ive raced a lot of cars in my rover 214, they pull up to 40 in 1st very fast, whereas beemers lag off the line, i reckon a beemer would smash it past 70, but not before as this video shows
Just like to say I have a vtr and that's faster than a rover 214. And a bm 318 is fastr than my vtr so that means the bm is faster than the rover end of.
My daily driver is E46 328i and E30 325 weekends. 328i is more responsive with Signature Motoring performance (CAI) intake kit. Installed it myself in under half hour. HP increase on the E46 is about 13.5HP for a cost of $170 or around $17 per HP gain. Best 1st performance mod to do. Other application data:
@deanobeanobeano yeah I smoked a 1.6 astra off the line, you just make sure you dump the clutch at the right rev's and the car will go, oh and dont have many fat friends in the car it will seriously slow it down :D
the rover k series engine is pound fo pound the most powerful nasp engine ever made..also the lightest 4 pot engine in mass production...show me another nasp 1.4 with 105bhp standard...my vi eats st's for breakfast mainly because i weigh 100kg less and because my 1.8 has roughly the same power as its lazy 2.0ltr
great cars regardless, head went 60k drove it like a rally car for 5 years and its still fine at 110,000 miles does beat 2L TDi's and most standard 1.6 litres tho I think saying it will beat a 2L petrol is a little optimisitc unless its a really heavy car :D
got a 320 ci sport only 170 hp but i know what looks better and has more street cred.. now done 120,000 miles and never skips a beat, no squeaks or rattles.. show me a rover u not ashamed of pulling up to the pub in and i show u a liar....
@PROTEK123 no actually i drove my own rover right up until the point where i had to drive through2 foot deep water, i made it all the way through without conkin out but i still managed to get water in the cylinders didnt realise at the time that it was in there and 2 weeks later the engine died
@scheizzerkopf cant beleave ime getting into a argument on you tube.. its like trying to win a football game without a ball.. pointless.. look my friend.. you love ur rover fair enough.. i love my beemer but where is rover now? and why the fuck u drive it through 2 foot of water ? aint u got no bridges ? no car is going to survive that without having a problem. If i see 2ft of water i just turn around put my foot down and listen to that sweet straight 6 purr
@PROTEK123 i was kind of forced to drive through it as there are only 2 roads into the town where i live, and the road i drove down never floods in heavy rain but the other road always floods, so my options were 1. drive through and hope i get through, paid off for 2 weeks ;) 2. sleep in my car...no thanks in the middle of nowhere 3. walk home...again no thanks, it was absolutely heaving it down, hence the flooded roads. but rover only died because of poor money management......cont.
@scheizzerkopf they spent money where it needn't be spent i.e the mg-sv and a race program, i think it might have been F1 or something of that calibur, when that went sour they applied for money from the government to bail them out, tony blair agreed to give it them but gordon brown went behind his back and said no (this was when TB was PM) then over the next few years rover died due to lack of funding, but i wouldn't expect you to know this, or many other people for that matter
@scheizzerkopf It went bust cos of bad managment FULL STOP dont blame the goverment for not giving them bail outs.... It all stems from the British Leyland work ethic, the rot was set back in the 70's for Rover/MG and i dont think the brand ever realy had a chance, Look at the new Mini for example BMW own it and make millions... Rover had it and made sweet F.A even the 1st cars in the 60's where made at loss, Ford paid for one,stripped it and found BL making a loss on each one they sold !
@PROTEK123 yes this completely backs up my argument, but you say the were making a loss back in the 60's then how did they have the money to fund the MG-SV and various racing programs, if they just forgot about the MG and racing all together, except btcc and rally (which they used the ZS and ZR) we would probably still be able to go to a local dealers and buy a new rover. funding the SV and racing programs was a bad decision which could possibly have worked out given.........
@scheizzerkopf ....given the chance i.e the funding they were supposed to recieve from the government, but they never had the funds. this all stems from bad management, any business going down that has a valuable product is generally gonna be down to bad managerial decisions somewhere along the line
@scheizzerkopf Why should they be given funding ??? i lost a business 3 years ago. no goverment funding for me... It was rovers bad managment thats it... and i said the most popular car they sold i.e the mini they sold at a lost, so if u cant make a profit out of your biggest seller then you are on a downward slope.. when u a "major player" banks will lend u money.. when u a no one they wont.. thats how they fund a losing programme i.e racing etc.. then the banks realise they gonna loose
@PROTEK123 they applied for funding which was granted to them, but a certain man who should've been a dirty stain on the sheets (gordon brown) decided to deny them what they were granted, all i am saying is the funding they got from the government could've saevd them, everyone knows that once MGRs management knew they were going down they gave up and got out of there as fast as they could to avoid gettin shit, if they got the funding it couldve been different altogether
@scheizzerkopf So if you dunked the air intake, you dunked the engine management and the ignition coil, right? So if the throttle body was disconnected from the air tube/filter do you think the engine would have coped without injury with water up to the wheel arch tops?
