I think a bit of that actually fell on Chryysler's shoulders... since the manufacturing and assembaly took place in thier Brazilian plant. For MINI to have dyno'd the engines one by one upon reciept and refused those that weren't up to snuff would have been even more of a (financially) loosing proposition than the Tritec was in the first place (please note: I do NOT mean the R50/53 final product was a loosing proposition... but the odd/strained business relationship between Chysler/BMW).

It should now be much easier to be stringent with the final product, since they're now making the engines close to where the vehicle undergoes final assembly. I think the consistancy in output should improve.

 

I have one thing to say.... VROOOM!!

 

A good point.

However, as a consumer, would you not expect what is advertised as promised? Or is it false advertising if the engine does not produce the specs that MINI says ARE the specs?

Or are HP numbers just a guess? Should they say 168 bhp plus/minus 10 HP? Wouldnt that sell

That is why I would tend to believe the higher end car makers when they give a bhp number, they are conservative just so they dont fall into this trap ... maybe?

It would be interesting to know if anyone found out they had an underpowered car per the advertising and complained to BMW

 

Chows, when you say "higher end car makers" which ones did you have in mind?

Engines have always had variation in the power they put out, and it's not necessarily any fault of the manufacturer. The seating of your rings and valves has something to do with it.

 

that may explain why miltek claimed a 28 hp increase with their exhaust.. they quote a before figure from the manufacturers statement.. they did not give the "before" dyno number.

the actual "before" number could have been quite a bit higher the MINI's claim.

 

Optimistic dyno is the root for that HP increase...

 

Do manufacturers quote HP at the wheels or at the flywheel?

 

First, you said MINI's quality control was not as good as BMWs.
THEN, you changed it, to say BMWs quality control was not as good as 'higher end marques'.

First, which 'higher end marques' are you referring to? Second, are you really basing something like this on information from a DEALERSHIP?

This is why I continue to think you are a troll who is only here to try to dampen people's enthusiasm for MINIs whenever possible.

 

always flywheel

 

Lost in all this is the fact that manufacturers are now using SAE certified HP ratings, which has for the most part cut HP numbers against what were seen a couple of years ago.

Under the "old" SAE net system, the R56 might very easily be more in the 185 range.

Regardless though, the torque curve for the new powerplant is going to make anyone who drives it initially feel that it is much faster; the truth is that right now it is very similar in speed to the outgoing R53.

I am concerned about the ability to crank up the boost on the R56 ithout having to address the super high (for a turbo) compression ration of 10.5:1. (The R53 is 8.3:1)....

 

Keep in mind though that BMW approached Chrysler Corporation back in early 1996 for the initial design of the TRITEC engine. This was 2 years before the disastrous Daimler Benz and Chrysler "merger"of 1998.

The engine for the R50 MINI was mostly developed in Auburn Hills, Michigan home of Chrysler. BMW shipped a few then "new"Classic Minis so the Chrysler engineers could get a feel for and experience how a MINI should drive and perform. Chrysler did a remarkable job given the cut throat development and cost time constraints. By the end of 1996, Chrysler and BMW already had a working R50 test mule fitted with the standard TRITEC engine. BMW was pleased with the engine and as they say, the rest is history.

Before 1998, there was no business conflict of interest between BMW and Chrysler. Since Daimler is BMW's archrival, the relationship became more straneous because essentially BMW's #1 rival was and still is supplying engines for its hottest product in decades: The MINI Cooper.

The current TRITEC contract was made for 10 years and is set to expire at the end of 2008, when the last batch of R52 MINI Convertibles are built.

 

Also BMW had the choice to supply engines for the new R50 MINI closer to home....in fact down the road from Oxford. Rover wanted and pushed hard to have their K-series 4 cyl engine used in the new car but BMW opposed the idea and fought it fiercely to the end.

And speaking of quality and consistency, the TRITEC engine was built at one of the most advanced engine manufacturing facilities in the world, using "Toyota production standards" and other high calibre quality benchmarks (ISO9000, etc) And it shows.....The TRITEC will go down in history as a sturdy, bullet proof, dymamic, fun and incredibly turner friendly powerplant in in recent memory.

 

Keep in mind, I really do think it's an awsomly simple and tough power plant... but after seeing one stripped down during a port and polish this last season I can say fist hand that the machining throughout the thing is rough at best. Many mating surfaces that look like they were chiseled out of iron vs. milled. It was amazing that they were able to seal a couple of those surfaces. Somthing to be said for the right gasket and proper amount of torque, I guess.

I've also rebuit a Toyota 22-RE 4cyl truck engine (after 266,000 miles) and helped with an inline 6 out of a landcruiser (a friend's rock crawler project). But looked pretty much the same (rough) but but were also terrific motors for the purpose intended. So they may not have been pretty... but they worked.