A little help
- Thread starter nightmare99
- Start date
you what?! 78k and youre doing well because youve not had to split the engine open yet, woop de doo
my golf is on 217k miles, 2.0 16v, making more power and driven harder than a rover 25 ever would and that has never been opened up once. id consider that as good going
rover 25 = F41L
my golf is on 217k miles, 2.0 16v, making more power and driven harder than a rover 25 ever would and that has never been opened up once. id consider that as good going
rover 25 = F41L
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 1,764
- Location
- Leicester UK
How oldsos your golf and how much is it worth now? You can guarantee that it's a hell of a lot older and higher mileage and being the 2.016v less fun and enjoyable to drive. The ZR offers what most new drivers want. A 'sporty' look, fun revvy engine, decent handling, new and low mileage an still less than £2.5k even if you pay for the headgasket yourself.
guarantee all you like, no one would argue with you, but it does drill the point home even further. the rover 25 is garbage, despite being younger, lower mileage, and worth more, its a dog compared to my golf thats years older and will out last the rover regardless
Ignore the idiots going on about Rovers and Head-gaskets and the like.
The head-gasket isn't nearly as bad as people suggest, just so long as you look after it, and keep a careful eye on coolant levels.
As for the price, its probably not an amazing deal, but its probably about right for what the car is worth.
Have a medal?
The head-gasket isn't nearly as bad as people suggest, just so long as you look after it, and keep a careful eye on coolant levels.
As for the price, its probably not an amazing deal, but its probably about right for what the car is worth.
Have a medal?
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 1,764
- Location
- Leicester UK
What about the cooling system on the e39? Should that car be avoided on the basis that your old golf hasn't had it's cooling system touched?
am I missing someone or are you boasting that your golf 2 litre engine makes more power than a 1.8
?? also how could you possibly know how 'hard' someone can drive one, im not defending rovers specifically I just think you have made a very odd statement*edit* also the standard 2 litre golf GTI petrol has the same power as the MG 1.8, and is over a second slower to 60, I am assuming you have the GTI 16v though?
Last edited:
an e39 could be forgiven if thats a flaw, after all its an all round decent car. that cant be said about a rover 25
am I missing someone or are you boasting that your golf 2 litre engine makes more power than a 1.8
*edit* also the standard 2 litre golf GTI petrol has the same power as the MG 1.8, and is over a second slower to 60, I am assuming you have the GTI 16v though?
you what? the 1.8 rover 25 makes 115bhp, the golf i was talking about makes 150bhp standard. what planet are you from? and regardless of power, theres the whole 10 years newer pro for the rover.
anyone come across a rover k series 1.8 thats gone past 200k miles without having the engine opened up? i suppose if the engine pops its an excuse to get rid of the thiing
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 494
- Location
- Lincoln
i was under the impression the 1.4 made 115bhp and the 1.8 made a fair chunk more? 
the standard golf gti makes 115bhp from its 2 litre engine, its only the higher power version that makes 150bhp, the 16v as I stated in my post, the K series engine went into production in 1988 so your gold must be a 1978 engine then?
the 1.8 k series vvc makes 157bhp, the standard 1.8 k series makes around 115, the 1.4 makes around 101-105 bhp
i was under the impression the 1.4 made 115bhp and the 1.8 made a fair chunk more?
the 1.8 k series vvc makes 157bhp, the standard 1.8 k series makes around 115, the 1.4 makes around 101-105 bhp
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 494
- Location
- Lincoln
my bad, i was remebering from an old friends rover 200 that he had a fair while ago so must have had the figure wrong. I do remember it being pretty nippy for a 1.4
they arent bad little engines if you rev the nuts off themThe 1.8 version of the car the OP mentions makes 160bhp.
The one above makes 110BHP.
So, the MG ZS 1.4 makes around the same power as the 2.0 8V Golf.
and the MG ZS 1.8 makes more power than the 2.0 16V Golf.
A properly built K series is going to be far more useful than any ABF lump ever will (and you're talking to someone who is a VW man at heart).
There is a reason why they are so commonly used in things like the Elise and Caterham/Other "7-esque" cars.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 1,764
- Location
- Leicester UK
Very confused by the latest posts re engine power. I have no idea about the 1.4 but the 1.6 in the 25 makes 110bhp the 1.8 makes 120 an the 1.8vvc makes 160. Which I don't think is bad with a n/asp engine.