MG-Cars.info
MG MGF Technical Engine transplant: fancy a change from a K-series? BBS discussion at MG-Cars.info
MG-Cars.info
Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.
Parts
MG parts spares and accessories are available for MG T Series (TA, MG TB, MG TC, MG TD, MG TF), Magnette, MGA, Twin cam, MGB, MGBGT, MGC, MGC GT, MG Midget, Sprite and other MG models from British car spares company LBCarCo.
|
|
MG MGF Technical - Engine transplant: fancy a change from a K-series?
| Well, the Elise boys have done it again... See here for the Ford Duratec in the Elise: http://www.briandrought.com/DuratecElise/Photos/yvosphotos.htm Other photos on that site with the rear cam in situ. Dimensionally, the Duratec is very similar to the K-series (fractionally heavier, fractionally larger) - but comes in larger capacities (2.2 litre!). It is also very tuneable... For those wanting a KV6 conversion, I think I know someone who is mad enough to want to have a stab at this (no one we know... ;o)) No costs available for conversions - I wonder whether a supercharger would work out cheaper? ;o) |
| Rob Bell |
| The guys on the SELOC forum are quoting apporx £10K for this convertion, so the TT supercharger would prob work out cheaper. Reliability could be a different matter though........ |
| Steve White |
| I was very impressed when i saw this a while back.. Steve, you could always supercharge the Duratec? Rob, where abouts can sizes and weights for the various engines be found? would the twin tubo 3.5L duratec v6 (ala noble) fit in there? ;) Who's doing the KV6 then rob? would be very interesting |
| Kingsley |
| K-series dimensions and weights are all in the K-series catalogue produced by PTP - and it is available to down load from their website: http://www.powertrainltd.com/ The Ford details I don't have in such depth - perhaps this information is available on the web somewhere? What I know was provided by Dave Andrews... Steve, I agree - the engine swap makes the supercharger option look cheap - but reliability is difficult to call, and the normally aspirated engine offers more further tuning options, should the desire grab you. The guy doing KV6 engine transplants (but not into MGFs yet) is a guy called George at RSM... It is still a moot point whether the KV6 will fit - and I wouldn't really expect the conversion to cost very much less than a Duratec install (if not actually more!) But, oh! the engine note would be worth it ;o) |
| Rob Bell |
| Last time I met George he was on about getting a K2000 into an F. we talked about potential heat probs and discussed fans in the boot lid and oil coolers this engine transplant of course would be hideously expensive, but on the face of it shouldnt be too difficult. ...but boy will it boogie! |
| Neil |
| >>But, oh! the engine note would be worth it ;o) << Even better would be Radical's 2.6L V8 :-> Around 350 BHP from two Hayabusa blocks - and more with turbocharging ? Just imagine a V8 with an 11,000 RPM limit ... It's almost worth buying an Elise to experiment. |
| Steve |
| That V8 story has gone worryingly quiet on the SELOC site hasn't it? Is it dead??? When the budget was described as being 'Less that £30,000' I had to pull myself up from the floor...! 8oO The engine is, however, very very small. Would fit very nicely into an MGF too... But... how long would two motorcycle lumps on a common crank last in a one-plus tonne car??? |
| Rob Bell |
| Something like this would be nice- http://www.zcars.org.uk/mini/mini_twin_rl.htm |
| Steve White |
| >>But... how long would two motorcycle lumps on a common crank last in a one-plus tonne car??? << About the same time the MGF bodyshell would last with more than twice its normal horsepower ! I think the F needs its hardtop on permanently with 200HP+ - or better, a full roll-cage. Some bigger wheels would be a good idea too (ie bigger overall diameter) |
| Steve |
| This has come up on here before Steve, most people on here seem to agree with you (i am not one of them) having a background in structures and engineering i was able to justify my feelings on the subject, but since when has having a logical argument meant anything on this board eh? ;-) Some bracing would be a good idea anyway (probably easiest to use TF braces), but the F shell is a lot stronger than you give it credit for. The odd vibration and numerous squeeks and rattles are not good indicators of the strength of the bodyshell. neither are mirror vbrations. Points where you can measure flex subjectively however are. An example - drive with the roof down, reach across to the passenger door and place your index finger on the gap between the door card and T-Bar - this is a good place to subjectively measure flex - you will(should) find some flex, but it is very minimal (less than a mm, flex is felt rather than measured) Try this in a Z3 2.8 or higher and be prepared for a surprise - this is a car pumping out significantly more bhp than the F and it has noticably more flex here. Squeeks and rattles are kept to a minimum in the Z3 (and other cars) through control of tolerances on panel gaps and additional trim fixings to help prevent independant movement. The F shell was one of the strongest available when launched. Trim rattles and squeeks should not be confused with scuttle shake - the F does have some scuttle shake, but it is very minimal - the TF even less so. SF |
