T series into zt/ mg6
 

As in the title really, I'm looking into swapping the k1.8 for a t series turbo, firstly to test the theory in a zt, but later on an mg6..
i have a zt turbo car complete, a v6 gearbox, a t engine and turbo, and this week bought a 1.8t flywheel and clutch to sus out requirements.
What have I learnt so far?
The k flywheel doesnt fit the t ( knew this allready)
The k flywheel has a different timing tooth pattern to the kv6, as well as a different diameter tooth dia.
Coupled with this tooth diameter thing - does this mean the timing pickup sensor is different? Will check part Nos, but either it is or the casing moves it in or out.
Also related, and the reason the k18 starter doesnt hit the timing teeth, is that the k18 starter comes from the engine side, opposite to the v6.
The t series fly/starter ring is the same dia and tooth pattern as the k18.
The solid flywheel, not suprisingly, is a lot shorter than the k18, (don't know about the v6), this means the clutch plate is only half on the gearbox input shaft splines.
Three of the engine to gearbox mounting bolts line up (this is the main reason to use the v6 box).

More info added as it comes to me, however, i could do with some more bits to gather further info if anyone feels like helping:
I could do with a v6 flywheel and clutch cover - scrap one would do.
With an eye to the second phase of this i could do with an mg6 flywheel.
A zt v6 starter - I will buy this on ebay, plenty on there.

For now i need to somehow space out the clutch - maybe use a v6 fly? But this would need a k18 timing tooth pattern cut into it - on a smaller pcd.
I also need to work out where the teeth are relative to the sensor at tdc- since the engine, box and fly are different it might mean what the k 18 ecu thinks is 40 deg btdc is actually 5 degrees?
I'm also considering making a disc for the front pulley so I can forget about the bellhousing teeth, either that or machining a new set further in where they don't conflict with the starter motor.
At this moment it looks like a v6 fly with new teeth or a whole new fly machined from billet, which would also need a smaller set of timing teeth.
Huw

Are you planning to drive the car on the road again, or is it going to be just a Track day car?

A zt as a track day car? No, and as for an mg6, no.

Then the T Series, is completely the wrong engine to go for, as your car will never pass another MOT with it fitted. The emissions are measured on what was originally fitted to the car, so it's possible to fit an engine from a later vehicle, as it will produce lower emissions, but the T Series will never pass an emissions test when fitted to one of our cars, which is the main reason it was discontinued.

What are you doing with regards to management? No doubt aftermarket in which case why are the pick ups so important? You could mount the pickup anywhere and map it to suit.

K series tuning has come a long way in the last few years, and power to cost is now roughly the same between them up to a certain point, so I'm in agreement with the above comment about it being a bad engine choice, but it will make a good project to I hope it all goes well.

Well sorry to disagree CP, but one thing I did forget to mention was that the engine will run on lpg:}
So no worries about emmissions, and, also I plan to keep the k18 ecu, thereby making it a relatively simple job. Making the zt electrics work with an aftermarket ecu is one job I don't want to get involved in. So you see, solve the crank pickup, happy days.

Rrobson, power to cost is not the issue, it's power to reliability, the k18 is just not up to decent long term boost. I had contemplated fitting a k14 with an 1800 crank, which would solve some of the issues, but sadly not the short piston issue. Oo, just seen you have a 1.8 t 25, I bet that shifts?

If you're after ultimate performance, then LPG will of course get you around the emissions problem, providing you have certified the system and notified the change to the DVLA, otherwise the computerised MOT system will test it on petrol, as the car left the factory. However, not all automobile engines are suitable for use with LPG as a fuel. LPG provides less upper cylinder lubrication than petrol or diesel, so LPG-fueled engines are more prone to valve wear if they are not suitably modified. Personally, if I were to go the 4 cylinder route for performance in a ZT, I would find an N Series unit out of an MG6, get the head ported and polished and then get the Z&F 204 BHP tune put into it, which I would think is probably enough for a 1.8 engine designed in the late Eighties. However, I await your developments with interest.

No not after ultimate performance, but 204 bhp isnt enough. The n séries doesn't address the fundamental flaws in the k wrt turbocharging, there simply isnt enough metal in the right areas. I converted my zt v6 to lpg 3 years ago using a brc kit and it's been faultless since, and with the mileage I do, at the rate I get the only other choice is diesel:mad: i accept what you say about valve seat recession (VSR), the t series will need an additive to combat this.

What rubbish?

That means that all the people I know that are running T-series engines in their modified cars won't pass an MOT.

I can't believe what I read on here sometimes, anyway enough disagreements.

Yes, it can be done and the easiest option would to get the gearbox for the engine rather than trying to make the 1.8 fit.

Are you referring to T Series engines fitted to cars originally fitted at the factory, or retro fitted into newer vehicles?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Neil you need to think about your statement here - the one about using the correct gearbox - that would be a pg1 yes?
Well that would mean no timing signal, wrong shafts, wrong gear linkage, wrong mountings, wrong size (possibly, since the pg1 does look longer), oo that's enough things to fix.
On the flip side, once I sort the flywheel t to zt box everything else is easy...

