Hi,

Why is the S going to be turbocharged instead of supercharged? That seems like quite a change...

Paul

 

My 2 cent explanation is that you can achieve better fuel efficiency by having the exhaust spin the compressor rather than having engine energy spin the compressor. A different way to say that might be that you can get the same power levels with increased efficiency. The power (turbo boost) is mostly on-demand, rather than being constantly generated as in superchargers (albeit at a lower level).

Oh yeah, and a different sound -- whistle vs. whine!

With the increased understanding and the variable blade technology in turbos nowdays the only really bad drivability problem, 'lag', is reduced to almost non-existent. Still, I really appreciate the instant on feeling of the supercharger. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with the heat issues of the turbo... and interesting to see how the aftermarket deals with them too.

Tuneability will be awesome. Turn up the boost! Bigger intercoolers, FMIC, more fuel, etc. Wait, we have all that now...

 

A turbo also offers a lot more potential top end horsepower...

 

Many reasons for a turbo. More HP is a good one, fuel econmy, long time reliability plus there is more known technology for turbo chargers.

For an old schooler the sound of a blower is a beautiful sound. Just when you expect something good is making a come back......

 

Thanks for all the replies. Not sure why they went with a supercharger then in the first place. I'm glad I got one in my '06...turbos are so common

Paul

 

Word I heard on that was BMW wanted to get the car on the street quickly. Supercharging has been around since the dawn of time, quick, easy and CHEAP to do. Turbo is more complicated. Ergo, do the cheap way ... get the car into the public domain, then while it starts to sell, get the REAL car going.

 

Weren't they also kinda forced into an SC with the choice of the Tritec engine. It doesn't seem to have ever been available as a turbo.
I love the idea of a turbo and the new Prince engines but the SC does have certain untangibles that will make it a shame to lose.

 

This is an age old debate. There strenghts and weaknesses to both boosting systems.
Superchargers are parasitic, they consume power from the engine to enable the supercharger to make more power.
Turbochargers run off the exhaust gases but have turbo lag, it takes time for the exhaust gases to reach a high enough velocity to spin the turbo, which then has to spin enough to begin compressing air.
Both are very tunable and provide loads of fun especially in a car like the mini.
As to which is better...well, no-one has won that debate yet.

Also...turbo's typically add performance in the higher rpm range, superchargers add power in the lower rpm range. This is why you see superchargers on drag cars, low end power with loads of torque quickly.

 

Here is an opinion from a household that has a 2004 Cooper S, and 2003 Saab 9-3SS HOT (2.0L I-4 with Mitsubish Turbo Unit - 210HP).

1. Turbo, no matter what you do has a LAG! 2003 and newer 9-3s have greatly minimized it, but still between idle and 1700rpm you feel a bit of a lag. Drive a Saab 9-5 - and you will see a bigger lag. Superchargers don't have a lag.

2. Turbo engines are awesome from the rolling start or when accellerating from 45-80mph. If you step on it, most tailgaters don't understand how the car ahead can disappear that fast....it is very cool feeling for you butt dyno.

3. Turbo engines requre more precise shifting.....you cannot roll to a stopsign in 2nd and expect it to pull your *** out after a semi-stop. Supercharged engines don't have issues with this.

4. Turbos are higher maintenance.....Saabs used to put lables on sun visors to warn drivers to let engine idle for 2 min before shuttding it down after a spirited drive, so oil does not cook up in still spinning turbo... now they are water and oil cooled, so no issues.

If you want co compare, drive a Saab - best turbo engines.

 

Nice! Same two cars here! I have to agree with you - Saab does have a great turbo!

Prior to getting our 2003 9-3 we test drove a MB C230. What a waste of time. You literally sit there waiting for the turbo to kick in. The Saab feels light and ready to go.

Let's hop MINI does it right and perhaps we'll see little lag.

 

what kind is your 9-3? Liniar/Arc/Vector?
I see you are in Chicago - I am in NW indiana, right over the border
Not to hijack the thread - which dealers (both saa and mini - do you go to?

 

Isn't the C230 a Kompressor (Supercharger)??

 

I think you're right All I remember is that is was slooow!!

