Late K-Series Engines Reliability

[Terence]

I am thinking of buying an early 2000's R type with a K-series engine. I came across this comment in a review in Autocar

(https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/caterham/seven/first-drives/caterham-r400-2.0) in which it states:-

"The old 1.8-litre K-series might have revved highly and produced plenty of power, but it needed a £3000 rebuild every 5000 miles.".

I have never heard anything about them needing regular rebuilding like this, so can anyone give me further information about why this should have been said?

Thank you for any help you can give me.

[nickh7]

That’s more like an R500 Evo engine , I’d have thought a well serviced R400 would be good for a lot longer than that. 

[SM25T]

1.8 k-series VVC here. Totally original at 16 years and 96k miles.

[Terence]

Thank you both. If this was a common fault/feature of the engine, I felt sure that there would be a good deal more support for the Autocar view, and a great deal more pithy comments on Blatchat!

Thank you again for your reassurance.

 

[rj]

It all depends on how you use it. If you use the car as a racecar then expect frequent rebuilds. My own +200BHP K-series has done more than 15k mainly track miles, though burning oil it's still going strong.

[mav]

also note, early cars (rovers and freelanders too) frequently had head gasket failures reported. most likely due to the use of plastic dowels to locate the head to the block.

R400 shouldn't need that sort of attention unless its been battered within an inch of its life on trackdays, permanently!!!

 

Most lower speck K's are pretty good, especially since the move to eu3 in 2001 ish, when they started using the stell dowels for the heads...

 

[anthonym]

Your description describes the R500 “requirements”  .   That is to say, track use which was 3,000 track miles and 6,000 quid. I i r c

road miles was/is every 24,000 miles, so I am due my second at 50,000 but compression test results judged  by Kevin who did the work last time at Minister is it’s fine for now. Running great - better than ever, but these extreme variant cars are an acquired taste I think. 

All components including the engine are “service items” :-)

Wish I could say the same for the wiring as regards “running great”. Anyway, we don’t buy these cars because they are reliable ... which is to say I didn’t. 

Anthony

[SLR No.77]

Other than the known head gasket issues that have dogged the K-Series's reputation (and are actually pretty straightforward to solve) most failures are due to non-original Rover modifications. In the last 10 years I've had two engine failures and neither was in any way related to the K-Series base unit, first was due to a dry sump system failure and more recently due to a loose bolt on the roller barrel throttle bodies. The K-Series really suits the Caterham and if I was buying again it would still be on my short-list.

Stu.

[The_ASH]

 

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

I owned 4 cars with K’s in spread over a 17.5 year period mechanically trouble free, no head gaskets, no noticeable oil consumption, the only real issue arising being a suspected MEMS ecu idle control problem on the very first car.

The engine is relatively uncomplicated by modern day standards and the knowledgebase both here on Blatchat and in the wider Rover community provides a solid foundation of information and support to keep ownership cheap, simple and straightforward.

[Dellc]

Yep what they said..  my car has done 20k and the only thing that has failed is the throttle cable.  Mine is r300k so not as powerful obviously but it’s the one I would go for every time.   Best caterham road and track car there is imho