2002 Mini Cooper

[Andy Bettencourt]

Got a private request for consideration on the 2002 Mini Cooper. 115 hp / 110 ft/lb stock. Curb weight is around 2525. Struts, FWD, short wheelbase.

2450ish in ITB...thoughts?

[Knestis]

Sounds like a sensible addition. Go for it.
K

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

Those hp/tq specs are about where a Mk III Golf is.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Those hp/tq specs are about where a Mk III Golf is. [/b]

On purely specs alone, yes. From what our information tells us, some design aspects of the Golf limit it's power potential while the Mini would get saddled with the standard 25% estimate.

[Knestis]

Eh, hairs only split so far. I think it's great that we can get some new blood in ITB. Let's think about some of those ITA orphans, too. I know it's not terribly "SCCA" but I don't enjoy racing against short fields. With more cars in the class, if I get beat, I get beat but if I win, it actually matters.

K

[Eric Parham]

How many valves per cylinder in the NA Mini? I thought it was 16 total. SOHC or DOHC? Variable valve timing? It is, after all, a BMW engine. Please be cautious here :)

BTW, a turbo version walked my hotted-up GTI VR6 pretty well at Calabogie last month. Both of us were on comparable street tires, and he had me in the braking zones and corners while I only had him on the longest straight, FWIW.

[shwah]

It is a 1.6 liter 16v. At first blush it could be a fit. Obviously would need some informed input on the capabilities of the motor/chassis.

As with any newer car I would expect outstanding brakes. That would probably worry me most.

[Andy Bettencourt]

SOHC. Standard specs are in the GCR in the SS section. Big brakes.

As far as it being a BMW engine, the only ones I have seen that pick up big gains are the inline 6's...and that isn't limited to BMW. The Datsun and Toyota variants are extremely powerful and have huge potential. It's just a good base design.

[Eric Parham]

SOHC.
[/b]

As long as it's not VVT (unlikely with SOHC but still possible, especially since 16V), I'd say go with it. If VVT, though, frankly I'd be too confused to classify it unless the VVT was specified as disabled.

Edit: VVT=Variable Valve Timing

[JoshS]

It's not actually a BMW engine, it's a Tritec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritec_engine) engine (joint venture between Chrysler and Rover.) The engine was developed by Chrysler and is based on the Neon engine.

[Eric Parham]

It's not actually a BMW engine, it's a Tritec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritec_engine) engine (joint venture between Chrysler and Rover.) The engine was developed by Chrysler and is based on the Neon engine.
[/b]

Good info. I didn't know that. Any idea on VVT or not?

Edit:

DANGER Will Robinson, it IS a variable valve timing engine. "Valve lift and opening times are masterminded by infinite electronic control adjusting to the driver’s needs for power and performance. This highly efficient valve management combines superior fuel economy, a high standard of motoring culture, spontaneous response and optimised emission management, thus offering a new combination of qualities never seen before." Mini Official Press Release (http://www.mini2.com/article380-2nd-generation-mini-official-press-release-full-details-long.html)

[JoshS]

Good info. I didn't know that. Any idea on VVT or not?[/b]
Sorry, I don't know.
EDIT: just saw your edited post, so now I know!



Good info. I didn't know that. Any idea on VVT or not?

DANGER Will Robinson, it IS a variable valve timing engine. "Valve lift and opening times are masterminded by infinite electronic control adjusting to the driver’s needs for power and performance. This highly efficient valve management combines superior fuel economy, a high standard of motoring culture, spontaneous response and optimised emission management, thus offering a new combination of qualities never seen before." Mini Official Press Release (http://www.mini2.com/article380-2nd-generation-mini-official-press-release-full-details-long.html)
[/b]
Actually, I still don't know. That press release is for the upcoming second-generation Mini. I suspect the first-generation one didn't have VVT, but as I said before, I don't really know.

[Eric Parham]

Actually, I still don't know. That press release is for the upcoming second-generation Mini. I suspect the first-generation one didn't have VVT, but as I said before, I don't really know.
[/b]

You're right. It seems to have a redesigned 120hp "Prince" engine instead of the 116hp "Tritec". Still not sure about VVT for the Tritec. It might not, but I don't have enough info.

Edit: BTW, I think it's interesting and possibly important that the only difference between the 90hp 1.6L Tritec in the Europe-only MINI One and the 116hp 1.6L Tritec in the MINI Cooper is ONLY the ECU! That makes me think VVT, but I guess it could be something else. "In some markets, such as Australia and the US, only the MINI Cooper and Cooper S are sold because the MINI One's engine was considered to deliver insufficient power to run an air conditioner - a necessary feature in those climates. However, the only difference between the engines in the 'One' and the 'Cooper' models is a software change within the engine control unit which is tuned for optimum fuel economy on the MINI One and for a compromise between power and economy on the Cooper." Wikipedia MINI link (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ny-srAHaMpMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_MINI+2002+mini+valve+timing&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10). See also Josh's hyperlink to the Tritec 1.6L (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritec_engine), as above.

