So I've been going over this again, and again in my head and I can't seem to figure it out, and I thought perhaps someone on the board could enlighten me.

First things first: I love my MCS. I love the way it looks, the way it handles, the way the interior looks, and the compliments it gets almost daily.

I do have this reoccurring thought that I just can't seem to get rid of though, why does the MCS come with such a lame engine?

I come from the Honda world, and have been building SOHC Honda engines (mainly the D16A6, a NA 108hp engine) mainly because they were the underdogs, and had surprising potential. While building these engines I always knew that doing the same work do a DOHC Honda engine would produce better numbers, but I still had a soft spot for the SOHC engines.

FF to the MCS. A 1.6L SOHC with a boost happy 8.3:1 compression ratio. But that’s about it. The head is nothing to write home about, no variable valve timing, no oil squirters (that I've read about), no yummy valve train parts, and the block seems on the same level...just your basic SOHC engine.

For a comparison, I'll use an engine that has a very solid history in the 2.0L or less world, Honda's B18C5. Built for the Integra Type R, it was the engine out of Honda's top-level (LS,GSR,Type R) Integra, a 23K sport-compact.

For an amazing break down of the B18C5 engine follow this link: http://www.itrsport.com/technical.html

A quick overview:
Lightweight valves
Hand-polished Intake and Exhaust Ports (at the start only 2 workers from Honda did the P&P job, producing only 25 engines a day!)
High-performance dual intake valve springs.
Fully Balanced Crankshaft
Low Friction Pistons
Oil Jet Piston Cooling

And the list goes on.

So here is were I have slowly started to feel like MINI skipped out building a power plant worthy of an S badge. While I understand that the S stands for supercharged, it also lends itself to an understanding that this version is truly something above and beyond the normal cooper. Sadly enough if you look at the technical data from the tritec website, you'll come to find that the MCS and the MC share the same valve sizes (30.23 Intake 23.26 Exhaust), I can only hope that our port dimensions are different, but judging by the build of the engines I wouldn't imagine they would be.

Now, for the 20k base price I shouldn't expect the MCS to have an engine like the B18C5. But I think that I should at the very least expect an engine that isn't a MC engine with a SC slapped on.

Perhaps through my searching, I have missed some crucial element of the MCS engine, like a balanced crank, and pistons, or forged con-rods and pistons. If so, at least there will be some saving grace to the MCS engine.

Am I alone in my want for MINI to give us something better as the heart in our MCS's? Would at the very least a DOHC application be too much to ask for?

 

i get what your saying about the head, as far as valve train goes. But i have read and heard numerous things that the bottom end in these cars are bullet proof, and have had atleast 25psi put to it on a TC car. But i admit the valvetrain could use a bit of an upgrade.

 

forged steel crank, con rods and pistons. Heads a bit weak with a SOHC, but 4 valves per cylender. There are many running over 200 WHP on basic mods and ECU tune, and that's over 225 HP from a 1.6 motor. Stock it's over 100 HP/liter, and that's no slouch. So some of your information is a bit off.

Bottom end is rumored to take a lot more than the lighter Honda blocks. (Check with JLM, Endyn that does both Mini and Honda builds has commented on it). But due to relative production volumes, there isn't nearly the number of inexpensive mods for the Mini, nor will there probably ever be.

Matt

 

I know that the bottom end of the SR20det's from Nissans 180SX's built in the early-mid 90's can hold 400+ on the stock bottom end, but they do so with an overbuilt bottom end from the factory. The only way I can see a bottom end holding that much power and still remain reliable is if it has forged components. (edit: cought your post DR. thanks. Would you have any links on this info?)

It's above 100hp/L because its FI, and only because its FI. Take any honda sohc block, throw in some low compression pistons, and push 10.5psi from a roots type SC and you'll make over 100 hp/L, I don't find that very impressive. Honda's B18C5, and B16A2 both make just over 100 hp/L NA.

 

I can only assume that you've seen the news about the new engine coming out for the '07's, right? Even though it will be DOHC, it will have more goodies, including VVti.

I imagine that you are also aware of the history of and circumstance surrounding this engine, but if not - it was more or less a quick fix. MINI needed an engine in a relative hurry and didn't have time to build one from the ground up. Nor did they require the capacity to justify the expense. Although it was set up as a "partnership" this engine was basically outsourced to Chrysler (before Daimler was involved.)

 

I haven't heard about the 07' engine! I will take a look at it right away. I was aware of the handshaking between Tritec, BMW, and Chrysler, but didn't know it was out of necessity alone. One would imagine that in the time it took you to design a car, build a new plant and start things rolling, you could find some time to design an engine for it...

 

Plenty of ex-honda people around here, and we all know what you mean...

Yes, the mini shortblock is pretty good. The head is dreadful though, and nothing can be done to REALLY fix it.

I'm a little lost as to how MINI came to this engine conclusion though. All I could really come up with is they picked a HP/TQ figure out and designed/bought to that level. My thoughts were confirmed when power specs for the '07's were released. Although BMW doesn't really want to claim the MINI as one of their own, they apparently do want to make sure that it's not luring any would-be buyers out of their showrooms.

Without even trying hard, they could have put an engine in the mini making at least 200-220 HP and maintained equal reliability. Why they chose not to will forever be a mystery to me.

 

there are squirters in the bottom

 

If it's 160-170, JCW can be 200, and entry three series is safer. That's what the sinic (sp?) in me thinks....

Matt

 

Mini2Go,

Would you have a link to something that talks about the 07 having a variable valve system? If it's not to much to ask would DR. and minicoop be able to do the same? I have yet to find anything on the web, or from mini talking about the bottom end components.

