Curious, and my question is NOT an intentional criticism of BMW but am wondering if automakers intentionally underpower a vehicle so that they can charge more of adding power later.

Over at the performance mod forum, many established that:
1. 15% reduction pulley increases the HP and torque substantially (over 10%?) and at a lower rpm too.
2. The engine is designed to take the pulley as evidenced by the factory warranty which will come with the Cooper upgrade which includes the reduction pulley.
3. The pulley size doesn't cost a penny more so every Cooper S could have simply come with a smaller pulley with the resulting increase in power. As it is, aftermarket, that part is only a few dozen dollars.

So, WHY did not BMW simply designed it that way right off the bat with the S? No additional cost for them, and a much better performing car. Is it done intentionally so that they could charge more later for the additional upgrade?

If so, they have every right to do what they please, but it just doesn't seem to be optimal engineering. Optimal profit making perhaps but not optimal design....

Any illumination on this sincere question?




:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:

 

I have a feeling you won't be seeing a JCW MCS pushing 200k miles, whereas a standard "underpowered" MCS will with little to no problem from the drivetrain. One aspect you critically forgot was longetivity. Horsepower doesn't come free, and it's typically at the expense of reliability. Examples of highly tuned factory engines that need constant "work" include anything exotic (Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, etc.), Honda's S2000, and the BMW //M cars.

Cheers,
Ryan

 

I often wonder about this type of thing..
Wouldn't it be possible to sell more cars by just adding a few more horses and blowing every other "hot hatch" out of the water?
One clear example is the different power ratings of the same 1.8T Volkswagen engine: 180hp in the beetle turbo S, 180hp in the GTI, yet only 170hp in the heavier and higher-priced Audi A4. WHY???!!!
Why, for example, does Audi like to play "catch-up" with BMW when with a simple ECU tweak they could bump the A4's hp up to 220, just like the same exact engine in the TT, for example..
If the 1.8T engine is so easily bumped up to 220hp and beyond using simple ECU programming, why don't they just give ALL VW's this much horsepower? It seems to make little difference in cost yet I'm sure they could sell a lot more cars this way..

 

I understand what your saying completey and i think a lot of us asked that question to themselves at least once. The pulley might not be the best example though. A better one would be a cold air intake. Why do i have to buy a new air filter for the extra 7-10 hp. Why didn't they just make the best one right off the bat? It barely effects mpg. Some people have said they experience better mpg after install. Something that simple i shouldn't have to pay 150 dollars for. It should have it already. Another example is the rear sway bar. Why not make it with one?

I get the feeling we will never get the answers we want. Maybe they did it to keep costs down, or some other reason. Who the heck knows. Oh well, i better start saving for all the upgrades i am going to get :smile:

 

weaver, I can definitely answer your rear sway-bar question:
MINI wants to design the car so anyone can drive it safely. People wishing to "drive it like they stole it" can opt for a more "race-car" tuning of the suspension at their wallet's leisure. I agree with most cars' OEM suspension tuning; it is in the best interest of most drivers, especially those who think they can drive!

Changing the rear sway-bar actually reduces traction from the rear end of the car by using torque to transfer corner weight to the front axle, thus causing a higher slip angle of the rear tires, and a sensation of the car "turning from the middle". This is NOT a safe tuning method for inexperienced drivers! I therefore agree with MINIs suspension tuning from the factory.

Regards,
Ryan

 

Ever heard of a guy named Lee Iaococa?

In the beginning, car manufacturers made nice cars and tried to sell them. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough and Chrylser was on the verge of bankruptcy. Lee stepped in with the brilliant idea that the just prior to release, a new car design could be "dumbed down". The designers add restrictions or governors to the engine, they replace the headlights or something with deliberately ugly temporary parts and then over the production years they gradually evolve the car back to it's original design.

The plan was so successful that it is now used by every car manufacturer on every model produced. Fortunately, the MINI had big shoes to fill so they didn't do any obvious cosmetic damage to it. Who knows, they may have even wanted to run the engine at full power but Chrylser wouldn't let them. Remember, this engine is used in every Chrylser from the Neon to the PT Cruiser so they can't just let BMW run it at full power in the first year when all the Neons are only getting 60%. The '05 models will surely have the engine set for more power, but after that, the cycle will begin anew with the Peugot engine.

 

All car manufactures in the US these days have an EPA / MPG guideline to follow. To get the best tax breaks and least restrictions placed upon their vehicles. They must produce cars that perform at a certain criteria. I do believe the MINI was produced so BMW could meet these criteria’s.

