Personaly I like this one (1000 bph and 1000 lb-ft). Hmm, if we made the mini wider, do you think it would fit

 

THIS is an engine!

 

The Tritec is proving itself to be a very stout little engine. It has the credentials of a good forced-induction motor: cast iron block, piston oil squirters, forged pistons, etc. Has anyone blown one up yet?

 

Here is my favorite engine yet; the Mazda Renesis Rotary. I just love the simplicity, light weight, and smoooooothness of this baby !

 

I've flogged that little bastid quite a bit, and it's never given me any trouble. I like the engine, I will admit.

Now when I get the pulley.... I think it's going to change from like to lust.

 

>>Another underated 4-cylinder is the Duratec and one I put in the same class as the Tritec. A very solid engine that has been used by GM for quite some time amongst many different cars. Extremely powerful. I have seen many people take these to 400-500hp with no change in internals. Heck Saturn got one to 1,100 hp without much changes to the internals in their Saturn 200mph breaker.


Eeek! As a Fordnatik, I couldn't let the picky detail on this one go. The new GM 4-cylinder power plant that is being used in their US compact car lines (including some Saturn models, Chevy Cavalier, Pontiac Sunfire, and reportedly in supercharged form, in the Solstice, if it gets to production) is branded Ecotec. I believe that this engine is also used in the Vauxhall line on the east side of the big pond...

Duratec is a Ford brand name, and actually refers to two different series of engine models. The first of these was a 2.5L V6 used in the Mondeo/Contour, Mystique, and Cougar (the newer FWD version). This was enlarged to 3.0L for use in the Taurus/Sable models. The second series of Duratec engines is a 2.3L inline 4 which saw its first US production use in the Ranger pickup, I believe in 2001. It has since been fitted to the Focus, where it replaces the aging (albeit very reliable) Zetec 2.0L engine. The change allows the new Focus to qualify for US EPA PZEV (Partial Zero Emission Vehicle) status. Mazda has also produced a variant of the 2.3 Duratec with variable valve timing for use in the new Mazda 6 sedan, and as an option for the Mazda 3-series.

Both the Ecotec and Duratec feature chain-driven 16V DOHC heads atop an aluminum alloy block; however, the process used to produce the block and head castings is quite different between the GM and Ford products. GM uses a "lost foam" casting process (hence the reason the surface of the Ecotec heads and block has the texture of a styrofoam beer cooler.) Conversely, Ford uses a Cosworth-developed casting process.

Hm- I hope I got that right. My memory gets a bit fuzzy this late.

 

>>The Tritec is proving itself to be a very stout little engine. It has the credentials of a good forced-induction motor: cast iron block, piston oil squirters, forged pistons, etc. Has anyone blown one up yet?

Hey its a great Naturally Aspirated engine also!

 

>>>>Another underated 4-cylinder is the Duratec and one I put in the same class as the Tritec. A very solid engine that has been used by GM for quite some time amongst many different cars. Extremely powerful. I have seen many people take these to 400-500hp with no change in internals. Heck Saturn got one to 1,100 hp without much changes to the internals in their Saturn 200mph breaker.
>>
>>
>>Eeek! As a Fordnatik, I couldn't let the picky detail on this one go. The new GM 4-cylinder power plant that is being used in their US compact car lines (including some Saturn models, Chevy Cavalier, Pontiac Sunfire, and reportedly in supercharged form, in the Solstice, if it gets to production) is branded Ecotec. I believe that this engine is also used in the Vauxhall line on the east side of the big pond...
>>
>>Duratec is a Ford brand name, and actually refers to two different series of engine models. The first of these was a 2.5L V6 used in the Mondeo/Contour, Mystique, and Cougar (the newer FWD version). This was enlarged to 3.0L for use in the Taurus/Sable models. The second series of Duratec engines is a 2.3L inline 4 which saw its first US production use in the Ranger pickup, I believe in 2001. It has since been fitted to the Focus, where it replaces the aging (albeit very reliable) Zetec 2.0L engine. The change allows the new Focus to qualify for US EPA PZEV (Partial Zero Emission Vehicle) status. Mazda has also produced a variant of the 2.3 Duratec with variable valve timing for use in the new Mazda 6 sedan, and as an option for the Mazda 3-series.
>>
>>Both the Ecotec and Duratec feature chain-driven 16V DOHC heads atop an aluminum alloy block; however, the process used to produce the block and head castings is quite different between the GM and Ford products. GM uses a "lost foam" casting process (hence the reason the surface of the Ecotec heads and block has the texture of a styrofoam beer cooler.) Conversely, Ford uses a Cosworth-developed casting process.
>>
>>Hm- I hope I got that right. My memory gets a bit fuzzy this late.