@TheBeebopper iirc the intake is a little bit lower than the ECU but i cant remember where the coil is, if i did disconnect the intake then yes i probably would've gotten away with it =/
but thats not something you think of at 3-4am when a 20min journey took about 1.5 hours due to a flooded dual carriage-way, sucks really lol, loved that car
@scheizzerkopf well the BMW is a sedan so of course it is going to be heavier and it's a BMW which is more luxurious and besides the BMW obviously looks better because they accually design not like the company i never heard of. oh and another thing any 1.4 liter engine car can beat a 2.0 liter BMW if i supercharge and turbo charge the hell out of it and if that's called keeping up then that's sad over such a short strip even a bugatti veyron dosnt have enough space to pull away
@Lnfinit3BIaz3 well done you know simple physics [/sarcasm]
now to get a tiny wee bit more advanced, RWD vs FWD...... RWD just wins, all the time..... just wins. (cars with equal BHP/tone)
and in writing the comment about design/quality did you realise that BMW once owned this company? no? ...lol
basicly all i am saying is that the bmw has a huge advantage over the "un-luxurious, crap designed" rover that you've never experienced in any way what so ever.
@scheizzerkopf does it matter that BMW owned this company at one point also learn to read when did i ever say quality of the car? and here's a sinple fact for you have u even driven a BMW before? i guess not since ur a broke bloat living in england which dosn't use their brains which think english cars are always the best also in a drag race learn ur simple facts RWD and FWD dosn't make a difference rather FWD has the advantage because it is usually lighter
@Lnfinit3BIaz3 But that 1.4 engined Rover IS NOT turbo charged or super charged. It is standard, and as standard a 1.4 Rover will give a 2.0 BMW a very very good run for its money.
@ash7990 yeah lol some americans really struggle to understand power to weight ratio and naturally aspirated engines and a 1.4 that revs to 7000 rpm :)
@tje1991 Yeah that are very impressive, I own a 05 plate r25 1.4 i tend to lapse abit with corsas for some reason but the 1.4 k-series regularly kills 2.0 TDI audis and generally anything upto 2.0 litre. Crazy I know and its a shame they arent made anymore. We cant hide away from the head gasket problem and yeah ive been there. 57 MPH is the golden MPG speed and ull get as tje1991 says 50+ mpg
@tje1991 Yeah that are very impressive, I own a 05 plate r25 1.4 i tend to lapse abit with corsas for some reason but the 1.4 k-series regularly kills 2.0 TDI audis and generally anything upto 2.0 litre. Crazy I know and its a shame they arent made anymore. We cant hide away from the head gasket problem and yeah ive been there. 57 MPH is the golden MPG speed and ull get as tje1991 says 50+ mpg
amazing for a 1.4 litre small hatchback people dont appreciate the fact that the k series is a suberb engine and that this car had more power than all of its rivals back in the day and as weve just seen almost won a 2 litre bmw 3 series i own one and i love it its got so much character and its very fun to drive and if im easy on the throttle i can easily get 50+ mpg out of it! :)
@gman318 it's a non facelift coupe so it can't be diesel. besides that, there are 2 versions of the 320ci, one with 150 bhp 2.0L (9.8 seconds) and 170 bph 2.2L (8.2 seconds). this one is definitely the 150 bhp version
@goldsgym1244 rover 214si is 400 kgs less than the beemer, which means 4 fat bastard friends less on your back seat. the beemer (150bhp) does 0-100 in 9.9 seconds and the 214si in 10.0 which is almost the same. I am just trying to point out that the 170bhp version which is 2 seconds faster is in another league.
@gman318 Ah right. TBH the Rover engines are pretty good. The 1.4 is the fastest normally aspirated 1.4 in the world [Metro GTi mpi is fastest 1.4 normally aspirated car in the world- 20 years old] and the 1.8 VVC engine is one of the very few 1.8s ever to 0-60 in under 8 seconds. TBH thought the 1.6 doesn't have that much more than the 1.4 on paper.
