Why is the ZT 190 so slow on paper?

[Ahrle]

Originally Posted by vitesse

And if you wish to test your VIS motors you could use the freeware programme Toaf which is very handy, covers most things, and is easy to use, or borrow a simple tester from me. I generally have a few reconditioned "Stocktake" VIS motors here in Gävle, superior to standard ones and sold at cost on an exchange basis.

Regards

Most welcome to say hello on here too ... https://www.facebook.com/groups/1800705170206717

Thank you for the offer! My VIS'es are undoubtedly toast, though. They sound almost like rod knock and the motor's powerless under 4000rpm. Will replace once vacation's over

Originally Posted by Mike Trident

The British horses are smaller ?

Haha, that's a good one Not without point though; ZS 180 seems to be a ZS 174, making me curious if ZT really delivers those +16bhp from that same motor.

Originally Posted by MGJohn

Interesting topic.

On this subject, I was told by someone I trust with high level Longbridge connections that the reason MG-Rover did not put the K4 1.8T in the smaller MG ZS is that it would make the top of the range V6 less attractive and thus undermine its sales. Owners of both ZT 1.8Ts and MG6s with the very similar engine have had them mapped to produce around 200ps/bhp.

Having much experience of the 1.8T in both MG ZTs, ZT-Ts and even MG6s, I can fully understand that.

When I first entered MG ZT ownership all those years ago, I read here on this site something which really surprised me. Those with far more hands on driving and tools experience with these cars, were of the opinion that of all the engine options available for the 75/ZTs, overall the 1.8T was considered the best option, yes, even better option than the BMW Diesel engine cars unless you were a high mileage motorway muncher. My 1.8Ts get around 40 mpg on Motorway runs driven with economy in mind. It's thirty odd years since my job involved high mileages. Back then as far as the 1970s, my firm picked up the Fuel Costs...I could use as much fuel as I wanted privately too. However, there was a catch, my job was so demanding and involved high motorway mileages, on arrival back home I was too tired to do any more driving.

With the passing of those years, I can understand that 1.8T viewpoint now.

A healthy ZT V6 190 should be a performance match for the BMW of similar engine and car size. The 3-series is a much smaller car.

Interesting! Rover seemingly learned their head gasket lesson from earlier models Not sure how well the 1.8's handle tuning, but I bet a ZS AWD could have been a tempting WRX alternative in its day.

1.8t may sure have been the best alternative, roadlegal tuning should be easier too The sound of that KV6 though...

Just noticed how close the ZT is to the E39 in size. Hm... Thought the 75 was meant to fit between the 3 and 5 series?

Originally Posted by bl52krz

Hi Dave. I think he means that on paper? The Zt-t is slower. I don’t think he means that his car is slower than it should be. I think he compared the stats, and wondered why comparable output made the ZT-t slower. I may be wrong tho.

Correct My car is slower as well, but at least it looks fast standing still