It's beginning to look like every other manufacturer is offering a 2-liter turbo with well over 300 HP (Subaru, Mitsu., M-B, Ford, Audi, BMW, VW, etc.).

I do like the concept of the JCW line, but surely Mini could offer something even more performance-oriented, maybe drawing from their All-4 and Dakar experience.

 

Subaru, Mitsubishi, Ford, Audi, VW all are AWD platforms. MINI is FWD. Not only that but all of those vehicles are much heavier than the MINI (due to the all wheel drive). It's not that they can't get that high, its about the application of power to the wheels.
Actually it's about a lot more than that, but thats a biggy.

 

Like Grizld700 said, it comes down to how much power you can have go to the wheels in a FWD car like the MINI. All the cars you mentioned are either AWD or RWD. On a FWD car, you put much more power down, and you will have a much harder time driving it. A skilled driver could manage, but a normal driver could not. It would take a lot of the confidence-inspiring drive-ability that we've all come to love from MINI away. POWER IS NOT EVERYTHING and MINI has never played that game. They've always been about the total package.

So why not go to RWD or AWD. Weight, fuel economy, and cost. RWD systems are inherently more expensive and usually not as fuel efficient as a FWD car. AWD systems add weight and are also more expensive. People complain about the cost of a MINI now, imagine another $1000 on top of that for AWD, keeping in mind MINIs do not have the sales volume that the other manufacturers do.

That being said, it is known MINI is playing around with AWD systems in the form of hybrid drivetrains, like the i8. An electric motor would power the rear wheels, standard gas engine would power the front. Or they may have some options going full plug-in electric.

 

You put 300 HP into a JCW Mini and somebody's gonna have a problem real quick. Get out the extra hay bales!

 

Fact check time. "every other" actually equals exactly ONE: the $48,500 (theoretical but improbable base price) Mercedes-Benz CLA45 AMG. The rest all have under 300 HP. All of the below are 2.0L turbo gasoline direct injected, except for the Evo X, which is still port injected.


Audi A3 2.0 Prestige: 220 HP, 258 LbFt, 3362 Lbs curb, 15.3 lb/hp
Audi TTS: 265 Hp, 258 LbFt, 3263 Lbs curb, 12.3 lb/hp
BMW Z4 sDrive28i 6MT: 240 HP, 260 LbFt, 3263 Lbs curb, 13.6 lb/hp
BMW 228i 6MT: 240 HP, 255 LbFt, 3295 Lbs curb, 13.7 lb/hp
Buick Verano Premium 6MT: 250 HP, 260 LbFt, 3550 Lbs curb, 14.2 lb/hp
Cadillac ATS Coupe 6MT rear-drive: 272 Hp, 295 LbFt, 3411 Lbs curb, 12.5 lb/hp
Ford Focus ST: 252 HP, 270 LbFt, 3223 Lbs curb, 12.8 lb/hp
Mercedes Benz CLA45 AMG: 355 Hp, 332 LbFt, 3450 Lbs curb, 9.7 lb/hp
MINI John Cooper Works: 228 HP, 236 LbFt, 2680 Lbs DIN USA adjusted [no driver aka curb weight, MINI still advertises in the USA with "unladen weight", which is w/driver and fuel], 11.8 lb/hp
Mitsubishi Evo X (port injection): 291 Hp, 300 LbFt, 3527 Lbs curb, 12.1 lb/hp
Subaru WRX 6MT: 268 HP, 258 LbFt, 3269 Lbs curb, 12.2 lb/hp
VW Mk7 GTI S 2-door: 210 HP, 256 LbFt, 2972 Lbs curb, 14.1 lb/hp
VW Mk7 GTI Autobahn 4-door PP: 220 HP, 258 LbFt, 3086 Lbs curb, 14.0 lb/hp
VW Golf R 4-door DSG: 292 HP, 280 LbFt, 3340 Lbs curb, 11.9 lb/hp
Volvo S60 T5 Drive-E FWD: 240 Hp, 258 LbFt, 3433 Lbs curb, 14.3 lb/hp


Now, let's re-sort them in terms of quickest power-to-weight ratio:

CLA45 AMG --> JCW --> Golf R --> Evo X --> WRX --> TTS --> ATS --> Focus ST --> Z4 --> 228i --> GTI PP --> GTI --> Verano Turbo --> A3 2.0


I can't with a straight face say the JCW has a bad power-to-weight ratio. If you looked at the "differences" thread you'd see the graph showing the excellent tractive force the JCW has.

