I am looking at the emissions info for my MCS and see a couple of things, SI of average new vehicle is 0.58 and The SI of this vehicle is 1.00. My wife's Volvo SUV has a rating of 0.52. Is this saying that my MCS is twice as polluting as my wifes 7,000 pound SUV and most new vehicles? Say it isn't so....

 

It's possible; CARB rates the MINIs as a Low Emission Vehicle (LEV), meaning that MINIs meet only the minimum emission requirements for sale in California. Your wife's car is probably rated ULEV or SULEV (ultra-ow or super ultra-low). However, it's also possible that your wife's SUV is being compared to other vehicles in its class -- and right now that class is still getting a break so, and the two cars are not being held to the same standard:

In 1998, the California Air Resources Board extended the passenger car emission standards to heavier sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks (with gross vehicle weight up to 8,500 pounds), which formerly had been regulated under less stringent emission standards (LEV I). The new regulations (LEV II) provide a transition period between 2004 and 2007 for manufacturers to meet the new standards for trucks, vans and SUVs. Consequently, a portion of the large vehicle fleet will meet less stringent emission standards (LEV I) until 2008.

For the consumer this means that until 2008, larger vehicles with, for example, a SULEV emissions rating could pollute up to ten times more than a passenger vehicle with that same rating.

How does your gas mileage compare to your wife's?

 

Her Volvo's rate is 16/22. But even when compared to the data on the Mini sheet, it shows the MCS at 1.00 versus 0.58 for the average. Something just doesn't add up.

 

I remember looking at this Smog Index info while on the dealer floor and was really surprised. It was a little disappointing, but I was already sold and had ordered the Mini. I do feel slightly better that I'm not using as much gas, although the Mini's mileage is not as good as say a Toyota.

hmmmm... it is an ethical dilemma for sure. I really hope that Mini invests more in Hybrid or electric technology. I know the performance minded Mini owners might not go for this, but I would. At least I could still drive a Mini and feel like I was trying to do something about our oil dependency.

 

Here's the Mini Hybrid I'd like to have. 0 - 60 in 4.5 and gets 80 mpg, 640 bhp. I don't quite believe it's in the same price range as my MCS.

 

sweet! i think i've seen this before.

i was reading in the Camry hybrid brochure that the Camry's pickup is very good because the battery portion helps during acceleration with extra torque. so, in reality, the performance isn't really so bad.

 

Yes the MCS doesn't appear to be the cleanest vehicle out there. It does meet current standards though & that's good enough for me. Oh yes, it's way more fun for me that any SUV could ever be.

 

It wouldn't be fun though, to be the butt end of SUV driver jokes.
"At least my SI isn't as bad as those Mini drivers".
I would like to have a better understanding of the data and what's really going on. I haven't been able to get a good grasp on it as yet.

 

check out this site for energy impact rating of the mini http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

there are a few more issues to consider other than the SI if you are worried about the environmental impact of your car.

bmw's paint process is more environmentally friendly http://motoringfile.com/2006/07/09/m...-paint-system/

they spartanburg plant is or will be using landfill gas from a nearby landfill.
http://www.csrwire.com/article.cgi/1172.html

there is a bunch more info about bmw's environmental sustainability goals at http://www.bmwgroup.com/bmwgroup_pro.../zukunft.shtml

i read a recent ratign that demonstrated that hybrid electric cars with additional battery energy storage have a higher energy impact rating than some standard cars - i think it as the WSJ?

also, you'll see on the bmw site and mini site the cars meet or exceed EU recycling goals http://www.mini.co.uk/UK/html/about_...ard_facts.html


poke around the web....

 

Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the smog index measures percentages (i.e. smog-to-clean air ratio), not actual airflow.

Very hypothetical made-up example:

• Let's say that Car A, when running at idle (for arguments sake), pushes out 10 gallons of "air" from its exhaust every minute. It is rated with an SI of 0.58.

• Car B has a much larger engine, and when running at idle, it pushes out 25 gallons of "air" a minute. It is rated with an SI of 0.52.

• Now, Car A in this (VERY hypothetical) example will produce 10 x 0.58 = 5.8 gallons of "smog" every minute at idle.

• Car B will produce 25 x 0.52 = 13 gallons of "smog" every minute at idle.

13 gallons of smog per minute (at idle) is a heck of a lot more than 5.8.

