R56 :: Hatch Talk (2007+) MINI Cooper and Cooper S (R56) hatchback discussion.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

R56 240 Torque? is their a typo?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 10-25-2006, 06:34 PM
confusedxpanda's Avatar
confusedxpanda
confusedxpanda is offline
1st Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
240 Torque? is their a typo?

I see on the engine specs for the MINI on www.newmini2006.co.uk. it says 240 torque. is that just the UK version? or is that 80 more torque than the supercharged old one?

i could be wrong dont quote me for it but i think it might be a typo or it is relaly 240
 
  #2  
Old 10-25-2006, 06:57 PM
confusedxpanda's Avatar
confusedxpanda
confusedxpanda is offline
1st Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
nevermind i think i found out. it was in NM so i converted it to ft. pounds to NM and i got 177. sorry
 
  #3  
Old 10-25-2006, 07:01 PM
ScottRiqui's Avatar
ScottRiqui
ScottRiqui is offline
OVERDRIVE
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 7,200
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by confusedxpanda
I see on the engine specs for the MINI on www.newmini2006.co.uk. it says 240 torque. is that just the UK version? or is that 80 more torque than the supercharged old one?

i could be wrong dont quote me for it but i think it might be a typo or it is relaly 240
That torque rating is in Newton-meters, not foot-pounds force. 240 nm would equal 177 lbf-ft, which is only a little higher the current 'S' engine's rating of 162 lbf-ft, so it's probably not a typo.

Scott
 
  #4  
Old 10-26-2006, 01:03 PM
inomis's Avatar
inomis
inomis is offline
4th Gear
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
The new R56 MCS has 192 ft/lbs for 30 continuous seconds in a large usable RPM window called "boost mode".
 
  #5  
Old 10-26-2006, 08:26 PM
sequence's Avatar
sequence
sequence is offline
6th Gear
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Your Worst Nightmare :)
Posts: 3,880
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
....and waaaaaaaaaay more usable peak torque throughout the rev range. third gear all day if U could....
 
  #6  
Old 10-31-2006, 08:43 AM
BFG9000's Avatar
BFG9000
BFG9000 is offline
5th Gear
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The new engine is rated at least 177 lb-ft from 1600 through 5000 rpm (besides the Saab-like overboost mode). In comparison the old car's JCW option produces a peak of 177 lb-ft at 4000 rpm. Peak horsepower for the new engine will also be developed at a low 5500 rpm, while the old JCW peaked at 6950.

What this means is the new powerplant should feel considerably stronger than the old JCW's but will probably run out of breath and require a shift some 1000 rpm sooner. So it'll be a stump-puller just like the VW 1.8T which also runs out of rpm quickly due to a tiny turbo. The bright side is that a tiny turbo causes little turbo lag (develops 11.6psi at just 1400 rpm!), and upping the boost should be a simple way to produce bucketloads of usable torque. But those looking for high hp numbers will undoubtedly need to swap out the turbo for a larger one.

Interestingly the new engine is rated 25+ less horsepower than the JCW but has the same 140mph top speed. Either it's underrated or the aerodynamics are much improved.
 
  #7  
Old 10-31-2006, 09:39 AM
cube17576's Avatar
cube17576
cube17576 is offline
Coordinator :: STLMini
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BFG9000
Interestingly the new engine is rated 25+ less horsepower than the JCW but has the same 140mph top speed. Either it's underrated or the aerodynamics are much improved.
Top speed has very little to do with power. It is usually determined by gearing or electronic limits (which is often because of the tires) There can also be safety concerns (becoming unstable at high speeds), or politics (Europe used to have a gentleman's agreement not to exceed 155 mph)
 
  #8  
Old 10-31-2006, 02:00 PM
msh441's Avatar
msh441
msh441 is offline
6th Gear
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BFG9000
The new powerplant should feel considerably stronger than the old JCW's but will probably run out of breath and require a shift some 1000 rpm sooner.
Pretty consistant with MINIs torque/HP curve shown in the UK spec sheets:

Torque building from 1000 RPM and peaking 240Nm (177 ft lbs.) at 1600 RPM. The curve is flat as can be until 5000 RPM where it starts to drop off gradually until it's producing near 180Nm (132 ft. lbs.) at the 6500 RPM red line (or at least where the graph stops).

Overboot reaches it's maximum torque output a little later: 260Nm (192 ft. lbs.) at 2000 rpm... and trails off a little earlier around 4500 rpm.

My hope is that the car will be really fun to drive using that bottom end power on my local coastal twisties. I won't have to keep the car revved as high to get the same pull out of corners and such.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MGBill1186
F55/F56 :: Hatch Talk (2014+)
2
10-02-2015 06:54 AM
pkillur
1st Gear
3
09-30-2015 10:51 AM
EVMini
R56 :: Hatch Talk (2007+)
4
09-28-2015 10:20 AM
Nicefeet
General MINI Talk
1
09-27-2015 11:14 AM
Mini Mania
Vendor Announcements
0
09-25-2015 12:32 PM



Quick Reply: R56 240 Torque? is their a typo?



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:24 PM.