[Rabbit07]

It is a 1.6 SOHC with 16 valves. No VVT. It was also used by Chrysler in Europe in the PT Cruiser. It looks just like a small Neon engine with a timming chain instead od belt.

[gran racing]

Thought the Forbes review of the Mini was interesting. Here's a segment of it:

"We knew the price since BMW announced it in January. (Yes, that's right, BMW, which has owned the Mini brand since 2000.) We also knew that some in the automotive press have trashed the Mini for being gratuitously nostalgic. But, after having driven it, what we didn't know was that the Mini Cooper is in reality a heavily camouflaged BMW 3-Series on a smaller frame that sells for little more than half the dough."

You're right Andy - big brakes! 276 front; 239 rear according to the GCR.

I'd like to see the car go into ITB, but not at that weight. (Again, assuming it's not a VVT as that would change things a bit.) I'll be interested in saying what one of the Mini performance shops I know has to say about it.

[leggwork]

how could a FWD car be considered a camouflaged 3 series ???? Sounds like journalistic license. I'm sure the BMW chassis engineers did their best, but when I rented a mini cooper and took it to Infineon when I was a guest instructor for the BMW club, it didn't feel as confidence inspiring as even my e30.
cheers,
bruce




Thought the Forbes review of the Mini was interesting. Here's a segment of it:

"We knew the price since BMW announced it in January. (Yes, that's right, BMW, which has owned the Mini brand since 2000.) We also knew that some in the automotive press have trashed the Mini for being gratuitously nostalgic. But, after having driven it, what we didn't know was that the Mini Cooper is in reality a heavily camouflaged BMW 3-Series on a smaller frame that sells for little more than half the dough."

You're right Andy - big brakes! 276 front; 239 rear according to the GCR.

I'd like to see the car go into ITB, but not at that weight. (Again, assuming it's not a VVT as that would change things a bit.) I'll be interested in saying what one of the Mini performance shops I know has to say about it.
[/b]

[Eric Parham]

how could a FWD car be considered a camouflaged 3 series ???? Sounds like journalistic license. I'm sure the BMW chassis engineers did their best, but when I rented a mini cooper and took it to Infineon when I was a guest instructor for the BMW club, it didn't feel as confidence inspiring as even my e30.
cheers,
bruce
[/b]

Good question. The rear suspension looks fully independent. The above-cited Mini Official Press Release called the front suspension MacPherson (mis-spelled as "McPherson" in the reference), but I don't think that would be correct if it has any kind of upper A-arm or other BMW-style links to improve the camber-change curve. Does anyone know if it's just a simple MacStrut or whether it has a modern front suspension that just looks like a MacStrut?

Edit: Weren't some of the 3-series AWD?

[JoshS]

Good question. The rear suspension looks fully independent. The above-cited Mini Official Press Release called the front suspension "McPherson" (mis-spelled in original), but I don't think that would be correct if it has any kind of upper A-arm or other BMW-style links to improve the camber-change curve. Does anyone know if it's just a simple MacStrut or whether it has a modern front suspension that just looks like a MacStrut?

Edit: Weren't some of the 3-series AWD?
[/b]
I just checked the BMW parts book, and it from there it looks like a simple Macstrut (but not the same as a 3-series).

[RSTPerformance]

While I would certainly be worried seeing one show up at the track, I do think that the Mini would be a great direction for ITB by bringing in new blood... It may even score new people with "less money" just because they would be proud racing against the Mini (basically it would bring the whole class status up a notch), rather than a bunch of (no offence) old vw's and honda's. - Seriosly NO OFFENCE, I have no better, and I am one of those that would enjoy saying that we race against cars such as the mini.

Raymond "I still think despite the changes in ITA that ITB is the best class with the most "car" options for "winners" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is a simple FWD McStrut car. It has no heritage with the 3-series BMW. The camber curve is non-existant. Check with the GS and HS guys who run these in Solo. They burn up a set of tires in no-time-flat because the cars are ultra camber-challenged.

It's a 115hp car that fits in ITB at 2450 no problem. No? It would be a nimble little devil but outclassed on the bigger stuff I bet.

[dj10]

It is, after all, a BMW engine. Please be cautious here :)
[/b]



You gotta love this! B)

[C. Ludwig]

I know it's not terribly "SCCA" but I don't enjoy racing against short fields. With more cars in the class, if I get beat, I get beat but if I win, it actually matters.

