For the engine experts ...

See http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_article.asp?na_id=211646

Particulary this comment

"The current car’s biggest weakness is its Brazilian-built and Chrysler-sourced Pentagon engine. Although the unit has been well polished by BMW engineers, it cannot completely disguise its budget origins."

???? what do you think they mean?

 

According to Wikipedia, source of all knowledge, the engine was orginally designed by Chrysler for European-market Dodge/Plymouth Neon autos. It is a very basic design, with cast iron block and a single overhead camshaft. It was designed for low cost. Compared with contemporary BMW engines, for example, it is primitive in its technology and has rather crude NVH characteristics.

Personally, I like the motor and I think it is right in character with the rest of the car.

 

The nice thing is that in the S model, the beefed up the internals quite well. The bottom end of these motors are very strong.

 

All the comments above are valid. This does not mean it's a bad engine, just that it's not particularly sophisticated. Cast iron blocks are generally durable and strong, and BMW seems to have tweaked it pretty well. I think simple, solid, and strong fit with the overall feel of a MINI. I ain't looking for a ricer, here, and although Japanese engines are beautifully designed, they have a whole different feel to them. I like the Tritec.

 

Using an available engine that's not the most sophisticated is a Mini hallmark. The A series motor wasn't anything special when it was put in the Mini. Over the years they polished that old iron lump into a nice engine. Doing the same with the new MINI seems appropriate to me. They've polished it real nice, me thinks.

 

well it works.. and works well, im a big fan of this motor.

 

The whole car is basically a budget BMW. Who cares if some website wants to put on some attitude about the engine?

And why should we have any more confidence in a British-made engine than a Brazilian-made one? The Brits certainly blew it with the lameass Midlands 5-speed. That was the biggest weakness for the first few years of MC production.

 

Cast iron vs aluminum
SOHC
no variable valve technology

It doesn't mean it's a bad engine... just basic and lacking some of the sophisticated devices...

But remember... simple is better in many ways... less cost and more reliable...
I think its a very minimal sound design... and its certainly built with the right stuff to handle boost... forged crank & rods... a very stiff block... should last a long time and be trouble free...

 

Amen. For so many yeas, every British car came with its own oil leak, (mostly) Lucas electrical Ugh!!

I think the Mini engine could gain a long-standing favorable reputation similar to that of Toyota's super reliable 20R, ('70's - '80's) but with the additional positive attribute of impressive efficiency (in both NA and SC versions).

 

What do I think
Weakness? What are they talking about there is no weakness.
You know the old saying about don't believe everything you read just because it's written, here is a case in point.
This is journalistic pietistic new age hogwash. I call BS on that writer and the publication for allowing that tripe to be printed.

 

Many of the most popular and longstanding engines in the world have sprung from 'budget origins'. Small-block Chevy, Toyota 20R/22R. Pontiac 'Iron Duke'. Chrysler 2.2/2.5l and Slant Six, to name just a few.

Being of humble beginnings does not mean the engine is bereft of good design, reliability and built-in potential. In many ways I am glad the current MINI engine does not come with 7 camshafts, variable water pump timing, titanium muffler bearings or a 6-core ECU processor. It's simple, very strong, tuneable and pretty cheap. It's ties to Mopar engines of similar design makes it more produceable and benefitting from the good design of those motors. I'm curious to see how the new PSA motor holds up to some of the more extreme mod level that this current engine has done pretty well at.

 

Nothing wrong with a solid cast iron block and keeping things simple.

I concur with Greatbear's comments about not having all the bling bling.

As far as Mopar being involved,,, not a problem for me,,, I have very fond memories of my cast iron block single cam pushrod hemi stroked to 496 cubic inches that would pull the front wheels of a 3700 lb car 2 feet in the air off the line with a single four barrel albeit a 1050 cfm Holley.

I had thought about waiting until the new engine came out to buy my MCS... lets see, here is a proven engine that has been refined in the Mini for what 5 years, plus the design has been around for much longer before Mini and BMW got their hands on it or I can have a new, unproven engine and be the test subject through the early days of "oops,,, guess we missed that detail".

I actually like a supercharger over a turbo,,, First, you can change the pullies out or go even more nuts and zing the core charger up. Add in that you have a converntional header design rather then a maze of tubing...

Guess I am a purest and in this day of technology here and there,,, sometimes keeping it simple is fun. In the week I have had my MCS,,, it is interesting the looks I get from the Honda's and Nissan's that are hot rodded and wondering if they want to taunt me. Maybe they have been surprised a time or two by an MCS.

 

reminds me of my mk3 supra engine. inline 6 turbo, 300hp. the motor looked like it came out of the stone age. old gte motor went through a LOT of refinement in the new more sought after supras. thing got the job done tho!

a motor is a motor, it drives the car. the whole concept of the mini is a awesome handling car and to have fun. the point is not to have every do-dad gadget under the hood the auto industry can come up with

 

i think the motor is fine. but whoever programmed the ECU needs to
get a better version out for us.

 

It's a simple, inexpensive, unsophisticated car, with a simple, inexpensive, unsophisticated engine. I don't have a problem with that at all.

 

Europeans, for tax and other non-functional reasons, have tended to over-complicate their engines to derive hi rpm hi horspower motors, at the expense of torque, low maintenance expense and low initial cost. The Mini engine in S configuration is a compromise which tends toward the low cost side, and this is good.

Now the new one, with hi torque at low RPM, quick warm up direct injection and light weight does promise improved economy, but the jury has not yet convened to consider whether the longevity, economy and long term maintenance expense justifies complexity.

I'm satisfied with the engine but do wish that the a/f ratio were not so rich, that alternative engineering was used to dispense with such rich running engine. That I think is the major reason for the low mileage.

 

At the pulley party here in Chicago this week, a lot of nice things were said about the engine. I'm happy it's in my MCS

 

I found an old article discribing some of the development history of the MINI.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...82/ai_85047979

The last couple of pages discuss the engine development. The suspension components of the MINI, for example, are well designed, but are stamped steel instead of expensive aluminum. In a similar vein, the engine was designed well, but economies were taken to keep the costs down.

I liked the part that speaks about the extreme amount of spot-welds used in the body, which makes it stiffer than a 3-series.

Bottom line is, the MINI was designed to be as sophisticated as possible while still keeping the costs at a reasonable level. There's a lot of good engineering in there, and a lot of "free" BMW development. Simple, light, and nimble. Let's hope the new engine does as well.

 

Excellent article -- that should be a sticky.

 

Seems to me, and I'm no automotive engineer, that I heard a long time ago that a supercharger was easier on an engine than a turbocharger because one was bringing in cold air while the other was bringing in hot air and that caused a lot of headaches and cracked blocks because of the added stress on the engine.

 

The Tritec engine is a jewel. Budget, yes. I don't think that BMW MINI intended to disquise it's origins. Isn't owning a MINI part of the budget movement?

I'm on my ninth Audi quattro and all of these have been turbocharged. Quite frankly, I WANTED a supercharged engine. Rough, raw, popping exhaust, harks back to the original Classic Mini. I know how expensive turbocharged engines can be, cracked exhaust manifolds, overly cooked plastic engine components and anything that is affected by heat will suffer over time. I'm sure that the new engine will work fine, time will tell.

I wonder if the writer of that article owns a MINI Cooper S? He left out one little detail, our trusty little Cooper S supercharged BMW enhanced mill made Ward's Auto "10 Best Engines" list in 2003.

I am very proud of owning the last year made, supercharged BMW MINI Cooper S W11 Tritec engine

 

There's a lot to be said for a traditional simpler approach. This reminds me of the way some of my friends talk about the "simple" engine in my new Corvette compared to their Porsches. Whatever! The MINI in current form provides a very engaging driving experience for those of us who like to drive in real-world situations.

GoodFinder

 

But I want to run SETI@Home on my car's ECU...

 

There is a long story behind the Pentagon engine but suffice to say that both Rover and BMW were pretty involved in the design of this powerplant along with Chrysler before the Daimler-Benz take over in 1998.

The basic design premise of this engine was to build the most efficient, lightweight and cost effective 1600cc's engine in the world. During the time it was developed Rover (Which at this point circa 1996-97 was already owned by BMW) shipped a few Classic Minis so the Chrysler Corp engineers at Auburn Hills would get the "FEEL" of what driving a Mini was all about. Remember that the Mini had not been sold in the USA since 1967 and these Chrysler engineers, used to build V8 and V10 engines had really never been exposed to the "Mini" driving experience.

In the end, both Rover and BMW were fairly pleased with the enthusiastic response of the people back at Auburn Hills and how quickly they came up with the engine design from blue prints to actual test mules. By the end of 1997, Rover had several TRITEC engines at its disposition. Rover and BMW engineers setup almost weekly flights to Detroit and back to Europe to work with the Chrysler engineers.

Rover loved the sound and feel of the engine and they felt that the Mopar people had done a terrific job in understanding and tuning the pentagon engine to emulate some of the Classic Mini (A-engine) sound and feel.

BMW, however was unhappy with the fact that this lightweight, cheap to manufacture but otherwise unimpressive engine (at least in paper) was lacking VANOS variable valve timing technology and double overhead cam. The BMW engineering comittee wrote several papers, back and forth discussions and studies to further push the cause for a more high tech Pentagon. But in the end, Rover won the "pissing" contest and the BMW comittee decided to retreat, lower the rethoric and ultimately abandon the idea (That is until almost a decade later they worked with PSA-Peugeot to develop the all new engines for the '07+ MINIs).

This is pretty much how the Pentagon engine came to be. I personally think it is a terrific engine and bulletproof in terms of reliability. It will be missed.

The upcoming PSA-BMW engines have very big shoes to fill after the Brazilian Pentagon ceases to power anymore BMW MINIs.

The engine will continue to live in the Chrysler PT Cruiser (Neon is no more) and the A15 Chery sedan which is made in China.

 

There are those that would argue that the Cheverolet LS6 & LS7 motors are simple, unsophisticated pushrod engines, and as a result, not worthy of consideration.

These folks clearly have not driven a Z06. Chevrolet has refined the small block V8 to an extent no one anticipated. Chevy did take a shot at a twin overhead cam V8 in the C4 ZR1, a mid 90's car which was a $30,000 option on a $27,000 car. In fairly short order, they abandoned this motor for reasons of cost & complexity.

The point is, simplicity is often a hallmark of sophistication. BMW recognized this in the evolution of the MINI and kept things simple. It will be interesting to see if the next generation of turbocharged MINI's are as cost effective.

Jacob