Comments? Of course there are!!!

I'm looking seriously at the viability of swapping either the bottom end (if the 1.6 head was a direct swap) or complete long-block 2.0 into the MC. I'd prefer to keep the factory accessories for the most part, however, if at all possible.

Of course, I know there will be differences and I know it doesn't gain me A LOT in terms of performance but the low-end torque increase is substantial. Anyone who has followed my previous posts will see that I simply want a little more low end to compensate for the A/C and a full load of passengers (and maybe bikes on top) while climbing the hills of southeast PA.

Bolt-ons for the MC seem to improve power at the upper range which is useless for me...not looking to auto-x or race...just to have a more functional hill-climber.

Does anyone have any first hand experience with this engine? I'm referring specifically to the 2003/2004 and newer 2.0 engine. Thanks!

To anyone that feels I should simply "trade up" to an MCS, please be advised that if these engines were truly similar enough, even with custom programming, cost of the "new" used engine, DIY labor, and accessory/engine mounts (assuming there are slightly different bosses on the block) will still be less than I'd spend on the difference between my MC and an MCS and my insurance rates will not be affected, in addition to a few years worth of savings from 87/89 octane vs. 93.

If they are in fact so very different that it isn't feasible, I will consider the MCS option. Bear in mind that I used to drive a home-built 1.8 DOHC (Mazda/Escort GT) powered Ford Festiva (don't laugh too hard) so custom engine swaps are not to a degree of difficulty beyond my skills.

 

Turbo, go for it. You would be helping out the Mini comunitty a great deal if you in fact took on this prodject.

Where are you located?

 

Im gonna be turboing my mini very soon. I'll show you some vids and pics.

Thanks,
Your Friend Ben

 

Thanks for the encouragement!

I'm near Harrisburg, PA...about an hour from Helix13 in Philly, although I've never been there or dealt with them at all. I used to manage the car shows in Carlisle, PA if any of you are familiar with them...hence some of my need to customize!

I'm working on finding a 2.0 long block now. Then will likely begin the search for a wasted 1.6 to do final comparisons with. Want to keep down-time on the car to a few weeks, max. I'll need to surround myself with the right people to make that a reality...after all, just adding the fog-lights in front of the grille requires activation! Too many controls in place...and I'm not ready to go fully programmable and lose the driveability/serviceability of the stock electronics. Had a DFI in the Festiva...worked really well, but that was a simple car. My V8 Volvo conversion was carbed so no interface problems there. This will truly be the most "high-tech" swap I've considered. I'm thinking a turbo or something like the tiny Rotrex s/c (C15, is it?) is the easier route but then there are still the same limits of 1.6 liters worth of displacement. Would love to stay NA and somewhat stealth!

...and the MCS community would love a 2.0 bottom end that can handle 330+ hp with no additional mods, I'm sure!!! I'm guessing that many people have already considered this swap (possibly some have tried/done it) and I wish "they" were a little more open with their info. The DIY tuner community is going to remain DIY whether someone else has a kit or not...ultimately, we're too thrifty and too stubborn to buy someone elses kit. $20 plans, sure, but not a comprehensive kit!!!
So if anyone's sitting on some info on this swap, please send it my way...it may lead me to turn to you for tuning, etc.

Expect this to be a long-term project with very slow updates. Thanks!
Mike

P.S. - if anyone wants to trade a wasted Tritec 1.6 or Mopar 2.0 in exchange for anything from a ford 5.0HO/T-5 or BMW M10 engine, maybe some BMW2002 parts, a Garrett T3, or a turbo-diesel Mercedes 5-cyl, let me know!!!

 

Let me see if I have this straight.......your not happy with you Cooper performance so you are going to 330 HP........

 

NO!!! Did you read the whole post or just the fun, high-hp parts?

