1.8 block question - MG-Rover.org Forums
 1Likes
  • 1 Post By Man in the Car
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 18 (permalink) Old 07-05-2017, 10:22 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 123
1.8 block question

I should soon be gaining a garage and I would like to stash up a few engines while they are plentiful.
I have seen a few 1.8 120 blocks and bottom ends for sale and I just wanted to know if the block for the 120 is same as the vvc blocks. If they are I would stash a couple now for the future while they are cheap, as vvc engines are a lot more expensive.
lsto is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 (permalink) Old 07-05-2017, 14:57
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bedford
Car: Evolution VII RS, MK5 RS2000, Trackday MK2 ZR 160, MK2 ZS 120+
Posts: 1,298
Yes blocks are the same
JOHNDQ is offline  
post #3 of 18 (permalink) Old 07-05-2017, 18:01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Devon
Car: TF 160 Sprint LE + MG RV8 + ZR 160
Posts: 3,256
But the 160 pistons are different.
160s are said to be stronger and have 160 stamped on the top.
Don't know about the con rods but turbo blocks will have fractionally shorter rods for the lower compression of the turbo engine.
TipperMG is offline  
 
post #4 of 18 (permalink) Old 07-05-2017, 18:14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: south oxfordshire
Car: MGTF115 & Rover25 1.4
Posts: 2,898
The 1100 /1400 / 1600 / 1800 bare blocks are the same. they just have different liners / conrods / pistons / crankshafts to change the capacity. Also the non vvc heads are the same only with different cams for the 1100 and TF135. The 1100 may have smaller valves I'm not sure.
david.c is offline  
post #5 of 18 (permalink) Old 07-05-2017, 18:48
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bedford
Car: Evolution VII RS, MK5 RS2000, Trackday MK2 ZR 160, MK2 ZS 120+
Posts: 1,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by TipperMG View Post
But the 160 pistons are different.
160s are said to be stronger and have 160 stamped on the top.
Don't know about the con rods but turbo blocks will have fractionally shorter rods for the lower compression of the turbo engine.
Yes 2mm shorter rods but same pistons as VVC in turbo engine. In fairness be better getting the new stronger block from Elise Parts
JOHNDQ is offline  
post #6 of 18 (permalink) Old 07-05-2017, 20:07 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 123
OK that's good to know. I was going to get new pistons and liners anyway so if all the blocks are the same I'm laughing. I know the pistons were different, I didn't know if there was any differences in the castings.
So if the blocks are the same I assume the cranks are the same too?
Thanks again everyone
lsto is offline  
post #7 of 18 (permalink) Old 07-05-2017, 20:15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Car: MGZS180,MGZR160,MGF VVC,MG Maestro T16, Rover 111
Posts: 5,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by david.c View Post
The 1100 /1400 / 1600 / 1800 bare blocks are the same. they just have different liners / conrods / pistons / crankshafts to change the capacity. Also the non vvc heads are the same only with different cams for the 1100 and TF135. The 1100 may have smaller valves I'm not sure.
The 1100 and 1400 were 8v or 16v.

Last edited by Talkingcars; 07-05-2017 at 21:10.
Talkingcars is offline  
post #8 of 18 (permalink) Old 07-05-2017, 20:43
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near Lincoln
Car: 06 MG ZR+120
Posts: 8,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsto View Post
So if the blocks are the same I assume the cranks are the same too?
No, there are four different part numbers for the 200/25/ZR crankshafts:
LEF1036 = 1100 8v
LEF101750 = 1100 16v
LEF101770 = 1400 (both 8v and 16v) and 1600 16v
LEF101790 = 1800 (both 120 and VVC).
Man in the Car is offline  
post #9 of 18 (permalink) Old 07-05-2017, 23:06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Car: MG ZS
Posts: 469
The 1.6 and 1.8 cranks were the same.

The 1.4 and below were not.

A 1.4 block won't be able to take 1.6/1.8 liners without boring out.

Also the 1.8 blocks tended to be casted better and were thus considered "stronger" but that is essentially irrelevant due to needing a 1.8 and also poorly sourced as different eras brought about better 1.4 blocks so not worth worrying about anyway.

In short, do not touch anything except a 1.6 and 1.8 block if you are looking for a replacement for a 120.
Stargatemunky is offline  
post #10 of 18 (permalink) Old 08-05-2017, 09:24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near Lincoln
Car: 06 MG ZR+120
Posts: 8,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargatemunky View Post
The 1.6 and 1.8 cranks were the same.
Not according to the part numbers. The different part numbers indicate that there is a difference.

Quote:
A 1.4 block won't be able to take 1.6/1.8 liners without boring out.
This is incorrect. The blocks are identical (same part number for all sizes of the damp liner engines). The external measurements of the liners are the same for all capacities of 1995 on damp liner sizes.

