2002 Mini Cooper

[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.

[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

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

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