This car out performs their entire line except in overall speed and has good gas mileage along with emission standards that beat 75 % of the market.

 

"Underpower" is a relative term. The car is built with adequate power for the mass consumer. A 0 to 60 time in the low 7's, and a top end that equals to almost twice the legal speed limit here in the US, is not considered underpowered by most drivers. The car has never, in all it's history, been designed as a straight line go-faster. It was designed as a low priced "city car". In racing, it only excelled on the auto-cross and rallye circuits, where it's nimbleness quickly built its legend.
BMW did a great job with the MCS....now the standard 115 hp MC might be considered another story.

 

No, I like the MC just as it is. I'm not the best one to guage power (still no tickets!!), but given the previously mentioned "city car" label...it's awesome! Good gas mileage, too! :smile:

_________________
'03 IB/W Cooper, chrome bumpers, cloth sport seats, leather steering wheel, silver holees

 

Longevity plays a role, no doubt. I don't think the 15% pulley (which I had installed) will pose a problem, however, the less an engine has to do the longer it should last. SO while I'm confident that my S will be reliable, all things considered, if I keep this car for many years, the stock S will tend to have better overall reliability I would think.

Two other bigger factors are MPG and what no one mentioned so far - cost. There are a lot of benefits to a car company to get more fuel economy out of their cars. And fuel economy comes at an expense to power.

Cost - Let's not forget that the main goal of MINI/BMW was to have the stock S start at under $20,000. So if you look through this site and see the list of minor complaints and suggested improvements that people have, try to keep this in mind. We have an incredible car with good power, incredible styling, great comfort and driveability and options that usually only cars costing $30k+ have. This is made possible because of the 3-series wiring that's in the MINI and the fact that the MINI is so small so it is cheaper to make. Otherwise, if it were full size the MINI would be $30k. Base price, maybe more.

So a lot comes down to cost. The air intake definitely does. The cover and flat filter the S comes with costs about $15. The better intakes cost around $250. And MINI had to cut many corners to get the S under $20k. So that explains the intake (and exhaust and just about everything else).

The pulley is a cost thing with regards to $. Yes, it is somewhat underpowered so they can have an expensive upgrade with a much higher profit margin. Also, to keep sales going, future S models will probably come standard with 10 or 15 more horses. And lastly, when you are supporting a warranty, $ does become a factor. If 1 out of 5,000 engines will fail under warranty with the stock pulley and 2 or 3 out of 5,000 will fail with the 15% smaller pulley, that's a significant expense to MINI if they fail more frequently. Still, the percentage is porbably very small and I think it's a mod with a fairly low risk.

Check out the Mustangs - a great example. THe new body style came out in 94 (I bought a 94 and 95 GT). The GTs only had 215HP. 2 years later they did away with the 5.0L and added the 4.6L which might have made 10 more horses and got slightly better mileage. A number of yrs later and the GTs are getting 260HP. If you really want power, they offer the CObra which originally got 240HP the first year, then 320HP a few yrs later and finally 400HP this year only to have the MUstang completely change style in a year and a half.

 

Automobile Design engineers are always working within the constraints of manufacturing cost, manufacturability, market positioning and post-sale costs (warranty repairs). They target their product to the largest possible market, not just the enthusiast. The lowest restriction air induction system may have been judged to be worth the additional cost. Like many things in life, automobile design is a series of trade-offs.

You might also want to view the performance improvement claims of aftermarket parts with a degree of skepticism. Some deliver solid improvement, some don't. I personally would like to see a statistically valid set of data showing 7-10 HP boost from a new air filter.

 

>> The '05 models will surely have the engine set for more power, but after that, the cycle will begin anew with the Peugot engine.

Design obsolecence is how all industries drive people to want the next best thing--and the Peugot 2.0 is going to be it! It IS wasteful IMO--Nevertheless, I will still consider upgrading my Cooper in 2005. Until then my Coop is perfect and moves me around just fine!

 

I just autocrossed my MCS for the first time this weekend with the stock 205-17 tires. I thought the car had plenty of power but was hampered by wheelspin coming off the corners. If anything, I would like to see a limited slip to put the power to the ground. I live at 6500 feet and feel that there is plenty of power for normal driving and passing. MINI's weren't built to drag race, but the corners are what we bought it for. Motor on Dude.

 

>>>> The '05 models will surely have the engine set for more power, but after that, the cycle will begin anew with the Peugot engine.
>>
>>Design obsolecence is how all industries drive people to want the next best thing--and the Peugot 2.0 is going to be it! It IS wasteful IMO--Nevertheless, I will still consider upgrading my Cooper in 2005. Until then my Coop is perfect and moves me around just fine!
>>

Do we know that the Peugeot will be 2.0 litre? I have never heard anything good about the reliability of pretty much any Peugeot but then again I am no expert.