| Scarlet Fever |
| Also, wouldn't a transversely mounted engine subject the shell to a longitudinal flex rather than a torsional moment? |
| Rob Bell |
| I dont think that the structure of the car is the problem, 300bhp is going to create a lot of heat whch has to be dealt with. Notice that the mini with 2 engines is very open to the elements, with no windows or boot lid, there isnt much of the Mini actually left is there?? If a V8 Kawasaki engine can be produced and fitted it is definitely going to be expensive and it would probably be easier to find a more readily available engine. I still beleive that it would be possible to get the KV6 in with the necessity of alterations to the bodywork/petrol tank etc . I just dont think that anybody has really tried hard enough!! George from GSM might want to get a mule F and the relevant KV6 and just marry it up and have a look. I think he would be able to do this! |
| Neil |
| I don't actually think the F has significant scuttle shake; it has a strong front section and a strong rear section and a comparitively weak centre/passenger section (like so many convertibles!) - this is where the TF scores strongly over the F; and where a roll cage, or even a hardtop makes a significant difference. And the thought of those little metro wheels with 200+BHP worries me ... :-) I don't think the problems are insurmountable, just different to the Elise. |
| Steve |
| so how much can a KV6 be had for? |
| Kingsley |
| Not sure Kingsley - probably depends on your contacts (and I don't mean dodgy contacts!!!) - but an engine sourced from a trashed ZS or ZT ought be had fairly cheaply. |
| Rob Bell |
| or a stuffed 2.5 Rover 75! more likely...same engine mate. one of the MG boys was in the process of fitting a KV6 to a B!!! nice move methinks and far more unusual than the standard Buick/Rover V8 It's such a bitch that BMW pulled the plug on the KV8 project...who would need an Aston engine let alone a Ford Mustang Engine if such a thing existed....oh well!! |
| Neil |
| Yeah - it's a great pitty that the KV8 was killed - as it was almost certainly planned with the Range Rover in mind :o( |
| Rob Bell |
| Can't realy make out all the dimensions of the K from the pdf but was it just a weight distribution/access point of view that lead to the move the fuel tank issue? if so could not chaging the spark plugs be an engine out job? this would be cheaper than the associate engine re-location? |
| Kingsley |
| Kingsley - you're absolutely right: changing the spark plugs on the front bank of cylinders of a KV6 installed in an MGF's engine bay would be an total nightmare!!! :o( Fitting issue is the interference between the front cylinder bank and the passenger cell bulkhead - and it is this interference that gave rise to thoughts regarding the resiting of the fuel tank. If I remember, I'll chat more to Roger Parker about his findings on this question when I see him hopefully on Sunday. |
| Rob Bell |
| Just overlaid the images of the KV6 and the 1.8 from the powertrain website and the KV^ doesn't seem to protrude any further forward than the 1.8 am i missing something? |
| Kingsley |
| >>I dont think that the structure of the car is the problem<< I thought that MGR themselves said so - as one of the reasons why the supersport was not viable. The TF is better - and still no V6, or Forced Induction high power variants. We know that MGR have experimented, we know they are willing to use other manufacturer's power plants. But there's nothing - not even track specials, no demos, no concepts. The TF's in a cul-de-sac while the directors play with their SVs. Please prove me wrong ! |
| Steve |
| It's crap isnt it? Fiat overcame access problems in the X1/9 by fitting a removable panel rather like the F's engine cover "bonnet" behind the driver's seat so that access to the distributor could be made. I think the problem has nothing to do with the mechanical attributes of the installation, I think it's all in the minds of MG managers who have been historically very weak...(I know the MG ZT proves otherwise so well done for trying at long last) If Porsche wanted to do it, they would just do it! It's called continuous development. It just seems that if anything is even slightly difficult a million problems seem to rear their heads to stop it happening. I always thought that British engineering was about overcoming difficulties with simple and innovative ideas....seems like we passed that onto the Krauts along with the Marshall plan.... that's why Porsche are truely great and MG's are only great because of guys like you boys. NO if MG wanted to make a KV6 F we would have had one five years ago! End of Rant! |
| Neil |
| Kingsley - I've done the same! ROFL! Did you scale the KV6 image such that the crankshaft pulley is the same on both images? I also centred both images at this point, reasoning that the gearbox would be dictating how the engine sits in the engine bay. As you say the two engines appear to be practically the same size when you figure in ancillaries. But if you take the dimensional data... K16: L=501; W=630; H=629 KV6 2.5 litre 190: L=477; W=681; H=655 ... the KV6 is indeed wider - and possibly that extra 5cm width is enough to make things a little too snug??? Only one way to find out I guess! ;o) |
