I've just treated myself to a GTM K3. It's a fibreglass mid-engined 2-seater coupe which had the approval of SWMBO! It's only got a 1120cc K-series engine but I'm told I can put any K in it. I fancy a 1.6 (enough in something that weighs nothing) but am not sure which bits of the engines are compatible, eg. starter, ignition, ECU etc.
Anyone done any 'transplants' who could advise?
Or any fibreglass car owner advice would be appreciated too.
Thanks
Simon
|
|
I once looked into converting a Metro GTi in a similar way - as long as you get the engine and ancilleries it drops in pretty easily - the only one you will have trouble with is the 1.8 VVC but the standard 1.8 is OK
|
I was at a garage the other day when a guy turned up for a natter with the owner in a Rover 100 Knightsbridge. You know the one; the five door OAP special with 1.1 litre K series and painted a suitable blue rinse shade of something indeterminable. Well paintwise this would be correct, but engine wise, err, no. His had a 1.8 litre K-Series approaching 180 bhp at stratospheric RPM. The only external giveaways were slightly fatter tyres (on the original rims) and a drainpipe exhaust, the noise of which didn't attract undue attention at idle; perfect for traffic light grand prix. Even the seats (with those horrid hollow square headrests) and ride height were original, though the brakes weren't! Look directly at the front carefully and you would also notice a much lower sump.
|
Have a look at this! www.metropower.co.uk
Thanks for that; I'll have a gander later and see if I can find the Roer 100 that I saw.
|
Technically, the K-Series is still a very advanced engine.
The first 1.4-litre versions from the late 1980s produced 95bhp, better than virtually all 1.6-litre engines of the time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
I had a 1993 Metro GTi 1.4 16v multipoint injection and that gave 105bhp which in a car of it's size was very nippy.
|
I've had a chat with the locay scrappy who said the most reliable of the larger K's was the 1.6 8v. I know the GTi 1.4 16v is nearly as powerful, but he reckons they were overstressed. He could offer me a couple of 1.8's or 1.6 16v, but were all wrecked.
Is he right?
|
1.8 does seem to suffer more HGF regardless of the car its fitted to. 1.4 and 1.6 seem to be better but would be inclined to agree that you dont hear as many failures of the 1.6 - having said that they werent as popular!
Apart for HGF then they are very reliable anyway.
If its a kit car and not used for massive distances and properly maintained then HGF shouldnt be an issue anyway. How about a 1.8 turbo from a 75..if theres room for the turbo that is!!
|
Only minor differences between the 1.4/1.6-basically same unit,HGF is a problem even on kit cars...If you want to fit one.I gather the thermostat housing should be replaced by another unit which also has modified piping/bypass valve.
--
Steve
|
"Apart for HGF then they are very reliable anyway."
Cough, choke!
Further to post above I think that there is a 'remote' thermostat kit available which sorts out some of the coolant flow issues (there used to be one available, anyway).
I suspect that the 1.8 is less reliable because the water jacket around the cylinders is narrower than on the smaller engines. Give the cooling system a real good flush out to removed sediment etc.
|
>I think that there is a 'remote' thermostat kit available which sorts out some of the coolant flow issues
This sounds interesting!
Universal K fit? Rover or aftermarket?
I am definitely thinking a 1.6 with this thermo modification is about right.
|
|
I think this was a Rover-supplied kit - some hoses and a remote filter housing. One of the Rover discussion boards should be able to provide more info. With all that's gone on recently it may no longer be available though.....
|
£12,300was £12,500Details
£28,927was £29,191Details
£16,346was £16,629Details
£21,200was £21,600Details