He's probably talking about the plethora of zr / zs conversions. With a cat I don't see you having a problem. Don't forget, the t series were still being used when the 75 came out.

With regards to gearbox, if you used a pg1 there's the problem of drive shafts and gear linkages not fitting.

You could get a flywheel made and sweat the ring gear on like standard but you'll not get the trigger pattern used from factory.

Just so I'm getting this right, is it changing a Rover K series 1.8 to a Rover k series 1.8T engine?

Which is what my Rover 75 has.

Or are you fitting the Rover T16 Turbo?

If you are using the Rover T16 Turbo engine then this is a good read on gearbox etc.

http://www.mr-r.co.uk/tturbo.html

I would have thought that the title of the thread would have told you that. Are you going to give me the courtesy of a reply to the question that I asked you, or should I just rubbish your opinion as you did to me?

As this is a Rover 75/MG Forum I assumed it was the 1.8T engine which is an easy mistake to make. :shrug:

But you can still fit the T16 engine and it still doesn't make any difference to emissions so long as cats etc are fitted.
As it has 197bhp as standard it will fly.

But if you think I should apologise then I will, I'm sorry. :o

However I wouldn't bother with a Rover engine, I would go down the Honda route but that's a whole new track to take. ;)

I presume you mean this question but you didn't quote me so I think it's this one.

Yes.

Retro fitted to older vehicles.

It would seem that you either don't read what I've posted, or you have no knowledge of how the MOT testing system works. Retro fitting an engine into an older vehicle, rarely causes any problems, as invariably the older car will fall into a less strict Co2 category than the engine is being fitted to it. Sadly the reverse is true when fitting an older engine into a newer cat. An MG ZT 1.8T will be rated at 193 g/Km Co2, with the relevant authorities. The 620TI, (which is the engine that the OP is wanting to fit to his ZT,) was rated at 220 g/Km Co2. When the car is hooked up to the MOT system, the car will automatically fail on it's emissions, as it will produce more Co2 emissions than is allowed for that age/model of car. By the way, running a Cat with the engine, will not affect the amount of Co2 that the car produces, as they only lower the levels of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, so my original point is correct and not "rubbish" as you posted earlier.

Calm down now....
It doesn't take much time to read less than a dozen posts, but I suppose its easier just to type...
Anyway, from the top, I have all the bits, except the starter, yes I could look for a honda to turbo, but why?
If I wasafter changing engine maker I would go for a vw 4 pot, which the yoofs are boosting to silly numbers very successfully, but it wouldn't bolt up t o my box, and the insurance man would be rubbing his hands ( as he would with a honda).
So stop suggesting alternatives, and winding each other up:}
Oh, also, I won't need a bloomin cat, except for the casings, lpg you see guv...

does declaring an engine change to the DVLA solve this emissions problem though? As there are many MG ZR and MG ZS T16 conversions on the road. There's also a MG ZR 2.5v6 and a MG TF 2.5v6 conversion on the road, both of which would produce higher emissions than their standard 1.8 160 engines? so there must be a way around is as there are newer cars on the road with older engines fitted and passing MOTs, such as 02-04 reg MG ZRs and ZS's with the older T16 turbo engine fitted.

Well you've pricked my curiosity about emmissions, and indeed it could possibly be an issue. However what CP has posted are emmissions per km, not mot emmission limits. I can't locate the zt turbos log book and mot cert right now, but the analyzer slip should be in there. In the meantime - anyone with a zt turbo have the numbers?
Thanks again

Found it CO LT 3.5, HC LT 1200, car is an mgzt turbo. The old 420 shoul walk it, and even if it struggles, adjustable cam timing should do the rest.
Looked up one of the 420 old mots - CO 0.2, HC 1.
Damn strange though, the limits on the 400 printout show Less Than 0.2 for CO, LT 200 for HC, so the older car has stricter emmission regs???

It may be worth having a quick word with your local friendly MOT Centre and just mention to them what you are planning to do. Sadly I remember the good old days, when you could swop engines into cars and as long as you could make them fit, it wasn't an issue. I fitted a 3 Litre Capri engine into 2000E Corsair, in the early 80's, which was quite fun, as I left it completely stock on the outside, so it did surprise a few people, sadly those days are long gone. Let us know if you do find a way round it though.

Ive seen it all now! Lets fit older design engines in to newer cars as "They were a good engine etc..":duh:
Will have a look in my shed I think Ive got a Rover V8 Buick engine been sat for 40 years under some old carpet etc. Forget advances in technology and the millions of £s on research and development. They know nothing. Shed work screams at me. The mot standards have changed since the pass the bloke a tenner in the pub for a certificate.
If its a T series engine make sure the right side of the head gasket isnt leaking oil like a good un.;)

I was going to ask you something Chris, you mentioned that the cat doesnt affect co2, just hc and nox?
Well nox is not an mot tested gas (wrongly, but there we are), also neither is CO2, it's CO. Interestingly, my understanding of a cat is that it converts CO into CO2. lpg incidentally increases Nox....
Well COab, as someone allready mentioned the K was designed in the 80's, so hardly a spring chicken. If its not up to the job thats it - And if you want I'll list its failings in 1.8 turbo form?(thats not to say I think its a pile of poo, I don't. In fact I think it's a marvel of its time, and at 1400, be it wet or damp liner a cracking engine. Also goes to prove that BL's engineers weren't that far out when they penned a 3 cylinder...