You are definitely right. My bad. Thistec, Thattec, they all start sounding the same.

 

>>Here is my favorite engine yet; the Mazda Renesis Rotary. I just love the simplicity, light weight, and smoooooothness of this baby !
>>
>>

Yes! Yes! We had one of the early rotary Mazdas. Those early engines had wear problems with the apex seals, but... Smoooooth, and they cranked the performance of a small V8 out of just two rotors. I know its heresy, but if BMW put one of these plants in a MINI...!!!

If you pull out all the stops, anyone can build a monster engine. But I like the compact little engines that produce way more horsepower than anyone expects.

 

The Wrenkel Rotary engine is indeed a tecnological marvel but for some reason it has never been offered in other production vehicles outside of the Mazda RX series in recent years.

The original Wrankel Rotary engine is a German not Japanese design. I am not sure if Ford-Mazda holds the patent to it, but the Japanese had nothing to do with its creation.

 

>>The Wrenkel Rotary engine is indeed a tecnological marvel but for some reason it has never been offered in other production vehicles outside of the Mazda RX series in recent years.
>>
>>The original Wrankel Rotary engine is a German not Japanese design. I am not sure if Ford-Mazda holds the patent to it, but the Japanese had nothing to do with its creation.

You may have hit on the reason why this type of engine has not seen wider use in the automobile industry- apex seal wear is hard to control.

GM experimented with the Wankel engine for a brief period, and even built a prototype Corvette that utilized a four-rotor example. Of course, it never saw mass production, and the project was shelved.

Other than Mazda products, I have laid hands on only two production iterations of the Wankel design here in the US: an NSU Spyder, and a Suzuki RE-5 motorcycle.

The NSU looks like a small version of a VW Karmann Ghia cabrio, and the Suzuki was a fairly large cruising bike. Unfortunately, neither of these vehicles was in running condition when I saw it- I think they both had bad apex seals, and could not maintain adequate compression to run properly. They were interesting to see, though!

One of the surprise benefits of the Wankel design is that the engine proved to be very unfussy about fuel quality. In Mazda's early testing, the engineers had a prototype engine running on very low octane fuel- I think 67 octane was the rating quoted in the text. Knocking and preignition simply were not a problem. Perhaps this could be another fringe benefit for those of you out there who have to run on craptastic California $pec fuel?

in addition to utilizing far fewer moving parts than a comparable 4-stroke reciprocating engine, Dr. Felix Wankel's unique creation has several other merits. It has tremendous volumetric efficiency for its nominal displacement- thus the tremendous power-to-size ratio. That pumping ability is not without drawbacks, however. When running on gasoline, the fuel charge gets pushed through the engine so quickly that it has trouble getting burned completely before it is expelled through the exhaust port(s). This is why keeping the exhaust output clean enough to meet emissions regs is not easy. A fuel with a faster flame propagation rate, such as hydrogen, might suit the engine's internal gas flow properties better, and allow the engine to extract more work from the fuel consumed. Fuel that's still burning in the exhaust tract isn't doing any useful work, unless you need to burn the UPC labels off your shiny new stainless steel header!

 

OK, dumb question...but why is it called a Pentagon engine?

 

>>OK, dumb question...but why is it called a Pentagon engine?

In homage to the rear decklid emblem found on Chrysler K-cars?

 

>>>>Actually I love this motor, and I think it will be a shame for BMW to go with a Peugot engine. I think time will show the reliability of this engine will exceed expectations. These small Chrysler 4-cylinders are great and can take a lot of abuse. I know that BBR stated that they had a hard time making one break. I think Chrylser has much more experience and a better reputation at making 4-cylinder gas engines than Peugot has. Most of Peugot's line are diesels and that is where most of their experience lies.
>>
>>Things to remember: BMW and PSA (Puegoet/Citroen) have jointly engineered developed the new engine. The MINI version will be tailored to BMW specifications and built in England and the Harms plant down the road from the Oxford MINI plant.
>>
>>Now compare that to the current tri-tec engine which was engineered by Chrysler with limited input from Rover engineers. Sure the current engine is a nice piece but from what I hear I think everyone will be blown away by what's coming in the next 2-5 years.


