well I suppose that makes sense, although I would hope the quality control standards would be high enough to not get such a significant variation from car to car.

My car seems to be getting faster as it breaks in (which is common) and so my times will improve. (just didnt some 6's at lunch today which is a full second quicker then when I first got the car, even though im driving exactly the same, same shift points and launch rpm).

so maybe the difference is also the miles on the vehicle, tires, temperature the day of the test, etc.

currently its super humid here(light rain in the morning) but it was still faster then the day I took him home.

so ill correct myself and say that it may actually be possible but dont Im skeptical of telling people to expect those numbers on their R56.

my shifts are very quick(nose of the car stays up with no drop in the nose between shifts, like what happens when you shift a lot slower like in normal driving) and its currently still a challenge to get to the 5's
with the current setup and weather conditions.

ill give it a few thousand miles and track how the 0-60 times change over time, especially since its already gotten a lot better in just 2 weeks time.

 

At least for the first gen cars, bhp varied quite a bit. QC is not very good, at least according to someone on MINI2 who claimed he dynoed a lot of base cars. I would not expect the QC to be any better.

I also am very skepitcal. If the car was that quick, the major mags like R&T would be all over it. I guess we wait and see.

 

Chows, why would you expect the QC to be at all related when comparing the two engines?

R50/R53 engine designed by Chrysler and built in Brazil, not by MINI.

R56 engine designed by BMW/PSA and built partially in France with final engine assembly in Britain.

I'm not saying the Brits, Germans, French, or Brazilians are superior, or inferior, but the two engines are not even remotely related to each other in design, or in their manufacturing.

 

yeah Im still a bit skeptical as well, all the magazines, motoweek, etc are all running about 7.1s 0-60. And they are all not bad drivers.

when I first got mine I tried a dash to 60 and it was in the 7's (feels ungodly slow since im use to being in the 3's).

let it break in and now its already in the 6's, but Im thinking thats about the limit with the kinda crappy 16inch run flats.

when I get some better rubber ill try it again, by then it should be completely broken in and ready to go.

for these things to do 5's there has to be a huge variance in power, just calculating acceleration based on weight and power it just doesnt add up
for the "listed" hp rating.

lots of sites to help calculate it like this one
http://www.gldomain.com/accelerationcalc/

put in 172 roughly for hp and something around 2700 lbs for the weight, you get a reasonable estimate of 0-60 times. (shows 7.1).

put in the 209 for that other mini S(from the dymo results of the mini listed in this thread) and 2700lbs and you get
6.1 as the result, which sounds about right.

for comparision put in my cobra, 680 flywheel, 3750lbs, time is 3.0 seconds.(thats if you can get any traction lol). so its reasonably accurate.

 

depends on the drivetrain. my old 1995 audi S6 would do 0-60 in 6.1 sec, and that is a car that weighs 3,800+ lbs and has 227 hp and 250 ft-lbs. It always amazed me how fast that car was for being so darn heavy.

 

I do not know if they are or not. I only related part of long thread on MINI2 from someone not to be named who claimed the variance was quite a bit ... maybe 15 - 20 bhp (not sure of the exact numbers). This can probably be verified by looking at ppl's bhp claims after simple modding ... wide variance in results.

The reason I would not expect QC change is simply because of two reasons, IMO:

1. A track record has been established for the brand. I've even heard reports that BMW QC is not top quality but no emperical data like for the MINI.
2. It's ALL about money. BMW exists for one reason only ... to make money. The MINI brand is the low end and to make a profit on an entry level car, increasing QC costs money. I have not read nor seen anything that says they hired more QC people. Again, back to the track record.

Regardless of who makes the engine, its a MINI leaving the factory. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the HP variance in many car maker's car have a variance ... but more so on the low end cars. If you buy a Benz, I would bet it has the claimed bhp.

Obviously, I have no idea but as they say ... those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Now some reports are the engines are stronger than advertised ... thats good for enthusiasts, not good for QC ... They should all be the same within a small variance I would imagine.

 

"
The times were:

5.4
5.6
5.8
5.7"

The average of these times is 5.625.

Joe S

 

Maybe some of the variance has to do with fuel. I think GRMPer said he used 94/93 octane fuel.

 

Remember the 209 hp number at 5280 ft was a SAE corrected number. This point continues to be missed.

According to what appears to be good information provided by some NAM members, we Denver guys will have to come up with a "new correction factor" to reasonably compare a high altitude 07 MINI to a sea level 07 MINI.

My guess is the Denver uncorrected dyno numbers will be a little low and the SAE corrected are high (i.e. 209 hp). We'll have to find a happy medium.
A little more time and we should work these details out.

For example, comparing a dyno in L.A. to a dyno in Denver is tricky to say the least...

The coolest thing about the R56 at altitude is it absolutely buries the R53...it is not even a contest. I just love that. (due to turbocharger effeciency vs. supercharger effeciency at altitude)

 

um after spending many years on my cobra, I grasp the concept of
SAE versus STD. SAE actually generates a lower number and is usually why its a lower number.