So again, unless I'm completely off-track, part of what needs to be considered is the quantity of air being pushed through the engine. The SI is more about the ratio of smog to clean air.

I would think that engine size could be used as a very rough indicator of how much or how little total air volume is produced. Generally speaking, smaller engines will produce less smog just by nature of doing things on a smaller scale - even if they have a worse SI rating. However, smaller engines often run at higher RPMs, so that counteracts it a little bit.

NOTE: The above is just "my" understanding. I might be wrong, and I invite anyone who knows more about this stuff than I do to correct me if I am mistaken. Also, while I used the same SI numbers as the MINI & Volvo mentioned, I really have no idea how much volume of air each produces per minute at idle, so I just used 10 and 25 gallons to make the point that SI alone does not give you the full picture.

 

Who cares?


haha, cause I know I don't.

 

That makes two of us.

Earl

 

If you don't have anything to contribute and you don't care, why bother posting? Sheesh.

 

Just trying to stir people up to get some more interesting posts in here.

Too many boring, uninteresting threads on here these days!

 

Yet another reason why BMW moved to an expensive, high-tech powerplant for 2007: The current MCS has the dirtiest exhaust of any vehicle in its EPA class because it needs to always run rich, like an old Mercedes.

An engine with inherently lower emissions would allow more leeway for tuning tricks that could improve the sometimes temperamental and lumpy power delivery (stumble, surge) and the leaner burning would reduce fuel consumption.

The current MCS uses a modified base Neon engine so it has all of the traditional Chrysler advantages: it was built to be cheap, simple, and durable with its low-tech iron block and SOHC. Its rough nature is part of the charm of the current MINI, as is the harsh ride. The original Mini was loud, crude, and bouncy too... but it was fun! Time will tell if the new MINI, with its smooth ride and engine, will have enough "character" to still be special.

If Chrysler delivers the Hornet (or Lifan\Chery imports cars from China with the Tritec engine), then low-cost replacement parts or factory high-performance equipment for the old engine should be readily available in the future.

 

You're wrong . For gasoline powered vehicles, emissions are measured in terms of grams (or micrograms) of emissions per mile traveled (on a test cycle). Your "method" is a lot more interesting though... and a whole lot more complex!

It appears that I was also wrong . The smog index apparently compares the emissions from new cars against other cars of that model year (Not just cars in the same vehicle class).... so Mrs. TC4653's Volvo SUV may indeed emit less than Mr. TC4653's MCS... assuming both cars are from the same model year car. If the Volvo is older, all bets are off!

http://www.sbcapcd.org/edu/clean-air...m#Smog%20Index

 

I think it's definitely interesting. And the Mrs.'s Vovlo SUV is an 07 my MCS is an 06. I'm still amazed, if that's the case, that a bigger "inefficient" SUV is not as pollutant as my beloved MCS. Yes it's about fun, but it's not all about fun.

 

LOL OK...
Hey, we're all learning here!

 

Ya I noticed my MC was about half way along the scale, whereas my Honda was way lower... I can't believe how high the MCS is! Oh well, at least by getting a MC instead of a MCS I reduced my smog output a bit, lol...

Now I hope I pass the State emissions test next year, hehe...

 

We all learn as we go.
Since the joke when I'm in Europe is always about how the US cars are killing the planet and then Smart car couldn't get certified (initially) in CA due to the tight emission control, I was a bit surprised. You live and learn and I learned that my MCS wasn't as green as I had thought it would be. I guess I was blinded by the FUN!

 

[i read a recent ratign that demonstrated that hybrid electric cars with additional battery energy storage have a higher energy impact rating than some standard cars - i think it as the WSJ?

also, you'll see on the bmw site and mini site the cars meet or exceed EU recycling goals http://www.mini.co.uk/UK/html/about_...ard_facts.html


poke around the web....[/quote]


