ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rover GTi & Turbo, how quick



  Mrs' valver! &myV6 veccy


Im considering getting one of these, not sure if the turbo will be an option coz of insurance though.

I know these things arent great around the bends, but straight line how quick are both of them?

Cant believe the prices, pocket money cars. Could look pretty good with a bit of bodywork too!

Cheers,

Alex
 
  VW Transporter 174


Did someone mention Rover?

what GTi do you mean ........

216 gti ( honda twin cam)130 bhp

216 gti ( K series) 125 ?

220 GTi ( o series ) 140 bhp

220 gti turbo (t16) 180 -200 depending on how they felt at the factory that day .

If i had the choice it would be the one with the honda twin cam and btw it does handle too!

check these guys out they know there stuff.....
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/220GTi/

172 Slayer
 


Faster over the 1/4 mile than an Escort Cosworth - out of the box!!

Just watch it though. Many have not been cared for after the first owner. Sounds funny, but its because theyre so cheap.

It goes like this: if youve only got a grand and youve got a choice between a Turbo nutter or a 1.1 Polo, then you go for the Turbo nutter right? But then if you only had a grand in the first place, then what are the chances of you getting all the work done at a reputable dealer with quality parts?

This happens to most performance cars with poo residuals. Hence most Williams will be pampered show condition cars - and Rovers will end up at the other end of the care spectrum.

Tread with care!!
 


Mind you, the early/mid 1990s Rovers had the best engines of the day. Mostly twin cam 16v K-series engines (NOT designed/made by Honda contrary to populat belief) - even the 1.4 16v made 103bhp. Hence when Lotus and others need a belting engine, they pay Rover a visit.

None ever handled that well, but the clientele they had in mind were not after sporting prowess - just relaxed progress.

Its a shame, as weve all been sold the idea that we want "sporting dynamics" by BMW, Audi et al - and Rover isnt a brand *popularly* associated with this. Thats a shame as a boggo Rover 75 is a vastly better car than a poverty-spec 316i (and about £3k cheaper to boot) - being based on a 5-Series BMW.
 
  VW Transporter 174


Just to put you right on the engine line up the very early GTis had the honda twin cam , pic here under motor.....
http://www.telecable.es/personales/sergiogp/

the next was a single overhead cam "k" then folowed by the twin cam "k"
The honda twin cam car was a spin off from a single make race series and it "DOES" handle.
172 Slayer
 


Is this, perhaps, a hint at your background?

Im a big fan of Rovers on the whole. My dad once had a 420GSi Turbo (same 2.0 T-Series Turbo lump as the 220 Turbo Coupe I believe). The fact that he now has a Skoda Octavia RS tells me much about the way Rover have gone. VW freely say that they were after the Volvo/Rover market - and true to form, there are now three Volvos, a Skoda and my machine in the household (there are about 5 other Volvos in the family).

But the 420 Turbo just had rampant wheelspin and an inadequate chassis. Too much power through the front wheels, handling barely coped - though the 220 Turbo did get Torsen diffs to help.

The 216GTi (Honda or not) may well have been a more balanced machine. It would be very similar to many a fine Honda hot hatch on paper.

Im not saying that all the Rovers came with the K-series, but many believe that they are Honda engines - when theyre not. The K-series actually won design awards in its early days (now the preserve of BMWs Valvetronic and Hondas VTEC efforts). Couple that with the odd Honda petrol (all 1.6s in the 89-95 200/400) and Peugeot diesels (also good engines) - and you have a good line up.

But now theyre older, many people have not cared for them as they should have been.
 
  VW Transporter 174


I agree with what you say Ben.

Bluenose, dont bother ive covered my tracks been watching you in action for too long to make that mistake
btw isnt it time you flamed them SEAT pussies?

172 Slayer
 
  Mrs' valver! &myV6 veccy


As you said though Ben, im on a budget! I know a couple of mechanics, or rather my dad does, thatll do any work needed very cheap as my dad used to own a bodyshop.

Any bodywork that needs doing me & my dadll do, only paying for materials.

Ill probably end up getting a 216, dunno whether twin cam or not, depending on insurance.

How big a job would it be to fit the 2 litre turbo engine at a later date though? Cost, ideas???? Obviously id have the suspension sorted to help it cope.

There should be plenty of these turbo engines available should there not, coz they were in a few rovers right????

Alex
 
  172 sport,


your best bet to turbo up a 216 is buy a totaled 220 turbo coupe and swap the whole lot over then you have all that is needed ie loom /tank /suspension/g/box and just slap it all in thats what im doing to me birds 214 cabriolet thats if i ever get a 220 at the right price / damage
 
  172 sport,


i recon its a 220 turbo coupe and as much as this hurts to say, if it is i recon he will kick my ass but not without a damn good fight lets see if your claim that they ( do handle )is true how does watery lane hullbridge sound ??????

yogi
 


220 gti turbo - beat me fair and square on a straight bi-pass up hill! past me at about 80mph, bugger

V quick cars, but interiors a bit naff.

Kev
 


Id definetly recommend one as all the running gear in them is good stuff, they are a bit boaty, with the strange habit of being able to both oversteer and understeer on the same corner (almost like the front slides out then digs in throwing the arse of the car round). However if you get one go and see Motobuild (http://www.moto-build.comwww.moto-build.com) who know these cars inside out, and have made a few mad ones.

Alex M (alexmac)
 


Top