Engines, 200bhp NASP

jimjimjeroo · Post by **jimjimjeroo** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:46 pm

were there ever any N/A MG Rover engines, 2 litre or less that produced 200 bhp? in its standard form?

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:04 am

nope. 100bhp+ per liter is expensive on a nasp.

quite rare too? i know my R6 did with ram air, 120bhp from a 600cc.

any others that manage it? (sorry thread hijack)

Drew

xr4x4 · Post by **xr4x4** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:07 am

the k series 1.8 vvc was the closest they got.

jimjimjeroo · Post by **jimjimjeroo** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:10 am

what was the BHP figure, and was it only in Lotus's?

618ireland · Post by **618ireland** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:11 am

I think the Honda s2000 has 240bhp, it's a 2L, I imagine there are a few 2L nasp with 200bhp. Honda can't be that far ahead of the posse. Celica 1.8VVTi + is 190bhp, chap on here as a Corolla with the same engine and I imagine that's 190bhp too and it's only 1.8. Don't think MG/Rover ever got close.

618ireland · Post by **618ireland** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:13 am

jimjimjeroo wrote:what was the BHP figure, and was it only in Lotus's?

I think the BRM would be the highest bhp VVC out of the factory, 180 I think but that's only from memory.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:40 am

ahh all good engines i forget. i must be still back in the day!

highest rover vvc was a 160ps = 158bhp

lotus did a sport 190. trackday only (no cat)?

caterham did a 230bhp K series!

Drew

Grant620 · Post by **Grant620** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:45 am

618ireland wrote:
jimjimjeroo wrote:what was the BHP figure, and was it only in Lotus's?
I think the BRM would be the highest bhp VVC out of the factory, 180 I think but that's only from memory.

BRM was 143, just like the Vi

GeraintUk · Post by **GeraintUk** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:20 am

there was of course the Judd engine.
K-Series nasp at 210bhp, but then again, it needed a rebuild every 5k

C2K · Post by **C2K** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:28 am

GeraintUk wrote:there was of course the Judd engine.
K-Series nasp at 210bhp, but then again, it needed a rebuild every 5k

There is a K series nasp with 286 that doesn't need rebuilds. Only one though, but it gets hammered.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:30 am

judd never made it to the streets. the demo zr looked goodthough. was that autosport i saw that?

Drew

Si · Post by Si » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:26 am

618ireland wrote:I think the Honda s2000 has 240bhp, it's a 2L, I imagine there are a few 2L nasp with 200bhp. Honda can't be that far ahead of the posse.

Afraid they are;)

GeraintUk · Post by **GeraintUk** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:20 am

Drew wrote:judd never made it to the streets. the demo zr looked goodthough. was that autosport i saw that?

Drew

it was a factory option from Sport & Racing though, just not sure they ever sold any

My Britcar had a 190bhp K-series in it before I bought it.....

GeraintUk · Post by **GeraintUk** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:20 am

Si wrote:
618ireland wrote:I think the Honda s2000 has 240bhp, it's a 2L, I imagine there are a few 2L nasp with 200bhp. Honda can't be that far ahead of the posse.
Afraid they are;)

except in F1

lol

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:26 am

My 2.0 Rex has 248hp NASP

Honda are so far in front its frightening, the S2000 and the new Mugen Civic show what can be done with road cars. Mine may be high power but its uncivilised whereas Si can have similar power with decent levels of refinement !

Mark

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:45 am

Mark wrote:My 2.0 Rex has 248hp NASP

Honda are so far in front its frightening, the S2000 and the new Mugen Civic show what can be done with road cars. Mine may be high power but its uncivilised whereas Si can have similar power with decent levels of refinement !

Mark

Refinement's for women and old men

John W · Post by **John W** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:01 am

Has anyone actually spent alot of time and money on a T series NASP to see what can be acheived, I'm sure over 200bhp would be possible with some cams, pistons, ECU and throttle bodies?

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:04 am

Pistons go pop at about 180hp as proven by greenman. Although i cant say if that was due to a bad map or some form of det. But anyway yeah, Greenman had 180hp on a T nasp .

John W · Post by **John W** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:21 am

Pistons failed, on a T series, don't beleive that!

He didn't try some forged jobbies then?

Shame there hasn't been more people try it really, I know its expensive especially for the money you'd buy the car for but that's usually the way when modifying cars anyway.

Si · Post by Si » Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:39 am

Mark wrote:My 2.0 Rex has 248hp NASP

Honda are so far in front its frightening, the S2000 and the new Mugen Civic show what can be done with road cars. Mine may be high power but its uncivilised whereas Si can have similar power with decent levels of refinement !

