MINI’s Next Generation (Part 2): Fewer Cylinders & More Power
The world is changing. Cars are getting bigger batteries while efficiency standards are on the rise worldwide. Through it all BMW has decided to become not only the maker of performance oriented cars but efficient ones as well. Core to that plan is the MINI brand and the future powerplants destined for its next generation cars.
As we mentioned in Part 1 in this series last week, MINI will be launching a new generation of its core product to replace the R56 hatchback in late 2012. At the heart of this new generation of MINIs will be a new range of powerplants that will create a new benchmark for not only performance but also efficiency.
The first generation new MINI was designed and even partially engineered before an engine was even identified let alone developed for the car. Ultimately the R5X series of models made due with a Chrysler designed (and Brazilian built) iron block four cylinder that was inefficient (in modern terms) but surprisingly full of character that more than suited the car. The R56 on the other hand was given a BMW designed four cylinder that was shared with several Citroen and Puegoet models. For 2012 BMW will be giving the next generation MINI an entirely new range of engines designed and developed once again in house at BMW.
BMW is currently developing a range of highly efficient and surprisingly powerful 3 cylinder petrol turbocharged engines designed to motivate everything from the next generation MINI to BMW’s upcoming iSetta sub-brand to more than a few next generation 1 and 3 series models. And yes, for the MINI that means that some (if not all) models will eventually be moving to three cylinders as opposed to four and down at least .2 liters in capacity.
However before you get the pitchforks out, MINI has no intentions in allowing performance to be degraded by these new engines. In fact sources are telling us that horsepower and torque ratings will be up across the board despite dropping a cylinder. But that’s not all that will improve with these new powerplants. Weight will be down and efficiency improved (dramatically in some cases) on every model.
Based on information our sister site BimmerFile has obtained we expect MINI to move to a 1.35L engine range (likely labelled 1.4L) that will start with a sub 100 bhp output and go above and beyond the current MCS output of 175 bhp.
Specifically we’ve heard three configurations mentioned for use within BMW products:
– 122 hp/190Nm (140 ft lbs)
– 150 hp/220Nm (162 ft lbs)
– 180 hp/260Nm (192 ft lbs)
So weight is down, power and efficiency are up. But how does it sound? We asked that question of a source who’s heard the new MCS engine and got a surprising answer. You’d assume that dropping a cylinder isn’t a great thing when it comes to that low growl we all know on the current generation of MINIs. However BMW engineers are keen on this as well and have designed the new engine and exhaust in a way to produce a distinctive growl that (if sources are to be believed) sounds better than any turbocharged MINI yet.
Transmissions.
Motivating these engines as standard will be the familiar six speed getrag manual transmission. Yes MINI will continue to offer manual transmissions for the foreseeable future on all products. There have been rumors of a dual clutch gearbox replacing the current automatic transmission in some models but costs will likely be pose a big hurdle to overcome. Unlike VW (which can spread development costs across a half dozen brands and millions of cars) MINI is finding it difficult to make the math work in their favor. However we do expect to see at least one higher-end model with a dual clutch transmission over the next few years.
The extended range.
The Coupe, Roadster, Convertible and Countryman will carry on with the current generation of four cylinder engines until each product’s life-cycle ends naturally. At that point we expect MINI to introduce a new range of four cylinder power-plants (developed in conjunction with PSA) that will likely power the higher power applications (read Countryman and JCW models) for years to come.
More power. Less weight. More efficiency. Less CO2. More growl. Sounds perfect to us. Look for the 3rd generation MINI to debut sometime in late 2012 as a 2013 model. With the new range of engines.