U can't get a vtr 16v that's a vts. And mine was a vtr and did beat it
martinmartinstfc 2 months ago
2 shit cars
jamiej2k6 2 months ago
Everyone including me expected that bimmers suck at start, but the weakest point of every bimmer is the 3rd gear
CroAuslander 4 months ago
ive raced a lot of cars in my rover 214, they pull up to 40 in 1st very fast, whereas beemers lag off the line, i reckon a beemer would smash it past 70, but not before as this video shows
deanobeanobeano 5 months ago
Just like to say I have a vtr and that's faster than a rover 214. And a bm 318 is fastr than my vtr so that means the bm is faster than the rover end of.
martinmartinstfc 5 months ago
@martinmartinstfc If it's a VTR 16v then maybe, 8v'ers are slow as hell.
radionautomatic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My daily driver is E46 328i and E30 325 weekends. 328i is more responsive with Signature Motoring performance (CAI) intake kit. Installed it myself in under half hour. HP increase on the E46 is about 13.5HP for a cost of $170 or around $17 per HP gain. Best 1st performance mod to do. Other application data:
E30 series: 6.0-13.4hp gain
E36 series: 5.5-12hp gain
E46 series: 6.0-13.9hp gain
E92 series: 8.5+ hp gain
Z3/Z4 (all): 5.5-13.9hp gain
See my channel for driving action videos!
BMWPOWER4U 1 year ago
Funny because I had a 214Si before my 320Ci! It was a great car indeed!
I loved it and very reliable despite common wrong idea.
1,4l / 103hp / 10,7s > 0to100km/h / 185km/h Top Speed.
Algren97 1 year ago
Rover K series on the 1.1 anyway revved to 7650, mine did anyway
whapster 1 year ago
@whapster 75mph in 2nd would be useful for a 214, what car and year was yours?
TheBeebopper 1 year ago
@whapster did the 1.1s go pretty quick?
deanobeanobeano 1 year ago
@deanobeanobeano yeah I smoked a 1.6 astra off the line, you just make sure you dump the clutch at the right rev's and the car will go, oh and dont have many fat friends in the car it will seriously slow it down :D
whapster 1 year ago
the rover k series engine is pound fo pound the most powerful nasp engine ever made..also the lightest 4 pot engine in mass production...show me another nasp 1.4 with 105bhp standard...my vi eats st's for breakfast mainly because i weigh 100kg less and because my 1.8 has roughly the same power as its lazy 2.0ltr
spampebs 1 year ago
great cars regardless, head went 60k drove it like a rally car for 5 years and its still fine at 110,000 miles does beat 2L TDi's and most standard 1.6 litres tho I think saying it will beat a 2L petrol is a little optimisitc unless its a really heavy car :D
daz87uk 1 year ago
got a 320 ci sport only 170 hp but i know what looks better and has more street cred.. now done 120,000 miles and never skips a beat, no squeaks or rattles.. show me a rover u not ashamed of pulling up to the pub in and i show u a liar....
PROTEK123 1 year ago
@PROTEK123 and i guess your just some jeremy clarkson dan boy?
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@scheizzerkopf and i guess you drive your mums rover ???
PROTEK123 1 year ago
@PROTEK123 no actually i drove my own rover right up until the point where i had to drive through2 foot deep water, i made it all the way through without conkin out but i still managed to get water in the cylinders didnt realise at the time that it was in there and 2 weeks later the engine died
how many cars do you know that can manage that?
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@scheizzerkopf cant beleave ime getting into a argument on you tube.. its like trying to win a football game without a ball.. pointless.. look my friend.. you love ur rover fair enough.. i love my beemer but where is rover now? and why the fuck u drive it through 2 foot of water ? aint u got no bridges ? no car is going to survive that without having a problem. If i see 2ft of water i just turn around put my foot down and listen to that sweet straight 6 purr
PROTEK123 1 year ago
@PROTEK123 i was kind of forced to drive through it as there are only 2 roads into the town where i live, and the road i drove down never floods in heavy rain but the other road always floods, so my options were 1. drive through and hope i get through, paid off for 2 weeks ;) 2. sleep in my car...no thanks in the middle of nowhere 3. walk home...again no thanks, it was absolutely heaving it down, hence the flooded roads. but rover only died because of poor money management......cont.
