I have heard many a tale of Rover K Series Engines blowing their head gaskets, be it in an Elise, Freelander, TF etc. Is the 1.6 Litre 115bhp engine bad in this sense too? Car desicion is between this and an MX-5.
Budget about £5,000 and my money will buy me an 03 plate MG or a T/V plate MX-5.
Keen on MX for reliability and legendary dynamics but prefer the styling of the MG and the fact that my money will buy me a much newer car. Many thanks.
|
>>>>and the fact that my money will buy me a much newer car.
I think you have just answered your own question! The low resale prices of MGF's should tell you all you need to know.
|
|
|
As a TF 160 owner and a fan of the K series (I know not many of us about) I would say there is a slightly better chance the headgasket will stay in one piece on the 1.6. It will still cause problems though if you run low on water, dont bleed the system properly etc.
To be fair the majority of failures on the TF can be put down to water leaks on an overstretched cooling system and the car being ragged from cold. Things like the undercar coolant pipes, waterpumps and expansion bottle caps need checking and any loss of coolant investigated. If its left to get too low air will get into the system and cause hotspots blowing the gasket.
I took the view that if/when my headgasket goes, it costs £500-600 for a new one (MLS Landrover one and associated oil rail upgrade will likely erradicate any further failures anyway) is not that big of a problem when you consider its a newer car etc. To put into perspective I paid over £600 for a cambelt service on my Audi and that kind of bill doesnt put you off buying one!
If the only reason for choosing a 1.6 is headgasket worries then I would go for a 1.8 as it has a better spec, especially in 160 trim and will probably be easier to sell on as well. Although the cheaper tax, purchase price, insurance etc make the 1.6 a good financial buy.
|
The problem with K-series HGF is that nobody knows exactly what causes it, and therefore whether any remedial measures work. The theories range from liner protrusion to casting quality, thermostat design to coolant capacity, driving hard from cold to the engine being "stretched" from its original design capacity of 1.4 litres. I still can't believe after all these years nobody has come up with a definitive answer (and therefore a fix).
My dad owned a Freelander 1.8 (which was fine in the year he had it), but there were people in the forums he used who'd had HGF AFTER the LR mod with the new oil rail and MLS gasket. Other engines do 100,000 miles + without ever coming apart. It really is a lottery. No fix has anything like a 100% success rate, but that said, the LR mod does seem to have a higher success rate than many.
It's a shame as the K is a brilliant engine in most respects. Light (even fully dressed weighs less than many similar sized short engines), free-revving, powerful for its size, fuel efficient, and very compact.
I agree with broomlea - once you decide to take the plunge, just buy the car you want. It might be fine, it might not. Just do your checks carefully and keep an eagle eye on the expansion tank and the inside of the oil filler cap.
Cheers
DP
|
|
It is because I currently have a Rover 416 that I am finding it so hard to find a car to replace it. The K series engine is a gem, the best small petrol engine I have ever driven, including current models. It's flexibilty is amazing, it you wanted it to it would happily pull from 30 mph in 5th without any fuss. Its in gear flexibilty, especially on the motorway is good too and if you want use it for a bit of spirited driving, it loves to be revved. Even after 10 totally reliable years, this engine never fails to surprise. As you can see I am a big fan of this engine and think it is one of the all time classics along with it's bigger brother, the Rover V8. Yes, you have to make sure you don't ever run low on water but that is normal car care anyway.
|
|
In the K series defence the 1.5 fitted to my parents Proton (and therefore probably Mitsubishis etc too) is a renowned luncher of head gaskets as well. In fact it's leaking now but only externally. Not worth fixing.
|
|
The 1.6 is purely for insurance reasons. I've had a quote on the 1.6 litre MX-5 which was acceptable so I would imagine that the MG, being group 11 as well, would be similar. I've heard a lot of good things about the K-Series (HGF aside) but was wondering if the MG matches the MX for driveability?
|
>>but was wondering if the MG matches the MX for driveability?
I have driven both and my personal opinion is the MG is more balanced than the MX5 and isnt as scary on the limit either due to a near perfect weight distribution. Unless you are being daft though they both handle very well.
Again, this is only opinions and biased probably but the MG can very easily be driven like any normal car, its got a very light clutch, speed sensitive PAS, great visibility etc but once the revs climb you can have a lot of fun as well. The 5 I drove felt heavy and a bit hard work. The engine is nowhere near as willing to rev or pull from low down either. Best thing to do is drive both and see what you think. One critisism I have with the MG is that you cant get vertical enough - the seats should be a few inches lower but is comfortable all the same.
The 1.6 doesnt have remote central locking or rear speakers but both are very easily added for little outlay - infact a lot have already been done by now anyway.
|
|
|
|