<p>“The Coupe, Roadster, Convertible and Countryman will carry on with the current generation of engines…”</p>
<p>So we’re to understand that the Clubman is officially being canned?</p>
<p>Sorry Gabe, but I just stopped caring, no pitch fork for me. I am just walking away.</p>
<p>why don’t they just put a two stroke in it? It is evident that BMW looks down their nose at MINI.</p>
<p>Sounds like great news to me! I personally don’t care how many cylinders the engine has if the performance is as good as or better than previous engines. Not sure why some would see a more fuel and emissions efficient engine that offers equal or better power a bad thing.</p>
<p>No true stick shift = no more purchases for me.</p>
<p>I just cannot feel like I have full control of my car in the winter without direct control over my car.</p>
<blockquote>why don’t they just put a two stroke in it? It is evident that BMW looks down their nose at MINI.</blockquote>
<p>Seriously?</p>
<p>I think BMW looks at MINI (rightly) as a way to help bring down corporate average fuel economy. That’s not looking down their nose. That’s the reality of a for-profit auto manufacturer.</p>
<p>If anything, these new engines (and the amount of work that has gone into them) show a huge amount of respect for the MINI brand. I mean, 133 hp/liter? That’s simply amazing power output. And the combination of more power + less weight + greater efficiency? That’s what we call having your cake and eating it, too.</p>
<p>I guess maybe you just don’t like cake.</p>
<p>@Rocketboy doesn’t look like you have a thing to worry about then:</p>
<blockquote>MINI will continue to offer manual transmissions as standard for the foreseeable future. There have been rumors of a dual clutch gearbox replacing the current automatic transmission in some models…</blockquote>
<p>Rocketboy, where did you get that there’s not going to be a true stick shift? It says that a manual transmission will be “standard for the foreseeable future.”</p>
<p>Sometimes I wonder whether people even read the article before posting! And as far as downgrading the engine capacity, if the extra tech results in increased performance, lower emissions, increased efficiency and a characterful engine note…what’s not to like? Confused.</p>
<p>all the added complexity is the only thing that i’d worry about. but if they can make it work, and make it work well, i’m all for it.</p>
<p>I’d be inerested in what the NA version of the three banger puts out. I assume the sub 100 hp variant is for the mini one in Europe. What is the NA version for the US? If they drop a cylinder and keep it in the 115-120 range for NA I’ll be happy. If I have to go turbo for anything over 100, I won’t like that.</p>
<p>Maybe this is their formula:
5% more power, 50 lbs less weight and 5 more mpg</p>
<p>If so, it’s a winning one.</p>
<p>Consider me old school here…. but 4 cylinders are a minimum for me. yeah it may be more power and it may fill the bill ok……But I just prefer my M without a turbo and my MINI with at least 4 cylinders.</p>
<p>“Fewer cylinders”, please.</p>
<p>It’ll be interesting to see the actual results of driving a 3 cylinder turbocharged engine. I think MINI — given some of the comments here — will have a difficult time overcoming the 3 cylinder stigma here in North America. The last 3 cylinder car that I can remember was the Chevy Sprint/Chevette. This car was anything but a performance car, so overcoming this image for guys like me might be tough. Think of the hatchback: until recently, it was viewed as a cheap car in the US, hence the limited number available there. However, MINI seems to have changed this conception so maybe they can do the same with a 3-banger?</p>
<p>Again, I’ll reserve judgement until I read some reviews and drive one for myself. My initial reaction is that this move won’t win the MINI any more respect on the street, but it might win over some people concerned more with efficiency.</p>
<p>You know, the more I think about it, the question I get asked most about the car is this: “How is it on gas?” My response is always this: “Not as good as you’d think.” Keep in mind I have a 2003 Cooper S, so I get about 500 km per tank in mixed driving.</p>
