Opinion: Peugeot Shows Us the 270 hp MINI Prince Engine That Could Have Been

Pictured above is the Peugeot RCZ R — a 270 hp sport coupe that’s powered by a version of the same engine found in second generation MINIs like the R56 and R60. You read that right: 270 hp. We’ve known this was possible (in fact nearly seven years ago MotoringFile reported that BMW was able to reliably get 300 hp out of the Prince), but Peugeot has finally put that into reality. What does it mean for MINI? First a little backstory.
Most MotoringFile regulars know that the current generation of the car, the R5X generation, uses three versions of what’s known as the Prince engine. The Prince is a 1.6L aluminum four cylinder petrol engine that in the MINI produces 121, 181 and 208 horsepower when spec’d in the Cooper, Cooper S and JCW models respectively. Also well known is the fact that in developing the Prince engine, BMW had to look for partners.
While popular and well known, MINIs have not previously been produced and sold in high enough numbers to make it affordable for BMW to produce an engine on their own. In the first generation of the new MINI, BWM partnered with Daimler Chrysler of all companies to produce a cast iron block powerplant for the R50/R53. That darling motor of the MINI enthusiast community was actually little more than a euro-spec Dodge Neon block with a BMW-influenced head on it and in the case of the R53, an off-the-shelf American supercharger.
Flash forward to the second generation of the MINI and BMW again needed partners to produce engines at viable economies of scale. This time they turned to PSA, the French parent company of Peugeot and Citroen. Unlike on the R50/53, BMW took the lead on both the engineering and manufacturing of the Prince engine, which would power both the MINI and several cars in the PSA family. However, in BMW’s design for the engine they had to account for several design criteria specific to PSA demands. The easiest example is the fact that the Prince is essentially backwards — that is, it’s exhaust headers are on the back side of its transversely-mounted engine as opposed to the front side like everything else in the BMW family. So while BMW got a partner that allowed the R56 to exist with a more modern, more powerful and more efficient engine, the arrangement was not without its compromises.
So what of this Peugeot? Jalopnik summarized the engine’s output this way:
The tiny engine’s maximum power is at 6,000rpm and maximum torque is available from 1,900rpm to 5,500rpm, giving the RCZ R a 0-62mph time of 5.9 seconds and an electronically limited top speed of 155mph. The 70 extra horsepower compared to the regular RCZ means the new car is more than two seconds faster around the Nurburgring. Not that it matters.
We won’t see it here in America, so there’s that. But more importantly, why didn’t MINI’s John Cooper Works division ever deliver us a 270 hp MINI if it’s possible? We think the answer comes down to a handful of factors:
Extensive engine modification
Digging through the Peugeot press release, we found a laundry list of internal engine components that have been beefed up and hardened to take the extra loads squeezing out this much power will put on the lowly little aluminum Prince. Everything from special material heat treatments, to heavier-duty pistons, to strengthened connecting rods to upgraded bearings all mean power can be reliably made, but they also mean something else: cost. The RCZ R will cost £31,995, which roughs out to around $43,000 USD — a full $13,000 more expensive than the starting point on a JCW Hardtop Hatch. Going back to MINI’s small sales volume, at that asking price, it seems highly unlikely MINI could recoup the development costs on volume. Also, for those who wondered why the second generation JCW GP didn’t have more horsepower, there’s your $13,000 answer.
With the upcoming F56, however, that’s where the game will change. Many MF readers have lamented the Cooper S and its only marginal boost in power (+5 hp and +16 ft-lbs of torque), despite the extra displacement of the new 2.0L engine. The key term that’s been thrown around by both us and MINI/BMW is “headroom” — that idea that an otherwise unstressed 2.0L engine can, unlike the stock Prince, easily get more power from both the aftermarket and JCW. Not only is that headroom likely, it should be much more straightforward and most importantly, inexpensive. So why not just make the Cooper S a power monster? Read on.