 

In regards to the intake, the manufacturers have to meet certain noise requirements and an intake would make the more noise than the stock design. Thats why many factory airboxes have hoses of certain lengths and diameters, to tune or change the volume and resonate frequency of the intake. My motorcycle airbox has a snorkel hose about 6 inches long, 3 inches of it being in the airbox, and a flapper valve that closes about 5000 rpm and then re-opens about 6000 rpm. That just happens to be the rev range that the EPA tests for sound output. When the snorkel is removed and the flapper is disconnected the engine is much louder and probably produces a couple more horsepower. I don't mind having the manufacturers detune the output slightly, it gives me a better rate on insurance and lets me spend a little time and money on my car to make it better than what the typical owner will do.

 

With truckee's comment in mind, you have to remember that this is a FWD car. Too much power will turn it into a disaster - just look at the Saab 9-3 Viggen. The Viggen has 235 hp, which is nice in a straight line, as long as the ground is completely flat. However, hit a bump and torque steer will throw it into a curb, and under hard cornering the front end just washes away.

The MINI is famous for its handling. I think BMW wanted the handling to be as good as possible, so they made it so it couldn't be pushed to a point where wheelspin would hurt the handling. This was never meant to be a drag car, it's mean to "Rule the bends". There's always that point of balance between underpowered and overpowered (just look at angrybeats posts about how absurd his wheelspin has become with 23_ horsepower) and BMW liked where 163 fit.

My 2p. Might be a wasted investment though

 

I can't complain about the engine BMW decided to use or the way they set it up. I'm upgrading to the MINI Cooper S from a car that makes only 92 hp out of a 1.8 liter engine. The MCS makes 163 hp. and I am only going to loose a couple miles per gallon (as per manufacturer listing) for all those extra ponies that my other car can't offer. Personally, I think underpowered cars are gas guzzlers if you have to full throttle them all the time to keep up. I also like the idea that I could add performance on my own if I choose. :smile:

 

Another issue worth mentioning here...

In many European countries, a substantial portion of the road taxes are based on HP figures. So by offering three different HP levels in the Mini, they have been able to provide cars for three different types of buyers.

Longevity is also an issue. BMW needs to make sure that the running costs, and specifically warranty costs, are in line with expectation. I'd bet that driving down warranty costs is one of the bigest projects facing Mini management today.

 

This has been quite an interesting thread, so I´ll add up.

Is the Mini S or even the regular Cooper underpowered? Don´t forget that it´s not all about HP, you have to factor in three other very important things: torque (what makes a car accelerate), power to weight ratio (where the Mini is a real champion) and the gear ratios (which are also excellent in the Mini)

I personally think that the best cars are not the ones with brute HP but the ones that are able to achieve a balance between engine, weight, suspension, driving comfort, etc. In the case of the MCS having 170 HP on such a light weight car is like having 220HP on a heavier car.

As for the regular Cooper, even at 115HP I think it is still a very balanced package, one that is more tuned for "regular" drivers, it doesn´t dissapoint at all for normal city conditions. For highway driving during our Mexican Mini Meet we took a toll highway that was empty and was reaching speeds of 160 km/h (about 100 mph) without any effort and without trying to push it beyond that. Slow? Underpowered?

 

At 135 HP, I would definitely not say my MC is underpowered. Acceleration when in motion over 15/20 mph is more than satisfactory.

However, acceleration launch (read low-end torque) from a standing stop in both the MC and MCS is not very impressive, as several car mags have noted. Once you know this though, you know to rev up to 3k rpms before releasing the clutch to get an acceptable takeoff.
Now when it comes to handling, both MC & MCS handle better than any cars I have ever driven!!

Having driven both, I would not trade my MC for any other car on the road (except a BMW M3)... and I think that says it all !

 

>>At 135 HP, I would definitely not say my MC is underpowered

I thought the MC is 115 bhp?? Am I wrong or have you have mod's?

Regards,

Adam

 

Oh... the question was: is the MINI underpowered as stock/ no mods ?

Yes, I would say a few mods go a long way! Which I think was quite intentional by BMW.

 

What mods have you done? I like the picture in tyour sig', it looks quite low in the long grass.

 

Thanks! No, it's not lowered at all yet.

Stock MC is about 122 HP.

My Mods:
Rogue Engineering exhaust,
Pipercross Viper intake,
Moss skidplate,
Magnecor plug wires.