<p>However, if MINI is able to increase fuel economy by roughly 10% or so per generation, then I assume this model will be at least 10% more efficient than the last model, I’ll probably be looking at 800 km or so per tank.</p>
<p>Given that gas prices aren’t going anywhere but up over time, I think this might be a good move for MINI long term. The masses will see great fuel economy numbers and the enthusiasts will still have a great driving car.</p>
<p>It’s hard for me to hear ‘3 cylinder engine’ and NOT think ‘Geo Metro’.</p>
<p>However, if these new engines really will deliver more power AND more MPG, I’m all for it.</p>
<p>It’s hard for me to hear ‘3 cylinder engine’ and NOT think ‘early model John Deere tractor.”</p>
<p>Okay, okay…I know those tractors were actually 2 cylinder engines, with that distinctive ‘pa-pum, pa-pum, pa-pum’ sound.</p>
<p>This could be a good thing and I’m reserving judgment. I have to admit being just a bit squeamish though…</p>
<p>this is intriguing…i am a fan/advocate of the 3 cylinder layout used by triumph (another fine british brand, btw!) in their motorcycle lineup and thoroughly enjoy the unique performance characteristics of that approach. if bmw/mini is able to achieve good things with the 3 cylinder engines (i.e., improve efficiency, reduce emissions, maintain/increase performance across the range) then i’m all for it. this would be just one more unique characteristic for mini to differentiate them in the market. just because other brands have used 3 cylinders in the past (and essentially made them boring, lackluster and appliance-focused) doesn’t condem bmw/mini to the same marketplace fate as those efforts; have a little faith. i for one am quite interested in this development.</p>
<p>“Sorry Gabe, but I just stopped caring, no pitch fork for me. I am just walking away.”</p>
<p>I just started caring again. Less weight is always good, and more power helps. I don’t care if it gets 30mpg or 40mpg, I am just excited about the car losing weight. Please place my order for a Coopster 3 cyl w/ 180+ hp, and please strip out all the sound deadining material, ect. Get it to weigh less than a Miata, but leave the ac (I live in the south). I will start saving now.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the GM 2.0 direct injected turbo four in the Solstice/Sky put out 130bhp/litre out of the box, and with the GM performnace flash kit, 145bhp/litre, along with 340lbft torque….so it can be done!</p>
<p>“Foreseeable future” always seems to imply to me that just outside of the “foreseeable future”, things will change.</p>
<p>I don’t think my wife would have liked if I wrote my own wedding vows to state that I would remain committed and married to her for the “foreseeable future”.</p>
<p>3 cylinders reminds me of my old SAAB 93 two stroke.</p>
<p>But as someone has pointed out, motorcycles do great things with three cylinders.</p>
<p>BMW isn’t totally stupid. I would imagine they will not introduce such an engine unless it truly is better.</p>
<p>Who cares how many cylinders????</p>
<p>Power is power and torque is torque..if the numbers are produced, why does it matter??</p>
<p>AND less weight and better efficiancy??</p>
<p>I welcome it.</p>
<p>Will this be an in-line 3 cylinder engine (“I3”) or something more exotic?</p>
<p>One advantage not yet cited for a 3 cylinder engine in a MINI is potential reclamation of some space for the passenger compartment. Let’s hope that happens.</p>
<p>This sounds like an excelent route for MINI. My only concern is if MINI is getting all the power possible out of this engine. I am thinking this engine will be hard to modify from the original unordered to receive more power.</p>
<p>Does someone want to yell out, “April Fools!”? A 3 cylinder MINI will need to be put up against the 3 cylinder Smart Car.</p>
<p>Isn’t a 3 banger going to be rough and have lots more vibration?
They keep talking about torque and mpg – Why not go diesel?
MY ’08 MCS convertible might be my last MINI.
I don’t agree with 3 cylinders.
Why don’t they do a Wankel engine?</p>
<p>Determination, innovation and flying in the face of the status quo = no guarantees, but just maybe success and prosperity. Without the above would there be MINI in America?</p>