I'm looking for about 135 bhp with a dramatic (to me in this case, dramatic is 20ft/lbs) low end torque improvement. Even if hp and torque remained the same as stock but moved down in the powerband, say beginning and peaking 1000rpm lower, I'd be happy. Why, after investing so much time and money, would I only be looking for such meager gains in power? My goals are different from the average tuner, my friend. Just want a more street friendly vehicle for the chores I require it to do on a near-daily basis.

Does it make sense now? I DON'T want a twincharged MCS...that's totally NOT what I'm after. I hope more people do it just because it's cool, but that's not my thing. Just a daily driven car with a little more grunt.
As I've read before, many of the people making those high hp numbers in a MCS are doing it solely to find out the absolute limits of current Mini technology. I don't think they're going to expect to knock off Vinny Ten or Papadakis in the Import drag events!

 

oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I posted 330hp to illustrate the "capabilities" of the stock 2.0 bottom end. Not to say it makes that much power, but that it can handle it. That was the sole reason for posting the number. Hope I haven't confused anyone again...

 

I read the thread...I was playing.....


Seriously......look at the mods the Brits are doing to the Coopers.....You can get that kind of power for a lot less hassle.

They mod the Coopers more becuase the insurance on the "S" is so high. Check goMini magazine for atricles etc.

 

If you look at the dyno charts on most of those cars, they lose power in the first 2000rpms. That's right where I need it! I'd rather see peak power drop to 105 and get more of it at lower rpm.
I wonder if a cam gear could help me "move" my powerband a little as it does on "lower tech" engines. Is the computer way too smart for something as "rice" as that?

 

That's funny... you can't get much lower tech than the iron lump sitting under the mini's hood.

 

oh, did i miss something, the block in the photo is a 420a, from the same family as the mistu eclipse and evo engine, the same block that has been around import racing for over 15 years. is that the same family as the mini block? if thats the way it found its way into the mini that is absolutely hilarious.

plus if you are going to use that block and have to use the neon head, i would suggest the dohc neon engine, especially if you are looking for low end torque. not just for the dohc but for the higher quality and better aftermarket

 

Really? An iron block equates to low-tech to you? So all the electronics, throttle-by-wire, composite materials...all that's not high-tech because of an iron block? How silly of me. Please come over to my house and help me reverse engineer this stuff (since it's so low tech) so we can get the tuning underway!!! I'll PM you directions!

 

The 2.0 DOHC block (as used in the R/T Neon, for example) is an older design, isn't it? I would imagine it bears not even a reasonable resemblance of the 1.6. From what I've heard so far, though, none of the Chrysler 2.0 blocks are very similar to the 1.6. It is, indeed, an engine "based on" the 2.0 technology but not cast in the same foundries nor machined to similar dimensions. So I'll give up on this idea for now...

 

I'm 20 and just went from a MC CVT to a MCSa and my insurance went up $1 a month. The insurance agent said they decide the rates based on how many of a particular car gets into accidents.

Just a few words on the insurance part.

I am all for watching to see how this engine swap goes through!!

 

Not to discourage you from your goal Turbo, we all have our desires and if you want nothing more than a little more torque down low, and this will get it for you, go for it. If/when you pull it off, hats off to you. I will agree with mdsbrain though. Im a 23/m with a somewhat checkered motor vehicle record. The difference in insurance costs for me (i compared before i bought) btwn the MC and MCS was 60 bucks a year. I don't know about the number of cars getting banged up setting a premium level, but my agent told me that they base premiums on the cost of fixing a particular car. In other words, a 20k car that has to have parts specially fab'ed and sent from say, bulgaria, will cost more to insure than a 20k car that any shmoe with $30 and a nearby autozone can get parts for. Labor costs are also included (MINI dealer mech. = 100/hr, Porsche dealer mech. = about 150-200/hr) Granted thats still 60 bucks a year and cost of premium gas, but just food for thought. Good luck with your project, keep us informed.

 

Why don't you just keep the revs up so you stay within the torque curve?
I know this sounds too simple, but the little 1.6L motors are made to rev and are designed to run that way. Many people short shift and lug their engines. These small displacement engines need to be in the upper rev band for any useful torque. Not trying to insult you or dis your idea, just think you might alter your style and see if it helps...