Good luck to you why not fit the Ford V6 engine? Chain driven, waterpump at the top of the engine and easily capable of 200 bhp with no head gasket or oil issues. No need for a turbo as they pull very well. Look at the ST200 Jaguar fitted them so cant be bad.:duh:

It's amazing I apologised and you still call me out, fine I stand but what I originally said. :devil:

Plus it proves you don't read either my car is an auto and my emissions are much higher than that, 'K' category.

My apologies go to minimutly, sorry about this.:}

I've fitted newer engines into older cars and older engines into newer cars because I wanted more BHP and yes you do have to inform DVLA of the change but at the time it was based on cubic capacity and not emissions.

Whether this is still the case now, I'm not sure but I will find out as I meet with my Rover/Mg Group every Tuesday night and some of the guys do run more powerful engines in their ZR's.

Perhaps a good reason is that slightly older 'good' engines can actually be disentangled from the donors cars electronics far more easily than modern ones, can also be far easier to get more power from with after market programmable ecu's etc and be cheaper to rebuild to a better spec. As has been mentioned it used to be very easy 20 years ago as all you had to do was tell the DVLA and pass the basic emissions test, it's far harder now and getting the car insured will be more expensive/harder now as well BUT I can see why people would think about it :)

Had a think last night on the flywheel issues, the Zt v6 is the same starter tooth profile but thats as far as it gets. It may be that the prima diesel flywheel puts the clutch plate high enough (with a reversed centre clutch), but there is no metal for a reluctor ring. So I'll buy a ztv6 flywheel to see how we get on, it may be just a pattern for a billet steel turning session.

Swapping the engine over is the easy bit, or not depending on what else you have to do, suspension, brakes etc.

Informing DVLA was easy as well but the problems start when you have to get the car insured especially if you intend driving it on the road.
First bit is you need to get an Engineer's Report done which you pay for, this is separate from an MOT.
Then you have to find an Insurance Company who will insure you as you now have a modified car.

I had a 1983 1000cc Mini Mayfair and put in a 1293cc race engine with all the other goodies done as well.

This I did 16 years ago and normally the insurance was around £98 but it shot up to £450 and nobody under 25 was allowed to drive it, crazy or what!

Nowadays I hate to think what it would cost to insure.

20 years prior to this I fitted a 2 litre Ford Cortina engine into a MKI Escort. The engine from the Cortina wasn't that old, a lot newer than the Escort it was going into. But Insurance wasn't an issue back then, you just insured on third party only.

Not that much, insurance is quite reasonable for modified cars these days. My 25 costs 300 quid on a limited mileage policy with a years no claims. That's with everything insured too, turbo, coilovers, bucket seats, harnesses, brakes, exhaust etc etc, and I'm only 25. I'd be surprised if a zt with a tuned t series was much more...

As for your flywheel problem, lighten the standard flywheel and make a spacer for it out of aluminium with a steel face?

Without being certain untill I get mits on a ztv6 flywheel, it wouls seem the easy option would be to fit one of these, then machine off the v6 reluctor teeth and cut some 1.8t ones. It leaves me with a dmf, but I think I can live with that.

Neil1 I'm a bit suprised at your comments re brakes and suspension - you know its a zt allready, at most it will need a v6 disc convertion and some diesl or v6 front struts. Easy and cheap no?

Does the fly have the same bolt pattern? And aren't the ring gears just sweated on? You surely could machine the flywheel and fit the gear from the turbo engine?

The v6 and t have the same bolt pattern but different locating hole dia - easy fix. They would also seem to share the same starter tooth pattern (not confirmed yet). However the kv6 reluctor teeth are smaller and different pattern. Hence the k18 pattern would need to be recreated, but at a smaller diameter to both avoid the starter gear and have the metal required for the teeth..
Sounds simple, if I'm wrong the only other fix is a billet steel flywheel.

Im sorry but the t16 is not a powerful or suitable engine.

The frankly bull bhp figures that people claim on standard internals and turnso is hilarious, never mind standard management.

I witnessed a man crumble and walk away after claiming his 270bhp rover 620 t16 and it produced less than 165bhp, when his car was not only not a 197bhp version but the 177bhp distributor version, which was spiting out as much oil as it was sparks.

Looked fantastic mind you.

Unless your going forged, mental turbo, proper management beyond mems and then also custom shafts and running the engine entirely on a hybrid of zt and doner loom then your into disaster zone IMO.

Ive said it several times, the best engine we could swap into our cars would be this.

The VW TFSI engine.

