oh....wow, so it ALREADY comes with iron sleeves....i thought it might have been aluminum sleeves, guess i was wrong. so i guess there is nothing to worrie about, right? just get a higher flowing exhaust, remap the ecu, bigger turbo, a bigger throttle body, as well as bigger injectors.....im sure a little head work wont hurt either, you'll obtain TONS more hp that just 220, or even 250 (?)....as far as reliability....its a BMW product, im prrretttty sure they have the know-how as well as the resources to make it possible ^_^

 

The 10.5:1 compression is not as much of an issue because this is a direct injection car, which can safely run the higher compression with boost.

 

Power from the new engine might not be a big problem, but emissions are. DI engines with high boost and high static CR begin to suffer from large amounts of NOx when overboosted. This can overwhelm catalysts especially when coupled with the typically lean A/F that DI engines can run so good with. Dumping more fuel can cool the burn somewhat, but at the expense of higher EGTs, which can be very rough on that sophisticated little turbo.

 

the turbos are going to be run at aprox 8psi, with 12 psi for about the first 2 seconds when you hit the sport button. with a 10.5/1 compression motor, the emissions aren't going to be hard to keep up with. and turbos do hot very well, the new turbos are from KKK, same company that makes turbos for vw, audi and porsche, the double track turbine housing is odd, but it should be fine.

 

and in general, richer fuel trim lowers egt, lean increases egt. NOx is mostly generated in a lean burn due to the higher temperatures

 

I understand the benefit of DI in being able to run a higher effective compression ratio, however it still only helps so much. Look at the other turbo DI cars out there; VW GTI mk5, Mazdaspeed3, and Pontiac Solstice. They all run about 9.5:1 CR. One full number higher is a big change, and right there yanks about 4 pounds of boost you can run.


I'd love to find out where you got those boost figures, do you have inside info? I found out the turbo on the MCS is a K03 family turbo, similar to what was on the VW 1.8T engines. Right now the only official figure for the boost level the MCS runs is "11.8 psi", which says nothing of where or when. Winding Road published 13.8 psi for the overboost figure, but there's no proof that's accurate. The only guy that's done any measurements regarding the Sport button is Roland of GTT in Europe. He found the Sport button made no change in acceleration times. Regarding the twin-scroll turbine housing, it's used in all but one current BorgWarner turbo, and the aerodynamics of twin-scroll improves spool time.

Cheers,
Ryan

 

sport button does zero to a manual transmission cooper S as far as the engine is concerned... at least thats what i was told from those liars at MINIUSA today in training

automatic cars on the otherhand expect a .5 second decrease in shifting times when sport is depressed.

 

Emissions Pisshions! When the government starts to restrict Tractor Trailer (who drive a trillion more miles than we do) Emmisions much more rigidly, I'll consider jumping on board with this emmisons crap. Car's aren't hurting the world a millionth as bad if at all, as all the coal burning power plants! Nuclear IS a viable solution!

 

Are we talking about Irag?

 

Do we know if this is the static or dynamic compression ratio? It's probably the static or maximum ratio. The dynamic ratio can be lower based on valve movements. If the intake valve closes before the piston chamber is full the effective compression is reduced. I have no idea the degree this may be used on the MCS engine.

 

the compression ratio is set at 10.5:1, the n14 (turbo) engine does have single vanos on the intake cam, which lets the DME advance and retard the intake as needed. the real trick valve train is on the n12 (non-turbo), it has vanos on both cams in addition to valvetronic. Valvetronic lets the DME adjust the rocker arm ratios of the intake cam, this enables the valve lift to be changed anywhere between (aproximatly) .2mm and 10.0mm while the engine is running.

 

You're thinking too hard about it. Advertised compression ratio is simply:


Swept volume + combustion chamber volume
_____________________________________ = 10.5
....................Swept volume....................

btw, if someone needs the cc volume, I've already calc'd it

 

the reason for running higher compression then the other manufacturers, is to reduce turbo lag without sacrificing torque and horse power. you can make a much wider power band with lower boost levels and a higher compression ratio. this gives you more usable power that is there almost immediatly. instead of having to wait for your power and then having it mule kick you like a chrysler/mitsubishi turbo system. screw those 4 psi, I want my power NOW, not just before I hit red line.

 

It's static compression ratio that's being advertised. Dynamic compression doesn't lend itself well to being expressed as a ratio. In general, static compression is expressed as a ratio, while dynamic cylinder pressure is expressed in psi.

As you said, dynamic compression can be decreased by closing the intake valves early on the intake stroke, or by increasing the overlap period when both the intake and exhaust valves are open. I've seen engines with 12.5:1 static compression that ran fine on pump gas, because of large valve overlap values in the camshaft design.