[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3][FONT=Verdana]Daily Edition: Apr. 3, 2006[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana]Hybrids Lose Lifetime Energy [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana]Battle[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana], Study Says[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana]Hybrid advocates trumpet the environmental benefits of the gas-electric vehicles. But a new study says that the overall energy picture for hybrid vehicles isn't as favorable as it seems. CNW Marketing Research, of Bandon, Ore., says that when the total cost of hybrids to the environment is calculated, including factors like recycling batteries into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure, hybrids come up short against gas-powered vehicles. CNW's energy cost per mile driven figured that the most "energy expensive" vehicle from 2005 is the Maybach at $11.58 per mile, while the Scion xB checks in at the bottom of the scale, at $0.48 a mile. Some hybrids, like the Honda Accord Hybrid, actually get higher lifetime costs than their gas counterparts: the Hybrid Accord has an energy cost per mile of $3.29 while the gas version's is $2.18. CNW accounts for the differences by citing the investments in lightweight materials along with the cost of recycling batteries. The auto industry as a whole, CNW says, has an average dollar per lifetime mile of $2.28; GM's HUMMER H3's figure was $1.949 per mile, lower than the Honda Civic at $2.42 a mile. "If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high-fuel-economy vehicles," says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime." [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

So if the MINI has a higher SI index because it runs so rich, how does my having installed a Unichip affect that number? The Unichip is supposed to reprogram the motor to run leaner...anyone know?

 

clo, generally leaner mixtures tend to produce lower HC and CO emissions but higher NOx emissions due to hotter burning, at least until you go too far and the rising proportion of misfires overwhelms the catalyst.

The factory richness at WOT is used to prevent damage from detonation at the expense of some power. Leaning the mixture at WOT may cut into this safety margin for more power if good gas is used. It is doubtful that WOT is ever used in calculating the SI though.

At part throttle, factory richness is usually there to ensure no misfires and for drivability reasons (by misfire I also mean partial misfire; the harder to light mixture may take an extra millisecond to get going which is equivalent to 18 degrees of timing retard at 3000 rpm--and it's not hard to understand why fluctuating timing can be pretty bad for emissions). In the olden days before emission controls, cruise mixture was set lean for best fuel economy but a large accelerator-pump shot produced a very rich mixture on throttle tip-in to provide good drivability. It is possible for aftermarket software to reproduce this behavior which may allow for improved fuel economy and drivability, plus even pass a tailpipe sniffer test, but would badly fail the EPA test which is why the OEM cannot use it. BTW both Coop d'etat and DrPhilGandini have reported better gas mileage from the Unichip.

Many aftermarket modifications are likely to increase emissions--even pistons! The thin factory piston top ring lands that give the twincharged folks so much trouble (and appear to be the weakest points of the MCS engine) are there to reduce crevice volume and substantially reduce emissions. Would using a stronger conventional design piston fail a typical tailpipe emissions test? Probably not but it would increase emissions enough in the EPA test that the OEM chooses not use them even though they are probably cheaper to manufacture and would result in fewer warranty failures. In short, I would not count on any aftermarket part to reduce emissions.

 

It's probably worth pointing out that the current Mini design (pre-2007) is a pretty old design. I'm not talking just the engine here, but all emission systems (engine, exhaust, fuel, etc.) It's being compared against much newer designs. Honda, Acura, Toyota, for example, all manufacture ULEV vehicles that include features like vapor recovery systems as part of the fuel system. I don't believe our beloved Mini's have that. In any case, these newer designs "skew" the SI index against the Mini (and rightly so since they are cleaner.)

I did look at the SI index and was somewhat taken aback that the time I was shopping. It even made it into the spreadsheet I was using to compare the various vehicles I was considering. But bottom line is that the Mini's "neat" factor counted more to me!

I believe I have read somewhere that the new Mini is much cleaner, as I would expect with a brand new design. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

That makes so much sense...I'm so glad someone brought this up. I saw the poor emissions numbers when I went to buy my MCS. I even remember comparing window sticker numbers--MCS v. MC--and seeing very little difference whatsoever. (Which, of course, made it easier to justify my choice of MCS.) We asked our MA about it at the time, and he really couldn't say much more that we already knew.

I still feel bad about the emissions aspect--I have to say that it's the only thing about this car that I don't love. I try so hard to leave as small an environmental footprint as I can (I can't help it, I grew up in Oakland/Berkeley...the fact that I recycle matchbook covers and scraps of aluminum foil drives my boyfriend nuts), so this feels like such a compromise of values.

But I love this car. I love it. Every time I look at him, he still makes me smile like an idiot. What else can I do, other than a) convert it to hybrid/electric (not likely!), or b) sit back and wait until reviews are in on the R56 and possibly trade up one day? Until then, I'll just have to live with a guilty conscience. And keep my speed under 70 mph (as often as inner speed-demon allows).