Compact, narrow, dimensional wise its sitting between k series and a kv6, 6 speed boxes.

http://www.goapr.co.uk/includes/img/icons/20t.png

GTI – 200ps/197bhp/147kw/280nm

Edition 30 – 230ps/226bhp/169kw/300nm

Pirelli – 230ps/226bhp/169kw/300nm

Seat Leon Cupra R – 240ps/237bhp/177kw/300nm

Audi S3 – 265ps/261bhp/195kw/350nm

Even a basic 200bhp model will remap to 250 bhp on the spot. Loads of easy independent ecu setups etc.

If you where going out of the box, thats unquestionably the engine to do it with.

Got a nice mapped one of those sitting in our A3 S Line ;)

Sorry for the thread interrupt.........as you were :}

VAG have tried to keep this as quiet as they can, but the TFSI engine isn't the great panacea that some people are saying, have a look at http://www.smellmyclutch.com/audis-t...adly-problems/

Entitled to your opinion ColinNI, in fact i don't think you're far off the truth about "tuned" versions just not getting the power they should. My experience with them is that the std cylinder head is restrictive, the turbo too small, and the std ecu not up to power increases. That doesn't mean that this little lot can't be fixed, and for little money:-
Cylinder head - ported numerous normally aspirated ones, has a huge effect.
Turbo - I have a subaru impretza 300 bhp one here ready.
The zt ecu will do a sterling job, with a remap and larger injectors - it won't know the engine is a cast iron blocked 600bhp capable pensioner.
Other stuff may and no doubt will need checking and or changing as required, but 250 bhp should be possible, reliably.
And lets not go into shafts and the rest of the drivetrain, that's up to the way I treat it.
As for the vag engine, I think you'll find the earlier verion was both stronger and simpler - strange that, how an older engine was better than the later version....

A bit like the 426 Hemi then.

Ztv6 flywheel and clutch bought, as well as a starter, wait for them to arrive...

What comments about brakes and suspension?

I have been back over every post and nothing there.

Normally it is sensible to look at brakes and suspension if you are fitting a different engine.
Not all engines weigh the same and it doesn't matter if the car is a ZT.

I must admit I do like all the VW/Audi/Skoda range but the horror stories I heard from a friend of mine last week has put me off for life.

Pedal boxes breaking or twisting and this is on all the models.
Discs warping more than they should.
DSG gearboxes breaking.

Admittedly all cars have there issues/problems but it seems some more than others.

I reckon is probably best to go back to carburetors and no fancy electronics to contend with. :D

I think were at the same place really, its just that swapping to 190 brakes and struts is dead easy, and not really worth commenting on, and certainly easier than swapping the engine in this instance. Nonetheless it will be done.

T series fits in the zt bay well mine has thus far, just sorting out engine side mount for correct height, also using standard t series ecu with a trick canbus unit,
classing engine as a 1992 so shouldnt even need a cat for mot.
18psi ish boost aiming for little over 300bhp as this has been achieved on standard ecu by a good few people

Yes, interested in this trick canbus ecu thingy. I'm planning to use the zt turbo ecu, as long as I can replicate its tooth pattern on the v6 flywheel. Might need a remap to get the best out of it.

It seems the T16 can be taken to producing over 800bhp :eek:

http://www.an-racing.co.uk/index.html

But some interesting points here;
http://forums.mg-rover.org/mg-zr-rov...ll-got-447322/

And here, plus you might recognise one of the poster's;

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...&f=54&t=812066

Made for it....
My uncle spent years driving rover 800s with Perkins Prima diesels fitted in them, he could do it with his eyes closed.

Looking forward to end result.

You and me both been looking at wiring diagrams all night to try and make it look factory.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Going independent ecu, or hybrid zt / t16 ecu setup?

T16 with can bus adapter for the dash to work

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

I shan't be looking at any wiring diagrams, once the crank pickup is sorted (still assuming it can be), that's it.
Talking of crank/flywheel, they turned up tonight (well today, but only got home tonight). Plan on going out later to see if that baby spins the T up...

so what managment are you using?

Mgzt 1.8turbo

I did look into this and ZandF said they could map the 1.8 ecu to run the larger injectors but that was about it as they cant rolling road tune, as the t series is a longer stroke and different compression ratio i didnt think that it would handle the engine very well, the t series ecu is very good and can easilly cope with more power and different engine configurations as it also runs a knock sensor which the 1.8 does not. i couldnt see the point in running a t series at standard 200bhp when the 1.8 can run that and is lighter i dont really know what the celling of power is on the 1.8 ecu but 330-370bhp appears to be the limit of the t series as its not mapable.

The fuel pressure, injector sizes and built in ignition retard and boost control will do full throttle, lambda and self learning will do the rest, allong with any adjustments I need to make in the lpg ecu. I won't be limited to 200 bhp. The t isn't that different in cr (and whats a skim anyway?), the stroke is identical...
Anyway , enough reasons justifying myself...
Last night got the two flys next to each other. The v6 is bigger- the starter ring around 10mm, the reluctor ring 5mm.
It leaves me with 3 options to explore:
1) make a new one, solid, to take the biggest disc possible.
2) modify the k by moving the holes outwards (this assumes that the larger starter ring fits, that the k timing sensor is longer, and in the right place so the timing will be correct.
3)Machine the reluctor off the v6 and make a new reluctor ring to press on, align and fit.