 

I'm sorry if I ruin anyones party about this new engine, but I still have to complain about the EXTREMELY low output of this engine. Keep in mind many a Japanese car companies have been putting out n/a 1.6L DOHC engines that are producing 160hp in stock trim for over a decade. Add a turbo to any of those engines at around 8-10psi (which is normal for a stage 1 turbo kit) and you will be seeing around 75-100hp in gains on a stock engine. Which would put the stock numbers around 230-260hp. Turbotecnics, Greedy, HKS, etc...have all been making these kits for years, and years....and yet....and yet....MINI has a chance to build a factory tuned 1.6L turbo for their S model and they crank out a whopping 177hp!?

A B16 with cams will turn out 177hp! An SR20DE with I/h/e will turn out 177hp! And here we are with a factory 8psi 1.6L that puts out 177hp. What a sad engine it must be w/o any boost.

Ahh....I forgot about marketing. The almighty dollar. For, you can have hp over that magic 200 number for a scant 4500 more (plus labor), if you get the JCW kit. Ahhh thanks.

Ill never forget the overwhelming response to an intake and pulley on the SC'ed cars "This is how they should have come from the factory!". Blame it on marketing, or whatever you like, but I think that both the past and present MINI missed it's chance to have one of the most potent cars on the market and instead turned out a car that handles like a go cart...but has the engine of one as well.

 

JDM B16B 98 spec.R = 118 Lb-Ft at 7500 RPM per this spec table
R56 MCS Prince = 192 Lb-Ft at 1700 RPM

Different torque curves for different folks.

--->Coop d'etat; you're not ruining anyones party, because you're talking about Formula 1 at a proverbial Truck Pull! Also, none of us consumers or tuners know about the boost curve the Prince engine is running. This is no longer the era of "I'm running X psi". Nowadays, OEM boosted engines are "We're running X psi at Y RPM at Z steering angle at J throttle pedal behavior characteristic." We have a lot to learn about this engine, so ******* it based on a notion that a single number is relevant is not valid. The Prince engine may only be running 4psig to obtain it's 172 HP @ 6500 RPM, we don't know. The only thing we do know regarding its boost is a published figure of 11.8psi. We don't know if that's "overboost" at 1700 RPM or what. If you do however, please let us know so we can compare engine performance characteristics more accuractely.

Cheers,
Ryan

 

Regardless of technical aspects surrounding the engine, MINI has once again put out a F/I low output engine. While the final hp output of the engine is only one number (although tq would be the 1st in my book), it is for the most part one of two numbers that really mean anything when talking about an engine. Taking into account the super low point in the band when you reach peak tq. it is still a weak engine in comparison to 1.6L engines that have been produced over the last decade.

I guess more than anything I'm disappointed that with it's 2nd showing and a ton more tuning capability (DOHC, Variable Timing, etc) the base MCS still puts out a shockingly low 177hp. And it's not like the formula is that hard...Strong block, forged internlals, high flowing head, plenty of fuel, and good management should net you 220+ easy out of any modern FI 1.6L.

And if they cranked up the CR to reduce turbo lag, and then run almost no boost, what would be the point? Why not just stick with the SC...something that had a very strong aftermarket base, and an engine the community was just getting a solid grasp on? Granted they wanted to move away from the Tritec engines...but it seems they didn't take into account one of the distinguishing characteristics that made the new MINI what it was upon its release. It's all just very confusing.

 

Your adjectives are cracking me up; "EXTREMELY low" and "shockingly low" are hardly applicable. Like you said, torque is the important one, so what's the problem? Do you really think BMW is going to make a "low end" model with more power than their "real" BMW's? You've got to get past this no-torque high-strung japanese engine reference point; politics and marketing are in full play here. Nothing is confusing, you're just expecting a cat-less, blueprinted, high dollar built motor with a Motec controller when it's just not going to happen from an OEM.

 

Excellent Points

Why don't people understand that there is no way BMW is going to let the low end entry brand compete with real Bimmers

 

Hmm. Some other modern turbo motors:

- BMW's own 335 twin-turbo 3.0 liters, 300 hp, 300 lb-ft. (100 hp/liter)
- Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 2.0 liters, 286 hp, 289 lb-ft. (143 hp/liter)
- Subaru WRX STi 2.5 liters, 293 hp, 290 lb-ft. (117 hp/liter)
- Mazdaspeed 3 2.3 liters, 263 hp, 280 lb-ft. (114 hp/liter)
- Audi (lots of cars) 2.0T, 200 hp, 206 lb-ft (100 hp/liter)

The Evo is sort of an anomaly, but its cast-iron block is gone now, to be replaced by an all-aluminum motor in the future.