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@scheizzerkopf they spent money where it needn't be spent i.e the mg-sv and a race program, i think it might have been F1 or something of that calibur, when that went sour they applied for money from the government to bail them out, tony blair agreed to give it them but gordon brown went behind his back and said no (this was when TB was PM) then over the next few years rover died due to lack of funding, but i wouldn't expect you to know this, or many other people for that matter
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@scheizzerkopf It went bust cos of bad managment FULL STOP dont blame the goverment for not giving them bail outs.... It all stems from the British Leyland work ethic, the rot was set back in the 70's for Rover/MG and i dont think the brand ever realy had a chance, Look at the new Mini for example BMW own it and make millions... Rover had it and made sweet F.A even the 1st cars in the 60's where made at loss, Ford paid for one,stripped it and found BL making a loss on each one they sold !
PROTEK123 1 year ago
@PROTEK123 yes this completely backs up my argument, but you say the were making a loss back in the 60's then how did they have the money to fund the MG-SV and various racing programs, if they just forgot about the MG and racing all together, except btcc and rally (which they used the ZS and ZR) we would probably still be able to go to a local dealers and buy a new rover. funding the SV and racing programs was a bad decision which could possibly have worked out given.........
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@scheizzerkopf ....given the chance i.e the funding they were supposed to recieve from the government, but they never had the funds. this all stems from bad management, any business going down that has a valuable product is generally gonna be down to bad managerial decisions somewhere along the line
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@scheizzerkopf Why should they be given funding ??? i lost a business 3 years ago. no goverment funding for me... It was rovers bad managment thats it... and i said the most popular car they sold i.e the mini they sold at a lost, so if u cant make a profit out of your biggest seller then you are on a downward slope.. when u a "major player" banks will lend u money.. when u a no one they wont.. thats how they fund a losing programme i.e racing etc.. then the banks realise they gonna loose
PROTEK123 1 year ago
@PROTEK123 they applied for funding which was granted to them, but a certain man who should've been a dirty stain on the sheets (gordon brown) decided to deny them what they were granted, all i am saying is the funding they got from the government could've saevd them, everyone knows that once MGRs management knew they were going down they gave up and got out of there as fast as they could to avoid gettin shit, if they got the funding it couldve been different altogether
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@scheizzerkopf So if you dunked the air intake, you dunked the engine management and the ignition coil, right? So if the throttle body was disconnected from the air tube/filter do you think the engine would have coped without injury with water up to the wheel arch tops?
TheBeebopper 1 year ago
@TheBeebopper iirc the intake is a little bit lower than the ECU but i cant remember where the coil is, if i did disconnect the intake then yes i probably would've gotten away with it =/
but thats not something you think of at 3-4am when a 20min journey took about 1.5 hours due to a flooded dual carriage-way, sucks really lol, loved that car
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
silly people, whether the BMW won or not, the fact is....
a measely 1.4l rover kept up with a 2.0l BMW which most people believe are the bees knees
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@scheizzerkopf well the BMW is a sedan so of course it is going to be heavier and it's a BMW which is more luxurious and besides the BMW obviously looks better because they accually design not like the company i never heard of. oh and another thing any 1.4 liter engine car can beat a 2.0 liter BMW if i supercharge and turbo charge the hell out of it and if that's called keeping up then that's sad over such a short strip even a bugatti veyron dosnt have enough space to pull away
Lnfinit3BIaz3 1 year ago
@Lnfinit3BIaz3 well done you know simple physics [/sarcasm]
now to get a tiny wee bit more advanced, RWD vs FWD...... RWD just wins, all the time..... just wins. (cars with equal BHP/tone)
and in writing the comment about design/quality did you realise that BMW once owned this company? no? ...lol
basicly all i am saying is that the bmw has a huge advantage over the "un-luxurious, crap designed" rover that you've never experienced in any way what so ever.
cont.....
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@scheizzerkopf ....
down windy country roads i'd much rather have the rover, its just better for that stuff and it accelerates well for what it is.
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@scheizzerkopf does it matter that BMW owned this company at one point also learn to read when did i ever say quality of the car? and here's a sinple fact for you have u even driven a BMW before? i guess not since ur a broke bloat living in england which dosn't use their brains which think english cars are always the best also in a drag race learn ur simple facts RWD and FWD dosn't make a difference rather FWD has the advantage because it is usually lighter
Lnfinit3BIaz3 1 year ago
@Lnfinit3BIaz3
omg lol stop right there
QUOTE..BMW obviously looks better because they accually design not like the company i never heard of...END QUOTE
theres your quality comment.
