MG & Rover - XPower Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
in The Chairman's Chair
Joined
·
957 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi all

Just a little slice of gossip for you all.

It appears that MG Rover are trialing a new 260bhp ZT around the midlands area.

It came to the dealership I bought my two ZRs from.

It appears to be in the form of 75, not certain of the colour, but aparently it is a ZT without the ZT body armour.

If I can find any more details and get any pictures I will let you know.

I have been informed that is sounded realy meaty almost V8 tones.

Can't wait.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rob.
www.mg-extreme.co.uk
 
G

·
Tell me how the Rover 75 chassis can cope with 260bhp through the Front Wheels? Just my 2p worth. I think you must have it wrong!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
I'm fairly certain it's 260Ps, not 260Bhp.

Oh, and it wont be the front wheels. I don't think there is a car out there which can handle that much power through the front wheels!

The 75 was designed with the capability of changing the drivetrain, which is why there is a big shaft tunnel running down the middle of the car eating into the cabin space.

One thing which you might be able to spot on it which could give the game away is a split exhaust system.

GET SOME PICTURES!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Steve123456 said:
I'm fairly certain it's 260Ps, not 260Bhp.

Oh, and it wont be the front wheels. I don't think there is a car out there which can handle that much power through the front wheels!
My 3.0 V6 Mitsubishi Magna (you don't have them in the UK) handles 140kw (about 190bhp) through the front wheels perfectly. the 3.5 variant has a little torque steer but then it's suspension settings etc. are exactly the same as mine. The 3.5 sports version with the ZT treatment to its chassis handles 163kw (about 220bhp) with no trouble. This is a chassis that dates back to 1996 in its current form and ultimately to 1991 when it had a solid rear axle. I guess what I'm saying is that there are cars around with in excess of 200bhp driving the front wheels that are on sale as everyday cars and not race spec ZS etc. The Mitsubishi Magna VRX also quite easily outhandles the RWD 5.7 V8 Holden Commodore (HSV GTS with tamer engine) and RWD 5.0 V8 Ford Falcon (due to receive the same V8 as in the ZT etc in 2003). I'm not saying it outperforms them, but it does outhandle them. So if a pretty ordinary Australian designed and built car can do it there will be others.

Nobody would ever think my car sporty either... 190bhp is mum's taxi territory here.
 
G

·
Ultimate Models

Must mean the "Ultimate" models are around the corner.

ZT260 - V8
ZR200 - 4 cyl turbo
ZS230 - 4 cyl turbo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
I was under the impression they were going to try Supercharging the K-series, as oppose to Turbo-charging - so that you get a more linear amount of torque and power delivery. - Not that I know the difference between Supercharging and Turbocharging.

If the MG site is anything to go by, then the ZT 385 should be going into full production in May. (not sure how up-to-date this is). And apparently the rear wheels are going to be wider than the front ones! How very drag-like! I would imagine the 260 will be launched at the same time.
 
G

·
Delivery Times!

Steve, OK. The ZR & ZS are unknown quantities at the moment - what we do know about is the ZT385 though. Check out XPower ZT385 Pages.

The MGR site is wrong on the May delivery/production dates. We have discusses this one at length many times before. MGR via our dealerships have been notified on the site error!

We think ZT260 - Sept delivery at the earliest.
ZT385 - late - late 2002 or maybe Spring 2003.

Hope this helps. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Steve123456 said:
I was under the impression they were going to try Supercharging the K-series, as oppose to Turbo-charging - so that you get a more linear amount of torque and power delivery. - Not that I know the difference between Supercharging and Turbocharging.
Essentially the difference is that Turbocharging uses engine exhaust to force induction and also heat the air being combusted to increase the efficiency of the combustion. Obviously you will get more turbo pressure the faster the engine spins (more exhaust pressure at higher revs) and therefore get more boost higher in teh rev range. Turbocharging gives a good boost, but has no effect at all at low revs, so off the mark performance isn't that much better.

By comparison Supercharging takes atmospheric air and forces induction by means of a rotor that is run off a belt running off the crankshaft (a la water pump, air con etc.) this means that there is a boost available at any engine speed, however it takes some engine power to run the supercharger. Supercharging would give a better low end power boost and presumably also a better low end torque boost, which is many ways preferable.


Anyone know why you couldn't in theory combine both, with a supercharger clutch electronically disengaged at a certain engine speed when the turbocharger kicks in? Other than the cost of this system that is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,834 Posts
Think you are slighty mixed up here. To clarify;

A turbocharger does indeed heat the air as the casing contains both the turbine (driven by exhaust gases) and the compressor (which forces air into the engine.)

The heating of the air is not wanted and actually makes the combusion process less efficient, not more efficient.

Becuase the hotter the air, the less dense it is and therefore the less air can be fitted into a space, therefore the less fuel to go with it and therefore less bang.

That is why turbocharged cars use intercoolers to cool the air after it leaves the turbo, compressing it and therefore increasing combusion efficiency and therefore BHP.

Also, turbochargers do indeed work at low RPM. My 2.0L Turbo car runs over 1 bar boost at around 2750 RPM, starts positive plenum pressure at 1300 - 1500 RPM - very low for a Turbo car.

Supercharging just increases drivability by giving more controllable power together with no lag (time taken from having foot off the throttle to floored and the wait until full power comes on). However, turocharging is more efficient because it basically harnesses energy which would otherwise be lost in the shape of gasses out the exhaust pipe, wheras a supercharger robs the engine of power in the same way that an AC compressor does.
It's just that a supercharger puts more back.

Matt.
 
G

·
Don't know if you remeber - butvin the heady days of Group B the Lancia Delat S4 - driven by Marku Alen ect embodied a turbo & supercharger. 037 was a nice piece of kit too - see them at the Rally Supercar day!
 

·
in The Chairman's Chair
Joined
·
957 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
ZT260 update

All

Some more news on the ZT260 seen around the midlands.

It is a 260bhp, rear wheel drive version.

It can normally be seen around the birmingham area.

It currently is yellow with one very small but clever modification.

The exhaust pipe at the rear of the car is false. The real exhaust pipe stops part way down the underside of the car.

source of this information informs me that this Zt260 version due out very soon, even by the end of Q2, but the Zt385 (yes 385bhp rear wheel drive, 4.8V8 Ford engine variant) is due hopefully by the end of Q4 this year.

Rob.
www.mg-extreme.co.uk
 

·
Chinese Crackers
Joined
·
3,585 Posts
Turbo lag is not the problem it used to be, witness the newer models around and the comments above. Supercharging was the more popular option once, but it does drain power on the belt, although location is usually more conveniently at the front of the engine, and because the compressor runs at engine speed or proportionately, on switch off, the unit stops too.

The problem with T/chargers, although quite compact, is the location on the exhaust manifold which can be awkward on small FWD cars, and the big killer of the unit is running high revs and then switching off. Because the rotor is gas driven, the unit continues to spin at 20k rpm and is then starved of lubricant feed, so they can wear quickly if not cared for properly, therefore, allow the engine to idle for about a minute before switching off.

I am sure I will be corrected, but it seems s/c is more popular on large units of 8 or more cylinders, while t/c seems more beneficial on 3 or 4 pots. Anyone remember the Dihatsu Charade 3 cyl with turbo? Twin turbo units have been used on some cars like the Corvette, one on each manifold.

Given the pizza van disguise of the Metro for the MGF, I am sure the 260 will be well disguised:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
Do we have the first ZR whit NOS here ??????? Please give us the information and pictures from the engine bay etc. Or start a thread on this ,everyone at the ZR forum is interested in NOS ,Give us the information m8:googoo
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top