Hey everyone,

First time poster, somewhat longterm lurker. I know there's tons of posts on the whole move to turbochargers on the new gen MINI's and theres tons of info on the attributes of both turbo and superchargers but I couldn't find an adequate answer to a question I had about racing.

Granted, the turbochargers are more efficient and offer more HP's and boost at higher end, but wouldn't the supercharger still benefit the cooper's handling in tight corners and twists? I mean, it seems the turbo would benefit the MINI in straight line contests, but wasn't the original Mini built as a city car? Subsequent versions of the car still make it a city car. This is why I'm guessing the best qualities about Mini's are their handling and acceleration. Therefore, in racing contests that featured primarily a course with many corners and turns, wouldn't the supercharger be better than the turbocharger?

I know they have almost eliminated turb-lag nowadays but isn't there still lag just by the fact of how a turbocharger works? It would seem to me that having guaranteed instant power(broad powerband) at all times would benefit the MINI in tight courses. Wouldn't the R53 MINI's have the advantage over R56 MINI's in this sense in tight courses? The supercharger has to have some other benefit than just the supercharger whine over the turbocharger, right?

 

Turbo is much quicker off the line than the SC car. Simple reason, available torque at low RPMs. I can attest seat of pants owning both, turbo is definitely quicker in city traffic here in dc. :-)

 

Initial "Response" at full throttle might be a little better with the SC. I got tired of the turbo lag on my 2002 WRX, and didn't like the turbo lag on a 2004 GTI 1.8t. I haven't driven a new R56 turbo, so I can't offer a direct comparison. I believe most who have driven one have come away impressed, however. And that says something...

 

Hmm, are you saying that turbochargers are better at lower rpm's? I would've thought thats where the supercharger would be king. And having a course where you're not always getting up above high speeds, the supercharger would help you out more than a turbocharger. Of course there are other considerations for the r53vr56 such as weight of the car and new engine.

 

I don't believe the comment is about turbo vs. super in general, just a comparison of the R53 vs R56.

 

In many ways, the Supercharged MCS (R53) and the Turbocharged MCS (R56) are in direct opposition to "traditional" thinking on the technologies.

MINI deliberately used a very small Turbo on the R56, which effectively eliminates turbo lag, and you get a LOT of torque at low RPM. Meanwhile, the Super in the R53 seems to build its power more at higher RPMs.

The effect of this is that the 1st Gen MCSes seem to come alive a lot more at high RPMs, whereas the R56 MCS has a lot more at low RPMs.

Opposite thinking, I know. But true... just take a look at the direct comparison dyno results recently at Mach V.

 

Edge: +1

I've driven the R56 on the track, and have owned the 1.8T VW and Mazdaspeed Protege turbos (and, actually, a Pontiac Sunbird turbo AND extensively driven the Dodge 2.2 turbo in a GLH!).

The R56 and VW 1.8T share the "small turbo" characteristic - fast spool-up and a nice, flat, fat torque curve across the rev band, especially at low RPMs. These turbos run out of steam at the top end since their compressor efficiency is tuned for lower RPM operation - but by then they already got the job of "torque production" done, and have accelerated out of the corner - smoothly, since the power is delivered pretty smoothly. The Mazda turbo was similar, but not *quite* as strong at low RPM (the whole engine in the Protege wasn't as strong - good, but not as bullet proof as the 1.8T was, and so was only capable of lower power before detonating, but I digress...).

The others were "classic" turbos: nothing, not much, them WHAM as the turbo hits its efficiency curve and off-ya-go. Narrower RPM band, but SMACK what a hit in the pants (arguably, the 2.2 and Pontiac had the hardest "hit" as the turbo kicked). Hard to drive on a road course, especially a tight one, since that power delivery could be counted on to WHAM you j-u-s-t when you didn't quite want it. with FWD this was simply understeer, but with RWD that can be disastrous (reference the notorious Porsche 911 Turbo twitchiness at the rear end).

That said, the R56 would still likely have the edge, since it has better power overall - and turbos in general are a more efficient way to spin the compressor wheel than engine-driven Superchargers.

BUT your logic is quite sound - only flaw is that Mini stood the argument on its ear with a turbo that's efficient at low RPMs, and a supercharger that frankly, well, isn't.

I like the whine though. And when my warranty is up, I'd like the 15% pulley, please.