All those who think their engine is better than the K...

[Nick Green]

So just to clarify then, the stuff in this article about the thermostat position change (including the statement about Freelander warranty claims dropping to knack all since adoption of different thermostat in original position) and the use of steel dowels, reducing (ok the author says eliminating, or words to that effect) HG failure, never mind the stuff about quality of after market components, is all bollox then ?

 

He claims to have checked it with Rover engineers. I have no way of knowing whether that is true or not. Also claims (on the exige list) to be "good friends" with DVA and Dave Walker. One of those at least could be easy to check, perhaps might provide a character reference ? (If such debate occurs somewhere in that Exige thread, I haven't got to it yet.)

 

Perhaps some indication of where SE's presumptions and statements are incorrect, might provide enlightenment for us mere mortals ? Or will I get that if I persevere with the Exige thread ?

[knowley]

I can't say I understand all the article says, and don't know it its true or gash

 

But I have some questions...

 

1. Do Caterham use a PRT thermostat ? & Should I be bothered if they don't?

2. What head gasket is likely to be in my R300 (2002)?

3. "hydro mount" - lotus use it... do Caterham? & Should I be bothered if they do?

[Mick Day]

Things which aren't bollox:

1. Using a thermostat which responds to temp & pressure, but maybe not necessary in a Caterham installation.

2. Moving the thermostat to the output side of the engine. This could also include an air bleed to help with filling.

3. Steel dowels to locate the head to the block.

 

Having read the article & followed the threads on www.exiges.com Simon Erland's main thrust is proper assembly using balanced components. He also says that a lot of the standard Rover parts are well balanced to start with whereas some of the after-market cranks are not. What I think is the contentious bit is that high BHP & torque figures can be had very easily & that this engine will then be more reliable than any other highly tuned 4 cylinder.

 

Will Oily & Roger King stick their heads above the parapet?

 

Edited by - Mick Day on 8 Dec 2004 13:14:01

[V7 SLR]

I read the entire Exige thread last night, finishing about 1:30am. I think there are some salient points to absorb:

 

1. Everyone who has a strong opinion one way or another has a hidden (or not so hidden) motive.

2. Refer to point 1.

 

The items I've taken away are these:

 

The plastic dowels are bad news. So bad that you probably can't get them at all any more. The "science" behind their introduction and subsequent removal seems believable. I would most definitely check if I didn't already know but then I'm chasing higher bhp and have invested a fair bit of wonga in my engine. My VHPD engine had them originally, however in chasing higher power, the head came off about 18 months after I bought the car (and every year since) so I've never had issues with HGF.

 

Liner "stand-proud" needs to be within tolerance AND equal to each other. If for no other reason the Scholar conversion takes away this "problem". I note he doesn't like the liners Scholar uses, but they're no better or worse than what's in the car now and apart from the odd failure with liners early on in the tuning life of the K, they're not know to be a problem so I doubt Scholar's will be a problem either.

 

Both the new Rover AND Mike Satur head gaskets are fine. There shoud be no problems with either of them IFF both of the above are taken care of.

 

Bottom-end balancing is very often overlooked and is important. I agree (from speaking with other "engineers" both in my local L7 meeting AND on other forums) that the tolerances in the crank and flywheel etc are fine for their original application in a Rover but with the higher revs in a Caterham you really ought to balance it. I became convinced when one of my locals turned up with a fully balanced and rebuilt engine which is leagues ahead of the rest of ours in terms of smoothness and willingness to rev. His spec (apart from balancing) is no different to many others at our local meeting. I've had all my rotating parts balanced and my rod end for end in conjunction with the pistons.

 

The VHPD flywheel so much maligned by the author of that document (mostly in the Exige thread) is the LOTUS ELISE flywheel. Remember we Se7eners use a much smaller diameter flywheel. Caterham's flywheels are pretty good quality. Mine required the tiniest amount of balancing only.

 

I remain to be convinced that an alloy flywheel is a sensible move given that it doesn't have the "elastic" properties of steel (engineers please forgive my teerminology - I understand what I mean...).

 

I am not convinced that the Duratec is a bad engine. It might have an older design pattern crank cap but I seriously doubt it will be a limiting problem. It's likely to be a fair bit heavier but how much is open to debate. Until someone places both a full dressed K and Duratec on a set of scales on the same day... Fluid weight *inside* the engines will only influence the results by a max of 3 to 4 Kg at a guess. Anyway, that's pretty easy to calculate of someone knows the figures for how much each engine holds.

 

I *am* convinced that the design of the K was revolutionary in a production car (at the time) and that the crank bearing ladder is "technically" a better idea than caps, however whether Honda, Toyota etc copied the K design as is indicated in the Exige forum is open to debate. Perhaps they arrived at the same conclusion independently. Given the working relationship between honda and rover previously, it's possible that influences passed from one to the other (the bloody cars looked the same at one point).