Quote:
Also the 1.8 blocks tended to be casted better and were thus considered "stronger" but that is essentially irrelevant due to needing a 1.8 and also poorly sourced as different eras brought about better 1.4 blocks so not worth worrying about anyway.
No idea where you get this information from, but we have never heard of blocks being cast differently for different engine sizes before. It does sound suspiciously like the sort of stuff that gets peddled on facebook - I usually regard anything posted on facebook as being rubbish (on further research, it very often does turn out to be completely wrong).

The only time I recall anything being mentioned (when MGR was still in business) regarding castings being selected for casting quality and liner tolerances was related to 1.8 engines destined for Land Rover. The only significant changes to the block design and method of manufacture came with the Chinese manufactured versions (Nanjing 'N' series, and SAIC Kavachi TCI Tech).

To put it simply, if all that is required is the block casting, any version of damp liner K series will be the same.

If however, you want the correct liners, one from a 1.6 or 1.8 will do, but if you want a 1.8 crankshaft, you need a 1.8. If you need the correct con rods, and pistons, you need one from a 1.8 VVC only (and some of the earlier 160 VVC engines had the same con rods and piston crowns as the previous 143ps 1.8 VVC, whilst further into production, the con rods for the VVC were strengthened and the piston crowns altered slightly - these latter piston crowns had '160' stamped into the casting).
Man in the Car is offline  
post #11 of 18 (permalink) Old 08-05-2017, 12:21
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bedford
Car: Evolution VII RS, MK5 RS2000, Trackday MK2 ZR 160, MK2 ZS 120+
Posts: 1,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man in the Car View Post
Not according to the part numbers. The different part numbers indicate that there is a difference.


This is incorrect. The blocks are identical (same part number for all sizes of the damp liner engines). The external measurements of the liners are the same for all capacities of 1995 on damp liner sizes.


No idea where you get this information from, but we have never heard of blocks being cast differently for different engine sizes before. It does sound suspiciously like the sort of stuff that gets peddled on facebook - I usually regard anything posted on facebook as being rubbish (on further research, it very often does turn out to be completely wrong).

The only time I recall anything being mentioned (when MGR was still in business) regarding castings being selected for casting quality and liner tolerances was related to 1.8 engines destined for Land Rover. The only significant changes to the block design and method of manufacture came with the Chinese manufactured versions (Nanjing 'N' series, and SAIC Kavachi TCI Tech).

To put it simply, if all that is required is the block casting, any version of damp liner K series will be the same.

If however, you want the correct liners, one from a 1.6 or 1.8 will do, but if you want a 1.8 crankshaft, you need a 1.8. If you need the correct con rods, and pistons, you need one from a 1.8 VVC only (and some of the earlier 160 VVC engines had the same con rods and piston crowns as the previous 143ps 1.8 VVC, whilst further into production, the con rods for the VVC were strengthened and the piston crowns altered slightly - these latter piston crowns had '160' stamped into the casting).
Do you know if there's any improvements to water flow around liners though cylinder head in the N Series etc? Also didn't a lot of the 160 engines get 143 cylinder heads? My 160 is 2004 with original block and doesn't have later pistons and I have a S2 Lotus 111S engine as spare which has 160 Pistons but a 143 head. Engine was from the Elise the guy had from new with 40k, had original style HG and factory marked OE bolts and owner promised had never had HG failure and nothing seemed to have been opened before I stripped it but from bit of research Rover seemed to put on what ever they had towards end
JOHNDQ is offline  
post #12 of 18 (permalink) Old 08-05-2017, 14:37
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: south oxfordshire
Car: MGTF115 & Rover25 1.4
Posts: 2,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargatemunky View Post
The 1.6 and 1.8 cranks were the same.
Wrong. The 1400 and 1600 cranks were the same though.
As I recall. The 1100 and 1400 had the same bore.
The 1600 and 1800 had the same bore
The 1400 and 1600 had the same crank
They all used the same block
They all used the same head
I'm referring to 16v damp liner engines only

Last edited by david.c; 08-05-2017 at 14:45.
david.c is offline  
post #13 of 18 (permalink) Old 08-05-2017, 20:34
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near Lincoln
Car: 06 MG ZR+120
Posts: 8,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNDQ View Post
Do you know if there's any improvements to water flow around liners though cylinder head in the N Series etc? Also didn't a lot of the 160 engines get 143 cylinder heads? My 160 is 2004 with original block and doesn't have later pistons and I have a S2 Lotus 111S engine as spare which has 160 Pistons but a 143 head.
I don't actually know anything specific about any changes regarding the Nanjing N series other than it was reported at the time that the casting method was changed and it was fitted with the 6 layer MLS gasket - there were a number of suggestions flying about the forums at the time, but I have never had an N series apart to see what/if anything was different. I suspect the changes would probably have been minimal (may even have been limited to removing the flash/overcasting which restricted the flow into the head on the K The SAIC Kavichi version certainly had more significant changes - the block castings are visibly different externally, but again, I haven't had one apart to see what may be different inside. MG John has one of these from an MG6 which he has installed in a ZT, so he will possibly know more??