<blockquote>Ultimately the R5X series of models made due with a Chrysler designed (and Brazilian built) iron block four cylinder that was inefficient (in modern terms) but surprisingly full of character that more than suited the car.</blockquote>
<p>Jesus. That is so incredibly condescending!</p>
<p>The Tritec 1.6SC was and remains a phenomenal engine in terms of power-to-displacement (one measure of efficiency) and reliability. Given all the issues with the “Little French Prince,” I think it is fair to say that sometimes simpler is better.</p>
<p>“The 1.6 SC uses a Roots-type Eaton M45 supercharger with intercooler. The compression ratio is reduced from 10.5:1 to 8.3:1. Output was initially rated at 120 kW (160 PS; 160 hp) and 210 N·m (150 lb·ft) but has since been increased to 125 kW (170 PS; 168 hp) and 220 N·m (160 lb·ft).</p>
<p><b>The 1.6 SC won the “1.4 L to 1.8 L” category at the International Engine of the Year awards for 2003. It also won Ward’s 10 Best Engines award for 2003</b>.”</p>
<p>What is it with people and “auto” tranny’s?! Have you ever driven a DSG powered VW? How about something along the lines of an M3 or even a Lambo? Sure the two latter examples employ different methods of semi-auto/manual operation but they are a dream to drive. I’m always put of by those who solely think in hues of black or white — c’mon people, think of all those shades of grey! I for one think that a dual clutch auto gearbox would be pretty cool, I’ll be waiting to test drive one if it ever comes to market. The dual clutch, paddle shifting M3 coupe is a dream to drive: road or track. M</p>
<p>Very interesting news. Perversely, a 3-cylinder should introduce a lot of instant “character” to the car compared to the Prince engine. I do not doubt the desired power can be achieved with an I-3, particularly forced induction; the engineering challenge will be sorting out the inherent NVH disadvantage of an I-3. It does not need to be glass-smooth, but it needs to be able to rev freely like all good BMW engines do. Incidentally, those comparing the I-3 to the Smart (first generation) need to remember that was a diesel engine, so its gruff lazy revving was more due to being a compression ignition engine than it was due to having an odd cylinder count (the terrible automated manual transmission did not help things – I actually like driving the gen1 Smarts, but that powertrain has no place in a car like the MINI).</p>
<p>Further, many of us have asked that a MINI model more in keeping with the original be pursued by BMW (i.e., “do more with less”, particularly for the powertrain, suspension, and interior space packaging). Ditto for the weight loss… sounds fantastic and with this news of a move to an I-3 I believe we will see more than just a token weight decrease with the gen3 MINI.</p>
<p>More evident with each passing day, to me at least, is that the Fiat500 will be the most direct “nemesis” to the MINI when it arrives in Canada fall 2010/spring 2011. And it already holds some key advantages – notably smaller, significantly lighter, smaller 1.4L revhappy turbo motor, bang-on styling, and a lower price. (Also some key disadvantages – torsion beam rear suspension, yet-to-be-seen build quality.)</p>
<p>I don’t mind the 3 banger if we get the same power for less weight. I would like a twin clutch trans IF the cost was not through the roof, but looks like that may be tough to do in the near term.
Must be age but when the 3 banger was mentioned I first thought of a Saab Sonnet.</p>
<p>@that.guy – you tell them! The myth that the Tritec is some horrid little lump always makes me shake my head in disbelief. The specs (with exception of fuel economy, itself not exactly terrible) are impressive even today but it is the powerband characteristics, sound, and feel that impress most. Especially when driving hard it is a hell of a fantastic back road companion.</p>
<p>“Character”, people — not “spec sheet” — is what makes a car special. Please stop believing the KorporateKoolAid that newer = better.</p>
<p>Mark… I’ve driven MINI’s cvt. I’ve driven flappy paddle autos. I would not trust them in the winter on snow/ice covered roads. You want/need traction? Step on the clutch. Instant traction w/o requiring a computer intervention.</p>
<p>I look forward to the changes and applaude MINI/BMW for keeping their principles of Efficient Dynamics.