 

His comments about it being the lightest engine etc (apart from BEC's) is interesting, and that he compared it in terms of possible power output with so many other engines. What Bernard keeps coming back to in the Exige forum is that to make the K "good enough" for that comparison would require a lot of money spending on it whereas the author is saying it doesn't take a lot of money... just money spent in a few appropriate areas. Bernard has already spent a lot of money on a K but gave in to turbo power (Audi) with a lot of success. The point which Jackal and others keep pressing is whether the K could *ever* be considerd a decent engine. His experiences indicate not but plenty of other people think it can so the only way to prove one side is the winner is to provide 2 engines (1 K and 1 Duratec) in 2 identical spec Caterhams. The total price has to be the same (therefore the engine-prices will be the same) and then run them around to prove one is a more useful track engine (weight vs power) and on the road to prove reliability.

 

It'll never happen. There are too many variables, however if you take the weight issue out of the equation I'll stake my bet on the Duratec being more powerful AND longer living BUT having already got a K in mine, I'll stick with it and chuck as much cash at it as I can afford to make it both more powerful and more reliable than the next guy's Duratec (which cost less).

 

Why?

 

Because it's mine and I want to, and *that's* my (not so) hidden motive.

 

Edited by - V7 SLR on 8 Dec 2004 13:42:44

[Jason Plato]

Other things that arent bollox IMHO in addition to Micks bits :

 

uprated steel through bolts change the elastic structure of the engine beyond the design

 

aftermarket steel cranks should be ballanced

 

the current head gasket is OK

 

people build in problems

 

other "light engines" are actually a lot heavier

 

Knowley :

1- No , No

2- std rover - its OK

3- no

 

Other than that the article has to be all bollox - despite me having no evidence to prove it is

[Scuffers]

I seem to get a right slagging when I make comment on this, but hay-Ho, so what!

 

Having run 200+ bhp K’s for some 5 years (before I gave up on them), my comments on it are:

 

1) basically, some of the stuff he is on about is common sense, balancing is clearly a good idea, although it's not the panacea he makes it out to be.

2) The remote stat is 100% right, however, this is less of a problem on a Caterham because of it’s pluming layout, it still however would help.

3) Everybody knows about the plastic/steel dowel issue

4) Liners are a problem, some are better than others it would appear, I have had them split, as have others, that said, I don’t subscribe to the machine out the block and weld things in approach, just use decent liners!

 

The rest of it is just subjective crap, without much basis from proper engineering based research and objective testing, the K is a good engine fro what it was designed for, note that was not a 200+ bhp 1.8/1.9/2.0l engine!

 

One thing he ignored entirely is the subject of oil systems, from my personal experience, controlling the oil flow and temp along with the water flow and temp were the biggest contributors to reliability I found, period, since resolving these two issues on their own, I never had another HG fail.

 

 

[stuallen]

The bit on page 8 of the pdf about

 

"and the new I VTEC engines are all short stroke, big bore engines,"

 

is utter nonsense. The Honda K20 (ivtec), as used in the civic type r and a lot of engine transplants is a square engine, 86mm bore, 86mm stroke.

 

And GLOL at the next paragraphs "But the R500 engine can do this". All this comparing a standard engine capable of hundreds of thousands of miles with 10000mile services versus one that that would be lucky to cover 10000 metres.

 

 

Edited by - stuallen on 8 Dec 2004 14:20:47

[Nick Green]

Thanks.

[knowley]

Thanks, thanks & thanks Dave Jackson 😬

[stuallen]

Not to mention that nearly every point about honda engines in that exiges thread vomited up by "KingK" is wrong.

 

"Have just had a long chat with the head engine builder at Honda Mugen. For the record S2000 and Civic R engines are substiantially the same engine, both IVTEC"

ERRRRR Nope mate, s2000 isnt ivtec (see http://asia.vtec.net/article/k20a/ ). It has a differerent bore. Different stroke. Totally different engines.

 

Now i dont know a lot about Rover K series's, but know a lot about honda engines. Seeing as though this chap keeps namedropping him talking to Mugen and being unable to get even basic facts right, that wouldnt fill me with a lot of confidence that he knew much about K series engines either.

[Jason Plato]

it was *Morgan* not Mugen 😬

 

he was using a dictaphone

[Fanch]

another article (more serious)

here

Fanch

[Pierre Gillet]

Sorry Fanch, but you should have read better the thread.

A number of the experts here think that this article is all bollox 😬

 

Pierre

[V7 SLR]

Revised PDF

[Joe 90]

Is the K the first engine to use a big end bearing saddle??? I don't think so. I think the old Lotus 16V slant four predates it by many years.

 

SEP field working, not spotted in 103,000 miles. Some photos on webshots, updated 21 Sept

[andy couchman]

Lads, if this K series is so good, how come it's never been used as an engine in Formula Ford 😬 unlike the dear old crossflow ?

 

Andy

[tom7]

It might have been if Fords offer to buy the entire K series design and manufacturing IPR hadn't been rejected.