Probably the easiest is 2), if the assumptions come through. If not, 3)
Probably the most desirable is 1) since the DM is done away with, and it'll shave half a ton off the cars weight, compensating some for the increased overall and rotational weight of the T
I need to explore 2)....

Can't wait to see the MOT Certificates for these cars once the older engine is fitted.

Powerful enough cat will sort it.

The emissions test is applicable to to the criteria set by the engines age, and not that of the vehicle the engine is fitted to ;)

So if the engine originates from a 1990 car, it is tested based upon the figures applicable to that car, or in the case of the OP's planned LPG conversion, an emissions test is a non catalyst test for pre 1986 cars in any event :drool4:

Even so I don't think <3.5% CO is going to be hard to achieve, the exact reason why my 1800T XW Tourer will be running on LPG.....oh and the fact 38 MPG running on LPG equates to circa 78 MPG equivalent cost to running on diesel :drool4:

Brian :D

BTW the stroke of the T series turbo is 89mm, as opposed to 89.3 in the case of the K series turbo, so the adaptive learning of the MEMS3 will take care of that no problem at all :cool:

Who needs cat's. 1993 was i think cat cut off time. And unless the tester really knows what he is looking at the as far as he is concerned it's pretty cat so Mot shouldn't be a problem really.

The reluctant ring on the v6 and the 1.8 are the same diameter o thought? Just heat it up and swap over with the v6 one. U have a solid flywheel so still gave the t16 reluctant ring. With the v6 starter ring. It's all good fun this experimenting. Next big issue I have is the plumbing. As I have to move the radiator forward but not to far as to block the fmic I have to fit. Along with the aircon rad.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Plenty of smartarses on here who know better than me, show me how then:duh:

Sorry about that. I think as this is all experimental no one wants to look silly.

When I first spoke about this on the forum nobody was intreasted so I just assumed this was not the forum for modified zt's, so asked elsewhere about what's needed and work 90 percent out myself.

On another note both turbo's now fully mounted just the downpipe from wastegate and secondary turbo to build. Then it's intercooler and filter assembly. Then rad and electrics :cool:

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Well I'd had a beer or two and the number of people who post negatively proffessing to know everything gets to me sometimes - better engines, emmissions issues, mot issues, reliability issues (yes indeed), and few, but not all of these add anything positive. So not for the first time I apologise humbly:}

So currently there are two threads here on this, mine and vtec2.2s. Mr vtec please keep yours up as well, it will be good to have a comparison between the two ways to skin the cat - two turbos is tickling me allready...

Thanks for that.

i am intreasted in how the 1.8t ecu handles the t16 to be honest after the lack of positive response from ZandF, as you say if it can do it, why on earth do the zr and zs boys struggle so much when they could just remap, if you can get it working right you could sell people doing zr conversions the map to save them so much hassel.

I needed 2 turbos as my compression is very low on the o/m/t setup and as its a estate low end power is also advisable as well as the added efficiency when cruising around, the T turbos always for me had better fuel economy than the v6's so would like to keep that if not improve it with the extra back pressure and reduced intake drag low end.
i may plumb the small turbo almost directly to the throttle body comparativly speaking and only let the large twin entry turbo blow through the intercooler, all depends on what pipes i can get

There are others doing supercharged and turbo charged but although awesome the supercharger was for me added drag.

Wasn't the bmw lump from the previous mechanical injection Bmw's and rover built the common rail and had a softer crankshaft fitted?. Although is the bmw mini cooper d not the same engine or is it the later chocolate cam chain tensioner engine. That is a very poor built engine it would seem.
Shame as bar the noise the l series diesel I thought was a better engine definitely had more get up and go than the lazy bmw unit.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Ouch not good mate.
Loverly monty turbo's. Very nice
Sadly with a house full of kids I only get evenings to play so slow progress for me. Going to start rebuilding the rear of the engine bay and hope the diesel heater will still fit as I did like that function before. May try and finish the exhausts at the weekend well at least tack it together.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Well since you mention it, i do have a twincharged mgf project on the go here, BIG turbo blowing into roots blower - shock horror on a t series engine!

Into roots blower or bypassing?

Blowing into it.
The 'charger does the bottom end and makes the engine look much bigger, at high revs the turbo kicks in and one multiplies the other, provided the charger drive is up to it a 2l looks like a 3.5 v8.
Easy peasy 800bhp

I have to admit I am not so good with types and installs of chargers. But don't they run out off efficiency at high revs?
Compound charging on a super does sound pretty cool tho.
My setup doesn't bypass either at present it just relies on the exhaust gas bypassing the small turbo enough to not compound the boost but to still allow a zero flow restriction so I won't heat up the charged air and will mean no bypass needed and more space under the bonnet.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

There's no such thing as running out of efficiency - sure it drops off, since the mechanics of driving it and the volume of air required by the engine increase. The system works really well for a competition car, but for a road car the overall efficiency is poor, I'm sure loads of people will pipe up to say why its a bad idea...

