Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
[quote="benyeats"]
If we go ahead with operation Pectel re-map we should perhaps agree on a common engine standard between our two cars !
[/quote]
I'm feeling left out now...
If we go ahead with operation Pectel re-map we should perhaps agree on a common engine standard between our two cars !
[/quote]
I'm feeling left out now...
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
[quote="wisp"]
[quote="benyeats"]
If we go ahead with operation Pectel re-map we should perhaps agree on a common engine standard between our two cars !
[/quote]
I'm feeling left out now...
[/quote]
Don't life would be easier with the Rover ECU, although less ultimate potential
Ben
[quote="benyeats"]
If we go ahead with operation Pectel re-map we should perhaps agree on a common engine standard between our two cars !
[/quote]
I'm feeling left out now...
[/quote]
Don't life would be easier with the Rover ECU, although less ultimate potential
Ben
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
Have done some proper miles with the VVC inlet manifold fitted, car seems to be quicker but that could be placebo, defiantly sounds better.
Currently trying to source a Rover ECU to swap for the Pectel, could take the Pectel forward but I fear it will be too expensive
Ben
Currently trying to source a Rover ECU to swap for the Pectel, could take the Pectel forward but I fear it will be too expensive
Ben
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
Some VVC manifold pictures
Were taken during installation, after re-setting the idle speed screw on the throttle body I am finding that the cars seems to run very well, at the very least it is noisier ! Suspect the increased air to the engine is countering the very rich map my ECU runs.
Ben
Were taken during installation, after re-setting the idle speed screw on the throttle body I am finding that the cars seems to run very well, at the very least it is noisier ! Suspect the increased air to the engine is countering the very rich map my ECU runs.
Ben
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
[quote="benyeats"]
[/quote]
What is the device with the second yellow screw cap that looks the same as the engine oil filler cap? And what is the yellow lever next to it?
[/quote]
What is the device with the second yellow screw cap that looks the same as the engine oil filler cap? And what is the yellow lever next to it?
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
You actually guessed already, it is a second oil filler cap, bought out through the rear tea tray so that you can top up the oil without having to remove all of the rear bodywork. The yellow lever next to it is the dipstick. I think this set up is standard on the MGF which suffers from a similarly obscured oil filler cap but was added to my car by the previous owner.
Ben
Ben
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
Ben: how can it be louder and feeling faster to drive? Since I believe the port opeings are the same size?
I'm confused?
I'm confused?
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
[quote="mobilerobbie"]
Ben: how can it be louder and feeling faster to drive? Since I believe the port opeings are the same size?
I'm confused?
[/quote]
The noise does not come from the port opening, I also think (someone who knows feel free to correct) that inlet manifolds depend on resonance of the air in the chamber which will be different in different designs hence louder in this case. Regarding feeling faster this may or may not be the case, did not drive them back to back closely enough to make a call, fells like it to me !
Ben
Ben: how can it be louder and feeling faster to drive? Since I believe the port opeings are the same size?
I'm confused?
[/quote]
The noise does not come from the port opening, I also think (someone who knows feel free to correct) that inlet manifolds depend on resonance of the air in the chamber which will be different in different designs hence louder in this case. Regarding feeling faster this may or may not be the case, did not drive them back to back closely enough to make a call, fells like it to me !
Ben
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
Why not ditch the rover engine and save yourself a lot of hunting and buy a second hand k20 honda motor and looms? (If it fits) Or is this more trouble than i think it may be?
- Bruce Fielding
- Posts: 16320
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:13 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
That would be answer B then...
Ariel Atom Owners Club founder, based in Central London
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
[quote="AtomMadStew"]
Why not ditch the rover engine and save yourself a lot of hunting and buy a second hand k20 honda motor and looms? (If it fits) Or is this more trouble than i think it may be?
[/quote]
To me Honda engines make no sense for lower powered Atoms (160 for instance) as they are very heavy compared to the Rover engine (double ish) also for one who enjoys 'tinkering' they don't have as strong an aftermarket support in this country.
As for if they fit or not they use more or less the same mounts (makes sense as Rover / Honda shared technology for years) a bit tight round the exhaust but essentially not very difficult (as you suggest). Having said that when I fancy more power it would be less bother to upgrade to an Atom 2 and have a car worth more than a bitsa special !
Ben
Why not ditch the rover engine and save yourself a lot of hunting and buy a second hand k20 honda motor and looms? (If it fits) Or is this more trouble than i think it may be?
[/quote]
To me Honda engines make no sense for lower powered Atoms (160 for instance) as they are very heavy compared to the Rover engine (double ish) also for one who enjoys 'tinkering' they don't have as strong an aftermarket support in this country.
As for if they fit or not they use more or less the same mounts (makes sense as Rover / Honda shared technology for years) a bit tight round the exhaust but essentially not very difficult (as you suggest). Having said that when I fancy more power it would be less bother to upgrade to an Atom 2 and have a car worth more than a bitsa special !
Ben
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
One point that always bothers me about the rover is the reliability. Its nice to tinker but its also nice to know the headgasket wont need doing when the oil is changed or hoping on full chat that the rover k20 aint gonna blow.
