VVC 143 / 160 Differences
Discussion
Evening all
Can anyone tell me the internal differences between the 143 and 160 engines?
I know the ECU, inlet, exhaust manifolds are different.
It's the actual engine I am interested in.
I have found that the combustion chamber in the 160 head is slightly different. (shown here http://www.mgf.ultimatemg.com/group2/engines/engin...
and heard that the pistons are better in the 160. Can anyone offer more info?
Can anyone tell me the internal differences between the 143 and 160 engines?
I know the ECU, inlet, exhaust manifolds are different.
It's the actual engine I am interested in.
I have found that the combustion chamber in the 160 head is slightly different. (shown here http://www.mgf.ultimatemg.com/group2/engines/engin...
and heard that the pistons are better in the 160. Can anyone offer more info?
Essentially they are similar - the power difference arising mainly from better induction of the TF160 over the F VVC 143.
Having said that, 160 heads have a groove machined around the valve seats that is said to lessen valve shrouding. However, discussion with Roger Fabry of 'Sabre heads':
http://www.sabre-heads.co.uk/1.html
indicates that MG-Rover didn't get this right and that these 'grooves' do little to aid flow.
The 160 pistons are stronger than the 143 VVC ones (which are the same as those fitted to the 1.8 and 1.6 MPi models).
Having said that, 160 heads have a groove machined around the valve seats that is said to lessen valve shrouding. However, discussion with Roger Fabry of 'Sabre heads':
http://www.sabre-heads.co.uk/1.html
indicates that MG-Rover didn't get this right and that these 'grooves' do little to aid flow.
The 160 pistons are stronger than the 143 VVC ones (which are the same as those fitted to the 1.8 and 1.6 MPi models).
Gassing Station | MG | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff