speacock
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:30 AM
Found this on minitis.com. Edited to avoid copyright infringement.
SI M00 01 04
Maintenance and General Hints July 2004
Technical Service
SUBJECT
New Vehicle Preparation and Maintenance Requirements
MODEL
2005 MINI Cooper, Cooper S Hatchback and Convertible
[...]
Brief summary of new "facelift" features or changes on all 2005 MINIs:
[...]
Cooper S engine output raised from 163 to 168hp (@6000 rpm), and torque from 210 to 220Nm ((155 to 162 lb. ft) @ 4000rpm).
[...]
Sean
Parc77
Aug 1st, 2004, 08:11 AM
makes you wonder how true some actual figures are - so the new MCS (170bhp) is actually 168bhp rounded up, dont own a JCW so dont know but although on paper its claimed to be 200bhp Ive seen it quoted as actually being 197bhp.
Are they going the way of the cubic capacity I.E 1962cc rounded up to a 2.0litre?
Seems a bit confusing to tell real figures I.E 2002-2004 MCS 163bhp and then tell us the re-vamped model is 170bhp when its actually 168bhp - did they just round it up to make it sound better?
EBMCS03
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:30 AM
eh??? so whats the real answer??? watch its really still 163HP and they just lied... cuz you cant really prove it at the crank. some 02 or 03s I bet can produce 170HP out of the factory...
RobHardyUK
Aug 1st, 2004, 12:55 PM
i think its cos ppl get muddled up, they normally mean the figures to be "ps"
the focus ST170 is a good example, its actually 168bhp, but 170ps. Tho i will say, every mcs 05 spec ive seen advertised, says 170BHP.
the other thing is, as said above, the 170bhp is mearly a figure gained from the fly, which can never be acurrate, only measurements at the wheels can be accurate. Because, if you got square wheels, you wont have as much power as if you got round ones, if you get me (transmission loss being the colperate in real terms tho, as we never actually run square wheels :p ). Whenever you rolling road a car, you are doing it from the wheels, or the hub, not the fly itself, so its NEVER accurate to state a non-at the wheels bhp.
LMB
Aug 1st, 2004, 01:16 PM
Its the torque you're really interested in and that's 220NM as originally quoted.