What they are doing with MINI embodies this philosophy and should keep MINI at the forefront of the fun-to-drive category.</p>
<p>Good to great gas mileage and fun and power were what attracted me to mini in the first place. If they can keep the combination of these three together then they have a market, probably a growing market at that. Gas prices are unbelievable and will probably only get worse.</p>
<p>This is absolutely the direction I’ve been wanting Mini to go: Less weight, more efficiency (just throw in a little “less money” and I’ll be really excited). Fun will be had, people!</p>
<p>BMW isn’t putting Smart’s engine in a Mini, and they aren’t putting a Geo Metro engine in a Mini! They will be putting a brand new, BMW-designed, 3-cylinder engine into a Mini. I’m sure it will be worth considering rather than dismissing out of hand.</p>
<p>As for worrying about stick shifts going the way of the dodo, any automated shifting is going to cost more than a row-your-own, so I expect manuals will be around for a long, long time at the Mini’s price.</p>
<p>Finally, it’s “fewer cylinders” not “less cylinders.”</p>
<p>My uncle had a Chevy (Suzuki) Sprint with a 3 cylinder engine and it was one of the best running, most reliable vehicles I’ve ever seen. I drove the hell out of it and so did my brother and couldn’t kill it. I ended up with the car and eventually donated it to charity with over 250K miles, still running strong.</p>
<p>Oh yea, the Sprint got about 45 MPG too!</p>
<p>To everyone planning on leaving MINI based on Cylinder count, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. What difference does cylinder count make? I’d drive a MINI with one huge-bore cylinder if it meant increases is power, weight, and efficiency.</p>
<p>If this all pans out, I’m with Jason. MINI can put me down for one of the first 3rd Gen Hatches or Coopsters to hit the states.</p>
<p>“I’d drive a MINI with one huge-bore cylinder if it meant increases is power, weight, and efficiency.”</p>
<p>Yeah, but the NVH would be about like the machine you see at 0:34 into this clip:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EF9_1OJ6g" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EF9_1OJ6g</a></p>
<p>Check out the exhaust note on a Triumph Daytona 675 or the Triumph Speed Triple (just search youtube). They sound absolutely incredible! I’ll bet in 1.35L form they would pick up even more bottom end. I love this direction…</p>
<p>I drove a Chevy Sprint in high school – it is what got me interested in Mini’s in the first place.</p>
<p>@Gary
Certainly there are NVH items to address with a 3-cylinder engine, but I think people are jumping to conclusions that BMW won’t be able to solve these.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the people who are compaining about cylinder count, NVH, etc, things that either make no meaningful difference or are based on pure speculation, are simply grasping at straws for something to complain about.</p>
<p>Oh, the next MINI sounds like it will be lighter, more powerful, more efficient, and have a great exhaust note… what am I going to complain about , now!?! Oh, I know, I’ll complain that I like the number 4 better than the number 3, and that I’m sure, based on my zero knowledge of the new engines, that the engine will <em>actually</em> be a rough, slow-revving turd.</p>
<p>Reserving judgement until we know more is fine… I prefaced my earlier statement about ordering one by saying “if everything turns out as mentioned” because I don’t <em>know</em> that it will. That said, why must these comments always be so negative… especially when it seems that MINI is addressing most of the current complaints. I may be a “glass half empty” skeptic, but man, some of the people here are would look at a glass that 95% full and call it 5% empty.</p>
<p>less weight, more power – people complain!</p>
<p>let me guess – if it was more weight, less power they would complain too.</p>
<p>I guess its to be expected cause even though the R56/prince was less weight, more power they still screamed it was more weight less power!</p>
<p>Seriously I could see this allowing the car to shrink a bit, or gain interior room, or shave a hundred pounds – all good things. Can’t wait to see it develop.</p>
<p>From my perspective, there is only good news here, including this:</p>
<blockquote>we do expect to see at least one higher-end model with a dual clutch transmission over the next few years</blockquote>
<p>It seems to me that BMW is doing right by MINI, and responding to customer requests with appropriate, sustainable offerings. As an example, a dual clutch transmission isn’t for everyone, but stick it in an exclusive high-end JCW, and you may attract a few people away from the Golf R. This isn’t the model for me, or the masses, but it appeals to a segment. You develop a more efficient, lighter, but equally powerful model for the masses–and that what BMW is doing. The naysayers once again leave me scratching my head in wonder.</p>