| Rob Bell |
| George GSM if you are about put that K2000 project asside for one moment and think about this one...it'll be yards cheaper!! would you just imagine the noise!! |
| Neil |
| Lol Rob i did exactly the same with the cranshaft pully, assuming it's a common part. Given the amount of space the exaust manifold and heatshild uses next to the petrol tank i recon it should be able to fit in that way, what are the engine mounts like as a comparism, no where near? Could be looking for a cheap KV6 as i get a garage next year.... :D |
| Kingsley |
| <chuckle> Great minds think alike Kingsley ;o) </chuckle> Regarding engine mounts.... erm.... haven't a clue. There is a chance that they'll be similar, as cars equipped with the KV6 also use the PG1 (or PG2) gearbox, and also use the K16 engine. So it'd make sense and ease production issues if the mounts were similar... But that remains to be seen if that's the case! George @ RSM is our man I think! |
| Rob Bell |
| ><chuckle> Great minds think alike Kingsley ;o) </chuckle> What? Kingsley has a spitfire, begging for a V6? |
| Will Munns |
| LOL - fortunately Kingsley is not so insane as to buy one of Canley's finest! ;o) Which reminds me - I really must get round to resetting the cam timing on the Spitty! Oh, and recore the rad. And change the chassis. And... and... and... Flippin' expensive hobby this. |
| Rob Bell |
| Well we have been busy chatting...lol Well Im sure I would be able to get it to fit... SO whos gonna be the first to be the guinea pig??? Steve B was brave enough and is now driving round with a permanent grin attached to his face.. Yes it took me a bit of time to complete, but some of the time was out of my control. Manifolds and downpipe had to be made, and then there was a nightmare with the DTA. No one had installed DTA to the KV6 in a road going car. QED(who we are no agents for) had used DTA on a DYNO but not on a car. They also used throttle bodies and cams and not the std plenum. So I had to start from scratch. I havent finished mapping the KV6 yet, as I spent most of my time mapping below 5k so it would be nice and smooth with no flat spots.At the moment, at just over 5500rpm i have 172@wheels. I now know the KV6 inside out and also the dta management. So i will just wait for an avid MGF owner to come and talk to me seriously. I was going to build myself a t16 mgf a while back,but then Steve gave me this nice challenge. Anyway there you go for now Hope Steve dont get to upset.... sorry steve George RSM www.rovasystemsmotorsport.co.uk We are currently moving to newer premises so our landline is off at the mo..We will be in our new premises in early Jan. happy xmas and new year to you all |
| gmackmurdie |
| Hi George, thanks for popping over! :o) I really want to see this project through too - but I want to try and win my current Speed Championship class this year! A new engine, I think, will be spotted by a scrutineer! ROFL But, boy, would a KV6 powered MGF be a lot of fun! |
| Rob Bell |
| Pending costings and diy-able elements I could be up for it!! |
| Kingsley |
| Good for you Kingsley! :o)) I spoke to Rog briefly on Sunday about this: looks as though the main problem is how the whole transaxle is slotted into the engine bay: looks as though the fuel tank could get in the way. I am sure that with some ingenuity this problem could be over come... over to you George! |
| Rob Bell |
| Yep, me too - depending on costs. Got loads of thoughts and ideas on this, been thinking about it now since 1998 on and off. ---------- Torsional moment - yep Rob you are right. The point between the top of the door card and T-Bar is a good place to feel(measure) the combined torsion/flex in the shell (it's at the top of a 'V' shape with the point being on the floor pan). The F floorpan is surprisingly good at dealing with both. I reckon it'd take substantially more than a KV6 to cause problems here. Additional bracing will help, but i don't feel it's necessary, certainly not with the Hydragas suspension. XP500 has a rollcage, but this i feel is largely to give it a racing pedigree and for roll protection (afterall it is a car that is supposed to evoke racing). It also has some interesting additional strut braces over and above the TF design, there is a particularly substantial one between the turrets under the front bonnet (got a picture somewhere). The TF side cill are better still, and on thier own would make a huge difference to the flex in the shell, but the firmer TF suspension effectively undoes some of the advantages of the side cills, necessitating the additional braces found throughout the TF. ---------- Fitting a KV6 will require moving the petrol tank - it also means cutting a large hole in the engine/petrol tank bulkhead wall (accessing the second bank of cylinders is via the back panel in the cabin - not a nightmare at all, just another engine bay panel to remove, indeed with the engine behind this panel access is far superior than in the normal 1.8K install). The problem here isn't so much actually doing the work, but replacing the strength in the body shell, lost when this bulkhead wall is breached. Strut braces will be necessary and these will need to be designed - this is a job that is beyond most people, indeed it is beyond most engineers, particularly if you don't have access to the original design calculations. This is IMO the biggest problem in the conversion - mechanically it can be done, and by siting the petrol tank in the front you won't upset the weight balance of the car. Fuel lines, crash protection and physically getting the engine in there can all be done - replacing the strength in the shell however is a major stumbling block. SF |
