about it.

That's why.

13th Aug 2008, 04:36

OK... just look at book figures or even go out and watch the two cars go around a track at the same time. The 180 was pretty good for it's day, but it is in league with the Focus ST170 or ZR160, not a Civic Type R or Clio 182 etc. A simple indicator of this is power to weight.

As for the person hellbent on criticizing vtec engines in favour of Rover ones:

You say you aren't trying to compare the two engines, but you clearly have, and only once the obvious weaknesses of the K series were pointed out have you said this.

You're argument is that the shorter piston strokes create less torque, and that vtec engines are heavy, which combined makes them flawed. I think you fail to see that the vtec is like nothing else to drive. Your obsession with torque is not new, many people comment on this and as somebody else has said, it is not as much of an issue due to the gearing of the car (plus it still has more torque than say a ZR160) - but the main point is that Type R drivers don't care because the style of driving is such that if they did, they would have bought something with a turbo or V6, both of which would end up with worse economy than the type R engines get.

You bring up the K series engine which produces 300bhp or so, but the truth is that Rover didn't put the engine into production. Compare the Type R engines to other engines being used on the road today, and you will find it's not heavy, but is in fact very average compared to cars of similar power and performance. The K series was light, but bringing it up is random as it was flawed, and it would be like saying a turd is good because it's warm.

I don't think the Honda vtec is the be-all and end-all of engines, but if you look at the M-vec in Mitsubishi's or the similar system in Toyota's, the Honda compares very well and is a preferred system.

The main point is that the Type R is like Marmite, and even if you don't like the 'rag me to go fast' driving style, trying to fault the engine as a piece of machinery is silly. It's average weight, produces good power and is incredibly reliable. Not only this, but it is more economical than most engines of this power, even every single K series engine, including the ones producing half the power.

13th Aug 2008, 08:21

You seem to be the only one fixated on Honda's high bhp figures. Everybody else has mentioned that they are more economical, better built, far more reliable, and generally far better cars!

You keep saying how much lighter the Rover is and how heavy Hondas are. If you compare cars of similar size eg MG ZR 160 = 1090kg compared to a Civic Type R mk 1 = 1050kg or the MG ZR180 = 1235kg and the Civic Type R ep3 = 1205kg / Accord Type R = 1305kg.

As you can see, there is very little between them as Honda makes its shells light weight and they stand the test of time, unlike Rover's engines

I do agree with you that a bigger engine producing the same as a smaller one would be better for more torque etc, but you mentioned getting 30mpg in both, and you wouldn't, that's the point of the vtec engine. An S2000 with 240bhp would achieve low 30s on day to day driving, but a 3.0 with 240 wouldn't as big engines just drink the fuel far more than smaller ones!

Also what naturally aspirated K series engines have Rover produced that as standard produce more than 200bhp and do more than 30mpg?

To the person who thinks the ZS 180 is faster than a Civic Type R - please explain as I always thought a lighter car with more power should be faster than a heavier car with less?

I actually like Rover. As I've said I used to have a ZR 160, and bar the head gasket going, I liked the car, but the fact is Rover collapsed for making dated cars with a dated engine design, as the K series was in production for over 15 years and they never sorted the head gasket problems! And the models in their range were just face lifted models of old!