Otherwise, the turbo Mini's 177hp from 1.6 liters (110 hp/liter) certainly seems in the right ballpark to me.

--Dan
Mach V

 

Dan - Thanks for injecting some production-world sense

Here's another few to add to that OEM turbo list:
Acura RDX: 2.3 liters, 240 HP, 260 Lb-Ft (104 HP/liter)
Pontiac Solstice GXP: 2.0 liters, 260 HP, 260 Lb-Ft (130 HP/liter)
Porsche 911 Turbo: 3.6 liters, 480 HP, 460 Lb-Ft (133 HP/liter)
Mercedes Benz SL65 AMG: 6.0 liters, 604 HP, 738 Lb-Ft [w00t!] (101 HP/liter)

 

I think what would be FAR more telling is to look at the torque and HP curves for the engines we want to compare. I don't have those for the newest MINI or any other car on hand, but have seen claimed HP (over 500HP) came on VERY late in the RPM band. Perhaps the best question is: how is the power utilized? Look at some performance stats. How does this car stack up versus others? How does it stack up versus its own performance goals? The latest MINI S puts out a claimed 192 ft/lbs at 1600 rpm on overboost. Show me another 1.6L laying down like that in stock configuration. Seriously, I would like to be enlightened. (no challenge here, just like to see what's out there in stock configuration)

From their websites:
Civic si: 2.0L NA 197HP@7800, 139ft/lbs@6100
Accord: 2.3L NA 166HP@5800, 160ft/lbs@4000
WRX STi: 2.5L Turbo 293HP@6000, 290ft/lbs@4400

And, we would need an explaination from BMW as to what "reliability" means to them. They may have some very high standards for their engines. In which case, they may not tune them to run at full capacity.

As for competing with their BMW brand... The 3, 5 and 7 BMW sedans are different cars for different buyers. MINI is not direct competition. Also, BMW has lower priced cars available in Europe. Their 1 series features three engines: the four cyl. at 150HP, the four cyl. diesel at 163HP and a six cyl. at 261HP. The BMW 1 is as close to comparable to a MINI as they make. Why would they do this if they feared cannibalistic competition?

dan

 

I guess I should stop comparing the MINI's FI engine to a lot of Honda's NA engines...which put out 100+hp/liter.

F20C 2.0L NA 240hp
K20a 2.0L NA 220hp
B18c5 1.8L NA 198hp
B16b 1.6L NA 185hp
B16a 1.6L NA 160hp

To say that it doesn't shock you that a 1.6L NA engine puts out 8 more hp, than the FI model the mini just released is...shocking

Now, take any of the engines listed and run 8psi with minimal engine management, and you will have the similar tq numbers that the MCS is running, not counting overboost (although about 1.5k higher in revs), and about 70 more hp. Yes, the mini would probably beat them from 0-15...woohoo!

So I guess my expectations are to high. I was expecting a small car, with a 1.6L FI engine that starts at 24K (sport suspension, + LSD) to have a VERY overbuilt engine, on par with the Acura Type R B18c5, or the Nissan SR20DET... both of which were extremely technical engines for their time that had a TON of performance goodies that lent to their high output. Not to mention the tuneability of each of those was so high, it was almost silly.

And thats what this thread is really about...rumors that they can't squeeze 220ish hp out of a 1.6L FI engine. Something small displacement performance nuts have been doing it for almost 20 years (at 8psi reliability isn't even an issue anymore).


(As a side note, I first got upset with MINI when I found out that the head from the supercharged MCS and the MC had the same valve diameters, and in essence were the same head. goto http://www.tritecmotors.com.br/engli...ercharged.htm# to read all about it.)

 

Yes you should stop comparing larger displacement engines that rev to 9k if you want to look only at peak hp. Try looking at area under the curve; you might get "shocked".

A car that has a base price of $20k is an economy car these days, no matter how skewed your perspective is. The average cost of a car is in the mid 30's. No car that costs $20k is going to have a "VERY overbuilt" engine, especially one like the MINI where luxury appointments and handling prowess are its' forte's, not proving to the world [like Honda has tried to do for the past 20 years] how awesome its engine tunability is. Your expectations are wildly out of proportion to the reality of this type of profitable automobile manufacturing.

 

Actually, a bit under $28K but regardless, again your point is well made. MINIs are entry level vehicles ... period. If you choose to bump the price into the $30K range, that's your choice.