 

Thanks Ryephile for doing what I wanted to do. I just didn't have motivation to go through it all.

 

As touched upon but not actually stated (unless I missed it speed reading) it all boils down to one very important ratio: Power to weight. Guys love to brag about there big engines but forget to mention that it's pushing a 3 ton behemoth F250 crew cab. It also boils down to a quote from one of the member's signature lines: "If you can't go fast with 90 HP, 900 won't help you." There's a lot to be said for that. Big HP advertising also helps sell by triggering helpless testosterone reflexes.

 

Wow, the Golf R is almost 700 lbs heavier than our Minis. You shoulda seen this Gopro video of someone with a car just like mine on a racetrack (not AutoX) with a bunch of other cars. Maybe he's a good driver too, but he passed a lot of cars and nobody passed him lol.

 

I think I've seen this video. I think the driver was nearly as fast as a BMW M3. Playing cat and mouse.

 

All the years I've been doing track days, the car rarely plays a part in the bigger equation of lap times, since the vast majority of people at HPDEs and open-track days are of an incredible range of driving talent, from championship pro racers to absolutely hopeless n00bs and everything in-between.

So, a [fill in the blank car] on a track where he's maybe a good driver in a pack of slower cars with slower drivers and he hand-picked the magical minutes to post on YouTube. Makes for amusing entertainment but hardly scientific.

 

Mini is an economy car even in the JCW trim. In my opinion it should be more appropriate to compare with brands in the same range.....Honda, Nissan Hyundai, KIA and others.

Most of the cars in your listing are far better engineered than the Mini.

I never believed I drive a BMW product when I sit in my Mini LOL.

 

MINI has always been about handling, not pure power....a MINI is NOT drag racer or muscle car...
To try to compete in a HP war with other companies would be to forget the heritage of mini and how they have offered superior handling with adequate reasonable power that many have found ways to boost....
Car companies tend to fail when they try to be all things to all people....
The fact BMW/MINI has realized that the JCW is already priced above it class in many ways, and adding another $2000 to the price suddenly makes it more attractive to most buyers to start with a better car...
Sure some folks will happily spend $40,000-50,000 on a MINI.... But those are far and few between..just look at the price points dealers pick to prespec cars that are not custom. Sure...a few folks want the "ultimate mini", but most want one at the price that make sense in it category, which the mini is already at the top edge of...

 

 

MINI has always been a premium small car since its inception in 2001.


Forgive me I missed the Hyundai/Kia 2.0L TGDI offerings:

Kia Optima Limited 2.0T: 274 HP and 269 LbFt, 3,468 Lbs, 12.7 Lb/Hp
Hyundai Sonata Sport 2.0T: 245 HP, 260 LbFt, 3,505 Lbs, 14.3 Lb/Hp
Hyundai Sonata Limited 2.0T: 245 HP and 260 LbFt, 3,607 Lbs, 14.7 Lb/Hp

 

Or, to put it another way, if your man bits are already large enough, a Mini is all you need, but by all means look for a car with a bigger horsepower number if that's what your ego needs.

I mean, a bigger number is always better, isn't it?

 

When the R56 came out, BMW were pushing the "no lag" feeling from their turbos. I guess the 300+ bhp cars have a larger turbo and some noticeable lag - whereas the mini will be a smoother power delivery.

300 bhp in a mini will just spin the front wheels - less power will give ideal traction from the fwd system and a faster car for it.

 

I love my MINI but if Audi actually releases this...

http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...-turbo-concept

Power-to-weight no problem!

 

...we almost certainly won't see it here. Nein Fritz, we cannot ship this to America - the rear window goes into the sky! First we must raise it 3" and add 1000lbs - then it will sell. It will join the 355HP A45 AMG and 326HP BMW M135i as cars to be seen from afar...

(Not that I'm bitter or anything. I'm just impatiently waiting for my MINI to appear off the coast of Halifax).

 

^and if we did see it here, it would cost two JCWs plus the change in your couch.

