It sure is a Cooper he's got.

 

Let's take a look at this assertion. Increased power increases fuel efficiency. The MC puts out about 115 hp and gets about 35 MPG on the freeway. Let's throw in a properly tuned 450 hp V-8 (if it could fit). So you're telling me that because we INCREASED the hp, we're also INCREASING our MPG?! Don't think so.

Seriously now, the more hp a car puts out, the more fuel it has to burn to do so. Fuel can only put out some many joules of energy per volumn. So the only way you can get more energy out of the same volume of fuel is to get it to burn better (more efficiently). A couple of ways to do this would be to have a better spark or to improve the internal shape of the combustion chamber to propagate the flame front better to ensure more of the fuel being put in gets burned will. A pulley reduction does neither of these.

Stuffing more air via a supercharger (along with added fuel...because your ECU is going to attemp to maintain a certain A/F mixture ratio) isn't going to combust a higher percentage of the fuel. All you're doing at this point is making more HP because of the added fuel volume, not because it's getting burnt more efficiently. This, in turn, is going to lower your fuel economy.

You could try leaning up the mixture with programming (or by putting on a small enough injector that theres no way to get enough fuel to keep up with the added air), but, as is common knowledge, forced air systems tend to "like" have a richer a/f mixture to keep things cooler and well lubricated. So by leaning out the fuel mixture to save you a few pennies at the pump is only going to cost you a lot more in engine rebuilds!

 

Now I've not gotten close to 430 in my S but I did get up to 365 w/ 80-90% freeway driving. I have a feeling if I drove unrestricted freeway (meaning no real traffic) that was mostly level I could get 430 on a tank. That might not be some kind of revelation but the S can get good gas mileage if you can stay off the pedal. (good luck with that though)

 

For what it is worth,
Many years ago I read in one of the car rags about a test that BMW did on fuel efficiency. They would accelerate from a stop using about 3/4 throttle, shifting at about 3-3500 rpm's, and getting into 5th gear asap would increase mileage. I have tried this with my current GTI and believe that it does work. I get about 30-32 mpg with the 1.8t. My wife drives the car and is lucky to get 30 mpg. I drive a combo of hiway and traffic light laiden hiway to and from work. I also have tried this on other cars I had and other than a Mazda MP3 I get 2-3 more mpg than the stickers showed. I had 2 Mustang GT's (98 and 01)that got 32 mpg.

The proper inflation of tires are a must and lightweight wheels are a good idea. I don't see much of a change in performance or fuel economy by changing exhaust and intakes in the new cars. I had changed to a K&N air filter for the GTI and lost torque, plus there was no change in mileage. I also have a Dodge Ram and the forums said that adding the K&N on them also make them loose torque and had no change in fuel economy. I feel that the cost of these parts does not justify their installation. I am speaking for fuel economy only.

 

Yes, my LOW FUEL light came up with 75 miles left on Range (370 driven). and I was able to drive 50 miles, leaving it reading 20 (hit some traffic on I495).

mbabischkin said Coopers have ~15gal tank? that's news to me: I believe its 13.2. My OBC Econ/Range have been 100% accurate lately, but I'd be wayyyyy to afraid to go the full 450. Hat's off to you and anyone who's filled up with more than 13 gallons! You have bigger cajones than the rest of us.

 

Change that to CooperS our Cooper has been replaced with an S

 

My bone stock MC,well except for the Elbow Landing Divice and front mud flaps,gets 35-38 MPG.Now if I did not shift at 4000+ RPM,and cruised at the posted limit of 65MPH,or even 55,like some do,that I pass in 3rd,I would be pushing 40 MPG.
If you bought a supercharged car,why would you think good MPG would come into play

 

I can attest that with windows/sunroof open, a Cooper can't go faster than 103 MPH ... but button 'er up and she'll hit 124 MPH!

So, despite the MINI's often-called "Brick aerodynamics", its better than swiss cheese or a sponge.

 

Wow, I'm a bit surprised by the number of negative comments this thread has invoked. How many of you love your MCS? How many of you would want to drive another car? Wouldn't you like to get better gas milage with gas prices increasing? It is difficult to glean useful information when every other post is slander directed at the topic.

Back to the topic. So by increasing HP (and torque) one can drive the car the same (not the same RPM, but the same mph) and do so at a higher gear. Would this cause a reduction pulley to provide greater MPG with the greater power enabling a more efficient use of the engines power through a higher gear?


Other than that, am I wrong in my understanding that the greater flow created by an upgraded exhaust and intake will help to increase gas milage, but only by a few mpg?

 

You came away with the wrong impression from that episode. They said AC has a big effect. The myth was if it is more efficient at high speeds to use ac because of the drag caused by open windows. And at higher speeds this is true and they equal out but at lower speeds, 50 and below, it is more efficient to run without AC...


Episode 38
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBus...s_Revisited.22

 

That's basically the idea. Since the MCS runs so rich, any mod that increases the airflow into or out of the engine will increase fuel efficiency. A reduction pulley will allow you to run in a higher gear at lower rpm and get the same acceleration as a stock car. This leads to better fuel efficiency.

 

Except your foot becomes eponentially heavier.

I remember when I tested my mileage on the MINI once and I got ~19 MPG. I laughed to myself and the cried a little bit on the inside.

 

Yeah, you have to be a little bit more self-disciplined with righty but the science is sound.

 

Well between my hour long drive to and from school, the very nature of being a college student and the recent price increase, I've changed my driving habits quite a bit. I average about 30.9 mpg on the OBC which usually euqates to about 350 miles between fill-ups. It took a while to get used to setting the cruise control and letting other cars pass me, but now I become annoyed at people behind me instead of people in front of me (which in the long run will help with my insurance and in the short run cuts down on driving tax (speeding tickets)).


So would you give this priority over an ECU upgrade to lean out the fuel mixture?

 

It's hard to say. The A/F ratio is much better below 4k rpm so an ECU might help the lead footed more than anyone. Changing your driving habits is the cheapest way at getting better mileage. Good to see you're learning to drive more efficient.

 

The best way to get better fuel efficiency? Choose your car well.

My 05 MCS gets about 29.5 mpg on the interstate at 77-78 mph in 6th. A friend's 03 BMW 330i, a much bigger and heavier car, gets over 31 mpg under the same conditions. And his doesn't even have the 6 speed. My wife's BMW 525i Touring, which weighs almost half as much again gets as good highway mpg as the MCS, and that's with a 5 speed automatic.

My MCS' average consumption over the last 5000 miles is around 21.5 mpg, most of which is suburban driving, with a few longer highway trips and some urban stop-and-go. I tend to drive fairly, err, enthusiastically.

Things that compromise fuel consumption in our cars:
- The engine's relatively low compression ratio, necessary for forced induction but bad for efficiency.
- Highway cruising takes place above the rpm at which the supercharger kicks in.
- Not all that great aerodynamics.

And then of course there's the Fun Factor problem: that tendency to mash down with your right foot.

In December I drove a Passat diesel rental for a week while in England. Now that had impressive fuel efficiency! Good thing too, with fuel at around $6/gal.

Neil
05 MCS - OK fuel consumption
96 M3 - "Who cares?" fuel consumption

 

Very true. Say you spend $200 on an intake and increase your mileage by 2 mpg. That equates to getting about one extra gallon of miles per tank. So, in Houston that'd be ~$2.50 saved per fillup. It would take 80 fillups before you get your money back, and at say 350 miles per tank it'll be 28,000 miles before you break even. I think it's best to think of inproved mileage as the gravy of a nice mod, not the reason for doing it.

 

I for the life of me cannot understand how two of the same car can get such a drastic difference in mileage. I'm averaging about 25mpg in my stock Cooper and I never get over 4K. I'm usually in 5th gear at 40mph, and yes I do use 93 octane.

 

I was actullay looking at fuel economy as more of an excuse rather than a reason. Do we know if there is a greater increase in efficiency if you drive conservatively than if you "put the hammer down." And are these 1 or 2 mpg gains cumulative? Think we can squeeze 3 to 6 mpg out of headers, an exhaust, and an CAI?