Fuel Economy and the MINI brand positioning
While Puegeot brags 37.3 mpg (US) for the RCZ R, that’s on the European testing, which is, frankly, smarter than the way the EPA rates cars in America. So while that figure is completely plausible, the same car would likely receive a much lower MPG rating on its actual US Monroney sticker in the USA. So would an equally powerful R56 MINI running the Prince engine. For a brand that’s known for high MPG, getting just average fuel economy would likely hurt the brand’s positioning in the marketplace — even on a more performance-oriented version such as this theoretical super JCW. The lower efficiency rating in conjunction with the high price point becomes a confluence of factors that make it really hard to sell this kind of car in any profitable volume, no matter how much fun it was.
Back to that unstressed 2.0L we’ll find in the F56. Having that extra headroom in the engine will likely mean a significant bump in efficiency for the mamma bear motor. That efficiency can be used in a couple of ways. Either for horsepower or for miles per gallon. Through changes in boost and variable valve timing, the possibilities are very interesting. For all we know, the new JCW power plants will turn the current “overboost” up to 11 — making medium range power and good efficiency for tooling around, but then spooling up some extra boost when you punch it. Granted, that’s entirely speculation on my part, but this is the kind of potential a much more high-tech engine can bring.
Putting that power to use
The Peugeot RCZ R, like the MINI, is still a front-wheel-drive car, which means that putting those 270 or so horsepower to good use is actually a challenging feat. They do it by fitting the transmission with the same rather clever front differential as the high output Ford Focus. Could MINI do something like this? Of course. Like everything else, however, it’s a matter of cost and profit. It’s no doubt part of that $13,000 premium this car garners over the current JCW hatch. Where MINI fans can take hope is that MINI has all but outright admitted that all-wheel-drive will be available on the F56. At this point we’ll be shocked if we don’t see it. What does that mean? That means being able to put higher horsepower numbers to use.
So what now? What’s the future of horsepower in MINIs
It’s safe to say that MINI will never be a high-horsepower brand. That’s an arms race their not interested in running, and for good reason. Absolute horsepower has never been part of MINI’s brand value. It’s always been about doing more with less. It’s been about driving circles around cars with two-to-three times the horsepower. MINI will never be about maximizing horsepower-for-dollar either. MINI has been, and will remain, about a package experience. It’s going to go well, stop well, handle amazing and most of all, feel like a lot of fun. That’s something you’ll never be able to read off the spec sheet. In the end, it’s that feeling behind the wheel that makes us MINI fans. No matter how much power we find in the new JCW MINI, it’ll still be about that total performance and premium package. What will that look like? How much power will it make? We’re excited to find out.
24 Comments
<p>Back when this was announced in July at the Goodwood Festival of Speed, it made my heart pang for what could have been with the JCW or GP, although I agree that it mostly came down to money. MINIs are already pretty darn expensive to make and to buy. When you look at the standard kit the GP has, it actually starts to look like a bargain. However the price for the R56 factory JCW with its very minimal engine modifications of a slightly larger turbo, CAI, exhaust and clutch but with no LSD (and without considering the brakes) makes the R53 JCW engine kit look like a bargain.</p>
<p>Where I disagree with the article is something I’ve also heard mentioned on WRR regarding the F56 S’s “unstressed 2.0L” having noticeable/substantial gains in fuel economy. For a comparison let’s take the US spec 320i and 328i sedans. They both have N20 2.0L turbo engines, one more stressed than the other. One is vastly faster than the other (the 328 is over a second faster (nearly 1.5 sec) in the 0-60 than the 320) which makes sense given that although pretty much the same engine, one has 60hp less. You would then assume that due to the dramatic difference in speed, the 320 might be noticeably if not substantially more fuel efficient. How much more fuel efficient? Well, when the 320i was first reported as coming to the US, the estimated mileage was to be exactly the same as the 328i with the auto or actually worse with the 6spd manual as compared to the 328i. You could call the engine “unstressed” but I would call it underpowered and overworked. BMW’s official figures were revised to show a gain of: 1mpg. A 2mpg gain only if you’re considering highway mileage with the 6spd.</p>
<p>Will the F56 S’s turbo be both more powerful and faster while returning better fuel economy than the R56? Yes, of course. But don’t kid yourself that if the F56 JCW has the 240hp 2.0L that fuel economy will suffer substantially. One could argue that a 240hp JCW would have to work far less than a standard F56 S, thus making it the truly “unstressed” option. Of course only time will tell and either way I’m extremely excited about the F56. With the R56, resources in modifying the engine were limited and I’m happy to see potentially greater options with using a engine shared with BMWs.</p>
<p>I would say that the 320i is stressed, and the 328i unstressed. The 320 works much harder all the time to move the mass of the 3; in the 1 series and its several hundred pound difference the 20i is unstressed. The 28i is the perfect match for the 3, the 20i is BMW’s answer to the MB CLA and Audi A3 sedan in price point wars.</p>
<p>Truth of it all is that BMW can bring the 3 cylinder with the same output to MINI… but that is a few years out still as there is limited production ramp up and the 1 Series facelift and the i8 will be eating into 3 cylinder higher output builds.</p>
<p>RE: “that’s on the European testing, which is, frankly, smarter than the way the EPA rates cars in America.”</p>
<p>Err … huh? I’ve read in countless places — and I’m quite sure here too — the European test cycle be described as “highly optimistic” almost as a rule. In addition, reading countless “mpg threads” on both BMW and Mini forums, US drivers often meet or come fairly close to the EPA mpg ratings now’days, while noone but the most grandmotherly of drivers ever comes close to the Euro mpg numbers?</p>
<p>… so how’s that “smarter” ?</p>
<p>It’s smarter in the sense that it allows for systems like the auto start/stop to be take into consideration when calculating mpg potential. The reason that system hasn’t been offered on MINIs before now in the US is because while it does boost fuel economy, MINI can’t actually advertise that boost. The EPA doesn’t give them credit for it, if you will.</p>
<p>This is only true with manuals- automatics with stop start do see the benefit. The process for the manual is not to put the car in neutral for EPA testing and leave the car in Drive for automatics- the former negates the start/stop benefit.</p>
<p>Right, but that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. That benefit doesn’t show up on the sticker and that can hurt sales.</p>
<p>Not sure since the majority of cars are automatics. The crappy Aisin box MINI is using doesn’t have auto stop start. The ZF 8HP used in BMWs does and gets a boost in the EPA test.</p>
<p>The AISIN is a glorified Camry slush box and no matter what they try it is just that. I get the whole exclusive thing with the ZF9HP and that VW just recalled 1.6 million DCTs but there has to be another option in the short term than repackaging crap- crap with a bow is still crap.</p>
<p>I have read many times that the R5X engine is “transversely-mounted”. But what are the disadvantages of this, and why does PSA want it that way?</p>
<p>Transversely mounted actually refers to the motor being perpendicular to the frame, not which side the headers fall on. The original Mini was the first production car with a transverse engine, which allowed it to maximize interior space. All FWD vehicles soon followed suit.</p>
<p>To amplify Nathaniel’s answer and more directly answer yours:
A transverse engine, as Nathaniel points out is mounted “sideways” in the engine bay, meaning that the output shaft that connects to the transmission is on one side of the engine bay, pointing toward the side of the car (as opposed to the traditional “longitudinal” arrangement where the engine runs front-to-back and connects to the transmission which sits between the driver and passenger.)</p>
<p>Transverse mounting’s big advantage: by turning the engine and transmission sideways you move that big transmission hump (and related drive shaft bits) out of the passenger compartment which allows for a lot more passenger room – especially important in small car like a mini, I think you’ll agree. Other advantages include removing the need for a driveshaft and rear differential, and the attendant need to reinforce the rear of the car to hold all that stuff.</p>
<p>Transverse mounting’s big disadvantage: because the transmission is hanging off of one side of the engine much closer to one front wheel, it is extremely challenging to make the drive shafts that connect to the wheels the same length. Unequal length driveshafts leads to “torque steer” wherein one driven (front) wheel gets more effective power than the other and pulls the car off to the side. Other disadvantages are generally inferior handling vs RWD due to the front weight bias and the fact that the front tires are being asked to do a lot more work.</p>
<p>Well put.</p>
<p>Thanks for the answers to the question I asked but actually didn’t mean to ask. My fault, I try it again: What I don’t understand is, what are the reasons to place the exhaust headers on the back side or on the front sides of a transversely-mounted engine?</p>
<p>Headers on the front side of the engine are cooled by the air coming through the radiator.</p>
<p>Thanks! That’s quite simple indeed. But why does PSA want it the other way around? The position of the gear box?</p>
<p>I agree with most of this article. The MINI shouldn’t be about outright horsepower. It should be more sophisticated than that and should focus on feeling good to drive. We all need to reserve judgement until the F56 arrives: the fact that the stock MCS will have more torque than the R56 JCW and R56 GP is really encouraging. I love low down torque, but it would have been good if this could have been matched with a little more horsepower at the top end, say 200hp. There’s clearly headroom in the engine that would enable future JCWs and GPs to have significantly more power than this if felt appropriate. The MINI is a premium car and the competitive side of me doesn’t want to see the car ‘wanting’ in a straight line in comparison with other cheaper hot hatches. Therefore whilst MINI shouldn’t be about outright horsepower, it should be in line with the rest of the market. I really hope that good engineering (weight, drivetrain efficiency etc.) will mean that the F56 will be. If the brand wasn’t performance orientated, we wouldn’t see high end models.</p>
<p>I think “market alignment” is overrated. Driving the car sells it and since MINI will still not be in a position to be competing on volume, their sales will always be about the outright experience of driving the car. Sure, they could add outright too end, but at what cost to the rest of the car’s driving dynamics?</p>
<p>I agree, hence, why I took delivery of a new 2013 Clubman S this week.</p>
<p>What about buying the engine from Peugeot and swapping it with the R56 engine?</p>
<p>I meant swapping the existing R56 with the 270hp Peugeot engine..</p>
<p>That’d be a rather expensive proposition. You’d probably be better off working with a builder to rework the internals of your existing engine. Lots of money involved no matter what, and without transmission changes, not really worth it IMO.</p>
<p>Good article, Nathaniel. I’m glad you pointed out the inherent difficulties in making high HP front-drive vehicles. I’ve owned a few, myself (Mazdaspeed 3 and turbo 9-3, in particular), and while the torque steer can be “fun” from time to time, it’s really not a desirable trait in the long-run. And we know the MINI won’t be going RWD, so amping up power would become pretty problematic pretty quickly. Shaving weight is a better solution.</p>
<p>Absolutely. That, or introducing AWD for higher horsepower models. Notice that JCW models of the Countryman and Paceman feature All4 as standard. My personal prediction is that as soon as All4 or a version of it becomes available on the F56, the JCW variant will get AWD standard as well. The system as it’s currently designed is rated at 600 ft-lbs of torque available to the rear wheels. If the next generation All4 system is created with more of a performance focus, no telling what it’d be capable of. Bottom line, it’d be as close to a RWD MINI as you’d ever get.</p>
<p>Ditto that! The most frightening experience I have ever had was in a SAAB 9-3 Viggen. That torque steer was ridiculous and un predictable- definitely got the blood flowing but was not enjoyable on a daily basis (at least for me).</p>
<p>“The easiest example is the fact that the Prince is essentially backwards — that is, it’s exhaust headers are on the back side of its transversely-mounted engine as opposed to the front side like everything else in the BMW family.”</p>
<p>Don’t you have that backwards? The prince intake is at the rear, and exhaust headers – turbo and all – is at the front. And in fact that is backwards, not what you describe. Its backwards because now your exhaust has to pass under the transmission and block, which could force you to raise the block, and the CG, etc..</p>
<p>And I think nothing else in the BMW family is transversely mounted, so its more contrary to common practice than it is to the BMW family. BMWs all have had longitudinally mounted engines with intake and exhaust at the sides (center/top and sides for the V8s/10s…).</p>
<p>Or maybe I’ve got it wrong…</p>