All I could find was that it's getting a turbo, and a DOHC for 2007. It seems like it will be from a different engine maker, so a head swap doesn't seem like a possibility.

Reguardless...even with the 2007, you have a DOHC turbo application putting out 170hp...Even with a redesign, that's not very impressive.

 

motoringfile.com They have lots of news posts....

Matt

 

^^Yep.

Here's one link that has a few spider links to other articles.

The new MC2 magazine also has decent article by Graham Robson - but it isn't online.

 

That makes sense to me on one level...the same way the Civic Si stayed underpowered so as not to compete with the Acura RSX-S. But Honda just released its new Si with more power than the RSX-S...cheers to them for that.

The problem I find with that argument though, is that I think the MCS and a 3 series are in totally different markets. The lowest price 3 series starts at 30K (a 4-door) and the cheapest coupe is 32K.

With all the racing heritage (and yes I understand the first Mini's had tiny engines) I would expect the MINI to have a little more under the hood the second time around.

Edit: thanks for the links, and site suggestion!

 

It gets to 325 pricing, shockingly enough!

Matt

also, the cheap racer crowd is getting ever more power. The new SI wouldn't be in the hunt with just 170 or so...

 

Though the engine was built in a hurry, it has some redeaming qualities. Despite the quirks, I like the fact that the overall engine design is relatively simple and cranks out decent power at only 1.6L.
By comparison my old Toyota had a 1.8L engine. Using variable valve timing and direct fuel injection that engine does crank out about 17 HP more. So VVT definitely helps boost performance, but it also adds more complexity to both the engine design and the valve gear. BMW is also cranking out double VANOS which varies both valve timing and valve lift. It's all fine and dandy, it all adds a little more power and better emissions controls. But I kinda like the simplicity of the current engine too - you can look at it and see how it works. I get worried when I look under the hood of a car and the head & valvetrain are larger than the block and outweigh it.

 

$37250 plus over $8800 in options, $46,116 total cost for pretty much every bell and whistle I could select. Yikes!

Matt

ps, I didn't even select the roof rack!

 

I dunno.... About the only advantage I see in safety is the additional mass of the 3. The MINI is actually reported to have 24,500 Nm/degree in torsion - which is 50 percent more rigid than BMW's benchmark 3-Series. And, as far as I know, it gets all of the same safety equipment as the 3. While the nod most likely goes to the 3, I wouldn't say it is as easy to call as one might initially think.

As for the story of how the new MINI came to be, some of the books on the market are a little better, but here is one online article that gives you a sense of the mayhem that they managed to pull this little miracle of a car from. (It is a relatively long read.)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...82/ai_85047979

 

This worried me at first as well...

while not a honda guy, i have spend a little time beating on some B18 cars...more time playing with turbo miata's. Both are a little more advanced than the current MINI lump (of course, anything with DOHC is...

Anyway what it boils down to for me is that the engine they went with works well and fits the character of the car...it is simple realiable and pretty damned fun. I doubt that the engine itself will ever score very high on anyone's list of the 10 best engines ever, but I bet that the entire package that the MINI is will make it on to a few lists like that. (already has...)

So, long story short, enjoy it for what it is, a very well thought out & balanced package that does a lot of things very well. I really don't want to how adding too much of any one thing to a car that is so fun & balanced can really throw a lot of the inherant fun of the car out the window. (ie, adding a turbo to a miata...really raises the fun level in one direction, takes away a lot of the good natured simplicity of a very balanced car)

I think that the advancements that the new engine will bring will be very interesting. let's' see that torque curve!!!!

-jac

 

I didn't mean that it's a safer car, but it's safer from loosing sales to the Mini. That is, until I saw that you can blow almost $50k on a friggin Mini!

Shees, I got my '02 S with leather and nav for $25k What the heck is Mini thinking? that we're all cash cows that are just here for the milking?

Matt

 

Oh. Heheh.

Yeah, it is a bit shocking how quickly the price can climb on these little guys. I carefully handpicked my options on my '05 MCS and came away under $23K with everything I wanted. After having driven an '02 MC with almost everything that was available when I ordered it (lots of new options now.) I had a pretty good handle on what I liked, used, wanted and could do without. I'd easily choose the same config again.

 

Well i dunno, maybe i am a simpleton, as much as i would like it to be DOHC, thats the only thing i dont like. I am not a big fan of all the variable vale timings. They give more B/S to an engine. I honestly like the BMW S52(96-99 m3) motor better than the S54 (01- m3), call me crazy. IF you really want 400 HP out o your mini drop an modded pt crusier motor, or SRT-4 motor in it...

 

Nope, the RSX-S still has more power...201 vs. 197

But I do agree with you on the engine. I haven't had a SOHC since my '94 Civic Si.

 

I very much agree with Matt (Dr Obnxs)... It would have been a bad business decision for BMW to give the MINI a higher output engine as it might then run the risk of cannibalizing their own line...

I'm sure in time we'll see some ideal engine swaps, but due to space constraints in the engine bay, I cant' imgaine many options beyond a rotary; which wouldn't help any with our lackluster torque...

 

actually the S doesn't stand for Supercharged,
it was carried over from the original Mini when John Cooper built his performance Mini and he and his partner could'nt decide if it was to be called the Cooper Sport or Cooper Special so they called it the Cooper S.

a little bit of usless info for ye.

 

The MINI 1.6l supercharged motor was awarded 2003 motor of the year in it's class. http://www.ukintpress.com/engineofth...revious04.html

Regards

Aldo