 

A single turbo system has limitations on the width of the torque plateau. There are things the engine developers and calibrators do to increase the width, notably:

*current gen turbine and compressor aerodynamics
*twin scroll on even-numbered piston engines to improve turbine efficiency
*cam phasing to lower boost threshold RPM
*valve lift to reduce pumping loss to reduce lag
*retarded ignition timing to lower boost threshold RPM by putting more combustion energy into the turbine

All these items help to quicken and broaden the turbo's operational window. This lets the manufacturer choose a right sized compressor and turbine to get the power they target along with the torque plateau exactly where their design goals dictate. Many OEMs right now are having a proverbial arms race to have the lowest boost threshold, with BMW/MINI currently leading with their 1,250 RPM peak torque.

On the flipside, anyone that's driven an Evo VIII knows how lengthy the turbo lag is and how high the boost threshold is.

The CLA45 AMG, by M-B's own published engine graph, claims a boost threshold of ~2,300 RPM. With it's long-runner manifold and fairly far away primary catalytic converter, it's clear M-B chose peak horsepower over low-end torque and emissions

As an aside that cerenkov mentions, e-turbos are on the horizon, and that'll let engine designers pretty much be able to have peak torque from idle to redline.

 

The interesting thing about the new-series motors is how undersquare they are - stroke equals 115% bore. I presume that is something to do with getting enough gas speed at low rpm to make the turbo work - though I guess it could be making the combustion chamber smaller for good combustion efficiency.

I was reading something about the McLaren P1 which said that the hybrid part of the propulsion is particularly used for 'torque fill' - to make the torque curve and throttle response exactly as the designers want it. And I guess Formula 1 cars are already running e-turbos, with e-output as well as e-input.

 

I can remember that shortly after the Prius hit the states there were numerous predictions that we would soon see e-TDIs everywhere. That battery powered boost would cover the powerband deficiencies of diesels (and their sub-optimal performance in stop-and-go traffic) and that the turbo diesel half of the equation would cover the problem of hauling a vehicle along a highway at 80MPH in the heat of an Arizona summer. Sadly, still waiting...

 

Diesel hybrids don't make anything like as much sense as petrol/gas hybrids, since a diesel has good part-load fuel efficiency, unlike a gas engine. And the real benefit of gas hybrids is that they enable a smaller motor to achieve the same level of maximum acceleration. Since the smaller gas motor is working harder, it is more fuel efficient (contrary to what your dad always told you).

But this assumes the level of maximum acceleration is actually needed - if it wasn't (or if drivers were willing to use full throttle to get the acceleration they want), a smaller engine without the hybrid stuff might be even more efficient, particularly if capital cost were included. Since there isn't a gas-only 1.5L Prius, we'll never know.

It's tempting to think hybrids work particularly well in stop-and-go traffic but the only data I have seen suggested that a Prius recovers no more than 10% of its kinetic energy. But there are still other benefits, such as reducing even further the amount of time the gas/diesel engine is running, compared to auto stop-start engines like the Mini.

Peugeot do make a diesel hybrid crossover 3008 and the official European fuel economy tests for that are:

1.6L diesel-only: 51mpg Urban, 62mpg Extra-urban
2.0L diesel-only: 48mpg Urban, 62mpg Extra-urban
2.0L diesel hybrid: 88mpg Urban, 59mpg Extra-urban

Those figures are converted to US gallons but do not compare them to US fuel economy tests - the current European extra-urban is a very slow test, rarely going over 50mph. I think the US example has shamed the EU to revise the economy tests from 2018 to make them more realistic.

It's curious that Peugeot put the bigger diesel engine in the hybrid, but I guess that's the result of the good part-load efficiency of a diesel. Notice that the 1.6L and 2.0L diesels have exactly the same extra-urban economy, when both will be barely more than idling - and the diesel hybrid is not quite as good.

 

Thank you for all the useful information...I didn't know Peugeot made a hybrid diesel. And I realized I had forgotten all about the GM 'mild hybrid' trucks - not that there were ever very many of them but some did use the Duramax V8 diesel engine. But they were basically glorified auto stop-start hybrids.

As for Peugeot choosing to twin the electric motors with the most powerful engine...that is not the first time a manufacturer went that way. For whatever reason when Toyota 'hybrid-ized' their Highlander SUV they chose to mate the electrics to the V6 not the 4-cylinder. I bought one and it was - I kid you not - the fastest vehicle 0-60 Toyota made that year (2006).

 

LOL sorry, he is right and you are wrong. MINI is above Honda, Nissan, Hyundai and KIA. You seem to own a JCW but are very bitter about it... I have seen your post's before, if you talk like you don't like it why do you have one?