|
Is it me or do people try to forget that the M16 was a far worse engine than the K-series ever was? Great when it went, but always a case of waiting for it to break... sometimes ruined by 50k even with servicing!
|
|
peugeots?
|
|
morgan dropped this engine in 1992 if that helps..........i would have said it was the "o" series but probably wrong
|
Fitted to 220/420 models replaced for the 'K' reg by T16 but that wasnt much better really.
Also fitted to Rover 820 and the 620 Turbo was a T16 unit.
I would buy a K-series over either of the 16's anyday, ive seen the bills having been a service delivery driver for Rover main dealer!
|
|
|
Close it's a development of the O Series, in 16V form.
|
To drive, I really liked the T16. Lovely turbo installation with very little lag, smooth and very punchy. Even made the big 800 shift well.
My old boss had an 820 Vitesse Sport as a company car and I used it now and again. The company got shot of it at 120,000 miles and it still went well. Burned a bit of oil by then though, but to be fair was still on its original turbo. The only repetitve fault on the car was a tendency to blow cats (to bits, literally) on the overrun. Happened three or four times. Otherwise it still went like a rocket. Really did chuck you into the seat when it came on song even at 120k.
Cheers
DP
|
I had a Rover 420 GSi company car on an M plate with the T16 engine. Although nothing in the aural stakes - as written in another thread you need at least five cylinders for that - it was none the less, one fault apart, a smashing engine.
Smooth and punchy with a wide spread of torque, and well suited to the car it was installed in.
The only fault was one so common that every T16 I know of had it by 50k miles; an external oil weep from the cylinder head gasket. Fixed under warranty, sure, but it spoiled an otherwise cracking, reliable, motor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was the 405 MI16 & they had the XU9J4 1905cc & the facelifted series 2 model had the XU10J4 PSA engines.
|
|
What has a Peugeot 405 MI16 got to do with 2.0 litre Rovers?
|
|
I cleaned a 420 GSi today with the T16 engine, owned by an enthusiast of sorts. It was of about 1998 vintage ( on private plate ) and to be honest, it wasnt the best advert for the car - it had only 76k but its idle was rough and it took about 30 seconds to get it to fire up along with a little smoke... just reinforced why id rather have a K-Series over it.
|
I was trying to reply to mrmender further up the page but the reply to post option under each post doenst seem to work any more.
|
If you temporary change to view threaded mode, you will see that you did indeed reply to mrmender and that there is nothing wrong with the reply to post option.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=43299&...e
DD.
|
|
The T16 non Turbo was one of the more torquey 16v 2.0 fours, the only one that equaled it was GMs belt cam 2.0 with variable inlet manifold first fitted to the then new Vectra in '95 and later replaced by the 2.2 chain cam engine. However the GM engine was cripser and more free reving, the best 2.0 four in it's day bar none.
|
|
|
|
>>I cleaned a 420 GSi today with the T16 engine, owned by an enthusiast of sorts. It was of about 1998 vintage ( on private plate ) and to be honest, it wasnt the best advert for the car -
That was the tourer/estate version its problem was possibly inlet manifold leakage,it was very common on it,just that some people would not pay the price for it to be sorted.
Problems on K-series made this engine look decent
--
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