T series zt on hold till next weekend away for a few days. I have decided to investigate further the modified 1.8 fly though, so half a day outside checking sensor,timing alignment etc is on the cards. If its sunny I might even try tp persuade the zt to fire up, but I know it has both fuel pressure issues and possibly lpg wiring issues.
On top of this I've put an entry in for a local charity night rally, so really need to finish the zr 160 engine...

Are you sure you can't just swap the timing ring over from the 1.8 to the v6 one? They look similar diameter. Which gearbox are you running?

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

There is no "timing ring", its machined into the flywheel, and yes i have measure it, posted the dimensions a few posts back, also posted which gearbox I'm using - v6, since it aligns with three of the original t series mounting points, posted that as well. Are you sure you're not pulling my plonker?

sorry i didnt remember that i should have re-read.

No i am sure that the 3 flywheels i have 1 v6 1 diesel 1 1.8t the v6 and 1.8 had almost identical dimensions bar the bolt holes and the timing ring/starter rings, starter ring would have to be swapped to the 1.8 as bellhousing is larger but the timing ring i could have sworn was also sweated on to the flywheel, your making me think now?.

I will try to have a look in the daylight to double check tomorrow,
as a note the standard t series aluminium back plate will not except the flywheel with the v6 ring gear i had mine machined down to allow clearence and correct starter engagement, it does make it a little weaker but you can brace it, assuming your are not making a bespoke adapter?. i will no doubt do that when the engine comes out again for whatever reason.

You're probably right about the m/t adaptor plate not big enoug for the v6 ring, but its only 5 mm so shouldn't be too hard to relieve. I wont be making a new one, but had planned to add a bar across the back to stop the whole lot flexing(as I think the rover 45 t allready has?). The nonaligning holes will have some extra dowells cut in and added, and the area bottom front will also need some welding.
Have you (or anyone here) taken a flywheel apart?

I haven't heard of many if any gartac boxes failing with any power levels that have been done thus far. But the pg1 especially with standard bearings fails on standard power let alone tuned. The equal length shafts should reduce torque steer and the great suspension on the zt should give good traction.

Yes I stripped the 1.8 flywheel as in the dual mass hence my hybrid flywheel. My flywheel is a little heavier than the v6 one but then it's a estate car so I don't expect great 0 to 60 times but effortless power once moving.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Chris i've just got fed up with people who've never done anything more than read a forum and polish their pride and joy telling me I should do xyz instead - appologies if this doesn't apply to you. This is a build, and as such all help or experience is appreciated.
Did you know the earlier pg1s had weaker shafts and different tooth profiles - i think these were the yellow sticker honda made ones, early montegos etc?

This is an open forum - you are going to get answers from professionals, amateurs who are experienced, amateurs who aren't experienced, people who have read things elswhere and even those that have heard it from the bloke who works down the chip shop's brother in law's cousin. :getmecoat:

It is up to the reader to determine the quality of the responses, and usually when things are kicked about the truth outs.

Funnily enough the line 'there's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis' was originally written as 'swears he's held it', but they changed it to get it played on the radio. :D

Thanks mike.
On the t conversion, i checked tonight and sure enough the kv6 fly fouls the afaptor on the inside, but its fixable.
I'm trying to decide which flyweel i should strip, I decided the 1.8 was due for the chop. Honda 2.2 can you tell me how you stripped yours - if you did?

The adaptor plate does get thin after trimming but I think should be OK.

The flywheel is held together by 6 rivets you can see them from the friction plate side. They are unbelievably soft to drill how they handle the power if even a 1.6 I don't know. As for the spring plate behind I didn't need to go that far but the machine shop that tried to modify my v6 fly broke though the rear of the fly to the spring. As a note if you could remove the spring I doubt it would take much to have the dual mass welded solid without extra weight. My flywheel will need balancing at some stage but until I know it all works I have just static balanced.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

I'm guessing they broke through when boring to fit the T crank locating ring, which I can see would be a problem. I can see me buying some steel and making a new flywheel...
The crank sensors seem to be all the same, which means the difference in reluctor dia is taken up by the belhousing. Which means I need a v6 dia reluctor, or find a longer sensor.
Still not decided, but a modified zs v6 fly with an added friction and reluctor bit bolted through has its appeal right now, it puts the pressure plate and clutch plate right where they need to be...

The v6 fly will fit once you've bored out the centre. You also need to machine the inside of a t or m adaptor plate to make room for the ring gear (which you have to keep to line up with the v6 starter). There may be a possibility to move the starter inward, but I haven't explored this.
So if you're going t ecu this is easy, if keeping the zt ecu it gets more difficult because you need a new reluctor ring.

You do also need to drill out the bolt holes and fit longer bolts.
I did look into a sensor ring on the crank pulley . But now I have the engine in the car I am glad I didn't use that as there is not a lot off room down there.

