..........an honest comparison at last!? :P

(From Autocar Online 16 Jan 07)

Mini's first sporty diesel

First there's an all-new and unprecedented Mini Cooper D which promises to be a multi-talented Mini hatchback that's both frugal and fun to drive.

The last-generation Mini used Toyota's unsuitable 1.4-litre four-pot diesel engine; the new Mini uses a cleaner and more powerful 1.6-litre turbodiesel related to the one you'll find in the Peugeot 207 and Ford Fiesta. It produces 109bhp and 192lb ft of torque on overboost, both significant improvements over the last Mini diesel, yet it's also cleaner (118g/km v 129g/km) and more frugal (64.2 combined mpg v 58.9).

The new Cooper D will hit 62mph in 9.9sec and go on to 121mph. It can be identified by its pronounced bonnet power dome and an enlarged bumper air intake, and will be priced from

Underpowered, overpriced, and decidedly sluggish looking at those figures :P

Underpowered, overpriced, and decidedly sluggish looking at those figures :P

30bhp and 30lbft ish down and .5 second slower 0-60? sounds like a reasonable difference to me. if it had a 130bhp engine instead i think it would be easily as quick on paper as the fabia

30bhp and 30lbft ish down and .5 second slower 0-60? sounds like a reasonable difference to me. if it had a 130bhp engine instead i think it would be easily as quick on paper as the fabia

But it hasn't and isn't :P

Under 10 seconds isn't sluggish , but it's not a fast car either.

Still , at least it's respectable unlike the older mini D which was deathly slow.

I bet it sells tho , especially to young girls with fake tans and hair extensions (judging by the owners of the current car)

I bet it sells tho , especially to young girls with fake tans and hair extensions (judging by the owners of the current car)

No mate you are seeing the male estate agents

:orb_lol: :orb_clap:

at the end of the day it will still be fitted with a Peugeot engine , i thought BMW diesel engines were some of the best so why someone elses in the MINI

It's not a Mini.

They stopped making The Mini in 2001.

I agree with Ric - wonder if they tried shoe-horning the 2.0d 163 unit from the 3-series in?? Now that would be interested

Would still have a problem buying and driving around in a 'Mini' though. I'd never find it again after parking - there's masses of them EVERYWHERE

Steve

I bet it sells tho , especially to young girls with fake tans and hair extensions (judging by the owners of the current car)

Girls who drive Clios are more attractive anyway. Known fact.

Girls who drive minis wish they were attractive, but no amount of money wasted on an overpriced BMW 1/2 series Peugeot hybrid can change the fact that they're a swamp donkey.

at the end of the day it will still be fitted with a Peugeot engine , i thought BMW diesel engines were some of the best so why someone elses in the MINI

The 1.6 PSA engine is very good and I'm not sure if BMW have a small diesel engine to use? I think it'll probably be a good match for the mini to be honest. The engine will be a lot ligher that the VW 1.9TDI so I think you'll find the mini will be a very good car to drive. With the market that the Mini sells to, I think they have probably chosen the right engine (ie. it's a good compromise between performance, weight and handling).

It's not a Mini.

They stopped making The Mini in 2001.

BMW

I agree with Ric - wonder if they tried shoe-horning the 2.0d 163 unit from the 3-series in?? Now that would be interested

Steve

But then they'd have a diesel car more powerful and faster than the petrol Cooper, which they'd never go for... Quite possibly faster than the Cooper S, even!

The 1.6 PSA engine is very good and I'm not sure if BMW have a small diesel engine to use? I think it'll probably be a good match for the mini to be honest. The engine will be a lot ligher that the VW 1.9TDI so I think you'll find the mini will be a very good car to drive. With the market that the Mini sells to, I think they have probably chosen the right engine (ie. it's a good compromise between performance, weight and handling).

Makes you wonder.....PSA used to only get 110bhp out of the old HDi and that was not the best of engines. Rattly under load and not too brill on mpg.

My missus has the HDi 90 in her 306 and to be honest it's really underpowered.

How come it's taken them so long to realise that decent power can be obtained from a diesel quite easily? And why does the 2.0 only produce 136bhp when the 1.6 can whack out 110? Consistency is lacking me thinks......very French.

I'm not sure that I agree with you there! The old PSA XUD diesel engine was pretty much the turning point for diesel engines becoming acceptable. The HDI engines improved on this engine by increasing efficiency, refinement and drivability. Don't forget the HDI engine is around 10 years old, hence why it's outputs now seem conservative. However in its time, it was far more refined than anything VW could offer (VW 1.9TDI engines have always been noisy engines in comparison).

The new 2.0 HDI is a pretty good engine but has turbo lag problems. However the 1.6 and 2.2 (twin-turbo) engines are a lot better. The output of the 1.6 may seem conservative at 'only' 110bhp, but they feel quicker in reality. It's also a very light engine compared to the heavy 1.9TDI.

The older 2.0's weren't light....they used the old XUD block with a new common rail DI head and a slightly longer stroke to get to 2000cc.