Mark

Just updated my sig with the lastest power run, decat seemed to make 1.8hp

Not bad for a 102k mile engine making near on 125hp/litre. Awesome engines, any Ford/ vauxhall would need a rebuild at 10k miles

John W · Post by **John W** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:01 pm

Mines done 132k miles

Seriously though that's damn good going to still be making such good power and just goes to show the Honda boys know how to build a good reliable engine. OE cat' can't be very restrictive to only give 1.8bhp increase.

Sheaf · Post by **Sheaf** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:26 pm

*sob*

My car is only 97bhp per litre.

Going to have to mod it so it's over 216bhp just out of principle now. Shame the H22 (esp the A7) is comparatively lacking in tuning goodies.

martinhodge · Post by **martinhodge** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:21 pm

check out the honda forum haha

Steve220 · Post by **Steve220** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:23 pm

As Mark said, Greenman got 180bhp from his NASP. LOTS of work to the engine though.
Steve

Post by **Punx0r** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:25 pm

I'm straining my memory muscles here, but didn't tony pond have a high horsepower M16 nasp?

Tony 156 · Post by **Tony 156** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:25 pm

just to make a point, Honda unfortunatly do rule, early 90's EK9 civic type R had 187bhp, from a 1.6.

i got my Vi up to 163bhp with a few simple bolt on mods really. that car was quite strange though.

Post by **MarkCoupe** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:32 pm

Tony 156 wrote:just to make a point, Honda unfortunatly do rule, early 90's EK9 civic type R had 187bhp, from a 1.6.

i got my Vi up to 163bhp with a few simple bolt on mods really. that car was quite strange though.

Yeah but then Caterham use a Rover engine thats a 1.8 and makes 230hp. So it can be done and has, but Honda do it more reliably.

Tony 156 · Post by **Tony 156** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:40 pm

the thing is the 230 engine is somwhere near the limit of what a K series can do, the honda 1,6 could be made to put out near the 220 mark, and it wouls last forever.

still i prefer the k series purely because its a british ( i think ) job.

if only the rover V8 was, wed have the best two engines in the world then.

rovex · Post by **rovex** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:41 pm

I dont think Honda are that far ahead, its just that no one else bothers. Why go the expense of developing such an engine when you can whack on a turbo and get the same result, with more torque? Its lazy, but effective. 'Turbo' sells itself to.

Tony 156 · Post by **Tony 156** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:03 pm

you cant race with a turbo, they just suck on the track, and very strick jap emssion laws.

if you appriciate deatil engineering and the prescision involved in creaing 15million engines without a single warentee claim, you will see why they do it.

its because they can.

ive got a turbo now and to be honest im not a big fan of them, cant really get on with it. the lazy torque is fantastic i will say that for them.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:11 pm

Tony 156 wrote: if you appriciate deatil engineering and the prescision involved in creaing 15million engines without a single warentee claim, you will see why they do it.

its because they can.

Honda have not had a Vtec mechanical system failure - hardly the same as 15 million indestructable engines!
I know of B16 engines that have been replaced inside the warranty period - which back then was only 1 year

Tony 156 wrote: ive got a turbo now and to be honest im not a big fan of them, cant really get on with it. the lazy torque is fantastic i will say that for them.

Best of both worlds - Vtec Turbo

Lazy torque, pussycat in traffic - 8500rpm Tasmanian Devil when provoked ! - and it far from sucked on the track!

http://www.rt2468abcd.r8technology.co.uk/viewtopi ... highlight=

Mark

MGJohn · Post by **MGJohn** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:33 pm

Anyone know what the BTCC K2000 ZS engines were putting out?
.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:42 pm

http://www.channel4.com/4car/ft/feature/feature/1888/3

MG ZS EX259 Touring Car

Technical Specifications:
Engine: KV6 1997 cc, 24 valves, V6, fuel injection
Power: around 270 bhp with max revs at 8500 rpm
Brakes: front, 343 mm x 32 mm ventilated discs with six-piston calipers
Wheels: aluminium alloy, 17-inch on 9J rims
Weight: 1150 kg (including driver)

not too bad.

Drew

xr4x4 · Post by **xr4x4** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:47 pm

u think rover are bad... think of ford...what where the Zetecs pushing out back then?

the 2L is what..120PS?

Sheaf · Post by **Sheaf** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:44 pm

I must admit, some car manufacturers have crazy low power figures for some engine sizes, although most are fairly high now.
My old D16 was more powerful that quite a lot of 2.0 cars. Ok, it's was less torquey but as long as you can use the gearbox it made no difference, I used to leave the average family car miles behind.

One that should maybe get a mention is the Renault engine tho, they're 2.0 and 197bhp now and still nasp.

I'd love to have a drive in an EK9, must be mental.

Turbos definitely seem to be making a comeback, they're getting much more common in normal cars, although this is likely due to the power to CO2 emissions/mpg ratio I expect.