Gabe,

The Tritec was also jointly engineered by BMW and Chrysler. Design work began between both companies in 1996 on the engine. The engine plant in Brazil in which the engine is built is jointly owned by Chrysler and BMW. This is according to the official press releases from BMW. No Rover engineers were involved in the creation of the engine according to my understanding.

 

Can you describe your 'stumble?' I just got an 04 Cooper and have a stumble until it gets good and warmed up. I'm wondering if there is something the dealer can do to rectify it.

Thanks.
>>Love the engine in my MCS. The v.36 software eliminated the stumble. I am currently getting over 30 mpg commuting to work. The spark plugs are a snap to change, no timing belt to change (uses a chain), and it really gets up and moves when you press the pedal to the metal for passing. Here is a photo of base Cooper engine.....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________
>>2004 MCS - Pepper White/ Black
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

 

>>>>>>Actually I love this motor, and I think it will be a shame for BMW to go with a Peugot engine. I think time will show the reliability of this engine will exceed expectations. These small Chrysler 4-cylinders are great and can take a lot of abuse. I know that BBR stated that they had a hard time making one break. I think Chrylser has much more experience and a better reputation at making 4-cylinder gas engines than Peugot has. Most of Peugot's line are diesels and that is where most of their experience lies.
>>>>
>>>>Things to remember: BMW and PSA (Puegoet/Citroen) have jointly engineered developed the new engine. The MINI version will be tailored to BMW specifications and built in England and the Harms plant down the road from the Oxford MINI plant.
>>>>
>>>>Now compare that to the current tri-tec engine which was engineered by Chrysler with limited input from Rover engineers. Sure the current engine is a nice piece but from what I hear I think everyone will be blown away by what's coming in the next 2-5 years.
>>
>>
>>Gabe,
>>
>>The Tritec was also jointly engineered by BMW and Chrysler. Design work began between both companies in 1996 on the engine. The engine plant in Brazil in which the engine is built is jointly owned by Chrysler and BMW. This is according to the official press releases from BMW. No Rover engineers were involved in the creation of the engine according to my understanding.


From interviews I've read by the Rover and Chrysler engineers Rover/BMW didn't do much of any design work on the engine at all - in contrast to all the PR releases. In fact Rover engineers were so worried about the Chrysler engineers not fully understanding the MINI and it's needs that they shipped over some classic Minis to Detroit.

 

Here is the MCS engine:

 

Good find JaySnyder...

 

Well heck if the Chrysler engine was not well thought out and it still was awarded one of the top ten engines of the year, what kinkd of award would it get if it had been well thought out???

well...hopefully a well thought out "S" would have gotten the "stumble free" award :smile: The supercharger was obviously added as an afterthought to appeal to the larger performance US market, but apparently they couldn't get the software to work right from the very start and dodged the issue for years (my "S" delivered June 02). I've driven the reg mini and no stumble, but all the "S's" I have driven had the stumble including the "works" at the dealer which was even more noticible....still look forward to the upgrade engine when it finally gets here...cheers

 

I've never been a big fan of Chrysler but the one thing they have always done well is engines.

 

>>I've never been a big fan of Chrysler but the one thing they have always done well is engines.


Their transmissions are a whole different story.... :???:

 

I kind of wish that BMW would continue their relationship with Toyota on engines. The Mini One-D in EU and UK has a Toyota turbo-diesel. Now... can you imagine the Toyota VVTi 1.8L from the Celica? 180HP with no turbo/supercharger sounds good to me!

 

>>I kind of wish that BMW would continue their relationship with Toyota on engines. The Mini One-D in EU and UK has a Toyota turbo-diesel. Now... can you imagine the Toyota VVTi 1.8L from the Celica? 180HP with no turbo/supercharger sounds good to me!

I would not like to see the Toyota engine in the car. It has crummy torque and doesn't really take off until the VVTi kicks in. The 180hp is peak and not anywhere as linear as the Mini engine. The old GM Quad 4 did 200hp for a 1.8 liter with no blower or turbo either.

I am really impressed with the smoothness of the hp curve and the general "flatness" of the torque curve across the entire rev-range. The mini just keeps kicking out more and more hp all the way up to redline and beyond in a smooth and linear fashion.

 

The GM Quad 4 was 2.3 L and produced 190 hp in its most powerful form. That's not very powerful by today's standards.

 

So true! But I'd add that their engines on non-sporty cars are awful as well. My wife's Neon didn't make it to 35k miles. I also know a few people who needed serious engine work on their Chrysler Minivans well before 50k miles.