<p>My first BMW was a K75s motorbike, with a smooth-as-silk 3-cylinder. So, yes, I’d happily trade a cylinder for less mass, and I know that BMW can make it work.</p>
<p>I had a 1990 Daihatsu Charade with a 1 liter 3 cylinder engine. No, it was not as smooth as a JAg 12 cylinder, but it was actually not bad at all due to a couple of counter-rotating shafts in the engine. If the engineers behind a car that cost a touch under $7000 in 1990 can figure it out, certainly, BMW can make a 3 cylinder that is smooth.</p>
<p>I’ll take any BMW designed engine, no matter the cylinder count. If anyone can make a smooth, powerful, efficient I-3 engine, it’s BMW. If it requires a little twin-scroll turbo to do it, fine.</p>
<p>The Tritec is a reliable lump, for certain. And with a supercharger it is full of character. But the normally aspirated engine is not all that smooth or rev happy. I enjoy it, and it has plenty of get up for me, but the mileage isn’t that great either. I get 36mpg on straight highway, 33 with a mix and 26mpg in strictly city driving. My E90 325i does 32mpg on straight highway and 25mpg around town, so not much worse.</p>
<p>The Prince is a true, smooth BMW engine that revs smoothly and has a good little noise under throttle. My dad has a 2009 MC and gets 40+mpg regularly on a mix of driving. Incredible.</p>
<p>I say bring it on BMW. Character, efficiency, power, AND lower weight? There is nothing to complain about here. Let’s hope the engine is more compact and allows the cowl to come back down and front overhang to return to R50/53 proportions.</p>
<p>And the silence about the Clubman’s future makes it seem pretty grim….</p>
<p>No what about interior updates for this next-gen MINI?…</p>
<p>Sounds like it will be a cracking little engine. BMW can draw on it’s experience with bike engines (and maybe F1) as well so the sky isn’t falling just yet.</p>
<p>I’m hoping that the whole car shrinks by one size as well, something like a Renault Twingo will do nicely.</p>
<p>Although this worries me …</p>
<p>Wolfgang Armbrecht, Mini’s senior vice president of brand management in Munich, says, “We are consciously designing for the American market now.â€</p>
<p>Nice zoom in on the first photo showing only 3 coil packs :-)</p>
<p>“What is it with people and “auto†tranny’s?”</p>
<p>The problem is that in bad weather or on slippery surfaces, all the dual clutch setup does is shift. That is your only choice. You cannot slip the clutch as you have no control over that.</p>
<p>Fiat is introducing a 0.9 liter 2 cylinder engine to the market. It uses Fiat’s new MultiAir technology, which is quite impressive. This engine will appear in the Fiat 500, for example, and could even make it to U.S. shores.</p>
<p>Fiat will have 85 and 105 hp variants (with turbocharging) and a 65 hp naturally aspirated variant. The 85 hp middle engine is the first to market. Fiat’s MultiAir technology is very good at maintaining low-end torque, so this engine application should work quite well.</p>
<p>As for smoothness, I have a 3 cyl Triumph Legend and it runs as smooth as glass…much more smooth than any other bike that I have been on with more or less cyl…when it runs of course…</p>
<p>I’m not worried, BMW was first and foremost, an engine manufacturer. If they’ve been doing it right since 1916, then popping out a smooth running, gutsy little 3 cylinder shouldn’t be a challenge at all.</p>
<p>Wow, that’s a total surprise! I’m pretty excited about these developments. Lower weight, more power, better efficiency…can’t wait to hear more about this over the coming years. I don’t really understand the complaints. People once thought anything less than 8 cylinders was crap. Then they got used to 6 and thought 4 cylinders was for Nancy Boys. Then they loved 4 and now anything less than 4 is brand suicide? Not for MINI. I trust BMW is not going to put a crap engine in their cars.</p>
<p>I am looking around and I believe that there is only, what, maybe 4 at most here who hail from the R53 days (nice to see you Lavadera) The fans of the MINI have moved on and been replaced by others who are less tolerant.</p>
<p>If you think this is complaining, you should have seen the boards when the R56 came out.</p>
<p>I am not a fan of turbos but again it is BMW and one thing they know how to do is engineer. MINI has done a great job of breaking down barriers. That is what MINI’s do. MINI showed that hatches could be hot, they did it the first time and they continue to do it. Still, there are some things that are expected. 4 cylinders is what is expected. Of course BMW will do a great job engineering it. It will be solid, smooth, and offer great MPG. That doesn’t matter. Lets not relegate ourselves to the Ka’s and Smart-for-twos. If it is done, it needs to be done right. It needs to be so Kick @$$ that others would fear to mock it. It would need to be raced, and win. I would say the AWD MINI fits this parameter as well.</p>
<p>Why don’t we have an Isetta today? Oh they will bring back the name but remember an Isetta of yesteryear will in no way be what we see today.</p>
<p><a href="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Af9UKStjoKU/1.jpg" rel="nofollow">Isetta</a></p>
<p>If we are going off the path, then lets see a Wankel. HP, Milage, torque, etc.</p>
<p>When in all reality, lets not kid ourselves gang, MINI only exists to bring up overall mileage for the AG. If it wasnt for the Mini, Rover would never have been bought and it would be a foot note in history.</p>
<p>Hugs</p>
<p>Hey Guys,</p>
<p>Wired is having a which car is the best and Mini is number 3. Lets get our votes there to boost it up to #1</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/03/readers-list-damn-near-cars/" rel="nofollow">Mini, which car is $%^& near perfect</a></p>
<p>well a three cylinder. my only experience with one was with my first wifes chevy geo inline 3, and believe it or not even with a 65bhp rating we would cruise the interstates at 85+, and i say plus as the gauge only went that far. the car averaged great mpg even at those speeds but getting up there was an uphill climb.</p>
<p>now mini/bmw is considering a 3, great i am all for it. this is a positive step. i am sure the new 3 will have all i need. however as diesel advocate for the NA , I would rather have a tdi instead of a new petrol engine.</p>
<blockquote>Hey Guys,
Wired is having a which car is the best and Mini is number 3. Lets get our votes there to boost it up to #1
Mini, which car is $%^& near perfect</blockquote>
<p>I went over there prepared to vote MINI but found the M3 on the list…..Sorry….I love my R53 but THE perfect car really is a M3 sedan</p>
<p>There are plusses and minuses, just like with everything. Lighter/more efficient–end result is if you put 99% of people in these cars, they wouldn’t be able to tell you if it’s three or four cylinders. In fact, I bet most (given the boost in power) would get it wrong, and think the three cylinder engine was actually four. For everyday driving, this will work out just fine. Three cylinders, while not novel, still kind of fits with the MINI quirkiness…</p>
<p>Potential issues: three cylinders doing the work of four–the duty cycle of the engine is radically changed. My one big concern about the engine is will it hold up over time. This is the only issue I’d have with three cylinders versus four.</p>
<p>This engine will definitely split the community into two groups–not necessarily a bad thing, but it will be a dividing line. Everyday drivers, the majority of people, will love this engine. Modders are going to hate it. I suspect that the three cylinder beast is SO efficient, there is very little left to be gained by mods. But BMW has done well to work around this problem by still offering a 4 cylinder on the JCW and Countryman–although I’ve been less than enthusiastic about what BMW did with the R56, I think they’ve gotten this one right.</p>
<blockquote>I love my R53 but THE perfect car really is a M3 sedan.</blockquote>
<p>Really? THE perfect car? I once had some respect for your opinion, Dr.
No longer.</p>
<blockquote>I love my R53 but THE perfect car really is a M3 sedan</blockquote>
<p>The presence of a trunk versus a hatch is an automatic disqualification in my book.</p>
<p>Please issue a recall on your headline. The news is that these engines will have fewer cylinders, not less cylinders. They will use less fuel (not fewer fuel). The distinction between less and fewer should not be complex for a gearhead readership eager for technical details. Besides that, you have a responsibility to English speaking cultures around the world.</p>
<p>Who cares the number of cylinders. The number count is dropping world wide, with every manufacturer downsizing & down-revving engines to get better fuel efficiencies.</p>
<p>I like my little blown Tritec, but my ’92 5.0 liter ford V8 in my 65 Mustang gets very close to the same gas mileage. (before everyone dumps on this, it turns about 1750 RPM at 70 mph in 5th gear)</p>
<p>Times are a changing. There’s nothing magic about 4 cylinders that can’t be conquered with good engineering, design and control.</p>
<p>Matt</p>
<p>From one who remembers the “character” of the old Mini- we didn’t call it that back in the 70’s- this sounds like pretty awesome news. Back then I drove my Mini around the fields (and sometimes stayed on the roads) of Ireland…. not something I would do today.</p>