Quote..FWD has the advantage because it is usually lighter ...END QUOTE
i said cars with the same power/weight ratio
scheizzerkopf 1 year ago
@Lnfinit3BIaz3 But that 1.4 engined Rover IS NOT turbo charged or super charged. It is standard, and as standard a 1.4 Rover will give a 2.0 BMW a very very good run for its money.
ash7990 1 year ago
@ash7990 yeah lol some americans really struggle to understand power to weight ratio and naturally aspirated engines and a 1.4 that revs to 7000 rpm :)
tje1991 1 year ago
@ash7990 its an e46 bmw 320 thus meaning it has a 2.2L engine :)
Rich1BMW 1 year ago
@tje1991 Yeah that are very impressive, I own a 05 plate r25 1.4 i tend to lapse abit with corsas for some reason but the 1.4 k-series regularly kills 2.0 TDI audis and generally anything upto 2.0 litre. Crazy I know and its a shame they arent made anymore. We cant hide away from the head gasket problem and yeah ive been there. 57 MPH is the golden MPG speed and ull get as tje1991 says 50+ mpg
johnnyjohn2005 1 year ago
@tje1991 Yeah that are very impressive, I own a 05 plate r25 1.4 i tend to lapse abit with corsas for some reason but the 1.4 k-series regularly kills 2.0 TDI audis and generally anything upto 2.0 litre. Crazy I know and its a shame they arent made anymore. We cant hide away from the head gasket problem and yeah ive been there. 57 MPH is the golden MPG speed and ull get as tje1991 says 50+ mpg
johnnyjohn2005 1 year ago
Comment removed
tje1991 1 year ago
amazing for a 1.4 litre small hatchback people dont appreciate the fact that the k series is a suberb engine and that this car had more power than all of its rivals back in the day and as weve just seen almost won a 2 litre bmw 3 series i own one and i love it its got so much character and its very fun to drive and if im easy on the throttle i can easily get 50+ mpg out of it! :)
tje1991 1 year ago
The Rover won the race!
petric 1 year ago
stock e46 320i have 9,9 s to 100km/h
luki0170 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luki0170
stock e46 320i have 8,3 s to 100km/h
stock e46 320D have 9,2 s to 100km/h
maslo1172 1 year ago
Depends on weather it's a 320i or a 320d :P
The 320i would do 60mph in 8.2 secs
Whereas the 320d would take more like 10
gman318 2 years ago 3
@gman318 it's a non facelift coupe so it can't be diesel. besides that, there are 2 versions of the 320ci, one with 150 bhp 2.0L (9.8 seconds) and 170 bph 2.2L (8.2 seconds). this one is definitely the 150 bhp version
dragostrance 1 year ago
@dragostrance and the rover has 98bhp lmao!
goldsgym1244 9 months ago
@goldsgym1244 rover 214si is 400 kgs less than the beemer, which means 4 fat bastard friends less on your back seat. the beemer (150bhp) does 0-100 in 9.9 seconds and the 214si in 10.0 which is almost the same. I am just trying to point out that the 170bhp version which is 2 seconds faster is in another league.
dragostrance 9 months ago
@gman318 stop trying to justify being so nearly beaten by an old 1.4 Rover in your flashy BM. ;)
theothertrainee 1 year ago
@theothertrainee I don't drive a beemer mate, I drive a Golf ;)
gman318 1 year ago
@gman318 Ah right. TBH the Rover engines are pretty good. The 1.4 is the fastest normally aspirated 1.4 in the world [Metro GTi mpi is fastest 1.4 normally aspirated car in the world- 20 years old] and the 1.8 VVC engine is one of the very few 1.8s ever to 0-60 in under 8 seconds. TBH thought the 1.6 doesn't have that much more than the 1.4 on paper.
theothertrainee 11 months ago
@theothertrainee 1.4 gti mpi would do 0-60 is 8ish seconds
stephen88hox 6 months ago
@gman318 320d is 8.8 on paper, but that in the video is definitely 320i
aqaboym 4 months ago
hahahaha rover ftw ! :d
ShoWVLD 2 years ago
I think won is rover- is very fast 0-100kmh
Motylowy21miami 2 years ago
i think the bmw ONLY JUST won, those 1.4 rovers are very fast for the engine size
ash7990 2 years ago 34
what a silly race!!!
monkeyboy27476 2 years ago
BMW, of course...
Clemenzaa 2 years ago
who won?
silvestrus87 2 years ago