K
[/b]


WHAT!?!?! That's blasphemy! I love the way you think though. :D

[Z3_GoCar]

You gotta love this! B)
[/b]

Oh-yeah, and the M-44 BMW's are just tearing/cleaning up in ITA too :dead_horse: . I'm really curious exactly how short Rob's going to be when he completes his build up. Do I hear 2500lbs for the Z3 and the others moved down to ITB because no more weight can be found to remove? :lol:

Class the Mini, I know one that's going to be running USTCC. Just call Kevin MacDonald when you do because he can really set you up suspender wise. Who else here is running $10k/set coilovers?

James

[SPiFF]

Got a private request for consideration on the 2002 Mini Cooper. 115 hp / 110 ft/lb stock. Curb weight is around 2525. Struts, FWD, short wheelbase.

2450ish in ITB...thoughts?
[/b]

Andy ...

Why +150# to curb weight in ITB?!?! I was thinking about asking for it a while back in A at ~100# or so more then the CRX. That car seems like the modern day CRX. Is the CRX moving to B? :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy ...

Why +150# to curb weight in ITB?!?! I was thinking about asking for it a while back in A at ~100# or so more then the CRX. That car seems like the modern day CRX. Is the CRX moving to B? :D [/b]

You think this car can make 130whp? 35% more than stock? That is what it would have make to be the 'equal' of the CRX - not to mention the CRX's double wishbone advantage. HUGE.

2525 is the curb weight. 2450 would likely be the race weight. That is 2270 plus driver. You ok? :D

[Dave Zaslow]

I would welcome the MINI into B.

Here are a couple of links. People with a lot more technical knowledge than I have might give them a call to discuss what these cars are capable of:

A MINI race series
http://www.minidriving.com/page.asp?PageID=7

A MINI head builder's flow numbers (watch out for the oversize valves)
http://www.chrracingproducts.com/CFMnumbers.html

Additionally there are a few prod MINI's out there. They must have some knowledge we can learn from.

Dave Z

[gran racing]

They burn up a set of tires in no-time-flat because the cars are ultra camber-challenged.[/b]

Are they able to do everything to modify camber as allowed in IT trim? In SSC the car is classed at 2,655 and from what I hear does o.k. with tires / handling. I still think 2,450 is a tad bit lite.

[924Guy]

It'd be nice to see some new blood, I'm with Ray... but I'd have to let others more technically astute than I provide direction on weight...

[tnord]

i think the Mini is a great car for ITB and fits the class "character" perfectly. i wouldn't expect it to improve much more or less than any other car in IT trim. i assume it comes out of the process at 2450? considering all the recent changes to weights and classes in IT, if the formula spits out 2450, i'd probably trust it, as it seems to work pretty well.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are they able to do everything to modify camber as allowed in IT trim? In SSC the car is classed at 2,655 and from what I hear does o.k. with tires / handling. I still think 2,450 is a tad bit lite.

[/b]

Why is that light Dave? Your Prelude has 5 less horsepower, more torque and a better suspension design IIRC.

They are not able to do ANYTHING to change camber except stock alignment. But since it's a McStrut car, 'camber' curve is almost a non-starter.

[JohnRW]

Big brakes.
[/b]

Amen. They do a lot of things well, especially the 'STOP' thing. Ran against them in Showroom Stock for a bunch of years (Gerry ? Sean ? You're out there somewhere...time to chime in) and they're potent little buggers.

In SS, they had limited choice of tires and some continuing issues with half-shafts, but with a little development, it's probably a front-runner in B.

Look at some old SSC lap times for the NA Minis before picking a weight. Too light and you'll piss of a bunch of other ITB guys.

[gran racing]

They are not able to do ANYTHING to change camber except stock alignment.[/b]

Since when? :rolleyes:

I was comparing it to the ITB class, not to just my Prelude. If you weren't looking for input, why bother to ask?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Look at some old SSC lap times for the NA Minis before picking a weight. Too light and you'll piss of a bunch of other ITB guys.
[/b]

Track records were set this year at LRP and NHIS:

NHIS: 1:19.6 (ITB track record in the high 1:17's ?)

LRP: 1:04.9 (ITB track record in the high 1:03's)

Any other data? The process is the process. We have to put it through and see what happens. On paper, it will be very close - and that is the goal.

[Fred]

"Track records were set this year at LRP and NHIS:

NHIS: 1:19.6 (ITB track record in the high 1:17's ?)