The uncorrected number is STD. so for example my car produces over 700STD but only 680SAE (which is the corrected number based on altitude
and temperature).

so I dont think the 209SAE is being missed, and since it is a corrected number it seems really high for a stock R56.

altitude generally has a negative effect(at least on supercharged cars) so a car like my cobra will actually generate even lower HP numbers when dynoed
at a higer altitude like denver.(corrected or uncorrected the numbers are lower).

so the point still stands 209SAE is well beyond the variance I would expect from a stock 172hp R56, corrected, thats a high number.

now if it said 209STD then I would say ah, thats understandable and makes sense. but since you keep insisting is SAE, then it doesnt make any sense.

 

At altitude:

Here is a stock 2005 Cooper S (supercharger) SAE corrected and uncorrected at the wheel. Roughly, 10-12% drivetrain compensation puts the SAE number right where MINI quotes crank horsepower for the 2005.

The great thing about the 2007 is it seems to be achieving the MINI published numbers at the wheel instead of the crank!

I forsee the 2007 having a descrepancy at altitude between SAE corrected and uncorrected, just to a lesser degree due to turbo effeciency.

I'll dyno (same dyno, same altitude) my 2007 soon to find out. Speculation only goes so far.


Btw- When I plug in STD to the graph it is similar to SAE numbers but "uncorrected" is much lower than than both STD or SAE...?

 

EXACTLY! That's the point I think people seem to be missing!

 

Do you guy's think MINI underated the power on official papers to avoid stepping into BMW territory (those bangled monsters...)?
Afterall... the 1 series(be it the diesel or the all mighty 130i) and a MINI is pretty similar(mind you, just a little), and if a MINI can perform better than a 1 series... then... hehe u get my point~

 

I don't know, but has anyone taken 'overboost' into account? Maybe in GRMPer's 0-60 pulls that was a factor?

 

so not to offend but in 40 years of modding cars Ive never heard or seen
the term "overboost".

now in the past couple of weeks the only place I have ever seen it is several times on these mini forums.

would someone care to give the "mini" definition of it? since maybe the concept is sound but your using the wrong term, or the term and the concept are bunk.

boost is boost, whether is turbo or supercharged. you can tweak it, change it, set it differently, turn it off, and increase it in both cases.

"overboost" would seem to suggest that you run at some nominal boost level and when you do something it pushes more boost then it normally does (or more then it should) which doesnt make any sense.

if your supercharger or turbo is set to 10psi for example, the max it pushes under given temp/air/humidty is 10psi, it doesnt suddenly push 15psi as if by magic.

so can I get what these mini forums are calling "overboost", what are you referring to when you use that term?

 

MINI is using that catch word the same way Porsche uses it for the TT with the Sport option. At least in the TT, if you push the sport button, the car will "allow" for a short burst of more boost than when driven normally. its nothing special, nothing magic ... just a catchword for allowing boost outside of the normal operating range for a very short duration.

Your right ... its just semantics.

I cant find the MINI explanation but here is the TTs explanation

What they demanded was no less than 460 lb-ft of torque, available between 1950 and 5000 rpm, with an additional 45 lb-ft on reserve between 2100 and 4000 rpm in what they dub overboost. Overboost raises the turbo pressure almost 3 psi and is available for 10-second bursts—in the same vein as a Champ Car’s push-to-pass, if you will.

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...ndex+page_news

 

I think it's just the ECU leaving the waste gate closed for a short duration based on pedal position... creating more boost than the "normal" operational parameters of the turbo. Passing, taking off, etc.

Not MINI's definition, exactly.

 

Yes overboost is just marketing speak for the feature where the car temporarily raises boost levels over the standard level causing a rise in the torque value. I think the figure was something along the lines of 192ft-lb. I don't have the 'normal' torque figure handy, but I know it's quoted as less. It probably is on motoringfile.com somewhere buried.

Also my point is that the dyno numbers could only show 'normal' operation and not take into account the extra torque from keeping the waste gate closed longer. (what we assume they're doing)

 

so why bmw publishes 7.2?

 

ever hear the term "sleeper"?

some countries base registration/insurance rates on how fast a car is too. So it helps the customer.

bmw is known for underrating it's cars.

 

well this is interesting, the lastest car and driver has the 2007 mini cooper S in it as well as other similarly priced cars.

they did a 0-60 in 6.1 seconds. so looks like those numbers are spot on then.
and from my time tests as the car broke in it began to hit those numbers
so 5.7 is pretty likely in that case.

 

0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 in 15.0 .88g skidpad. Not bad, but it got blown away by the Mazda 3 GT. https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...light=insulted

Which is it? 6.1 or 6.2? And BTW, C&D is notorious for beating the cars not like any normal person might do with their personal property.

 

I think we will continue to see this trend. I have driven these MINI's for years and this 07 is FAST!

Look forward for more data as it flows in.

Also, we are just starting to see the implications of free flowing exhausts, ECU mods, etc. It all looks so very promising! Good for MINI, good for the MINI community!

 

If you read the whole article, though...

The MINI got severely dinged in the final ratings placing it in third. Specifically for three things: rear seat comfort, rear seat leg room and trunk space.

If you were to consider they were comparing four other 4-door cars against the small MINI coupe... it's no wonder. If you were to diregard those three items in the final numbers the MINI would have dominated, easily. And who buys a MINI for luggage space, really?

 

Hmmm, what is this "rear seat" that you speak of? I always thought that was just an exceptionally well-padded parcel shelf, considering that the front seat is resting against it when I'm driving.

I guess the seat belts back there make more sense now.