<p>I bought my R53 to get a car like the old one, and ended up with a premium small car instead of the budget-minded original.</p>
<p>Remember the original Mini, much like the Geo Metro I drove for a year or two, had plain interior and dash, slider windows, basic electronics, small tires – 12″?, thin doors, etc.? But you could drive the heck out of it!</p>
<p>Yes, let’s put a spunky 3 banger under the bonnet, trim some weight, even shrink it down a bit (I’m also an Isetta fan!).</p>
<p>Whatever the MINI has become- and I’m not knocking it’s variations such as the Countryman and the Coupe’, both of which I plan on buying- but whatever, the things that made the original Mini so much fun to drive, so practical and universally loved, have nothing to do with premium anything! (In my opinion, of course).</p>
<p>Where is all the MINI love?</p>
<p>I think is great news. My only real concern is how this engines will sound. I just love my MCS engine+exhaust sound combination.</p>
<p>-“‘Fewer cylinders’, please.”</p>
<p>-“Finally, it’s “fewer cylinders†not ‘less cylinders.'”</p>
<p>-“The news is that these engines will have fewer cylinders, not less cylinders. “</p>
<p>I am relieved to see that I am not the only one displeased, and disappointed, by the title.</p>
<p>@Blainestang FYI, my earlier tongue-in-cheek YouTube link was in reference to the “one cylinder” comment. 😉 Count me in the camp that thinks an I-3 turbo done properly could be a real screamer :nod:</p>
p>@gary</p
<p>I didn’t even get a chance to watch the video, but I gathered you weren’t saying that a 3 (or 1) cylinder would inherently be an NVH nightmare… I was just commenting on the general concern about NVH expressed by several others. :)</p>
<p>Damn, the grammar police have even found their way to Motoringfile. If we can’t use poor grammar and punctuation here, I suppose no website is safe…</p>
<p>Modified out last time….</p>
<p>To paraphrase my earlier comments, The 3 cylinder engine model might just be more like the original Mini, something many of us wanted when the new MINI first came out. You know, simple, economical, fun? I can’t wait!</p>
<p>I remember sliding windows, thin doors and skinny seats, a sparse dash, flat rubber floor, small tires- light and nimble.</p>
<p>What’s wrong with that?</p>
<p>cct1 – head on over to Motoring Alliance. I couldn’t begin to fix the stuff users are typing over there! (which is not to say that I don’t love them)</p>
<p>Ocapn – not sure if I made your count of R53 motorers, but I’ve been around for about 6 years now. My point of view is that I love my Mini, and whatever else Mini creates doesn’t affect that, but I do like to see Mini moving in a direction toward smaller and more efficient after all the post-R50/3 variants.</p>
<p>To things I would take in a minute in my next mini:</p>
<p>Rubber floor mats instead of carpet – who ever thought of putting carpet in an automobile, well I hope they are broiling in hell.</p>
<p>Roll up crank windows please – impossible with overlap in the current design – windows have to drop a fraction to open the door. Note my 2nd gen Acura Integra had framless glass with hand cranks, so it can be done.</p>
<p>“I remember sliding windows, thin doors and skinny seats, a sparse dash, flat rubber floor, small tires- light and nimble.</p>
<p>What’s wrong with that?”</p>
<p>Evidently you have never had a near-death experience with east coast pot holes and 10″ tires…</p>
p>@Don</p
<p>Haha… I never thought about that. If you drive into a huge pothole with a 10″ wheel, you could potentially hit the other side with nearly the middle of your wheel! That may be an exaggeration, but I could see a LOT of rearward horizontal force being placed on a Mini suspension in that situation!</p>
<p>Tourine, Cory: Maybe you can also persuade the editors to use “it’s” and “its” correctly. “It’s” always means “it is.” If you cannot substitute “it is” (or “it has”), then do not use “it’s.” (It’s really very simple. It’s been a great ride.) “Its” is the possessive form of “it.” (Its engine will have fewer cylinders. I admired its interior design.) There is no “its’.”</p>
<p>So, remember: it’s = it is or it has; otherwise: its.</p>
<p>Guys ease up with the pedantic corrections. Grammar policing has its time and place and this is neither.</p>
<p>…small minds concern themselves with small concerns…</p>
<p>…this news is more exciting than anything we’ve heard recently…</p>
<p>…if folks can’t appreciate that, then they really do need attention…</p>
<p>Really. This grammar policy stuff is lame. Find a 6th grade english blog or a life.</p>
<p>I will reserve judgement until I can drive one.</p>
<p>As long as the engine has the useable power/torque curve of the Prince engine and is available in naturally aspirated form, I will be a happy camper.</p>
<p>6 speed standard, of course.</p>