As some MotoringFile readers have noticed BMW’s new line of engines meant for the next generation MINI aren’t larger than their predecessor and don’t put out much more power at the top of the line. A few have questioned this move considering so many other cars seem to be going the other direction. However has it turns out it isn’t just by chance that the next generation MCS will have the same displacement and roughly the same output. BMW has wide ranging plans to go against the historical norm and keep engine sizes down while increasing performance and economy through other means. Automotive News gives us a look at the new company-wide initiative in this week’s edition.
>”The time to increase horsepower by increasing displacement is over,” said Klaus Borgmann, senior vice president of powertrain development for BMW, during an interview at the SAE World Congress here last week. “I am very convinced that the time to increase displacement will never come back because increasing displacement automatically increases fuel consumption.”
>…Borgmann outlined several ways BMW will boost fuel economy starting this fall.
> BMW is spreading its Valvetronic system, which varies the duration and lift of the intake valves to maximize fuel economy, emissions and performance, to the 2007 Mini Cooper. The sporty S version of the British-made hatchback will use a turbocharger, instead of the supercharger in the current model, and have direct fuel injection, Borgmann said, for about a 10 percent fuel economy gain over the 2006 car. Instead of bigger engines, he said, turbochargers will be used on other BMWs to improve performance.
> In 2007, European BMWs will be equipped with a stop-start feature that turns off the gasoline or diesel engine when the car comes to a stop. The engine restarts immediately when the driver lifts his or her foot off the brake pedal. Borgmann said the feature is being evaluated for North America. Stop-start may not be suitable for hot climates, he said, because the air conditioning compressor stops working when the engine is off. The stop-start system will use a specially modified starter, instead of a belt alternator system, and a heavier-duty battery. The Mini Cooper also will have the stop-start system.
You can read the entire article via Automotive New’s sister publication Autoweek:
[ Brainy, not Brawny ] Automotive News
Better fuel economy is cool with me. I like the direction they’re going and hope it becomes standard for the industry.
I have always read and believed that stopping for short periods of time (at a stop light for example) used more fuel than it saves. I guess I need to re-do my homework on that. Perhaps they will have a switch to turn that feature on and off, especially useful in the summer to keep the A/C running?
>I have always read and believed that stopping for short periods of time (at a stop light for example) used more fuel than it saves. I guess I need to re-do my homework on that.
From my understanding that used to be the case but with newer engines there’s less waste at start-up.
>Perhaps they will have a switch to turn that feature on and off, especially useful in the summer to keep the A/C running?
That’s probably one of the reasons this feature isn’t coming to the US.
Am I reading that correctly so I’m at a red light about to make a run against a civic…the light turns green and my ’07 Cooper S needs to re-start the engine before I get going? If there’s not a switch to disable that I’m sure we’ll be in the fusebox by-passing that “feature”!
If you ask me, this stop-start system is just another example of unnecessary complication for marginal benefits in the new powerplant (such as the on/off water and oil pumps). It’s a gimmick. Such a stop-start system makes sense on a hybrid where the torque of the electric motors is used at start the car going, but on an all-combustion powerplant, it’s just a delay and unnecessary wear and tear on the engine IMHO. You’re raising and dropping the oil pressure at every stop light – putting the engine through the friction of startup 50 times a day instead of 3 or 4. I just don’t see how that can be good for the long-term life of the engine. And all for what, a 1%-2% increase in fuel economy? If that? I’d rather buy that much more gas, save the wear and tear on the engine, and have one less system to go wrong.
<blockquote>Am I reading that correctly so I’m at a red light about to make a run against a civic…the light turns green and my ‘07 Cooper S needs to re-start the engine before I get going?</blockquote>
No, you’re not reading that correctly. Thankfully that feature will only be on European models.
“The sporty S version of the British-made hatchback will use a turbocharger, instead of the supercharger in the current model”
This dispells a lot of the speculation that the Coopers would be turbocharged too as I commented on in the 2007 Cooper S at the Nürburgring #3 article.
I don’t think they should or would be and was surprised to see that it was being rumored. Else how can they make a Cooper for less than $20000 and still make money?
This quote is strait from the horses mouth.
“The time to increase horsepower by increasing displacement is over,†said Klaus Borgmann, senior vice president of powertrain development for BMW, during an interview at the SAE World Congress here last week. “I am very convinced that the time to increase displacement will never come back because increasing displacement automatically increases fuel consumption.â€ÂÂ
What a load of tosh this guy speaks – does he expect me to belive this tripe when the next M3 comes with a V8 instead of a straight six….?????
I guess the next gen M5 will have a 4 cyclinder 2 litre engine as apposed to the current V10 model – which drinks fuel like a supertamker…????
Honestly, I cant beleive this guy is saying this. I know BMW are working on turbo engines for the 3 series, but we are not going to see smaller displacement engines in their flagship models.
Now, if they were developing a super/turbo unit like VW have then I would be very interested.,…
Ooops. Thinking back, I posted a thought that the U.S. would only be getting turbo versions a few months ago.
Ya gotta wonder when car companies and clients are going to see the light. Maybe if a company like BMW starts the ball rolling with this type attitude that big is no longer better, at least in terms of todays global situation, we’ll finally see some sanity.
I love cars, love speed, love horsepower, loved racing but until we get a handle on better fuel consumption & emissions why the hell do we need 600 hp? It’s insanity!
Yeah I know, we never went to the moon, Paul McCartney is dead, Area 51 has aliens and the Mafia had the Kennedy’s shot. Conspiracies… I love them.
Not a tree hugger just a concerned parent, grandfather and planet dweller.
<blockquote>I guess the next gen M5 will have a 4 cyclinder 2 litre engine as apposed to the current V10 model – which drinks fuel like a supertamker…????</blockquote>
I think the difference is that the M cars are more “pure performance” vehicles, whereas the MINI (and 1- and 3-series BMWs) need to appeal to a much broader audience. They can get a much bigger return on investing in higher power, lower fuel consumption engines with smaller displacement for a larger market segment than they can by doing the same with the M cars. The M3 and M5 are in the midst of a horsepower war, but the MINIs are not. Just my 0.02€.
i agree with nate. for marginal mpg increase, leave my engine running. i don’t want to install new starters, belts, whatever.
if i was driving a taxi in nyc, maybe the on/off is a better idea. not in suburban america though…
Hopefully it will work more effectively (the start/stop feature) than say, putting Windows XP into Hibernate.
Seeing as it’s BMW engineers and not those at MSFT, I think we’re probably safe to assume it will be more effective, let alone efficient. :o)
<blockquote>Hopefully it will work more effectively (the start/stop feature) than say, putting Windows XP into Hibernate.</blockquote>
More like OSX going into sleep, eh? =]
BMW’s M cars are their stepping-stones into spec-racing leagues around the world. BMW wants to be more competitive with the M3, so they have to do production versions with the V8 in order for that engine to qualify as a stock configuration for their factory racers.
This change benefits us, but it’s not really about us: it’s about increasing brand recognition through racing.
<blockquote>Am I reading that correctly so I’m at a red light about to make a run against a civic…the light turns green and my ‘07 Cooper S needs to re-start the engine before I get going?
Nope. You make sure you’re not pressing the brake (if you’re on a slope, use the E-brake), so the engine will still be running.</blockquote>
Whoops, I was too fast, made an error with the quote feature 🙂 Also, based on what I’ve heard about similar features on other cars, the time it takes for you to move your foot from the brake pedal to the accelerator is more than enough to start the engine. I wouldn’t worry about the performance issues, Nate does have a few good points; the gains in economy better weigh up to the loss in the area of wear.
There’s no reason why, like DRLs, MINI couldn’t make this a dealer programmable feature in the U.S. Or, better yet, make the feature “stalk-selectable.” It wouldn’t surprise me if Gabe and Friends came up with a way to activate the feature if MINI USA doesn’t. 🙂
There’s an easy solution regarding the air conditioning compressor. If the air conditioning (or defroster) is on, leave the engine running! Otherwise, if the air conditioning is shut off, go into stop-start mode. Bonus points if the feature is guided by climate control (for those cars so equipped). Another way (perhaps better) to do this is by ambient temperature (which the car already knows). Too hot or too cold outside and the car stays running. Allow the owner to set minimum and maximum temperatures for stop-start. If the owner sets minimum and maximum to the same ridiculous number (such as +100 Celsius) then the feature never activates. This feature might help MINI gain a point for CAFE purposes, and that could be quite useful.
One of the few nits about the MINI is that it has been very weak in the fuel economy area, and I applaud any positive steps in that direction. The spirit of the car should be “Getting the most out of a little,” and I really don’t think Toyota should be so far out in front in fuel economy.
But will it restart fast enough for me to get out of someone’s way if they loose control at an intersection? I’m a bit dubious.
Actually, the M5 did not increase its displacement. It’s still a 5 liter engine, just a V10 instead of a V8 and of course, 500 HP vs. 400. The M3’s engine supposedly will be a 4 liter V8 making somewhere 425 HP.
So you can contrast that with American and even Benz’s cars, they are not increasing displacement like the other companies. Though, that new 6.3L AMG motor is a beast. It definitely stood out at the Aussie GP on the safety car over those high revving 2.4 V8’s.
And speaking of that M3 V8. It’s reportedly lighter than the inline six in the current M3.
Yes, I need the MINIs to be more fuel efficient, that will really help us against increased competition in the compact and sub-compact market.
At some level, there is sense here – displacement does bear relation to fuel consumption – but at some level it is tripe – because displacement is not the only variable. Case in point: My S struggles mightily to achieve the mileage I’m getting in the rental Impala I’m tossing around Florida this week, never mind that the Impala obviously has twice the displacement, more horsepower, a lot more weight, and a lot more interior room. And is happy with regular gas. BMW seem to pride themselves on hp per unit displacement, a totally pointless statistic – and I sense a whiff of that sideshow here. I love my Mini and would much rather be driving it than a rental. But wake me when BMW delivers an engine with real-world efficiency approaching that of (to set a modest target) a pushrod GM V6 of ten years ago. Performance and economy are usually not happy bedfellows.
I think about 80% of BMW products are for ‘normal’ motorists who don’t race or track their cars, they buy them because of the BMW image/badge/quality/fashion with the performance section never fully utilised. So why not make the car more planet friendly with technological gizmo’s ?. At the end of the day we all know oil is running out and no one has yet found a workable alternative that is universally available and proven. Of course there may be an alternative to gasoline or diesel power, but I suspect that the global petrol companies have had a lot to do with supressing any developments on that score, but thats just a conspiricy theory isn’t it ……………
There will always be the high perfomance gas guzzler end of the market, it will just be less and less affordable. I say bring on F1,CART or INDY with diesel power or limited to 2.0 petrol engines and 70 litres of fuel for a whole race and see how the whole technical fuel economy issue suddenly becomes more easiliy accepted.
I just spent a week driving a Prius with its stop/start feature. It’s not a quick car, by any means, but it doesn’t seem to be because the engine turns off. The engine can start very quickly in response to a swift flooring of the pedal. I would expect no less from any car made by BMW. I hope this feature comes to the U.S.
John