LRP: 1:04.9 (ITB track record in the high 1:03's)"


I set both of those track records in a 2005 MINI Cooper S (Supercharged). In both cases I destroyed the fron tires. In SSC it is not possible to run these lap times for an entire race. I also had a 2002 MINI (non supercharged) at LRP the best I could manage was a 1:05.6 - in a draft. Again for me to do this I destroyed the left front tire and it was not a pace that could be kept for the entire race. My normal pace in the 2002 MINI was mid to low 1:06's.

At LRP in the 2002 MINI I was absolutley flat around the entire track with the exception for Big Bend and a small lift in the left hander. I do not know how much faster you can go in ITB, but I would be surprised to see a 2002 MINI in the high 1:03's even with camber and the usual IT car preparation. Remember a big part of the 2002 MINI was its brakes and ABS - If I remember correctly there is no ABS in ITB. FYI I could not keep up with the Neons in a straight line they were much faster then me.

Fred

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Track records were set this year at LRP and NHIS:

NHIS: 1:19.6 (ITB track record in the high 1:17's ?)

LRP: 1:04.9 (ITB track record in the high 1:03's)"


I set both of those track records in a 2005 MINI Cooper S (Supercharged). In both cases I destroyed the fron tires. In SSC it is not possible to run these lap times for an entire race. I also had a 2002 MINI (non supercharged) at LRP the best I could manage was a 1:05.6 - in a draft. Again for me to do this I destroyed the left front tire and it was not a pace that could be kept for the entire race. My normal pace in the 2002 MINI was mid to low 1:06's.

At LRP in the 2002 MINI I was absolutley flat around the entire track with the exception for Big Bend and a small lift in the left hander. I do not know how much faster you can go in ITB, but I would be surprised to see a 2002 MINI in the high 1:03's even with camber and the usual IT car preparation. Remember a big part of the 2002 MINI was its brakes and ABS - If I remember correctly there is no ABS in ITB. FYI I could not keep up with the Neons in a straight line they were much faster then me.

Fred

[/b]

Thanks Mr. P. ! So with 50 less hp, the NA Mini wouldn't be touching these times. Come on guys!!!!






Since when? :rolleyes:

I was comparing it to the ITB class, not to just my Prelude. If you weren't looking for input, why bother to ask? [/b]

Since I thought you were asking about Showroom stock rules. No camber plates in SS.

I am looking for input - but you say that 2450 is too light - based on what? I put your specs out there to compare...since your car is at 2450 as well. When you say it's too light, it would be nice to hear some reasoning....

The Solo cars and the SS cars eat tires alive.

[JamesB]

Doh never mind, that was a cooper S.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Doh never mind, that was a cooper S. [/b]

I made the same mistake James...48 more hp than the standard Mini and it's still 2 seconds off ITB. I think the 115hp and no ABS, McStruts and FWD make a nice fit in ITB. No?

Write your letters if you think it should/shoudn't...throw some reasons in there for fun!

[JamesB]

All the numbers do add up huh.

[shwah]

This is why I love the fact that we have a process of sorts. I am sure that it includes inputs for brake sizes, chassis type, drive wheels, engine size, head type, etc. Run it through that process and let it run at the weight that process spits out.

If there is something seriously wrong with the result, there is a mechanism to fix that.

They would be fun to race with. Of course more fun if I can beat them, but that is more up to me than to them :P .

[Xian]

I think it'd be a great fit for ITB. I used to own an 05 Cooper S and have driven the standard Cooper. It's a great chassis but the base model engine is a dog, imo. It's not revvy, it's not torquey, it's just "there". How it will stand up to the VW's and Honda's is anyone's guess but I'm betting it will be a good match-up. The aero on the Mini is pretty atrocious, there's no camber curve, and I don't think there's a ton of power to get out of the engine. What it does have is room for big tires and good brakes. It'd probably make a good enduro car...

[RFloyd]

Seems like a good fit for ITB IMO Andy. 2450 seems fair. Do it. I'd love to race against it.

[Greg Amy]

After reading this thread today, I stopped and looked over a Mini in the parking lot at work today. We think of them as small cars, but they're really not; they're comparable in size to Kirk's Golf. Plus, the Golf started with 115 ponies too, right?

It does seem to have biggish brakes, but the suspension is fairly straightforward. I think if we parked that car next to the Golf it would make a lot more sense.

The numbers do look right; stuff that thing in ITB!

[lateapex911]

What it does have is room for big tires and good brakes. It'd probably make a good enduro car...
[/b]

As big as fit on 6" rims....

[Xian]

As big as fit on 6" rims....
[/b]
Good point... 6" width is going to severely limit the contact patch.