We wanted to lease our 9-3 Arc from Patrick in Schaumburg, but they were not willing to play the game. Too bad. We go there for all of our service though

Instead we went to Gartner Saab. They gave us one incredible deal that we couldn't pass up!! Unfortunately, our lease expires in Aug 06, so we're looking for a new ride. If we were going to get another 9-3, we'd go back to Gartner.

It will be sad to see it go! The turbo sound it makes when you accelerate is just intoxicating!

So speaking of turbos, we're thinking next of a Legacy 2.5GT or a Forester 2.5XT. I just can't convince my wife that she should get a MINI

 

There is nothing like the kick in the pants of the turbo, especially an old school turbo (albeit oil AND water cooled, and yes, you had better idle down after a spirited drive), like my Merkur. No, it's not easy to drive, but when that turbo comes in you get a boot like nothing else. My old turbo diesel VW was a much smoother transition (variable vanes on the smallish turbo). My old Lotus Elan was a well throught out turbo system with minimal lag, but minimal boost too. As much as I love the turbo, the SC seems better in day-to-day, cut and thrust traffic. My XR4Ti is great (and RWD), but in traffic by the time the boost comes up you are in danger of rear-ending the guy in front of you. Not the most relaxing thing to drive every day. I'm sure that the new MINI will be a well thought out system with a small to medium turbo (and variable vanes?)

 

That feeling is due to the turbo lag. The engine pulls normally until the turbos spool up and provide boost, then WHAM, like an elastic band you get your power.
In day to day driving the supercharger is nice, I agree. I don't know how much time the average driver spends in high rpm ranges in traffic where the turbo would be felt.

TWINCHARGING, the best of both worlds. But seems almost suicidal to me. Twincharging works because of the differences in the two systems.

Good thread guys!

 

VW is working on a twincharged 1.4 that will be good for about 168 bhp and 177 lb.ft - it supposedly gets about 39 mpg (euro gallon) on the combined cycle.

it's supposed to appear in the new scirocco in 2008.

 

This sounds intersting. A new scirocco even...

 

Wow, I never even thought about this stuff before considering a MINI S. Interesting comments, thanks.

 

I really hopes the REAL car would not have much problem than the so called Prototype - rattles, gearbox and steering pump/column which is a major deficiencies. Well lets hope for the best.

 

I have test driven VW GTI, turbo spin at mere 1,800rpm and actually u dont feel there any lag, guess turbo technology have improve tremendously. If the mini does get a lag - oh well

 

If you've never driven a turbo, as others have said ... the rush is so much better than the SC.

 

Oooh...be still my heart. The only other car I've enjoyed as much as my MINI was a 16v Scirocco...looked like this:



I enjoyed the 2 280Zs I had before that, but still that VW was lots of fun, and had a sexy purr to it too.

I look forward to seeing the new Scirocco!

Paul

 

Yeah, scirocco baby!

I think the market is being revolutionized by the current MINI, and hopefully around '08 / '09 we'll see some seriously cool cars competing for the hatch-rocket category. Audi A2, Scirocco, GTI MKVI?, MINI MKII, ...

Sounds like fun!

Waiting for that stock 190hp/200lbft MCS AWD mid-gen refresh....

 

O Rly???? Try a 2.5L boxer four with turbo and you won't think that way. I've got more power in our Subaru in stock config than your precious Saab. Turn up the wick and put a VF39 and 380hp/390tq (~300 to the wheels) is on tap and factory reliable. There's a reason your Saab has half the power....it's got half the wheels putting down the power.

Having a lightly modded MCS-C and the '05 Legacy GT.....they are very different beasts. Despite all the power, Cusco coilovers, Brembo's, etc on the LGT......the MCS always gets more seat time for fun drives.

 

If BMW was in a rush to market the MCS, it would have been less expensive to go to a turbo in the first place. The SC wasen't something that was just sitting on the shelf. How about all the extra stuff hanging on the block for the SC? The design department was not sitting on their hands for all that development time. They could have put the turbo on a whole lot faster & saved a bunch of time. Look at the turbo kit. The turbo came from somewhere & even though you should upgrade the internals for big HP numbers, you don't need to. It is possible to build 1 motor with a turbo, rather than 2 like the present cars although I think they will have tweaked the turbo internals. BMW may be thinking much further ahead as the turbo can be replaced with more powerfull units with fewer internal changes than a blower and maintain external demensions for future fitment.
$.04 worth adjusted for inflation....