Key Lime Hamster, remember that I own both: '05 R53 Supercharged S and '08 R55 Cooper S Clubman turbocharged. I have often gone back and forth driving both cars, several times during the same day.

I couple of weekends ago I took the Clubman S to Orlando and the car's power delivery in the Florida Turnpike is very impressive and smooth. I have got one with the AISIN 6-speed automatic transmission. Better yet, was the consistent 38MPG @75 MPH with the cruise control pegged on.

But by the same token, my 100% stock Supercharged R53 is no slouch. The main difference between the 2 engines in terms of power delivery, is that the Turbocharged engine you have like 80%-90% of available torque as early as 1,700RPM. This of course, will give the impression that the car is fastER than the iron block supercharged Mopar. The Tritec needs to be worked a little more to reach that "sweet spot"which is often at or above 3K RPM. This is why MINI shortened/modified the stock gear ratios on the 6-speed Getrag manual, to improve driveability and acceleration response from standstill (Drive a pre-2005 Cooper S manual and you'll notice that car to be a real dog compared to the revised 2005+ models).

The problem with the Turbocharged Prince engine is that it starts to lose steam after 5,500RPM in stock form. This will probably not be an issue for the everyday street driver but out in the track it may be very noticeable.

By contrast, the supercharged Tritec pulls like a freaking freight locomotive train from 3K RPM all the way to redline! The power just keeps building and building and the engine keeps begging for more, at the same point, where the turbocharged Prince starts to lose steam.

I personally like the character and dynamics of both engines and feel lucky to have access to both whenever I please. But I would say the most impressive trait of the turbocharged prince is its fuel economy. I am filling up that car every 2 weeks!

 

Great post!

 

i think you've captures (more favorably) the reasons why i am not a huge fan of the tritec engine.

the AUC power meant that in most cases, it is necessary to really cane the little hamster motor to get the car moving. since 85% of my driving is not WOT, this would annoy me as it did just on a test drive. having to rev for power means similarly needing to 'wait' for said power to be delivered.

that the fuel efficiency necessarily is also worse was yet another thing i find difficult to reconcile. a 1.6L motor really rated for those numbers is oddly out of whack with its physical dimensions.

 

Well, the Prince engine has direct fuel injection, VANOS, DOHC and other host of features that are missing from the Tritec.

The Tritec is an old school cast iron block, SOHC engine with no variable valve timing technology and standard rail fuel injection. I think the greatest advantage the Tritec has over the Prince will be long term durability. That cast iron block is nearly bullet-proof, where as, the Prince is an aluminum engine and we all know that engines made on that metal are not as durable in the long haul than comparable cast iron motors. Jury is still out on that. We will see how the Prince performs out in the real world in the next 7-10 years to better form an opinion about it.

I think you misunderstood by impression on the TRITEC performance a little. being a Supercharged engine (It has an Eaton M45 supercharger), power delivery is there from the get go. The Turbo Prince still has some instances where turbo lag is noticeable, albeit, much, much better than turbocharged engines from yesteryear in terms of response.

Like I said, I think both engines, being forced induction, are very good at what they do. They simply perform differently but the results are almost identical out in the real world. Some folks will prefer the sweet sound of the supercharge whine, instant and continued power delivery all the way to redline, the simplier mechanicals and long term reliability.

Others will favor the high tech nature of the Prince engine, its smoothness, great fuel economy, torque availability at lower RPMs and the efficiency afforded by Turbocharged engines.

In other words: You can't go wrong either way! Drive what you like best and enjoy!

 

is this frank saying this?! *gasp*

 

Keep in mind the Tritec engine was co-developed in the mid to late 1990's by then Chrysler corporation (Before the hostile Daimler-Benz take over in 1998). Chrysler engineers were given Classic Rover Minis equipped with the venerable A-Engine so they could get a "Feel" for how a Mini should feel and drive. The classic Minis were shipped from England to Chrysler's headquarters in Auburn Hills, MI in the 1995-96 time period. Within one year and a half, Chrysler already had developed the TRITEC engine (N/A, the Supercharged version was developed years later by Brit turner RICARDO in the 2000-2001 time frame) and was being tested in R50 prototypes. BMW was pleased and impressed with the quick turn around and solid (if not rather primitive by BMW standards ) mechanicals. BMW flat out refused to use the K-Engine from Rover, as they had insisted that the New MINI had to be 100% British made and sourced including its engine (Read the historical recount of the soured BMW-Rover marriage relationship of the 1990's so you can begin to understand the difficult conception and birth of the New MINI at the beginning of the decade).