Have they started producing an all alloy engine then now or is the block still cast?

If not I don't see how the engine can be all that light, relatively speaking.

The only thing that'll keep the weight down is the fact it's a 1.6.

I've owned 2x XUD Pugs and 1x XUD Citroen....1x 405 1.9d (slug), 1 x 405 1.9TD (not bad) and 1x Xantia 1.9 TD (not bad either).

I also had a 306 HDi like the missus has and found the engine to be breathless at higher rpm which the XUD wasn't and not that much quieter (a few people have commented on this). Where it was better was the reduced turbo lag as the 90 used a smaller turbo than the old XUD. Also mpg was pretty good providing you were sensible with the noisy pedal.....rubbish if you weren't!

I think PSA have actually started to produce good engines now atfre a few years of development, especially now that BMW have taken an interest in them too. For a 1.6 HDi to put out 110bhp is much more like it. People say that the engine in the 206 GTi diesel was good fun and surprisingly poky.

Having done the math just now, the constant is 68.75bhp per litre. This means 110bhp at 1600cc and 137.5bhp at 2000cc. It all makes sense now.

One thing that does puzzle me is this 'overboost' thing. Why can't it be that fast all the time? Does overboost kick in every time you floor it? In which case surely it's pointless even mentioning it as it's just 'peak power'?

Peak power is always obtained when the car is being driven at it's hardest. Does the car pick and choose when to apply overboost when being driven hard?

One thing that does puzzle me is this 'overboost' thing. Why can't it be that fast all the time? Does overboost kick in every time you floor it? In which case surely it's pointless even mentioning it as it's just 'peak power'?

Peak power is always obtained when the car is being driven at it's hardest. Does the car pick and choose when to apply overboost when being driven hard?

I've never quite understood what that's all about too! Peugeot designed the engine but it was Ford (through a partnership with PSA) that came up with the 'overboost' feature. You are right in that the feature is enabled when the accelerator is flawed. Very strange if you ask me!

Only PSA diesel engine I've experienced was the 1.7TD in a Citroen BX TZD. 90 bhp from 1.7 litres - not bad for 15 years ago.

The 1.7's were probably more revvy with less torque. They upped it to 1.8 (in the Pugs) and 1.9 (in all PSA cars) as the years went on, probably to improve driveability and make them smoother with the added torque.

Providing they were well taken care of (specifically cooling system wise) the XUD's were meant to be bomb proof. 200,000 miles is easily seen in many cases such as taxi's etc. In theory the HDi should be the same, if not better due to the slightly reduced compression ratio prolonging the life of the head gasket etc.

It's just the electricals which I can see going......injectors and common rail pump failing etc.

So Ford came up with the overboost thing eh? Hmm....

Sounds like a marketing gimmic to me. Boost depends on how much you press the throttle anyway. Floor it and you get the maximum boost available from that configuration. I don't see where this overboost thing is any different......

The overboost lets the turbo run at a higher pressure for a short while , such as a burst of overtaking.

It won't run at this pressure continually and will back off after a while to prevent problems.

On a road you aren't likely to hit this limit before you lift off the throttle yourself , but it wouldn't be ideal for track use where you run at high speeds continually

Aha.....just found this about the Porsche 911 with 'overboost'.

The flexibility of the 911 Turbo can be enhanced further with the optional Sport Chrono Package Turbo, available for the first time. By engaging the Sport button adjacent to the gear lever, this feature enables the driver to activate a short-term turbocharger ‘overboost’ function at full throttle.

This increases boost pressure in the mid-speed range by 0.2 bar for up to ten seconds; torque rises by 60Nm to 680 Nm. In this configuration, the time required by the 911 Turbo with manual transmission for intermediate acceleration from 80 to 120 km/h (50-75mph) is reduced by 0.3 seconds to 3.5 seconds.

It only does it for a period of time. Keep it floored and it'll back off......ahhhhhhh

The overboost lets the turbo run at a higher pressure for a short while , such as a burst of overtaking.

It won't run at this pressure continually and will back off after a while to prevent problems.

On a road you aren't likely to hit this limit before you lift off the throttle yourself , but it wouldn't be ideal for track use where you run at high speeds continually

Dammit, you beat me to it.

Thanks mate, you've explained it clearly. I understand now.

Providing they were well taken care of (specifically cooling system wise) the XUD's were meant to be bomb proof. 200,000 miles is easily seen in many cases such as taxi's etc.

I had a 405 1.9 GLDT which i bought with just over 100,000 miles on the clock. I had the car for 5 years until the head gasket went at 216,000 miles. I can honestly say it was the most reliable car that I've ever owned. Even when I got rid of it, much of the car was original (including gearbox, clutch, etc). It was a very smooth car to drive, in fact I'd say the engine was smoother than many current diesel engines! It was also achieving 50mpg on my daily drive to/from work. Looking back, I wish I'd kept the car and not bought a 406 (which turned out to be a lemon!).