Christian

[Knestis]

Intersting question there - what diameter wheels does it come with? Is it going to be wheel-challenged in that width?
K

[shwah]

Original equipment was 15" w/optional 16" in 2002.

Of course this whole conversation brings other cars to mind...

MR Spyder
Golf IV 2.0
Jetta IV 2.0
Mirage/Lancer

Maybe not all B material, but could be classed IMO.

[StephenB]

NHIS: 1:19.6 (ITB track record in the high 1:17's ?)

LRP: 1:04.9 (ITB track record in the high 1:03's)

Any other data?
[/b]


No one except Rick pocock in his Alfa has been in the 3's at LRP and that was back in the late 1990's. As far as 17's for NHIS that is not a reasonable time for an ITB car. The majority of ITB times are in the low 19's at NHIS and low 5's at LRP. Don't let an SSC car with no development that is already turning those times into ITB.

Thanks,
Stephen

[JoshS]

No one except Rick pocock in his Alfa has been in the 3's at LRP and that was back in the late 1990's. As far as 17's for NHIS that is not a reasonable time for an ITB car. The majority of ITB times are in the low 19's at NHIS and low 5's at LRP. Don't let an SSC car with no development that is already turning those times into ITB.

Thanks,
Stephen
[/b]
Stephen,

The SSC car that ran those times was a Mini Cooper S, not a Mini Cooper. Big big difference.

See this post (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9557&st=20&p=96384&#entry96384).

[StephenB]

Thanks, I don't know much about the cars...

I was worried from those other posts that people thought that an SSC car turning what the front runners are turning for times was acceptable. I think that ITB cars will dip into the 3's and into the mid to low 18's as we add new cars which is a shame since all classes seem to get a little faster every year.... but at the same time I was worried about a stock car turning those fast times.

Thanks again for clarifying.

Stephen

[Knestis]

Original equipment was 15" w/optional 16" in 2002.

Of course this whole conversation brings other cars to mind...

MR Spyder
Golf IV 2.0
Jetta IV 2.0
Mirage/Lancer

Maybe not all B material, but could be classed IMO.
[/b]

The Newb Eetle got listed in C, and is essentially identical to the Golf IV. The issue was that it appeared it couldn't actually get as light as it needed to be, to align with the process weight in B.

Kirk (who's kind of glad he's not shopping for 15x6" wheels)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Stephen: Didn't Hunter just run a 1:04 flat at LRP at the NARRC runoffs?

What are the track records in ITB at NHIS?

[Eric Parham]

Also, Eric Curren ran 1:03's at Lime Rock in his ITB Volvo. I think that was in '00 or so during the NARRC-offs. I remember because that was the race where I set my personal best of 1:04.3, and I was still over 1/2 a second off the pace :huh:

[Eric Parham]

BTW, although I'm convinced that the new Mini Cooper would be a good ITB fit on almost everything, I'm still not convinced on the engine. Can someone please say DEFINITIVELY whether or not it has Variable Valve Timing (VVT)? If not, can anyone explain how the exact same mechanical engine makes just 90 hp DIN with the fuel-optimized ECU software in the "Mini One" but 116 hp DIN on the fuel/fun compromise ECU software in the "Mini Cooper", a 26 hp gain? Following that trend, one could guesstimate 152 hp with a race-optimized ECU software (and that's without ANY other changes)! Please note that the SSC car was not allowed any ECU or software mods. IT changes that considerably, and basically only the costs of such changes are being addressed with the various ECU rule-change suggestions. VVT remains a rogue assassin, IMHO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

BTW, although I'm convinced that the new Mini Cooper would be a good ITB fit on almost everything, I'm still not convinced on the engine. Can someone please say DEFINITIVELY whether or not it has Variable Valve Timing (VVT)? If not, can anyone explain how the exact same mechanical engine makes just 90 hp DIN with the fuel-optimized ECU software in the "Mini One" but 116 hp on the fuel/fun compromise ECU software in the "Mini Cooper", a 26 hp gain? Following that trend, one could guesstimate 152 hp with a race-optimized ECU software (and that's without ANY other changes)! Please note that the SSC car was not allowed any ECU or software mods. IT changes that considerably, and basically only the costs of such changes are being addressed with the various ECU rule-change suggestions. [/b]

Eric - as long as we are guessing - you could surmize that the ECU gains were 'all used up' and maxed out at the 116hp level seeing as how it may have started with just 90.

2450 is what spits out at a 25% increase in power in IT trim given it's other attributes. It will have to make 144 at the crank in order to 'fulfill' it's potential. Or using 15% driveline losses, around 122whp.

[Eric Parham]

Eric - as long as we are guessing - you could surmize that the ECU gains were 'all used up' and maxed out at the 116hp level seeing as how it may have started with just 90.

2450 is what spits out at a 25% increase in power in IT trim given it's other attributes. It will have to make 144 at the crank in order to 'fulfill' it's potential. Or using 15% driveline losses, around 122whp.
[/b]

Andy, I understand and appreciate both of your points. The problem is that we need to do more than just guess when it comes to VVT. If VVT is involved, I think we have learned from the ITS 325 cars that the standard IT 25% increase doesn't always apply. My main reason for mentioning the 2 different outputs for two different versions of the FACTORY software is that it sure implies VVT to me (I can't think of any other way to make such a difference without at least a cam change while still maintaining emissions across a wide range of operating conditions -- the two cars are identical except for the software, at least according to the reference).

Edit: Note that the factory's EPA legal software change alone bumped the output of this engine up by 29%, which throws the 25% max IT presumption for ALL mods right out the window, IMHO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I understand and appreciate both of your points. The problem is that we need to do more than just guess when it comes to VVT. If VVT is involved, I think we have learned from the ITS 325 cars that the standard IT 25% increase doesn't always apply. My main reason for mentioning the 2 different outputs for two different versions of the FACTORY software is that it sure implies VVT to me (I can't think of any other way to make such a difference without at least a cam change while still maintaining emissions across a wide range of operating conditions -- the two cars are identical except for the software, at least according to the reference).

Edit: Note that the factory's EPA legal software change alone bumped the output of this engine up by 29%, which throws the 25% max IT presumption for ALL mods right out the window, IMHO. [/b]

I think you need to seperate VVT from ITS BMW's. Honda's have VTEC and gains are in the 25% range. The BMW has a couple things going for it. 1. It's a straight 6. Historically a very solid design that likes to rev and is an excellent basis for performance. 2. BMW is notorious for underating their motors from the factory. I have seen bone stock E36 325's make 170whp - from 189 'crank' hp. (DynoJet) 3. 2.5L of displacement is nothing to sneeze at.

Let's not use this car as a basis to pigeon-hole the Mini.

[Z3_GoCar]

.... If not, can anyone explain how the exact same mechanical engine makes just 90 hp DIN with the fuel-optimized ECU software in the "Mini One" but 116 hp DIN on the fuel/fun compromise ECU software in the "Mini Cooper", a 26 hp gain? .....
[/b]

This is just conjecture, but maybe it's not 90hp -> 116hp. The 90hp may be to keep it in some sort of VAT/motoring tax bracket that seems so common in Europe. While the 116hp maybe to sell the base Mini over here, after all even if you're in the market for a base Mini there's still limits to how low horse power wise anyone's willing to go. In spite of the Truth in advertizing that killed the hp wars in the early '70s, it seems pretty clear that factory hp claims are usually more based around what the folks in Marketing seem to think rather than real engineering numbers.

James

[Eric Parham]

I think you need to seperate VVT from ITS BMW's. Honda's have VTEC and gains are in the 25% range. The BMW has a couple things going for it. 1. It's a straight 6. Historically a very solid design that likes to rev and is an excellent basis for performance. 2. BMW is notorious for underating their motors from the factory. I have seen bone stock E36 325's make 170whp - from 189 'crank' hp. (DynoJet) 3. 2.5L of displacement is nothing to sneeze at.

Let's not use this car as a basis to pigeon-hole the Mini.
[/b]

I'm not trying to pigeon-hole the thing. I'm just trying to think ahead. I'll say fair enough, but keep in mind that there are several forms of VVT. I'm no expert, but I understand that some forms of VVT are severely limited by the stock cams and would require a non-IT-compliant cam to make big gains, but other forms of VVT can make big gains with the OEM cams -- this has required expensive ECU mods (and sometimes oiling system and/or actuator adjustments) in the past since it's the ECU that ultimately adjusts the valve timing events. As a rule of thumb, I think that those VVT systems that are theoretically capable of finely adjusting the valve overlap timing are going to make the biggest gains in IT. That's the type of system used on the later BMW 3-series, and I don't yet know if it was used on the BMW joint-venture engined MINI. I don't know as much about Honda's VTEC, but I think it uses a simpler system that's more cam limited. Once it it is known whether a car to be classified has VVT or not, then it is another matter to determine whether or not the particular VVT implementation is hamstringed by the OEM cams (since those are still required for IT). This is the only way I know to properly estimate the potential of a new VVT car classification. YMMV.