Using the Rover 1600cc K-engine implied to raise the hood and beltline of the R50 MINI prototype (How ironic as BMW ended up raising the hood and beltline of the R56 in order to accomodate the PSA-Peugeot Prince engine and comply with European Union pedestrian protection legislation) and BMW did not want to and was not required to raise the hood of the MINI at the time. The Tritec engine fit the bill better, effectively stopped Rover in its tracks and BMW had no need to outsource powertrain technology from Rover if they decided to divorce them, which they did, in March 2000.

 

i guess i have two questions:

1. why did they alter course for the R56? i think BMW has it well within their R&D the ability to evolve the motor as they saw fit. i've been very careful about not including modified SC'd tritecs because i 'have' driven one of those and it's flat out nasty. it's a mean little beast.

2. does anyone know the relative HP eaten up by the supercharger? i ask out of curiousity: for the Ford GT, the blower eats 100hp when the engine is making its peak power (rated for 550hp?).

 

BMW was never truly happy with the Tritec for several reasons. Chief among them is that it was manufactured and sourced from their Arch rival, Daimler Chrysler. Also BMW had little input in the development and design of the TRITEC engine. For them it was a quick and cost effective solution at the time (Remember the last thing that was developed in the 1st gen MINI was the engine) and while the engine has proven to be a gem, BMW considered to be low-tech and nowhere near as fuel efficient and environmentally friendly as other small car engines alternative in the market. Another big reason is the carbon foot print of the Tritec and carbon emissions. The emissions of the Tritec are greater than those of the Prince engine, effectively making it unsuitable for upcoming European emission regulations. Another reason is that the Tritec engine was the only component of the car manufactured outside of the European Union. The Tritec was made in a plant located in the industrial city of Curitiba, Brazil. By contrast, the Prince engine was a golden opportunity for BMW to showcase better engine technologies and incorporate those into the MINI engine. For instance you have VANOS variable valve technology often found in all BMWs, direct fuel injection, Aluminum construction to reduce weight, twin scroll turbocharger to make it more effecient in power delivery than the old Supercharged engine and a substantially lower carbon emissions footprint. BMW paired up in 2003 with PSA-Peugeot to co-develop the engine that is currently being used in other Peugeot products (Not sold in the US) such as the 307 hatchback that uses the same exact MINI prince powerplant. Also, by going with the PSA prince engine, BMW could exercise greater controls in its manufacturing process/quality and have the engine built in close proximity to the Oxford factory. The Prince engine in our MINIs is made at the Hams Hall plant in the UK and it is part of the MINI Oxford's "Production Triangle". So now, every component of the second gen MINI is manufactured within the European Union and this makes a lot of folks very happy for many financial and political reasons. BMW made no secret that the Tritec engine was going to be a temporary measure until they could develop a better, more efficient powerplant. Little they did know that they created a cult following for the TRITEC as the engine turned out to be a lot better than previously believed. The Supercharged version was awarded the 2003 International 10 best engines award from Ward's automotive and then again in 2005. BMW last year announced the end of the BMW-Peugeot engine partnership but it appears that this decision was reversed just a couple of weeks ago and the Prince will be posed for a longer production life cycle. It appears the Turbocharged 1600cc MINI Cooper S engine will be fitted in the BMW 1-series for the European and other wold markets only. (Sorry no 4cyl turbo BMW 1-series will be offered in the states, unless, gas climbs past the $5 per gallon barrier making BMW re-think this decision). Interesting and exciting years ahead for the Prince engine.

 

How about driving the R56 to my car then driving it (Within 2 minutes time)? Of course it may help that my car is making well over 100 HP and 75 lb-ft of torque more than the punchy, runs out of steam at 5k rpm's Prince motor. .

I can only assume you drove a pre-05 if you're saying it felt like that much of a dog. The 05-06 MINI got to 60 in 6.8 seconds, which is pretty darn quick for a 20k dollar car (And almost half a second faster than the previous 02-04 models).

As for lag, I'm not much of a fan of the whole push my foot down and wait a second until the turbo spools for the car to actually start moving. I much prefer a jab on the throttle an INSTANT power delivery from the SC (Not to mention the SC sounds down right nasty). Wooosh Pshhhhtt is a bit too fast and furious for me .

 

When you have a supercharged engine you have to lose power to gain power!

(How much of that is lost in the Tritec supercharged engine at peak power, I don't know, perhaps someone can chime in).

 

Rustyboy, you car sick!