I don't know exactly when the 160 pistons were introduced, but I would have expected it to be earlier than 2004, but may be wrong.
Man in the Car is offline  
post #14 of 18 (permalink) Old 08-05-2017, 22:33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bedford
Car: Evolution VII RS, MK5 RS2000, Trackday MK2 ZR 160, MK2 ZS 120+
Posts: 1,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man in the Car View Post
I don't actually know anything specific about any changes regarding the Nanjing N series other than it was reported at the time that the casting method was changed and it was fitted with the 6 layer MLS gasket - there were a number of suggestions flying about the forums at the time, but I have never had an N series apart to see what/if anything was different. I suspect the changes would probably have been minimal (may even have been limited to removing the flash/overcasting which restricted the flow into the head on the K The SAIC Kavichi version certainly had more significant changes - the block castings are visibly different externally, but again, I haven't had one apart to see what may be different inside. MG John has one of these from an MG6 which he has installed in a ZT, so he will possibly know more??

I don't know exactly when the 160 pistons were introduced, but I would have expected it to be earlier than 2004, but may be wrong.
Not a problem I did see his post and have been looking for a MG6 engine myself to see if head etc was different. Elise Parts also do the later block
JOHNDQ is offline  
post #15 of 18 (permalink) Old 13-05-2017, 07:02 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 123
Well I'll have to try and find some cranks as well. I want to stash some up now while bits are plentiful and relatively cheap.
I keep scouring breakers for 160 lumps but they are hard to come by, the 1.4 is available in abundance so I could stash a few up for bits but it's mainly the vvc gearing I want as I can see these being impossible to get in a few years, and as far as I know SAIC are not producing them either, but I imagine they would be grossly expensive new anyway.
lsto is offline  
post #16 of 18 (permalink) Old 13-05-2017, 07:36
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bedford
Car: Evolution VII RS, MK5 RS2000, Trackday MK2 ZR 160, MK2 ZS 120+
Posts: 1,298
They need to start casting VVC heads more than anything even the motorsport guys are having trouble getting them now
JOHNDQ is offline  
post #17 of 18 (permalink) Old 13-05-2017, 08:21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near Lincoln
Car: 06 MG ZR+120
Posts: 8,342
I think it very unlikely that any new VVC heads are likely to be cast - and would probably be priced at well over 1k each if they were due to the relatively small numbers that would be required.

The usage by motorsport is one of the main reasons that the VVC heads are NLA new, and also accounts for the NLA status of a number parts; in particular some major suspension components such as the rear H-frame.

The rate at which 25s and ZRs are being broken (often very good condition ones being broken by owners who think they are going to make more money than trying to sell them complete) is rapidly reducing the car parc to a point where it will barely be worth manufacturers producing even commonly needed spares.

If you have the money and storage space available, it is well worth storing a few parts for the future - crash damaged ZRs for breaking are selling for very little, and offer a very cheap way of building up a stock of parts (especially if you have the facilities to buy them complete and strip them yourself). Sadly, I don't have the space available, but keep visiting breakers and bringing back a few bits now and again.
Dorchester likes this.
Man in the Car is offline  
post #18 of 18 (permalink) Old 13-05-2017, 10:42 Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 123
That's what I plan to do, start trying to stash things away while they are cheap. When my cambelt snapped, by the time I priced up a used vvc head, it still worked out cheaper for me to repair my old head. If it's like that now then in a few years time it won't be worth the cost of fixing.
lsto is offline  
post #19 of 18 (permalink) Old 13-05-2017, 11:35
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bedford
Car: Evolution VII RS, MK5 RS2000, Trackday MK2 ZR 160, MK2 ZS 120+
Posts: 1,298
Yeah not cheap over 2k to get a MS2 VHPD head cast
JOHNDQ is offline  
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MG-Rover.org Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Head/Block Oil question Bren T MG ZR / Rover 25, 200 & Streetwise 12 11-06-2012 20:57
Very Tech question on block and liners eyes wide open MGF and MGTF (Sponsored by MGFnTFBITZ) 20 24-02-2012 00:00
vvc block question u0rns MG ZR / Rover 25, 200 & Streetwise 12 07-10-2010 22:11
Engine Block Core Plug Question AndyJay2008 Metro / Rover 100 8 26-02-2008 12:48
1.4 K16 block question cochapman MG ZR / Rover 25, 200 & Streetwise 3 18-08-2006 19:09

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome