www.zxrworld.co.uk

wops didnt read it close enouth then!

even if it did eat the box theres plenty of spares kicking about for them! i thought rovers 1.8vvc engine is the same as the civics?

The Rover 100 was just an updated metro. The floor plan and therefore the chassis would have been pretty much identical, just different body panels. Chances are the engine mount points are also the same. The gearboxes in cars are generally engineered for the top of the range and they use the same gearbox in all the models to save money, so it should last fine.

@boonie:

I don't think they even changed that much from the metro to the 100. a bit of new trim and a new badge.

I'd dispute your point about gearboxes being designed for the top of the range. And even if it was the case, the biggest petrol engine fitted to the metro/100 was a 1.4l. I don't know but I would doubt the gearbox was common with the 200/400 that would have originally had the 1.8 fitted.

I would expect the safety factor in the design of the major components would be enough that it wouldn't instantly self destruct with the extra power, but I wouldn't expect things like bearings to last very long.

dosnt the metrol use the same engine as the rover 25 1.4? if so that uses the same gearbox as the 25 1.8 (i think)

don't know.

they're all based on a peugeot gearbox from the 80s anyway!

rene wrote:dosnt the metrol use the same engine as the rover 25 1.4? if so that uses the same gearbox as the 25 1.8 (i think)

i think the k series 1.4 is used for a while i'm sure the metro was the same engine as my rover 414 and my old mans 25 1.4. just different looms and ancillaries.

i've bumped this thread specially for rover220

I'm wondering how it went from an ST4 mondeo to four pages of ramblings about rover.

rob636 was involved mate

ive only read the last page of this so far but i can tell you the 1.8 gearbox will not be a straight swap for a 1.4/1.6.

all k series below a 1.8 used an r65 box (i think it was a pug box) where as 1.8 used a pg1 box designed by honda.

read all of it now, some people really need some more education on the whole rover thing!

rover220 wrote:read all of it now, some people really need some more education on the whole rover thing!

just out of interest, any gaping flaws in anything I wrote?

deviant wrote:

rover220 wrote:read all of it now, some people really need some more education on the whole rover thing!

just out of interest, any gaping flaws in anything I wrote?

not really other than the fact there was never a inline 4 2 litre k series.

Oooor... the nice, smooth, slinky ST220... That's a nice machine.

KV6 was a Honda V6 lump, nothing to do with the ally four pot K series.
Not bad for smooth power delivery, fantastic sound (like a refined V8, but still with the lovely little rasp on the overrun), renowned far and wide for munching head gaskets, and usually found more in the 825 and 827.
A 2.0l KV6 was offered for a very, very short space of time, as it was soon realised after it came out that a two litre V6 is still thirsty, but absolutely gutless, so it was rapidly dropped.
Contrarily, the 2.3 lump found in the 623 series was also a honda engine, but was a four pot, not a V6. Excruciatingly prone to tappetiness, though.
As far as the 4.2 goes, that was one of the Rover V8 engines, only fitted iirc to a choice of the SD1s and a handful of Vanden Plas SD1s, and iirc also incorporated in the Lotus TP Vitesse (basically an SD1, just more finely tuned by Lotus, dropped by a few mil, stiffened and with a lovely paint scheme!)
Bizarrely enough, an interesting little tidbit - the Rover 3500 (V8) is lighter than the T-Series, with it's steel bottom end and cast iron block.