 

intellectually dishonest, no?

it might not actually bother you, but most of the discussion that has been ongoing has been kept to the realm of OEM v. OEM.

 

I wonder what an r56 motor with $thousands$ worth of mods would be like..

I know what it's like with about $1700.

 

You're right, I was being a bit deceptive, mostly because the comment was just silly...

OEM vs OEM I still prefer the R53's infinite power rather than the peaky, bursty nature of the Prince.

With a quick software flash you can rev the Tritec up to about 7500 with no worries and make power all the way there. On EVERY dyno graph I've seen the Prince tapers off just after 5k. 2500 RPM's is the difference between going another 500 feet or shifting, and can mean SECONDS on the track.

I'll agree, if all you do is get groceries in your car and it never see's anything above 4k rpm's, yea, the prince is probably more fun.

Like I've said in EVERY ONE of these threads, it depends on what you're looking to do with the car, and what you're interested in. for 90% of the people that buy MINI's and never rev them past 4k RPM's, the R56 is a fine car. They care about such things as squishy seats, ride quality, and noise. For those that race their cars, and want as much performance as they can get, don't care about ride quality, want the best handling car out there, etc etc. The R53 is a better choice.

Buy what works for YOU.

 

With 1700 it's got about 205 whp and 210 lb ft of torque at the wheels (turbo back exhaust). But it still goes completely dead after 5k RPM's.

Grocery Getter/Around town: Prince motor is better
Track Focused Driver: Tritec is better...

There's a reason Jan's new race team is using the R53 chassis (And motors).

For the record I'm well into $40k territory for mods (On my second engine). If I had done it right the first time (not bought all the garbage products half the vendors out there put out that do nothing) I'd have spent about 1/3 of that.

I've also owned 2 MINI's, both of which made/make 230+ whp...

 

Don't kid yourself ....they throttled the crap out of the R56 to come up with the best time possible and they beat the "dog" R53 to sixty by 1/10 of a second.

Whoopee

Dean.

 

it's not clear to me that 0-60mph is the best indicator for FWD cars, given the physics. both cars would tend to be traction limited --for comparison's sake, (and i don't know the times), it's probably better to see the difference in 5-60mph or in-gear acceleration times if we're focusing solely on straightline speed (not exactly a MINI forte).

which is why i'd be curious to see an R53 and R56, both OEM trim, and their laptimes at a given track.

 

It might be better for the R56 to focus on 5-60 because then the turbo lag will be buried in a numbers game.

Dean.

 

Tell us more ...please. Thanks.

Dean.

 

it's odd to me that you would fixate on the turbo lag given that you have to be above 3000rpms to really get into the beginning of the powerband of the tritec motor.

if you'd like to preclude straightline speed, i'm fine with that, too.

i'm more curious in laptimes myself.

 

He'll be making an announcement regarding everything that's going on shortly .

 

Well, that's a whole 'nuhter thing with far many more variables than just the engine.

Poke around the other forums a bit ...I recall threads on OEM R53 verses R56 at the track. I'll try to find one. If anyone has one bookmarked, please chime in. Thanks.

Dean.

 

The R56 was independently tested by both Road & Track and Car and Driver and posted a 0-60 time of 6.2s; its capabilities are clearly understated by BMW.

I do find it funny to hear the R56 get called 'grocery-getter'.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

There are so many factors that affect lap times that I'm afraid anything reported would be anecdotal at best.

Just because I drive a 1:37 around track X in my stock R53 doesn't mean someone else can't drive 1:35 around the same track, in a different day, in better conditions, and still have a slower car. Driver skill, suspension, tire pressure, weather conditions, etc all play huge roles in track times.

For the record, PEAK torque is made past 3k RPM's in the Tritec. Because there's no turbo to spool there is no delay in throttle response when the power is turned on. It doesn't matter where the peaks are, it matters in the REAL world that SOMETHING has to start spinning before anything can happen. The curve helps a lot too. The SC is already spinning with the motor, so there is no "Spool".

All turbo's have lag, it doesn't matter when it makes peak power, there's still a time delay that takes place.

A NA or Positive displacement SCed car will always have better throttle feel during acceleration. The power is there on demand, nothing has to start spinning before power is felt.

 

As they were with the R53. Car & Driver got 6.6 out of an '05 Cabrio.

http://web8.caranddriver.com/shortro...nvertible.html

I was sticking with BMWs figures for the sake of consistency.

Nick, thanks for your post ....you've said it far better than I could have.

Dean.