Why buy a Rover?

JRS · 29 Mar 2006 at 02:38

[TW]Fox said:
Considering the Z4 range starts with the 2.0 4 cylinder pushing just 150bhp

You surprise me. I didn't even think the base model was as powerful as that.

Simon · 29 Mar 2006 at 09:13

Conanius said:
ive got to be honest and say that if I had to pick a car thats owned by someone off OCUK as my favourite, simons rover 220 would defo be in the top 5.

Wow, thanks mate

agw_01 · 29 Mar 2006 at 10:10

s0ck said:
There's no 2.0 litre Honda engine in the 600 shell.

There is

Rover 618, 620 and 623 were Honda.

Only the 620Ti was a Rover engine.

jpmonkey69 · 29 Mar 2006 at 10:44

agw_01 said:
There is

Rover 618, 620 and 623 were Honda.

Only the 620Ti was a Rover engine.

No T series NA 620 in the later petrol models then?

agw_01 · 29 Mar 2006 at 10:53

jpmonkey69 said:
No T series NA 620 in the later petrol models then?

I don't think so. I've always thought the NA 620's were Honda engines.

My cousin has a R reg 620 (I think so) with a Honda engine.

Rich1988 · 29 Mar 2006 at 11:12

geiger said:
I thought Honda made the v6 engine and the larger or turbo'd versions were rover based

Honda did make the 2.5 and 2.7 litre V6's in the early 800's.

jpmonkey69 · 29 Mar 2006 at 11:37

agw_01 said:
I don't think so. I've always thought the NA 620's were Honda engines.

My cousin has a R reg 620 (I think so) with a Honda engine.

Ahh!

Well, no matter.

I'm happy and safe in the knowledge that MY Rover has a T16 Turbo engine.

*pssshht*

agw_01 · 29 Mar 2006 at 11:51

Fancy a swap for a lovely low-ish mileage NASP?

Reaps · 30 Mar 2006 at 13:45

s0ck said:
There's no 2.0 litre Honda engine in the 600 shell.

Heh, how's that? Engine has a big Honda badge on it

The
600 = 1.8 Rover engine
620 (non turbo) has a honda engine
620 TI has the Rover 2l Turbo

jpmonkey69 · 30 Mar 2006 at 14:38

agw_01 said:
Fancy a swap for a lovely low-ish mileage NASP?

I really, really would... I love the charcoal grey GSI look... but I know my car is working really well... My golf clubs (just) fit in the back, and in some cases it's better the devil you know!

rcrossco_1 · 30 Mar 2006 at 14:57

agw_01 · 30 Mar 2006 at 15:24

Reaps said:
Heh, how's that? Engine has a big Honda badge on it

The
600 = 1.8 Rover engine
620 (non turbo) has a honda engine
620 TI has the Rover 2l Turbo

Sorry Reaps, that's not true either

Rover didn't do a 1.8 T-Series, only the K, and that was never used in the 600.

The only 600 with a Rover engine is the Ti.

geiger · 30 Mar 2006 at 21:14

KingK

I think the link below should be added to the sticky for anytime a discussion on Rovers' engine is had, a lot of what he says makes sense.

A defence of the 'King K' by Simon Erland

revised 12/04

( http://www.sandsmuseum.com/cars/elise/thecar/engine/kingk.html )

Rover’s K Series — a lightweight, technically advanced easily tuneable four, or an unreliable and fragile lump?

The block and ladder frame that support the crank were an absolute first for a mass produced engine. .....

This design was only previously seen in fully-fledged race engines – F1, Nascar, etc. and had never before been seen in a 4 cylinder. It is one of the design elements that make the K such a sophisticated and efficient design. Far more so than, for instance, all current Ford 4 cylinders including the Yamaha/Ford 1.7L in the Puma and the very new all-aluminium 2.0L Duratec, plus the likes of the much vaunted Honda 1.8 VTEC. The only engines which have caught up with the K are the 2.0L in the Honda S2000, the 2.0L from the Civic-R and the 1.9 VVTi in the Toyota Celica. All are copies of the K Series in this essential area of engine design.

All of this tends towards an engine that weighs in, as standard, fully dressed at 96.5 kg. Compare this to the Honda S2000 engine similarly equipped with standard manifold clutch and fluids at 158 kg and the Toyota 1.9 VVTi engine at 137 kg.

most of the Japanese engines like the old 1.8 VTEC and the new I VTEC engines are all short stroke, big bore engines, all of which have a relatively narrow power band. The K with its 89.3 mm stroke produces a lot more torque and spread over a wider engine speed range.

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 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.

'the positioning of the thermostat in the cooling system, was not designed for engines frequently put under heavy load

the thermostat measures essentially cooled water from the radiator with a very small quantity of heated water from the balancing circuit until the stat opens. This is a very unusual coolant path design

The problem arises when the engine is put under heavy load, causing high engine temperatures that are not immediately read by the thermostat because cold water in the radiator and hoses has to pass the thermostat first. This can cause enormous thermal gradients across the engine, causing both distortion of the head and block and also gasket failure'

s0ck · 31 Mar 2006 at 01:28

agw_01 said:
There is

Rover 618, 620 and 623 were Honda.

Only the 620Ti was a Rover engine.

Any ideas on the engine code and/or power output for the 2.0 Honda lump?
I thought they were T16 NASP...

Conanius · 31 Mar 2006 at 01:36

Simon said:
Wow, thanks mate

np, as I mentioned on MSN many a time, your car is what its all about imo

(mmm oz superleggras

)

jpmonkey69 · 31 Mar 2006 at 08:01

s0ck said:
Any ideas on the engine code and/or power output for the 2.0 Honda lump?
I thought they were T16 NASP...

IIRC, F20Z1 is the engine code....

not sure of the output... I think it was also used in the 2l accord?

geiger · 31 Mar 2006 at 11:46

130bhp no vtec apparently

agw_01 · 31 Mar 2006 at 11:50

geiger said:
130bhp no vtec apparently

I'm not 'up' with Honda engines at all, but what are the DOHC VTEC engines called? B16? D16?

I reckon a 180bhp Turbo'd Honda VTEC engine would be fun in a 600! That would get so much attention... seeing an old Rover barge screaming to 8500rpm

Oh and geiger, awesome post on the K series there :cool:

agw_01 · 31 Mar 2006 at 11:51

s0ck said:
Any ideas on the engine code and/or power output for the 2.0 Honda lump?
I thought they were T16 NASP...

Nope, Rover never used their NASP engines in the 600's. The only Rover engine'd 600 was the Ti

Jonnycoupe · 31 Mar 2006 at 12:17

agw_01 said:
I'm not 'up' with Honda engines at all, but what are the DOHC VTEC engines called? B16? D16?

I reckon a 180bhp Turbo'd Honda VTEC engine would be fun in a 600! That would get so much attention... seeing an old Rover barge screaming to 8500rpm

You'd use a H22 VTEC in a 600 and youd be doing something wrong if you made only 180bhp NASP let alone Turbo. Jynx is planning to drop a H22 VTEC lump in his 618 on Rovertech, essentially you end up with a Rover Accord Type R

Oh and geiger, awesome post on the K series there

Shame the powerful ones are hardly production and cost more than the entire car you find the Zetec lumps in.