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
[quote="AtomMadStew"]
One point that always bothers me about the rover is the reliability. Its nice to tinker but its also nice to know the headgasket wont need doing when the oil is changed or hoping on full chat that the rover k20 aint gonna blow.
[/quote]
Depends on how the cooling system is specced on installation. MGF = HGF guaranteed likewise freelanders it seems. Cylinder heads/gaskets can go on the K20 as well you know, see John Lloyd's recent posts ! If properly maintained the K can be very reliable.
Ben
One point that always bothers me about the rover is the reliability. Its nice to tinker but its also nice to know the headgasket wont need doing when the oil is changed or hoping on full chat that the rover k20 aint gonna blow.
[/quote]
Depends on how the cooling system is specced on installation. MGF = HGF guaranteed likewise freelanders it seems. Cylinder heads/gaskets can go on the K20 as well you know, see John Lloyd's recent posts ! If properly maintained the K can be very reliable.
Ben
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
[quote="benyeats"]
[quote="AtomMadStew"]
One point that always bothers me about the rover is the reliability. Its nice to tinker but its also nice to know the headgasket wont need doing when the oil is changed or hoping on full chat that the rover k20 aint gonna blow.
[/quote]
Depends on how the cooling system is specced on installation. MGF = HGF guaranteed likewise freelanders it seems. Cylinder heads/gaskets can go on the K20 as well you know, see John Lloyd's recent posts ! If properly maintained the K can be very reliable.
Ben
[/quote]
Although it's common in the motor trade to expected most Rover K series to suffer head-gasket failure at around 90,000 miles I believe there has been a different head gasket fitted to the later 1.8L cars to resolve this issue.
The thing about the Mark 1, that any owner will tell you, is that there are a number of other things that you can successfully break well before the car gets to the 90,000 mile mark.
[quote="AtomMadStew"]
One point that always bothers me about the rover is the reliability. Its nice to tinker but its also nice to know the headgasket wont need doing when the oil is changed or hoping on full chat that the rover k20 aint gonna blow.
[/quote]
Depends on how the cooling system is specced on installation. MGF = HGF guaranteed likewise freelanders it seems. Cylinder heads/gaskets can go on the K20 as well you know, see John Lloyd's recent posts ! If properly maintained the K can be very reliable.
Ben
[/quote]
Although it's common in the motor trade to expected most Rover K series to suffer head-gasket failure at around 90,000 miles I believe there has been a different head gasket fitted to the later 1.8L cars to resolve this issue.
The thing about the Mark 1, that any owner will tell you, is that there are a number of other things that you can successfully break well before the car gets to the 90,000 mile mark.
Re: Mk1 Technical / Upgrade Thread
[quote="wisp"]
[quote="benyeats"]
[quote="AtomMadStew"]
One point that always bothers me about the rover is the reliability. Its nice to tinker but its also nice to know the headgasket wont need doing when the oil is changed or hoping on full chat that the rover k20 aint gonna blow.
[/quote]
Depends on how the cooling system is specced on installation. MGF = HGF guaranteed likewise freelanders it seems. Cylinder heads/gaskets can go on the K20 as well you know, see John Lloyd's recent posts ! If properly maintained the K can be very reliable.
Ben
[/quote]
Although it's common in the motor trade to expected most Rover K series to suffer head-gasket failure at around 90,000 miles I believe there has been a different head gasket fitted to the later 1.8L cars to resolve this issue.
The thing about the Mark 1, that any owner will tell you, is that there are a number of other things that you can successfully break well before the car gets to the 90,000 mile mark.
[/quote]
90,000 sounds quite high to me ! Luckily that is a lot of miles off in the Atom and as you say plenty of other stuff to break first.
Land Rover developed a different head gasket that can be fitted to all K 1.8s (actually all K series) the so called multi layer steel gasket which should be more reliable although in the MGF failures are not unknown.
Ben
[quote="benyeats"]
[quote="AtomMadStew"]
One point that always bothers me about the rover is the reliability. Its nice to tinker but its also nice to know the headgasket wont need doing when the oil is changed or hoping on full chat that the rover k20 aint gonna blow.
[/quote]
Depends on how the cooling system is specced on installation. MGF = HGF guaranteed likewise freelanders it seems. Cylinder heads/gaskets can go on the K20 as well you know, see John Lloyd's recent posts ! If properly maintained the K can be very reliable.
Ben
[/quote]
Although it's common in the motor trade to expected most Rover K series to suffer head-gasket failure at around 90,000 miles I believe there has been a different head gasket fitted to the later 1.8L cars to resolve this issue.
The thing about the Mark 1, that any owner will tell you, is that there are a number of other things that you can successfully break well before the car gets to the 90,000 mile mark.
[/quote]
90,000 sounds quite high to me ! Luckily that is a lot of miles off in the Atom and as you say plenty of other stuff to break first.
Land Rover developed a different head gasket that can be fitted to all K 1.8s (actually all K series) the so called multi layer steel gasket which should be more reliable although in the MGF failures are not unknown.
Ben
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests