DarkMCS makes a good point. The MCS make gobbs of torque from 3,000 rpms almost to redline where the others, except the Subbie and PT Cruiser, have considerable less torque. The VVT Honda is without doubt the least user friendly, 2.0 Liters with VVT makes much less torque at a stratospheric 6,100 rpm????? Whats with that?

Torque is what launches you off the line and out of the corners. Torque is what helps you past that tractor trailer truck on that narrow 2-lane road. If it isn't available from lower rpms it doesn't help. I'll take a torque rich engine any day.

Someone else said it, it is the area under the curve that make the difference, and the lowly 1.6L Tritec engine has plenty under the curve. It doesn't really matter how they get the power there just as long as they do. Regardless of whether it is FI or NA fi it doesn't have usable torque from lower rpm ranges it isn't going to be easy and fun to drive.

Besides, the MINI was never designed to be a drag racer, it was designed to turn, to carve, to dart, to play connect the dots on a mountain road, to play connect the cones on an Auto-X course. Guess what, it DOES!!!!!

The car has exceeded it's humble beginnings with the aid of FireBall Tim and it has now proven itself on the drag strip with 12 sec runs in it's first outting, more development coming along with lower times, see more here;
http://www.mwerks.com/artman/publish...nter_893.shtml

(Note engines are listed smallest to biggest displacement!)

Mini Cooper S 1.6L, SOHC, supercharger
168 hp @ 6000 rpm 162 ft-lbs. @ 4000 rpm


Toyota Matrix XRS / Corolla XRS 1.8L, DOHC, VVT
164 hp @ 7600 rpm 125 ft-lbs. @ 4400 rpm


Honda Civic Si 2.0L, DOHC, VVT
197 hp @ 7800 rpm 139 ft-lbs. @ 6100 rpm


PT Cruiser 2.4L, DOHC, turbo (3,800 weight!!!)
230 hp @ 5100 rpm 245 ft-lbs. @ 2800 rpm


Subaru WRX 2.5L, DOHC, turbo, VVT
300 hp @ 6000 RPM 300 ft-lbs. @ 4000 rpm
__________________

 

For the last time:

Put a SC on any of those Honda engines and they will surpas the numbers (both Tq, and Hp) that our Mini engine puts out.

Yes, the Honda engines are torqueless. But even if our engine had 9.5:1 pistons, without a SC it would be a horrible engine. The SC is what gives our engine the pep it has.

My point is that sooo many other engines make almost the same hp as ours does, without a SC...so if we would have gotten an engine like so many of those out there, AND THEN had a SC put on it, it would be something to write home about. But instead we have an engine that w/o a SC would be a complete and total dog.

DarkMiniCooperS, Read my first post for a glimpse at ONE of Honda's engines that are built with forged parts, oil-squirters, dual valve springs etc. And yes...they have more than one. And for the record, they have the highest reving, highest HP engine in the F1 field...they just need to get rid of Sato, and Button needs to mature.

 

And if you did put the blower on any of those cars, you'd be adding $2.5k-$3k to the price....

The good news is that if you want to make more power, you sure can do it for not too much money (other than the 50%-100% increase in parts cost over other higher volume brands...). So we all get what we want in the end.....

Matt

 

To all of you who complain of Chrysler's involvement in the developement of the Tritec 1.6 ltr, Chrysler has a long history of building strong and bulletproof engines (can't say the same of their trannys). I feel sure that BMW was as interested in the reliability as they were in the output. Also, since this car was developed for the European market as well, fuel economy would have been important.

 

hmmm...in response to Coop and Dr. O...

I agree with the Doctor. It is pointless to say the motor would be a total dog without a SC. Take any small displacement low compression motor and take the FI away = total dog. If the MCS had higher compression and was designed without FI, it would probably have good low to mid-range torque and run out of breath up top...it is a trade-off. Bear with me - I have much more experience with my prior ride than the MCS - I played around with a boost controller on my WRX when I first bought it and lowered the boost to the minimum - the car felt like a base Corolla. The WRX like the MCS doesn't have VVT or anything fancy, it does have DOHC but the heads are poor with small ports. HOWEVER, the addition of the turbocharger dramatically changes the driveability of the motor from 2-6K RPMs. The addition of FI with a "not-so-optimum" head shifts the power band lower in the curve. Hondas, Toyotas, and other small displacement motors have their powerband in the upper end of the curve with crap at the bottom.

I guess the point is this, the motor seems to be designed with driveability in mind and it accomplishes this just fine. I personally would rather have a turbocharged motor and am crossing my fingers that the 2007 will be strong. It is amazingly simple to extract power from a factory turbocharged motor....notice I said FACTORY turbocharged. Adding FI to a factory NA motor just isn't the same and will almost always expose a weakness (most likely detonation from high compression). Many FI motors are overbuilt from the factory and can make big power and big torque with bolt-ons. Shoot, 2L WRX's make low to mid 300HP with ease. 2.5L motors can see upwards of 400hp without breaking a sweat.

DISCLAIMER - with FI, especially turbocharging, you often trade one thing for another. To make big power, you need to flow a ton of air. To flow a ton of air you need a big-*** turbo. A big-*** turbo means it will take time to spool and then hit hard up top.

I hope this post is helpful...I don't really like or dislike the current setup, it is what it is, so I am looking forward to future advances. Shoot, I just wish I could put the factory power to the ground as is...no LSD just sucks.

Matt

 

I'm sorry but what is F1?

 

 

I believe F1 is Formula One racing.

....FI is Forced Induction (in this thread), or sometimes Fuel Injection.

 

I know about Formula one but wasn't sure about the F1 in this thread.....forced induction makes sense ..... thanks.

I mentioned that Randy Webb is finding some interesting issues with modding the Elise/Toyota power plant.......which he believes will be similar in technology to the new Mini engine...... there is something un-fun about turning up the boost to get the power.... definately more efficient than all the crap we go through on this engine but ... where is the challenge? In about 5 years when you can pick up an 02 Mini for cheap I may start my V6 in the back seat project......

back to the topic In Paterine's book "The New Mini" he asserts that "BMW's decision to use the Tritec engine in the Mini was borne out of expediency and its low cost of manufacture." God I hate reading that....... (p37)

 

FI ....I belive Forced Induction....

as for Randy having trouble with the Elise,

here's a 400 HP elise making a lap....WEEE! I miss RWD...

400HP ELISE

 

EXCELLENT POINTS but alas, that might not want to be what some want to hear.

 

A friend of mine has a Cobalt SS supercharged... It's supposed to output 205hp/205lb-ft... But it never delivers the same power as my MCS... The supercharger doesn't give a lot of power, and it is really not a fast car... Chevrolet are really proud of their Ecotec engines, and I really don't know why!

As for Honda in Formula One, the might have the most power, the highest redline, but they still are at the bottom of the ranking...

 

Roots works better at lower RPM,

Valve tricks and dual profile cams extend RPM range. It's just Honda not putting a torquy cam in for the low RPM cam that sucks. I guess they're not perfect either!

I guess I'm just used to bad heads by now. Almost all the Ford pushrod V-8s come with, uh, non-optimal heads, and if you want to unlock the power, you can't do it without head work.

When I got my Motorcycle (Nighthawk 650 in 85) I purposely chose Honda over Sazuki and Yamaha BECAUSE of the wider power band, dispite the lower peak HP.

Cost is a real valid point, if the Mini came with all the valve tricks, variable length intake runners (from the plenum), we'd be talking about $30k MCSs and $40k JCW, without any other options. If that were the case, I'd be driving something else....

Matt

 

Well, replying to the first post, I think the MCS' engine definitely isn't the most technologically advanced out there. But it does put out similar (well, slightly lower) power than most of the rival hot hatches, so I don't really see a problem there.

As for honda engines having low torque and needs to be revved, well, thats what a 6 spd gear box is for? The only "dead" zone is from 0-20mph really, after that you can keep it revved up for some very good performance. I had tons of fun driving the RSX-S around. I guess if you don't like revving or shifting you wont like those cars, but then in this aspect, the MCS isn't any better is it.

I think MINI cheaped out on the motor so they could spend $ to develope the chassis and all the various options avaliable to the car, oh, and lots of $ spent on advertising too. There are better engines out there in this size, but its not like the MINI really NEED one to sell (as you all bought one, see!)

 

Its really not fair to compare peak hp at different rpms, since the mathmatics of hp is based on torque and rpm. HP = Torque x rpm ÷ 5252 this formula biases any rpms above 5252, so that two liter Civic at 6000 rpms would have a hp rating of 159 hp, of course its not tuned for 6000 rpms, hopefully you get my point. Torque is what is most important and the mini gets to peak 2k rpm quicker than the civic listed above.

That said, I, like many mini entusiasts wish they would have at minimum used bigger valves on the S at least to help it breath better, along with a smaller pully on the supercharger, and I'd love to see the Mini One D gearbox on the S.

The biggest problem I see with the mini S at production was the dogged gearing off the line, they did a lot to fix the problem with the late 04/05 gearboxes. The motor has room for improvement, but I understand the issues of economy vs performance, and trying to appeal to the largest block of consumers.

One of the things i love the most about the mini is how comfortable it is to drive. This is not to say it is mercedes comfortable to drive, but it is very consistant, the ride is a little rough, which is to be expected by a perfomance car, but it doesn't deteriorate from 30mph to 90mph, it feels safe and comfortable at any speed within that range (I haven't really been over 90). I also love that I can rev the motor without this nagging feeling that it is about to blow up. This isn't the case with all cars and I've driven a co-worker's 04 miata and I couldn't bear to rev it over 3k rpm because the motor sounded like it was going to blow up, shifting on the car was very poor and felt clumbersome, and the steering felt heavy and awkward (I know the mini has raised my standards significantly).

In the end, if I had to choose between leaving the car the way it is and downgrading any feature on the car in exchange for a more powerful motor, I'd leave the car the way it is.

 

And that, my friends, is the answer to the original question in this thread in a nutshell. The MINIs were targeted at a very specific price range. The S had to be under $20k. I believe the 02 S listed at $19,775. Any more performance out of the S engine would have driven that price upwards. Otherwise they would have had to cheapen other aspects of the car.

 

as in the case of the new car, rumor of cheaper material being used concerns me in exchange for a higher technology variable timing turboed engine really concerns me that they will take ALOT of what mini a mini, especially that rear suspension

i brought the mini knowing full well the fact the MCS's got a very prehistoric engine.... i drove the celica GTS (no RSX-S, but similar), i hated it (for more reasons than one).... i get the acceleration of my mother's old ML320 from 0-20 in city driving in a car that's supposedly has much better 0-60 times than that old prehistoric SUV my mother used to drive... not everyone wants to rev the nuts out of their engine at every single stop light.... sure the engine revs very freely up top above 6 grand, but how often will i really be there... i had the same complaint when i tested the RX8.... even the WRX i felt before the turbo kicked in the engine felt absolutely flat...

that also said, the mini's charm is not just in it's engine, and i can vouch most owners here probably brought the mini for it's handling, it's history, the bmw backing, or it's image, and not just based on it's engine

i brought my mini for 3 reasons, it's handling, it's history, and it's style.... the power didn't even pop on the top 5 reasons to buy....

 

For the price point and original target market of the car, the engine design, while 'mature', is pretty well suited. The MINI picked up an engine with a well-proven design, and with minor enhancements was made into a pretty decent performer. Of similar engines, the MCS has one of the stoutest bottom ends, with only the pistons being the weak link above the 300hp level. The head may not be a flow monster, but, again, for it's original design criteria, it does well. For a supercharged application that lives best at lower to mid range torque, an overly complicated valvetrain is not necessary. Such mechanicals are better suited for a NA or turbo setup.

The MCS engine comes with premium internals just about everywhere. And considering it's around-1998 or so initial design, it was more high-tech at the time. Times have changes in the 5 years or so that these cars have been running around.

 

When the 99 SI only really puts it's power down from 6000-8500 RPMs or thereabout, it's about having to shift in ALL THE TIME. The 944 I gave as a counter example has an absolutely flat torque curve. Still a manual, but much more usable RPM range per gear.

The SI would actuall outperform the 944, but it took much more work to get it done. I didn't think that it really was more fun to drive. I'm glad we got the SI, but I am also glad it was my wifes car, as it took so much work to drive at the edge.

The current S configuration is somewhat between the two. It's got good pull from about 3000-7000 RPM, so you can use a lot more of the RPM range without haveing to always saw the shifter..

Matt

 

I'm sure at this point we mostly agree. The MINI lump isn't so much a "cheap out" as it was a venture made of necesity & thus compremise.

I'd further argue that the products sold to further tune the engine (JCW offerings) are more of a cheap-out... That's not to bash JCW, just to contrast what you get for your $... tech & performance wise.

My personal & frequent frustration is how close BMW got to making the MINI 'perfect'. And while there are a few glaring issues, for the most part I have the LUXURY of complaining because the damn thing's so good to begin with. ...No ****-kissing here... We all know its true.

As for the screamer engines...
Well, I don't care if its a car or motorbike... High rpm torque isn't useful or much fun in day to day driving... tedious! I've owned both, I know all too well. If you've got nothing better to concentrate on then what gear you're in then Me, I'll take the low-mid band power I now enjoy

Hope the 07' doesn't lose the formula.

Cheers!

 

You know, when you are Honda, Toyota, Nissan, GM or even VW, making hundreds of thousands of certain models and selling all of them each year, at least two things are happening. You can have a HUGE R & D budget compared to relatively niche marketeers like BMW/MINI and you can do something that is pricing based on the market share/lifecycle of the model.

In, effect, you identify the price point you want to sell at and then establish how many units you have to make at your production costs before you hit your break even point. After the umpteenth unit is produced and sold, only then does the model become profitable. All the units before that were being sold at less than costs, we call it "dumping" sometimes, but it isn't. They look at the entire production cycle for the model for profit.

They do it for TV, DVDs, cars, everything. Maybe BMW did it for the MINI, but we know the # of units is much lower than these other makers, so the price options were still lower than the others could do. They hit their price point, they have structured a market where almost every car is pre-sold, and there is a limited supply and an increasing demand with a very moderate dealer support infrastructure. They are building to order most models ( implemented just-in-time manufacturing to autos ) and probably making huge amounts of profits with these package add-ons, be it JCW, sport, premium, convenience, etc. And guess what, like computers the early beta models were a little rough and they have incremently raised the build quality and now are re-tooling to enter phase 2, so the venture probably at least paid for itself, plus some profit. (Must have been enough because as yet BMW hasn't dumped the line.)

Did they "cheap out" the motor? Who knows but they changed how you make and market autos. I'll bet the dealers all love that their market is defined for the next several months each year through the order process. And CA. and other points where they add a premium to the price? Don't even get me started about that...

 

When you build to order the "velocity" contributes significantly to the bottom line...... the $s are always working.......BMW/MINI is in such an enviable position.....

I do wish they would take the performance minded market more seriously than JCW...... I ask this question, is the M3 to the 325/330 the same as the MC or MCS to the JCW? I don't think so......

 

Theres only so much you can reasonably to a streetable car thats FWD and a 1.6 to boot. In that context, I think, at least on paper, given that its a factory option with all the red tape rigamarol thats has to be dealt with versus the aftermarket, they've done extremely well with the JCW. For a 30% premium in price they've given you 25% more HP plus brakes. Seems like a pretty reasonable proposition to me. There are laws of diminishing return here and they've chosen a sweet spot for the best off the shelf experience at a particular price point. If I do mod, I doubt it will be the JCW as the aftermarket has found cheaper ways of provding the virtually the same thing, but I give a lot of credit to them for making engine, brake and suspension mods available that provide measurable gains with warranty intact.

 

True, the JCW kit may not produce quite the overall performance jump seen between between a standard 325/330 and an M3, but I bet one would be hard pressed to transform a 325/330 into an M3 for the cost of a JCW kit.

 

Hey now, this isn't another one of those threads. The JCW thing has been beaten to death... and then some