I am having a few issues withe the long drive shafts mount on the engine block as it seems to run close to the sump Mount's. So I will have to see if I have just got it a little to tight to the block.
Just more experimenting.
Have found a nice size alloy radiator. Just got see how the intercooler, radiator , aircon rad and oil cooler fit. The alloy rad has a oil cooler mounted on top but I need it on the bottom so will see if I can flip it over as this will save space. And cool the oil far far better than anyone could need.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Stripped the 1.8 flywheel. The reluctor ring is welded inside to the spring cover plate, which means it's steel:}
It would need cutting off and welding into the v6 one, or maybe just machine the v6 fly and press on? I like that idea.
I've also started machining the adaptor plate (well finished actually), tomorrow will machine out the locating hole in the v6 flywheel, so then will be able to check the starter depth and maybe give it a spin.
Also looked at the sensor mounting, it can move in sufficiently if I machine the locating area - not sure the box will fit in my miller though??
Making a new reluctor/pressure plate mount/friction surface has dropped down the order because the starter ring of the v6 is a fair bit smaller ID than the t, which would compromise both the locating lugs and the mounting bolt holes, so for now the push is on to try to get the ztv6 fly to fit, we'll see.

Vtec explain this please?You do also need to drill out the bolt holes and fit longer bolts
Which bolt holes?

Yeah as mine is a hybrid flywheel I had the fly machined to fit the v6 ring gear. I had the complete adaptor plate machined down so my box bolts up to that with no starter clerence issues and as such it turns the engine over beautifully. Was a nice feeling spinning it over watching the oil pressure build up around the turbo's.

How are you running the fuel system as the 1.8 doesn't have a return line when the t does?. But I guess you are having to run 1.8 injectors with the standard ecu? .
My car was a diesel so I have the return line. I am going to use the diesel in tank pump but with a high pressure 044 pump under the bonnet. Then I can up the fuel pressure a little.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Sorry missed the reply.
The v6 flywheel mounting bolt holes are to small for the t series mounting bolt holes. So you need to drill out and fit hardened longer bolts to mount it with

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

I thought I'd looked at that and they were the same dia?
On fuelling I hadn't thought too much about it, but would expect I'd need turbo injectors at a minimum, hopefully non return with the pressure reg in the tank, but we'll see.
Will bore the fly tonight and bolt it all together, then work out any welding needed to the adaptor to close it all up.
Thanks,
Huw

There is a Facebook Group that I recently joined that covers many aspects of upgrading these cars.

It's called MG K series Turbo Owners, https://www.facebook.com/groups/4993...?ref=bookmarks

I found some very knowledgeable people on there.

Just thought it might be of interest to you. :}

Machined the t16 adapter plate to fit the v6 ring gear, clocked up the v6 fly and bored out the centre to fit the t crank (all in the workshop in my back garden Brian).
The adapter was done on a rotating table on the miller, the flywheel in the Colchester Triumph. Also needed to drill out the mounting bolt holes as 2.2 vtec said...
Any negatives so far? Well I had to overbore the centre hole in order to fit a centering insert - at the correct diameter there just wasn't enough meat left between the cast iron centre and the back casing. To do this I bolted through the whole lot with some 5/16 bolts and nuts - just in case it moved.
Have now removed the flywheel from the lathe so I can make an insert and press it in, will try to get some HT bolts tomorrow.

Couldnt get new ht bolts at my local supplier, so will have to buy some. Started roughing out the steel to make the insert, and fitted the flywheel, adapter, starter and clutch. One question, the starter, bought on ebay, has a (an?) ear cast into the mating face, which looks like it serves no purpose, but the correstponding mating face hasn't been machined to allow for it. Is this an issue?
My first thought is to just grind the ear off, but there must be a reason for it?

Some T-series engine transplant action that I got in involved in this afternoon - only from one 800 to another, not into a 75/ZT. They seem to leak oil well, based on the ones I have seen, but that may not be typical.
Cheers

Pete

They do leak oil normally around the corner of the head. I have changed my head gasket to the type with the oil restrictor in the block and not with it as part of the head gasket as I feel that puts pressure on the gasket and create a leak. Not sure if it will make a difference but worth a shot

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Not sure what make it was to be honest. I did have some bug issues with some ebay bought klinger ones a few years ago so just bought a oem one which may well be a klinger just from a more trusted source.
The later gaskets have the restrictor as part of the gasket at that pressure I do worry. That's why I fitted the earlier metal in block restrictor.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

The klinger instructions say you should remove the restrictor, but given the amount of oil flooding the top end of these i reckon you should leave it.
I once had one on my engine dyno, with an issue revving past 6500, i was standing next to it turning the (vauxhall) distributor when it shot a load of hot oil out all over the exhaust - daps required.
When you think about the volume in the oil gallery, it doesn't take long to realise any hard cornering at high revs could starve the bottom end of lube.

I made and pressed in the flywheel insert, not totally succesful, looks to be 1-2 thou slack around the crank. Its allways hard to make a one off to tight tollerances, you never know how much it will crush down. Need to measure it properly before deciding whether to pull it out and make another.
We'll see about checking reluctor notches vs engine position this weekend, but first I need to find the spurce of some horrible grinding noises from the back wheel.