| Scarlet Fever |
| Personally, I am not 100% keen on the idea of relocating the fuel tank to the front. Okay, there is the crash safety issue - but you could presumably work around that problem using a proper fuel cell (expensive though). Biggest issue for me is the idea that you can 'correct the weight distribution' - but using a fuel tank in the front to compensate for the heavier engine in the rear. To do this is not especially desireable IMO. After all, the fuel tank hasn't have a constant weight - fuel gets consumed, so the weight distribution could alter significantly between a full, half full and near empty tank. Not good. I suspect that the fuel tank mounted where it is has a number of advantages in terms of "centre of weight" distribution and protection from crash damage - all of which are, IMO, worth fighting to preserve. Hmm - some interesting points made regarding struture there Andy: I wonder how this lost strength could be most easily restored? |
| Rob Bell |
| I'm with rob, if moving the petorl tank can possibly be avoided then i'm all for this, even if it means taking out the engine to change spark plugs! |
| Kingsley |
| Aaarrrggghhh, had a connection glitch - where was i... oh yes: Not just using the fuel tank to balance out the additional weight of the engine, you are also loosing the weight of the fuel tank from the rear Rob. At a guess, this is how I reckon it'd stand up: Standard F = 55% rear, 45% front Achieved thus (simplistically): 1.8K + petrol tank : nothing KV6 F = 57% rear, 43% front (guess) Achieved thus (again simplistically): KV6 : petrol tank So you see that although the KV6 is heavier than the 1.8K, by moving the tank you are lightening the rear and weighting the front - this should help to offset a lot of the weight difference between the two engines. You just need to drive the car with an empty tank, then fill up to know how much of a difference this makes to the car. Personally, I would want the front tank to be as low as possible and mounted as far back as possible, you certainly don't want it in front of the front wheels. C of G point is an interesting one Rob, given that the tank is effectively a rectangle standing on it's long side (i.e. not laid flat, rather it stands up), when full it has a high C of G. I would argue that a forward mounted tank, sitting on the front subframe, between the wheels would have a better C of G than the standard one, although it would need to be heavily partitioned internally to prevent the contents sloshing around too much. ------ Strength - this is the killer IMO, to be honest I have no idea how this could be done, you see ideally you would triangulate the opening, and the best way to do this would be an X brace - but of course, this would clash with the engine. I think the best you could do is maybe a V with the bank of cylinders sitting between the struts (although the point of the V would be off centre due to the cylinders being off centre (gearbox at other end). Might be able to do something like this (if the ASCII lets me do it): /_// / // - = Cylinder bank. Just an idea SF |
| Scarlet Fever |
| Bl**dy ASCII filter... >:-( <->< Hope this is better. SF |
| Scarlet Fever |
| >>Not good. I suspect that the fuel tank mounted where it is has a number of advantages in terms of "centre of weight" distribution<< Honda motorcycles are 'obsessed' with this idea at the moment, and the MGF design appears to also follow this principle. IMO, this principle has many advantages. I'm not sure that putting the fuel tank up front would be wrong - we're only talking of a weight difference of about 50Kg, full to empty; it's likely to be within the wheelbase and should be manageable. What are you planning to do with the exhaust routing from the rear bank ? |
| Steve |
| >> NO if MG wanted to make a KV6 F we would have had one five years ago! << My understanding is that they did - well over 5 years ago. My old next door neighbour but one worked at Gaydon and said he had driven it. Big problem was the weight in the back - it handled like an old 911 were his words. I have no reason to doubt him - everything that he told me that was verifable turned out to be true. It was he that told me that hydragas was being dumped years before the TF arrived. What is weight difference between the 2 engines? Paul P9 VLS |
| Paul |
| About 50kg Paul, for the engine which is dressed. But it's centre of gravity may be both higher and further back.... Weight distribution would have to be attended to - but as Andy and Steve say, if the delta change in weight distribution that occurs between a full and empty front-mounted fuel tank is no more than a couple of %, then perhaps this may be the way to go? I'd like to see the calculations before changing my mind though! ;o) LOL |
| Rob Bell |
This thread was discussed between 17/12/2003 and 23/12/2003
MG MGF Technical index
This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG MGF Technical BBS now