 

Keeps me from changing clutches I've got the original clutch in my 130,000 mile bimmer.

Anyway, I think I stated before: when I trade in the bmw, it'll be on a Cooper "S" but we're still keeping the MC and my wife and I would both like a little more "oomph". I'm not the kind of person that will try to applaud the merits of the MC over the MCS...they both have their place, but it would make sense to have a commuter car that could handle being driven at lower rpms to reduce wear and have enough kick to get the job done.

Also, as I stated before, the 2.0 swap (at least the Mopar 2.0) is more complex than I'm willing to spend my time/money on right now. Maybe something similar in the future. Thought it would be a close swap...it's not.

Guess I could always put a 15hp briggs & stratton on a chain drive to one of the rear wheels with a reverse-progressive linkage! That would be easier/cheaper.

 

Better yet, get yourself an industrial hairdryer, hardwire it to your battery, and plug the outlet into your throttle body, instant s/c

 

Why do I suddenly think of the hair dryer from Spaceballs? "Industrial"...

 

If you want more displacement, overboring is the obvious choice. I'm sure someone will be experimenting with it soon, if not already.

 

From what I've read, there's not too much material there to play with. An overbore might get you closer to 1.65 liters. Also it seems that there's not much room to increase the stroke of the crankshaft, although I'm sure not much has been done with offsetting the stroke by decreasing the diameter of the journals and clearancing the block/girdle...even then, though, you only move the centerline very slightly so maybe we're up to a full 1.7 liters! At a machining cost of ??? I say GO FOR IT!!! Heck, at that point, maybe we should explore a longer connecting rod with custom pistons to keep the piston toward the top of the cylinder longer...now we're on a roll! 11.5:1 compression, 1.7 liter, long-rod MC!!! I love it...and it'll be a torque monster!
Seriously, though, all of this stuff can be done if somebody had the down-time and cash. I wonder who will be the first. Some light porting for the street would top it off.

Actually, I'm still curious about using an adjustable cam sprocket to move the powerband down slightly...any real thoughts on that idea? Perhaps I'll post it at the Helix site...

 

Yesterday I just switched off the A/C when pulling into traffic and entering my hilly neighborhood. Worked out pretty well...so mikem53's idea of altering my driving style worked after all, and I still get to save my clutch!!!

Problem solved. Now just need to keep saving for the MCS...anyone want to buy my bimmer???

 

i just had an idea today.....has anyone looked at the dimensions of the ecotec 2.0 from the cobalt SS?

ive heard a pulley and software gets it up past 300 horsepower

 

...and you decided to simply press the AC button off. Interesting.

 

I agree with those who say go for stroke if you want low end. Assuming that crankcase clearance can be found, offset grinding is the least expensive way to go. Rather than reduce rod journal diameter, crank shops can build up the journal by welding, hence the "welded stroker" which hot rodders have used for years. Don't be afraid to grind notches in the case for clearance. The sintered non (S) rods are pretty much junk for any performance use. The best solution would be to find a widely used performance rod from another make that is in abundance and therefore less expensive than Carrillos, etc. Maybe one the high performance Honda rods would work. You will want the rod to be as long as possible which means that the piston pin must be located as high as possible in the piston.

Just in case turning off the A/C is not enough, I have a long block from an 02 with all four rods broken and the side of the upper case kicked out from each broken rod. Looks like 4 little windows. The head is good and probably worth some money. The crank is probably also good. If you buy the head for a fair and reasonable price, I will give you the shortblock to play with. This would be good to examine exactly how much stroke it will take and also how much the bore can be increased. The head looks to have losts of material for porting; especially the exhaust side. I can't help but wonder what one of the good air flow shops could do with it. I would think that 140hp is available without spinning it over 6500rpm.

Fun to think about!

As with everything, there is a catch. I am in LA and the block is heavy. Any NAM members going cross country with some trunk space?