As expected, horrible grinding knocking noise was a rear shoe detaching itself, close inspection of the 40,000 mile pads and discs show they're not good either. New ones coming, a bit dissappointed with the "quallity" of these (mintex IIRC)...
Quick update, yes it was a shoe detached, easy I thouhgt, then found one of the retainers had come out, which was due to the backplate rotting...
For now it has a nut and bolt and some loctite holding it in place - and the factors sent the wrong discs, great.

I dont suppose any of you guys have a full aircon setup for a t series laying about?
my engine is non aircon and found out the alternator has seized in the back off the shed so is a good reason to fully change to the aircon setup so i can keep that working on the car

I have one such example here - w reg 420' went as far as fitting a 45 front end on it, had plans to turbo it. Wife vetod it, and i didnt need a second car. I had fitted a big disc conversion, zt front shocks and springs, reverse top radius links. And she preffered an astra!
Sorry, the aircon is not for sale.
Not done much on the tzt this weekend, too busy doing other stuff.

Zt t series on hold for now, need to transplant a new engine into a zr 160. First I had to get to it, by moving the zt out of the way. This hasn't moved for over a year, the last time I tried starting it the alternator belt snapped. A recharged battery, a squirt of easystart, and away it went. The only problem was I had not only robbed the clutch master cylinder, but also one of the clutch pedal nylon bushes to replace one of my 190's that had fallen behind the heater matrix. So i had to make a new bush, fish the master cylinder out of the bin, and refit the whole lot just to move it.
Anyway, made some room, just need a day or two off work to get at the zr now.

Way to many projects. I just have the the zt (car project) the yamaha to eventually get back on the road. And the largest project my children. So the bike is last on the list then the zt. May start rebuilding all the electrics and battery trays next until I find the aircon setup.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

If I recal the aircon setup on the t is a bit of a pain. The aircon pump at the bottom, then the water pump and ps pump, then the alternator, all on top of each other. I wonder in a zt if it might be better to put something behind the engine?

The t engine seems to have a much shallower sump as the rear support needs to be lower than the sump to stay in line. I am not overly worried about the room so long as the small turbo's downpipe can run forward enough to clear the radiator. The external wastegate sits very far forward on the manifold and clears ok so should be OK for the diwnpipe.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Yes I have the alloy sump much better cooling. I also have a thermostatic oil cooler for extra cooling due to the 2 turbo's and hauling the estate

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

The alloy sump is the same on the 420 na's mine is a na sump with the return pipe drilled into it the marks are there for it just not drilled

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Broken ring lands can be from detonation, or mabe because theyve softened due to overheating (usually everything is white). So, too much boost, with too much ignition advance, not enough fuel etc.
The t and m heads really are crying out to be uncorked, but it takes hours, and ideally need bigger valves to make the best of them.

Seen a few guys on standard management run over 300bhp comfortable. One guy was running 370 but started get weak mixtures at that so capped it there. All had non standard pistons and rods.

I think to get better power from mine it would be head and cams.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Still getting on with the current distraction - mgzr 160 engine rebuild. Managed to get the liner heights to around 4 though in all planes with some imaginative shimming of the block while machining the face. A little lapping in should get them all spot on.

I thought I would update a little. I have now I believe obtained a full aircon setup so when that arrives I can charge on with the 2nd turbo downpipe and wastegate exhaust. Still not sorted the lower rear mount yet as not had a good look yet.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Some pics - maybe?
http://http://i65.photobucket.com/al...pss6zowpzm.jpg

Try again:
http://http://i65.photobucket.com/al...pss6zowpzm.jpg
http://http://s65.photobucket.com/us...owpzm.jpg.html

sorry not working for me.

http://<a href="http://s65.photobuck...pss6zowpzm.jpg[/IMG]
http://http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...pss6zowpzm.jpg

The inserted flywheel
http://http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...psra1fhdlv.jpg

Modified backplate, machined on a rotating table
http://http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...psg7afic98.jpg on this:
http://http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...ps33lmwp5h.jpg

Well been playing today and managed to run the engine . But with no rad or intercooler it was just a see if it can start, especially as the engine has not been run since it was built 2 years ago. Didn't sound to bad and both turbo's span ok very please at that as the exhaust diverted valve was not fitted and there was enough stray gas to spool up the small turbo to a fair pace so God knows how it will be when all the gas is diverted in to it. Going to loosely connect the fuel tank up to run from that tomorrow. Will have to remove the fuel cooler first as I don't think cooled petrol is needed.
I have a 044 pump to fit in line when I start running high boost.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Quick video on you tube of my beast still very much work in progress. I don't know how to link it but search mg ztt t16 twin turbo

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

Those headlight lenses are a mess.
:D:getmecoat:

That turbo noise though.....:bowdown:

Yes I have replacement lights just don't want to damage them removing the bumper in and off the premium bumper is ideal for the intercooler air flow which is nice. The turbo noise is great the scream from the wastegate venting is mad also but didn't get that on film.

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk