RE: BMW completes Mini range
Tuesday 16th January 2007
BMW completes Mini range
Entry-level and diesel model due in March
 Mini One  Mini Cooper D |
BMW's announced more details about the entry-level Mini, as well as a new diesel-powered variant. The company's getting its PR strike in first, as the machines aren't due for public unveiling until the Geneva Motor Show on 8 March 2007. the new cars will, however, complete the range, said BMW.
The entry-level £11,595 One features a 95hp 1.4-litre petrol engine with 103lb-ft of torque, while the £14,190 Cooper D houses an all-new 1.6-litre 110hp turbodiesel powerplant with 177lb-ft of torque. As you'd expect, however, performance is less than stunning. The petrol car gets to 60mph from rest in a leisurely 10.9 seconds, while the diesel does better with 9.9 seconds.
BMW's keen to stress the new technology in the diesel. Under normal conditions peak torque is achieved between 1,750 and 2,000rpm but, deploying the engine’s overboost function gives the Cooper D an additional 15lb-ft to deliver, said BMW, an torque figure identical to that of the new Cooper S.
The turbocharger system features variable turbine geometry, for improved smoothness, efficiency and response at low engine speeds. Second-generation common rail diesel technology operating at a maximum pressure of 1,600 bar is key to the new diesel engine’s combustion process. Additionally, refinement is achieved using a precise multiple-injection process for each operating cycle. The combustion chambers have been optimised in their shape and dimensions to prevent unwanted turbulence and maintain a smooth and consistent combustion process at all times.
As a result, the Cooper D promises to be the most fuel-efficient and cleanest Mini ever built, reckoned BMW. In comparison to the outgoing Mini One D’s combined fuel consumption of 58.9mpg, the Cooper D gets 64.2mpg. A CO2 figure of 118g/km puts the car in tax band B. You would, however, have to do a lot of driving to justify the added upfront price.
The One also boasts improved fuel consumption and emissions over the outgoing model, with 49.6mpg compared to 41.5mpg from its predecessor, and emissions down to 138g/km against 164g/km produced by the previous model.
Both cars gets a six-speed manual box with a long top gear for economical cruising. An auto is optional as are a paddle-operated Steptronic system and a Sports button which delivers faster changes and throttle responses.
Discussion
Article said:
You would, however, have to do a lot of driving to justify the added upfront price.
Really? Is the Cooper D much more expensive than the petrol engined Cooper? Some recent BMW Diesels have been cheaper than their more refined equivalents. I am not sure what the price of the Cooper is.
The Article said:
operating at a maximum pressure of 1,600 bar
Golly, that is a high pressure! Is it a fusion device? Not sure about this overboost stuff, it seems to me that if I "need" a little extra shove to put an pass on, I wouldn't want to be waiting around prodding buttons to get it. If the engine is upto providing that power all the time, then lets have it; if not then let's not!
Andrew D said:
The Article said:
operating at a maximum pressure of 1,600 bar
Golly, that is a high pressure! Is it a fusion device? Not sure about this overboost stuff, it seems to me that if I "need" a little extra shove to put an pass on, I wouldn't want to be waiting around prodding buttons to get it. If the engine is upto providing that power all the time, then lets have it; if not then let's not!
The pressures in these common rail diesels is quite frightening
. Gone are the days of slackening an injector pipe to bleed the system. The overboost facility with these modern engines is an automatic function allowing the increased power for a short period of time (often 10 secs) to allow overtakes etc. No driver input is required other than sinking the pedal to the floor. I think the fear is that the torque levels may be too high for sustained use. I imagine the tuners will soon be reprogramming the ECUs to produce even higher outputs.
More than 14k for a B-segment diesel??!! What's the point? O, it's a 'high' performence diesel. So what?! People who buy B-segment diesals are mostly for their economy. Sure you may say some are for their performence like Fabia vRS (which has a tunable 1.9 TDI). But a 1.6D with only 110bhp isn't what u call performence, is it? So in this case a cheaper and more economical 1.4D with 90-100bhp at around 12k makes much more sense to me.
renny said:
I think the fear is that the torque levels may be too high for sustained use. I imagine the tuners will soon be reprogramming the ECUs to produce even higher outputs.
That's my gripe. If an engine isn't up to the stress then let's not be silly by pretending it is. I can put up with 177bhp peak in the Cooper S and delivery commensurate with that peak. I'll use the gears if I'm going for a pass! It seems to me that limiting the increased torque to a certain duration by definition means that there's only a certain total duration of exposure that the engine can take. So what does that mean for long-term durability?
To me it seems that "overboosted" peak torque figures suggest that the performance of the engine is comparable to that torque which, most of the time, it isn't!
Edited by Andrew D on Tuesday 16th January 11:52
I don't 'get' the kerfuffle over the deisel engine premium. Yes it takes 3/4 of the cars life to manifest itself but to me the point is you waste less of your life queueing in petrol stations and more time on the road and time is important. And if you don't have kids then you can do any UK jpurney in one hit which will save you at least 1/2 an hour.
loveice said:
More than 14k for a B-segment diesel??!! What's the point? O, it's a 'high' performence diesel. So what?! People who buy B-segment diesals are mostly for their economy. Sure you may say some are for their performence like Fabia vRS (which has a tunable 1.9 TDI). But a 1.6D with only 110bhp isn't what u call performence, is it? So in this case a cheaper and more economical 1.4D with 90-100bhp at around 12k makes much more sense to me.
i see your point and totaly agree but theres this weird thing with miniD's that cos its a mini people will pay a bit more for the image but given would much rather have a 118d as i have an older gen cooper and love it but im not sold on the new gen
Andrew D said:
renny said:
I think the fear is that the torque levels may be too high for sustained use. I imagine the tuners will soon be reprogramming the ECUs to produce even higher outputs.
That's my gripe. If an engine isn't up to the stress then let's not be silly by pretending it is. I can put up with 177bhp peak in the Cooper S and delivery commensurate with that peak. I'll use the gears if I'm going for a pass! It seems to me that limiting the increased torque to a certain duration by definition means that there's only a certain total duration of exposure that the engine can take. So what does that mean for long-term durability?
To me it seems that "overboosted" peak torque figures suggest that the performance of the engine is comparable to that torque which, most of the time, it isn't!
Edited by Andrew D on Tuesday 16th January 11:52
Just speculating, but could it be that extra boost requires extra fuel, and if it was constantly running higher boost then there would be a decline in mpg?
If these are the specs for the Cooper D, when are they going to do a Cooper D 'S' with a much more 'performance' 150+ BHP / 300+ NM torque?
Now that I would buy £16k
(or would I wait for the S Works D)
Decisions Decisions!
I have a Seat Leon FR D currently and this kind of performance as std would be much nearer the 'Cooper' brand IMO, and if the engine was as tuneable as the VW 1.9TDI that I have well... game over!
Now that I would buy £16k
(or would I wait for the S Works D)
Decisions Decisions! I have a Seat Leon FR D currently and this kind of performance as std would be much nearer the 'Cooper' brand IMO, and if the engine was as tuneable as the VW 1.9TDI that I have well... game over!
Like the sound of the Cooper D, 9.9 seconds to 60 is a big improvement over the current 88 bhp ONE D which I have. I think mine is (IIRC) about 11.8. I presume they will not be making a ONE D then this time with a lower power output?
I really wish they had done a Cooper D the first time around! Mind you I still love my car.
P.S I wonder if the "all-new 1.6-litre 110hp turbodiesel" lends itself to tuning, the current Toyota unit can be upped from 88 bhp to around 110 bhp with ease, along with a torque increase from 190 nm to around 235 nm.
I really wish they had done a Cooper D the first time around! Mind you I still love my car.
P.S I wonder if the "all-new 1.6-litre 110hp turbodiesel" lends itself to tuning, the current Toyota unit can be upped from 88 bhp to around 110 bhp with ease, along with a torque increase from 190 nm to around 235 nm.
emicen said:
Doesnt help the fact the car physically looks like a chinese knock off though does it?
I saw a new cooper on the road yesterday, its just awful.
I saw a new cooper on the road yesterday, its just awful.
i quite like the cooper because it retains the spars on the grille - i am not overly keen on the one and cooperS that lose them.
as i have said i am sure it is actually a better car than the old MCS but it does look bloated to me... maybe i am feeling what the BMC chaps feel about new minis...
_____
but it seems as though the Ds are improvements.
prob most applicable to the 'estate' body style. that'll be quite a nice yummy mummy mobile.
Notice the Co2 figure for the Cooper D...118g/km means the car will be exempt from the London Congestion from 2008, if that old soak Mr Livingstome keeps his promise. Anything under 120g will not be charged £8 per day and as the zone doubles in size from 19 Feb I can see this car being very popular with the good people of Chelsea and Kensington. Of course, unlike a diesel Fiesta or 207, I would be happy to use a Cooper D on a 200 mile trip. It's expensive, but see it as the new Golf (eg the stand-by choice) for those in central London.
newsed said:
Of course, unlike a diesel Fiesta or 207, I would be happy to use a Cooper D on a 200 mile trip.
Ah, finally someone who sees the point! Just returned from a day containing about nine hours in the (company) car. Would have loathed, no hated, to do this in any regular supermini that I could have within the lease budget. Apart from that, the MINI was the only car within said budget and company policies (no convertibles meant that a Smart Roadster was out of the question, for instance - not that it would have been a wise choice given the kind of miles I do anyway) that could remotely be considered fun.
Believe it or not, some folks don't buy MINIs because they're 'trendy' - it's just that there's no alternative in its segment that offers acceptable quality and driver appeal.
And even though I must say I don't like some of the changes made for MINI Mk II (those headlights for instance, the electric power steering and cornering stance having lost some of its adjustability because apparently there's numpties out there who manage to enter the scenery backwards with 90/115 bhp MINIs (sorry, but in that case I recommend using public transport ;o) ) - but look at the horrid 'superminis' - erm, 'slighly more compact than the formerly 'compact' overbloated low quality family cars' on sale nowadays! BMW could have gotten away with missing the mark by a country mile and still come out tops...
Roll on Audi's A1 and Alfa Romeo's 'Junior' - at the least they'd provide us with a choice of small cars that are not an embarrassment...
Edited by 900T-R on Tuesday 16th January 20:10
Indeed sir. I used to run Evo magazine's super-early (and super-flawed) Cooper S and while I couldn't see where I was driving on unlit roads, you really had room to stretch out and get a move on. What the new Mini really suffers from is a lack of weight at the wheel rim and the shift is fingerlight, too. Customer feedback from wimmin encouraged BMW to make the Mini 2 easier to drive, they told me.
The new car just doesn't sit on the road with the weight of the old car. Pity. Still, these cars really do work as down-sized quality cars.
The new car just doesn't sit on the road with the weight of the old car. Pity. Still, these cars really do work as down-sized quality cars.
The Mini Diesel. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........
Mini + Diesel. There are no words..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Anyway, London needs more diesel engines to help up the soot levels.
So, back to my orignal point. Mini Diesel...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz......etc
Coming soon; Caterham R500d (mini excavator diesel engine)
Mini + Diesel. There are no words..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Anyway, London needs more diesel engines to help up the soot levels.
So, back to my orignal point. Mini Diesel...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz......etc
Coming soon; Caterham R500d (mini excavator diesel engine)
Would it be a stupid idea to ask our fleet manager for an exact replacement of my MINI (that is, an 'old' new Mini One with sports seats) before they run out? I've grown quite attached to min although the lack of straight line urge can be frustrating when jostling for position with the Golf TDI brigade 
), I don't seen anything else I'd entertain the thought of running for antoher 140,000 km without the company lease policy for editors and the new one only scores on fuel consumption/emissions compared to what I have. Although the leasing budget includes fuel based on 30,000 kms a year and the difference in fuel costs of new new Mini vs. old new Mini may be just enough to bring the Cooper within shooting range?
Or I could just move on to a new job. Open to offers. )
), I don't seen anything else I'd entertain the thought of running for antoher 140,000 km without the company lease policy for editors and the new one only scores on fuel consumption/emissions compared to what I have. Although the leasing budget includes fuel based on 30,000 kms a year and the difference in fuel costs of new new Mini vs. old new Mini may be just enough to bring the Cooper within shooting range? Or I could just move on to a new job. Open to offers.
) Edited by 900T-R on Wednesday 17th January 20:18
Gassing Station | New MINIs | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff