Chrysler has taken full ownership of the Tritec joint-venture engine plant it operated in Brazil with BMW. The 1.4L and 1.6L engines were used in the first generation of the BMW-built MINI and overseas-market versions of the Dodge Neon and Chrysler PT Cruiser. BMW replaced the unloved engines in the new MINI with a unit developed with Peugeot, while Chrysler is now using its new global four-cylinder engines developed and shared with Mitsubishi and Hyundai. Chrysler now has to decide what to do with the plant. It will probably be sold off, with both Russia's AutoVaz and China's Lifan reportedly interested.
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]
Follow the Audi Mileage Marathon starting Monday morning
Paris 2008: MINI Crossover Concept
Paris 2008: Aston Martin One-77 (partially) revealed
Paris 2008: The GT by Citroen. No, the whole thing this time
Paris 2008: Lamborghini Estoque LIVE
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 2
By the Numbers - September 2008: Nobody Wins Edition
Autoblog attends the 26th Annual Newport Beach Concours d'Elegance
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
JC3 @ Jul 13th 2007 6:37PM
Chrysler should do a mini competitor.Heck Honda's gonna come out with the new CRX ,Toyota's probably gonna do the Endo .American car co.'s need to get with it and build a small car that's hip too.What's the plan?
Jason @ Jul 14th 2007 10:35AM
If someone wants to build a retro-styled American small car, they should resurrect the Studebaker marque and build a new-retro Lark, and perhaps even a new Avanti, if they can wrestle the rights to that car away from the company that builds the current abomination that wears the Avanti badge. Chrysler should be the company to do this, as they already have Studebaker grilles and headlights in their partsbin, courtesy of the 300.
Don @ Jul 16th 2007 4:46PM
From what I've read, Lifan (China) had a tentative agreement to buy the Brazilian Tritec plant and move the tooling to China where they'll use the Tritecs in their own small cars.
MrChips @ Jul 13th 2007 6:48PM
Maybe BMW didn't lose any love for the Tritec (in fact they always hated the fact that they had a Daimler Chrysler engine in a BMW branded vehicle) but to say the engine was "unloved" is wrong.
Lots of people LOVE the Tritec. I'll take a good old iron-block Tritec anyday over one of those new-fangled aluminum abominations that PSA and BMW designed for the new MINI. Why, you ask? I like an engine that can be modded, and everyone, even BMW themselves, is scratching their collective heads over how to get anything over 200 HP out of those new PSA "Prince" engines. Meanwhile there are about a zillion ways to get that little Tritec trooper up to amazing amounts of HP/Torque.
Little Lord Poopy-Pants @ Jul 13th 2007 7:28PM
Oh bloody h..., more of the same editorializing without facts.
I just searched articles about the Mini, and I saw no reviewers conclude that the Tritec was "unlovable", or evidence that it became "unloved". In fact, the consensus was it - especially the forced induction version - was the bee's knees. I dare say any criticism of the Tritec is BMW slighting former partners to keep their "precision engineered" aura to themselves. Those germans do that boody well often enough, but why did Autoblog buy into it?
Research my good man, research!
Imp @ Jul 13th 2007 8:30PM
Mr Chips, seems BMW has figured out how to beat the 200 hp barrier you claim exists with its new engines ... I read today that next September will bring a new JCW with 212 hp.
I'll ignore the facts that the new engine is more powerful and has better fuel economy over your preferred Tritec..
Barney @ Jul 13th 2007 11:04PM
Did everyone not read this part of the article:
Chrysler now has to decide what to do with the plant. It will probably be sold off, with both Russia's AutoVaz and China's Lifan reportedly interested.
It makes no matter about the engines built there.
Little Lord Poopy-Pants @ Jul 14th 2007 10:55AM
Well, yes, of course, Barney. But the issue isn't what is being reported as much as how it is being reported. Mis/uninformed editorialization is always an abominiation, and unless the reported intended to say it was BMW who did not love the engine (which is may be true but not what the article conveyed), the reporter simply - and seriously - mischaracterized the item produced by the Brazilian plant. That is sloppy reporting and we called him out on it.
Barney @ Jul 14th 2007 3:00PM
"the reporter simply - and seriously - mischaracterized the item produced by the Brazilian plant."
I understand that, but question as to why the plant is being closed. If the engine is/was desirable then where is it being produced now. Obviously if it was a gem, the engine would not meet it's end and I question as to why the plant is being sold as real estate.
Little Lord Poopy-Pants @ Jul 14th 2007 7:36PM
Barney. You contradict yourself. If it "makes no matter about the engines built there", it follows that a decision about a plant (or any other asset of a business) may be made independently of the product or service performed with the asset, or the quality of that product or service. (In other words, it is entirely NOT obvious that an engine would not meet its end if it was a "gem".)
I agree, one should question who, what, where, why and how. That is why this post was substandard. The story about the plant closing was independent of the story about the product produced there, but the writer editorialized about the engine anyway. The real story is that the plant was closed, and why.
A plant might be closed and the engine program cancelled because the engine was no good, or because, for example: the plant owner received an offer for the facility that was greater than the present value of the income stream to be derived from it; because tooling was depreciated and/or at the end of its useful life and a better rate of return on capital could be achieved by investing in something else; because of labor unrest; because a contract with a patner or other supplier (e.g., BMW) required it; because the plant's output did not fit with the owner's current marketing or production plans; because of a tax policy issue in a foreign jurisdiction; because of a currency or exchange rate issue with the foreign jurisdiction; because the sale at this time would generate a gain that could be offset by a loss in the same fiscal year; becuase of political considerations in the foriegn jurisdiction; becasue of political considerations within the asset owner's organization; because of corruption; because of mismanagement.
So many folks forget that while cars are cool and many have some sort of intrinsic or special value to owners and enthusiasts, they are simply an industrial product produced by a complex bureaucracy that must cater to many internal and external constituencies.
In other words, a plant may get closed even if the engine it produces is a "gem". GM conspiracy theorists aside, a plant may even be closed if the engine it makes is NOT a gem.
But in any case, the reporter needs to do more than editorialize with an opinion (in this case, about the "unloved" engine) that might be supported by a player in the story but which is not otherwise supportable. And the press of the MINI simply did not say that the engine was "unloved" or "unlovable". No one questioned the newsworthyness of the plant closing, but we did question the unsupportable editorial comment.
flatlander @ Jul 14th 2007 4:45AM
Meh. I've got a Cooper S with the old engine and, while not overly refined, it is definitely lovable. That's not to say the new engine won't be an improvement in many ways. It's kind of like the exhaust note;. maybe it is more refined now, but that doesn't mean the old noise was not lovable. I'm with MrChips on another issue, the old engine apparently was easier to tune.
A lot of people want all cars to be the same (whisper quiet, non-intrusive, inoffensive, and they generally don't want any any reminders that they are actually driving). Me? Not so much. I love the way my MINI howls and burbles and all that - it's visceral and seriously fun.
British_Rover @ Jul 14th 2007 11:45AM
I loved my 2004 MINI Cooper S with the Tritec. Yes the engine was a little heavy and yes it doesn't rev as well as some other engines but it was a good engine.
Most of the people that complained about the Tritec were either BMW people who hated that it was part DCX design or were simply misinformed.
So which one of those is the writer of this article?
MikeW @ Jul 15th 2007 11:06PM
Who doesn't love Valvetronic and variable valve timing?
Who doesn't love direct injection and turbocharging? overboost and variable intake valve timing.
calebe @ Jul 16th 2007 9:11AM
I have to admit, when I first heard that the engine in my mini was going to be co designed with Chrysler I had a chill run down my spine. While the Chrysler 2.0Lwas good at making power and fuel economy, it was not a reliable engine. It was about as refind as the old 2.2L Chrysler. When I saw the 1.6L it had a similar look. And yes it is not as smooth as a japanese engine. I no longer worry about repeated head gasket failures as my engine has been trouble free. knock wood. I'm sure the Russians or the Chinese will buy the plant and take it back to their country. As long as parts are available for the Mini owners ten years from now, I dont really care who gets the plant.
Mark S @ Jul 16th 2007 11:17AM
And now the story comes out that the Hornet concept was built on a MINI Cooper S. Curiouser and curiouser.
antonio311 @ Jul 16th 2007 6:24PM
I have to disagree with Calebe, the Chrysler 2.2 and the Chrysler 2.5 were the most reliable domestic 4 cylinder engines ever made. As a matter of fact most 2.2's went over 150,000 miles without having a problem. The 2.2 turbos were also reliable, but of course near the 100,000 mile mark it was a good idea to have the head gasket replaced (as with any high compression engine). Also i'd much rather have an engine with an iron block than an aluminium bock. It may be heavier but it won't warp over time.