[Dave Zaslow]

Looks like they take very well to chip tuning. 144 hp with programming, premium gas, and a header (with cat). Is there a difference in German HP measurements vs. USA?

http://www.mth-minipower.de/index.php?kat=...ng-Kits&lang=en (http://www.mth-minipower.de/index.php?kat=Tuning-Kits&lang=en)

Dave Z

[RSTPerformance]

Looks like they take very well to chip tuning. 144 hp with programming, premium gas, and a header (with cat). Is there a difference in German HP measurements vs. USA?

http://www.mth-minipower.de/index.php?kat=...ng-Kits&lang=en (http://www.mth-minipower.de/index.php?kat=Tuning-Kits&lang=en)

Dave Z
[/b]


Yikes!!! Well with the new process I would support the car for a year see if any are built and if they kick total but, then maybe they will need to move to A?

Raymond

[gran racing]

That's crazy Dave!!!

I have to say when I read that, even on their site, I just couldn't believe it. I spoke with one of their distributors in the US, and it is 144 HP as we know it. This is without a IT built engine, and NO dyno tuning. One question I asked was "how is this possible?" To summarize the response...the base model engines (didn't get into the S Cooper) are de-tuned for several reasons. One is for warranty reasons / longevity of the engine, a small part related to emissions, and for marketing reasons. Why buy a Mini S when a base model can make 144 hp? I then spoke with him about having a built engine (explained what that meant), removing the cat and no emissions concerns, aftermarket intake. As I would imagine, there's more to be gained.

I'm still very surprised with that type of gain from it the kit. I thought it would be a fit for ITB, but now am thinking ITA.

[Rabbit07]

I wouldn't think that it would be a good fit in ITA at that weight. My ITA Neon weighs 2450 and has about 165hp at the flywheel.

[Knestis]

... I would support the car for a year see if any are built and if they kick total but, then maybe they will need to move to A? ...
[/b]
ACK.

Seriously, people - we can NOT get in the habit of thinking that we can move cars around, or handicap weights based on what we see built and raced. That's exactly the approach that brought you competition adjustments (bleah!) in our other categories.

Make the listing and weight spec on the mechanical attributes of the car. If there's a belief that ECU-controlled valve timing is going to upset the applecart (and I can see how that might well be possible), then create a factor for it, don't classify cars with that technology, or make it illegal to change those parameters in the programming.

Since the second two options are very problematic (not desirable and not practically enforceable, respectively), it may be necessary to do some serious research into the potential for electonic VVT systems to fundamentally change assumptions about IT-build power gains. We use "stock cams" and the need for manufacturers to optimize economy and driveablity with them, as a first assumption. If technology blows that up, then a re-think is required BEFORE we classifiy any cars with the technology in question.

On the other hand, if this system is strictly a VTEC-type mechanical/oil-pressure controlled system that will NOT be changed by programming, it's probably not a big issue.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

And while the ITAC will take this info into consideration, there is PLENTY of optimistic claims for chips and exhaust upgrades. How are these guys calling out 144 crank hp? Are they using an engine dyno with full wiring harness and ecu? Doubt it.

These are also the two biggest opportunities for hp increases in IT.

Having said that, if it made 30% more than stock in IT trim, it would need to be 2550 in ITB. For ITA, it would be 2165ish (which is 1985 without driver - doubt it could make that).

[Knestis]

Note that my above post should not be interpreted as anit-Mini - just anti-competition adjustment (bleah).
K

[lateapex911]

Right...I doubt anyone on the ITAC wants to toss it in a class, and "See how she does", and then move it if it needs it.

The key here, and it's kinda obvious, is to nail the probable increase before it hits the track. Most cars respond to IT prep in a certain way, but others are different. Old rotaries, or cars from the early 70s, which can be saddled with some really crappy exhaust manifolds, air pumps and so on, spring to life when uncorked.

For the reasons mentioned above, this typs of car might also respond better than the standard. If so, it will be accounted for in the process.

[Greg Amy]

That car would get murdered in ITA. Pointy-end ITA cars are putting out >175 at the crank.

~145 at the crank comes to ~125 wheel...pretty much pointy-end ITB territory...

Don't forget these are "tuner" numbers, too, developed to sell parts, not to classify cars.

[gran racing]

Yeah, it would be tough to put it into A. I'd be very curious to know what the "real" numbers are at the crank. Greg, you said 145 comes to ~ 125 wheel, which would put it at the pointy end. My only issue with that is (again, assumes the HP increases are close being true to what is advertised) that's before much of an IT build. It's an aftermarket street header with a cat still on it and stock exhaust from the cat back. By all means I'm not anti-mini into ITB, although it may sound like that. At the same point the information that Dave Z. found was very interesting and can't simply be dismissed, not that the ITAC would do that.

[Z3_GoCar]

A Roundel Editor just wrote in his last colum that even with camber plates, because of sturctural bracing it's limited to about -0.5 degrees. So front tires will be a weekend or even daily disposable, maybe someone's figured a work around thought.

