Mini Cooper S

Gilly · 1 Apr 2008 at 01:40

mk1_salami said:
Why? A 2.5 X type will do 140mph and 0-60 in the 7 seconds... I'd guess thats exactly what you'd expect from a hot-ish hatch?

'Hot-ish?'

I'd expect a small supercharged hatch to wipe the floor with a Mondeo :/

oweneades · 1 Apr 2008 at 07:59

Loowi_ashley said:
Watch out for 2.5 X-types course you wont beat one

Pritty poor for a supercharged BMW engine

Its a supercharged 1.6 what were you expecting? V8 levels of performance?!

Demon · 1 Apr 2008 at 08:37

Loowi_ashley said:
Watch out for 2.5 X-types course you wont beat one

Pritty poor for a supercharged BMW engine

0-60 it would comfortably whip the X-Type..

The engine is, as already mentioned, a 1.6, it's got 170BHP, that's over the 100BHP/Litre value which is respectable..

However the Jag has 194BHp out of a massive 2.5Litres.., that's what I'd call poor...

Matblack · 1 Apr 2008 at 08:51

Demon said:
0-60 it would comfortably whip the X-Type..

The engine is, as already mentioned, a 1.6, it's got 170BHP, that's over the 100BHP/Litre value which is respectable..

However the Jag has 194BHp out of a massive 2.5Litres.., that's what I'd call poor...

The Jag is tuned for torque and smoothness though and of course for towing caravans

MB

volospian · 1 Apr 2008 at 08:56

Matblack said:
The Jag is tuned for torque and smoothness though and of course for towing caravans

MB

... and it doesn't benefit from forced induction. The NA cooper produces 115bhp, which per litre is a paltry 72, compared to the Jag's 77.6, which demon suggests is "poor". The "basic" mini produces a comparably pathetic 56bhp/litre, so, all in all, I'd consider the NA Jag's output to be acceptable.

Matblack · 1 Apr 2008 at 09:00

volospian said:
... and it doesn't benefit from forced induction. The NA cooper produces 115bhp, which per litre is a paltry 72, compared to the Jag's 77.6, which demon suggests is "poor". The "basic" mini produces a comparably pathetic 56bhp/litre, so, all in all, I'd consider the NA Jag's output to be acceptable.

So would I

MB

Born_2_Kill_83 · 1 Apr 2008 at 09:33

volospian said:
... and it doesn't benefit from forced induction. The NA cooper produces 115bhp, which per litre is a paltry 72, compared to the Jag's 77.6, which demon suggests is "poor". The "basic" mini produces a comparably pathetic 56bhp/litre, so, all in all, I'd consider the NA Jag's output to be acceptable.

LoL well you just pwned every-one that said otherwise

Born_2_Kill_83 · 1 Apr 2008 at 09:35

Demon said:
0-60 it would comfortably whip the X-Type..

Lets give the cooper a driver that knows what he's doing and play the scenario that it isnt raining, course even in the dry off the mark there wouldnt be much in it !

Matblack · 1 Apr 2008 at 10:16

Loowi_ashley said:
Lets give the cooper a driver that knows what he's doing and play the scenario that it isnt raining, course even in the dry off the mark there wouldnt be much in it !

Oh my God I feel so owned, I'm gonna sell my car and by a Jag X-type 2.5

............or maybe a BMW 530, or a Mondeo

MB

Born_2_Kill_83 · 1 Apr 2008 at 10:27

Matblack said:
Oh my God I feel so owned, I'm gonna sell my car and by a Jag X-type 2.5

............or maybe a BMW 530, or a Mondeo

MB

Good lad, would be step up for you

[TW]Fox · 1 Apr 2008 at 10:36

How does a 2.5 X-Type do 0-60 in only 0.1 seconds quicker than a lighter 3 litre ST220?

Matblack · 1 Apr 2008 at 10:38

Loowi_ashley said:
Good lad, would be step up for you

It'll be handy for the caravan too

MB

Born_2_Kill_83 · 1 Apr 2008 at 10:46

[TW]Fox;11409095 said:
How does a 2.5 X-Type do 0-60 in only 0.1 seconds quicker than a lighter 3 litre ST220?

The actual figure is around 7.5 sec depending where you read. It'd never see flat 7 to 60

Demon · 1 Apr 2008 at 10:57

volospian said:
... and it doesn't benefit from forced induction. The NA cooper produces 115bhp, which per litre is a paltry 72, compared to the Jag's 77.6, which demon suggests is "poor". The "basic" mini produces a comparably pathetic 56bhp/litre, so, all in all, I'd consider the NA Jag's output to be acceptable.

Err.. but we are on about 2 specific cars here.. I can think of lots of cars that produce low bhp/litre, but we aren't talking about those either..

I think any engine producing over 100BHP/Litre is considered as very good.. circa 75BHP/Litre is very average..

The 'poor' comment was just a dig back at Loowi..

But carry on making a mountain out of a mole hill

Hxc · 1 Apr 2008 at 11:04

New minis are horrid things. Completely ruin the name imo.

JRS · 1 Apr 2008 at 11:16

Demon said:
I think any engine producing over 100BHP/Litre is considered as very good.. circa 75BHP/Litre is very average..

Heh....does that mean that the GM LS7 V8 is now to be considered "very average"? After all, GM claim that it 'only' produces 72hp/l.....but you're right. Never mind the fact that it's got enough torque to bend time. Never mind the fact that it's hugely reliable. Never mind the fact that it can propel the Corvette Z06 around the Nurburgring faster than a Ferrari F430.

*sigh*

Demon · 1 Apr 2008 at 11:18

Loowi_ashley said:
Lets give the cooper a driver that knows what he's doing and play the scenario that it isnt raining, course even in the dry off the mark there wouldnt be much in it !

Exactly what is your 'issue'...

The X-Type 2.5 is a reasonably rapid car.. it's going to give all the supermini 'hot hatches' a run for their money..

The Cooper S is regarded performance wise as near the top of it's class...

It has a diminuative 1.6 litre engine, with 170 BHP, 107BHP/Litre and a Power to Weight of 146 BHP/Ton.. 0-60 7.5 (pre 04) and 7.0 (post 04)

The 2.5 X Type has a 2.5 litre engine with 194 BHP, that's 77.6BHP/Litre and a power to weight of 125BHP/Ton.. 0-60 7.9

It seems to me that the Cooper S is a reasonable proposition, or am I missing something?

Demon · 1 Apr 2008 at 11:31

JRS said:
Heh....does that mean that the GM LS7 V8 is now to be considered "very average"? After all, GM claim that it 'only' produces 72hp/l.....but you're right. Never mind the fact that it's got enough torque to bend time. Never mind the fact that it's hugely reliable. Never mind the fact that it can propel the Corvette Z06 around the Nurburgring faster than a Ferrari F430.

*sigh*

Talk about taken out of context..

What exactly is 'remarkable' and above average about just increasing the bore volume ludicrously to get performance.. 7 litres.. 505BHP.. it's so unstressed, of course it's reliable..
Torque.. 475lbft..

I know it's not the whole story.. but
LS7, 505BHP/475lbft from 7.0 Litres..
Cooper S, 170BHP/170lbft,
As a 'technical' feature which is harder, getting
sub 80BHP/Lbft per litre, or over 100 BHP/lbft per litre...

Witor · 1 Apr 2008 at 11:35

sub 80BHP/Lbft per litre, or over 100 BHP/lbft per litre...

Neither is hard for reputeable engine makers, considering one is N/a and the other is supercharged.

100bhp/lbft litre for a turbo/supercharger is/should be fairly standard/reliable nowadays...

Demon · 1 Apr 2008 at 11:45

Nodirection said:
Neither is hard for reputeable engine makers, considering one is N/a and the other is supercharged.

100bhp/lbft litre for a turbo/supercharger is/should be fairly standard/reliable nowadays...

before this gets so out of hand..

I just responded to the plank that said " Watch out for 2.5 X-types course you wont beat one .Pritty poor for a supercharged BMW engine"

I was just trying to say that if he thinks the Mini Engine is 'poor', then by the same token so is a 2.5x type, both have 'average' specific outputs...

I don't think the Mini engine is remarkable.. I agree it's par for the course.. however, it's not 'poor'.. is it..