[m-tech mini one]

i was just wondering wot the exact differences are between the cooper and the one in relation to the engine and suspension etc?

is it just a different ecu in the one in comparison to the cooper which delivers that extra 25bhp???

[Red & White Cooper 2]

Engine - different ECU. Different exhaust system.

Suspension - ride height lowered by 8mm and rear anti-roll bar added.

Final drive - One 3.556:1 Cooper 3.940:1 - this will increase torque multiplication by 11%, and the engine will be working 11% higher up the rev range at a given road speed.

[Anthony27]

Actually the differences in Bhp are almost completely due to the ECU. The different exhaust gives probably no more than 1 or 2 Bhp extra.

Oh and the One's output is actually 100 bhp and not 90 (see "essentials / superchips test drive" at the top of this page). It's frequent to see that factory given power figures are not always true (with many manufaturers). In this case I suspect they wanted to better distinguish the two cars, to justify the price difference. I'm pretty sure there are no "physical" differences in the engine.

The One is significantly torquier at low revs, and the Cooper is "revvier" above 5,000 (but lacking in torque below 4,000).

Frankly, bar track days and "sporty" driving on country roads, the One is more usable for everyday driving. Except it doesn't have the rear anti-roll bar ... And that's definitely a plus on the Cooper.

I don't need the stiffer and lower suspension; I don't need the bigger wheels. Because they both make the car more uncomfortable than necessary. (Even on impeccably smooth Swiss roads I find myself avoiding the small bumps). But an anti-roll bar for the rear would have been nice, thank you. The One does roll a bit if you start cornering hard.

Does anyone know if this bar can be fitted as an aftermarket add-on? i suspect it would be expensive though...

[Red & White Cooper 2]

Quote:

The One is significantly torquier at low revs,

What is the source of this information? The UK motoring press (Autocar) reported the torque curves were "almost identical up to 3,500" and then the Cooper's was better. Because of the Cooper's lower gearing, the Cooper has better acceleration across the whole rev range.

What Car? is the only UK magazine to performance test both a One and a Cooper. In-gear times measuring low revs acceleration were as follows

30-50 in 5th gear Cooper-11.7sec One-15.3sec

[smiffy]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anthony27
It's frequent to see that factory given power figures are not always true (with many manufaturers)

Very true, found this in Autocar

'Mercedes Benz has been forced to re-certify the power output of the SL55 AMG after tests showed its supercharged 5.4 litre V8 produced 493bhp, 24bhp more than originally quoted.'

[Anthony27]

FAO Red & White Cooper 2 -
Hello there , don't feel offended. It's true. Try driving both and you will see that despite having higher gearing the One feels torquier at 3000 rpm. Oh and i wouldn't trust factory graphs too much... . It's the driving experience that counts.

[Anthony27]

Remember, it's EXACTLY the same engine... just the mapping is different.

[Red & White Cooper 2]

Hi Anthony27,

I don't feel offended - but I don't think we are going to agree on this topic . As an engineer, I'd rather judge acceleration using independently measured times than subjective opinion. Also it doesn't make sense, given the engine IS the same, for BMW to program the Cooper's ECU to produce LESS torque below 3,500 rpm.

[robby]

I have only driven the ONE, but what I would like to know is: does the Cooper accelerate better than the ONE even from very low revs in any given gear? The data I have seen states that the gearing of the two cars is the same and not higher in the ONE. The data section of MINI2 gives the 50-75mph in 5th time as near identical at 14.5 secs for the ONE and 14.4 secs for the Cooper, which suggests that the cars are relying on torque (which are similar at 101 and 108 IBs/ft) at such low revs. Change down a gear (or 2) and the Cooper is substantially quicker, presumeably because the revs are higher and its power advantage is producing the better acceleration.
Are the power curves the same ? ie: do the cars drive the same up to say 5500rpm and then the Cooper's power suddenly kicks in? Is it only a thrashed Cooper that out performs a ONE or is it always noticeably quicker even in high gears at low revs? The reason I ask is that performance figures can seem misleading. My previous car was a Fiesta Zetec S which in a roadtest produces very close figures to the ONE but on the road felt much quicker when accelerating from rest or at say 30mph in 4th where it would surge forward on only touching the accelerator (it didn't seem to continue surging at higher revs though!) I could always roadtest one to find out but I am interested in people's opinions.

[Anthony27]

You're right I just checked some independently measured power curves on th enet and the Copper does give a wee bit more torque even at 3,000 rpm.

Oh and it was measured at 123 bhp instead of the claimed 115.

So my impressions were not true to fact. Which doen't matter. The Cooper still "feels" like it's lacking in torque low down because of the power high up. Whereas the One is more even.

Talking about linearity I think the CVT gearbox (I've tried it) suits the One particularly well. It doesn't rev above 6,000 because it doesn't need to (there's no more power up there). But it keeps the revs around 3,000 even under relatively hard acceleration (bar the kick-down) because that's where there is more torque. And the acceleration is "seamless".

[Red & White Cooper 2]

Anthony - I'm pleased we have come to an agreement. I agree the Cooper's torque is biased towards high revs and this is noticeable when driving. My last car, a 1.6 VW Polo produced its peak torque at only 2,800 r.pm. - so I can appreciate your comments about the One feeling more even.

Robby - As I posted previously and as confirmed on the UK Superchips site, the power/torque curves are very similar up to 3,500 rpm. Beyond that, the Cooper produces more torque/power. The gearbox ratios are the same, but the Cooper has a different final drive ratio. This difference will result in the Cooper accelerating faster than a One even below 3,500 rpm. Of course, the One should be more economical and quieter!

[m-tech mini one]

Does ne1 no how the ride height is adjusted by 8mm??
+
Wot is different about exhaust??
+
Is it possible to add rear anti roll bar??
+
Can the final drive ratios be altered in line with coopers??

[Macsport]

Here is my two pennies worth! As I have been fortunate to have driven all three variants on both the road and on the track here are my thoughts.

The Cooper feels quicker and pulls better from lower down the rev range, but not significantly better. The anti roll bar on the Cooper makes a big difference when cornering hard but once again in normal road conditions this isn't significant.

The reason I bought a ONE over a Cooper was that as an every day car it was a better bet, good to drive with lively performance, cheaper insurance and not so heavy on the fuel consumption. The Cooper is brilliant and if you like driving hard then that is the way to go, but there isn't a huge gap between the performance in every day conditions between the two cars.

Now the Cooper S, well that's a completely different ball game and after playing with one for two days at Rockingham I am very tempted to put a deposit down, but my head has got the better of me - Well for now anyway!

[Red & White Cooper 2]

m-tech mini one.
The exhaust system on the Cooper has an additional intermediate silencer.

Altering the ride height, final drive and adding a rear anti-roll bar will not be easy, and will affect your insurance. Easier to trade in your One and buy the real thing

I don't mean to offend Mini One owners - its a fine car. But if you want a Cooper, it doesn't make sense to me to get a One and then modify it.

[AntH]

Interesting to read the 'measured' power figures of both the One and the Cooper are approx. 10% higher than quoted. I assume that both of these were measured on a rolling road, 'at the wheel', and were then 'corrected' (i.e. fudged!) to get to an 'at the crank' figure. This fudge-factor is used to compensate for transmission losses, which are notoriously difficult to measure. It is normal practice to simply add 20-30% to the measured BHP, and call this the crank bhp. And don't start about the machine automatically calibrating, and measuring coast-down losses - these are also miss-leading. BMW will have hooked the engines up directly to a dyno, and measured true crank BHP, in strictly controlled conditions. Air temperature can make a large difference to measured BHP! 'Independent' tests are useful to measure differences between engines/mods/chips, and to get a feel for the shape of the torque curve. However, using these to say that a car produces more power than the manufacturer states must be seen to be foolish. I can supply a link to someone far more knowledgable on this subject if you want it.....