James

[Tirewarmer]

A Roundel Editor just wrote in his last colum that even with camber plates, because of sturctural bracing it's limited to about -0.5 degrees. So front tires will be a weekend or even daily disposable, maybe someone's figured a work around thought.

James
[/b]

I don't think that is entireley true on all build years of MINI. Some have a structural issue while others do not. These plates claim to give 3.5 degrees of negative camber without cutting any sheet metal:

Ireland Engineering MINI Camber Plates (https://secure17.nexternal.com/shared/StoreFront/default.asp?CS=ireland&BusType=BtoC&Count1=864818751&Count2=781959176)

Joe

[Greg Amy]

Camber plates, upper strut mods, free strut bodies, wheel spacers. Camber won't be a problem on that car...

[41hstock]

As an H Stock autocrosser very interested in taking my 03 Mini Cooper into IT, I have enjoyed this thread.

Here are some of my observations in summary:

ENGINE
1.6L, SOHC 16v (non V V T), 115hp (dynos at the wheels about 106hp). Very difficult to extract additional hp. I have seen a John Cooper Works Pkg $4,000ish (CAI, header, exhaust, reworked head, and ECU) put out about 133hp. Not sure how it was rated. Don't think the head and ECU would be IT legal. The CAI and reworked exhaust may get you only 10hp (if that). A straight pipe beyond the cat actually drops a couple hp.

SUSPENSION
With the optional suspension, the Mini handles like a dream right out of the box (much more forgiving than my 86 CRX DX). Not a lot of body roll, but coilovers would help I am sure. Its only problem is lack of camber (eats Hoosiers for lunch on the autox course). This which can be fixed with camber plates. I hear it responds very well to neg 1.5-2.0 degrees. Running on Kumho SPTs at a newly paved Heartland Park this summer, it was fairly easy on tires.

WHEELS
15x5.5 std
16x6.5 opt
I would assume 15x6 with 205/50/15 or 16x6 with 205 or 215ish tires would be IT legal?

BRAKES
It does have awesome brakes!!! ABS would have to be disabled under IT rules, I assume.

Comparing it directly to my CRX, I think ITB would be a good fit. The lack of power would be my only concern.

Paul Moylan
KCR SCCA

[JamesB]

the JCW head would not pass IT rules, but the ECU might. Its a OEM ecu with a JCW chip installed. Still an OEM box which is all the rules state. But even then to really consider its potential one would have to port match, overbore .040, .5 compression bump, balence, blueprint and chiptune it with a header, exhaust and intake.

[41hstock]

[quote]
"one would have to port match, overbore .040, .5 compression bump, balance, blueprint and chiptune it....."

I would be very curious if that would even be worth the effort. It seems that I have heard of some front runners in ITC who run stock Honda motors. If there is power to be found, someone will find it.

Paul Moylan
KCR SCCA

[924Guy]

Comparing it directly to my CRX, I think ITB would be a good fit. The lack of power would be my only concern.
[/b]

Welcome to ITB... <_<

No, seriously - you wanna race something with power, you should be building an AS car... been hanging out with those BMWCCA guys too much, I reckon... ;)

[41hstock]

Good point about power or lack there of in ITB. Despite that, I don&#39;t think the Mini will dominate on hp courses. It&#39;s strength will be handling and braking.

As for the BMWCCA guys, I haven&#39;t hung around them much, but I do get the impression that they look at the Mini as the bastard step-child. Not a "real BMW" (imagine that!).

Thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents guys!!! I will now sit back and enjoy the debate. :lol:

[924Guy]

As for the BMWCCA guys, I haven&#39;t hung around them much, but I do get the impression that they look at the Mini as the bastard step-child. Not a "real BMW" (imagine that!).
[/b]

Heh heh... somehow, I think I can relate... ;)

[Doc Bro]

Heh heh... somehow, I think I can relate... ;)
[/b]


Me too!!

R

[seamus88]

Sorry I have been offline for several weeks(MAJOR house remodeling).I raced the Mini in the enduro series against John Walsh in SSC. The Mini is not VVT. I loved driving the car(specialy because it was a free ride).The car is very easy to drive the brakes are awsome but the engine is a dud. We would have to reset the ECU in the middle of races because it would detune itself. From what I hear the ECU is very hard to program. We had to do the reset with a special BMW computer. I doubt that you find any great gains in that engine. The handling was great but we would eat tires. I think the car would be a great fit in ITB because of the engine, if it had a better engine and aero it would be ITA.

Sean Christie

Former SSC Mini
Present ITA Honda Civic Si