 

Why is it that numerous folks seem to believe (or imply) that performance modifications do not offer better efficiency? In truth numerous modifications offer ‘performance’ because they offer greater efficiency. Getting maximal useable power from the fuel you burn is what performance & efficiency is all about. NOTE: the supercharger - especially when spun at high RPM is not very efficient.

Regarding the arguments about the efficiency or lack re: exhausts, cold air intakes and the like... Its all about reducing 'pumping losses'... energy the engine must 'spend' taking in air and expelling exhaust. If the intake or exhaust modifications perform as claimed & actually reduce pumping losses, you have gained efficiency! What you choose to do with this efficiency is an entirely different story. Don't blame the mod(s) for your bad fuel mileage... it's your foot/shift!

I fully recognize that I didn't get a MCS because it was miserly on fuel. I got the MCS because it afforded me decent economy AND the ability to go from Jeckle to Hyde... A downshift & stomp was all it took. ...Moderation when driven accordingly. The MCS' performance/handling, style + ability to fit 4 REAL sized adults is a pretty unique combination. These are the reasons we got mini's instead of hybrids or diesels.

A question for the heavily modified crowd:

I'd wager that a Twin Charged car, driven moderately gets notably better mileage than a MCS or JCW car. esp. those who are running a larger (than stock) S/C pulley, and or larger turbo.

Have any of you T/C owners ever tried to get maximal fuel economy for 1 full tank? If not, could one of you please keep your foot out of it long enough to let us know your findings? I recognize this would take some serious willpower! AND most likely has zero to do with reason you went T/C. Nonetheless…

Tuls?... Dominicminicoopers... Maximusmini… anyone?

 

That makes for a great false-economy. All of those mods would buy several YEARS worth of fuel.

 

This does not imply that mods must cost less than, or be equivalent to the cost of fuel consumed.

Aside from the obvious... driving less, driving slower etc. How would you save fuel?

 

Excellent!! That's how long I plan to own my MINI.

On a more serious note, you can get the proposed updates for about two thousand dollars. At about thirty dollars a tank and about five or six tanks of fuel each month (we'll call it eleven every two months). That makes for $1,980 (66 tanks per year at 30 dollars a tank). So the combination of intake, header, and exhaust will cost less than a years worth of fuel. The savings given by these modifications are another story and depend upon your milage and mpg.

Given an average of 350 miles per tank and an average mpg of 30.9. I fill with an approximate 11.3 gallons per tank. This gives me a rough estimate of 746 gallons per year. This estimate yeilds 23045 miles per year (which is about right... i drive a lot). Assuming a conservative estimate of 4 mpg gained from the proposed modifications (~1 mpg per mod, let me know if these are not cumulative), making 35 mpg. With these mods I will require only 658 gallons of fuel. This equates to a savings of roughly 90 gallons per year. At approximately $2.40 per gallon, I would save 216 dollars per year. In ten years time, these mods will pay for themselves (not allowing for inflation, which may shorten this time considerably given the rate of gasoline price increase). Gas prices of only $3 per gallon would save 270 a year and anything close to european gas prices would save at least twice that (last time I checked the price per liter was almost equal to our price per gallon, that's about 4x times what we pay). A generous estimate could have these mods paying for them selves in 5 years, the average length of a car loan.

Short term they won't pay for themselves, but if you plan to keep your MINI...

 

If you want fuel economy, go buy a '91 Honda CRX HF or an Echo. Do you think fuel economy was a determining factor when I bought my 4x4? No.

Realistically, I seriously doubt that anyone on this board would spend that much money, drive like a grandma and keep their MCS for that long just to get a tiny bit of fuel mileage back. Also, I doubt that all of those mods would yield 1 mpg each. Maybe 2 mpg in total of all of those mods combined.

 

The warmth you exude must make freinds wherever you go.

"Location: On your girlfriend" ....Yawn! ...Now if you'd said on your Mom or Grandma.... then you'd be hardcore