MINI Aceman

Which MINI Aceman version to buy (2024–, 1 generation)

The MINI Aceman exists as one generation (from 2024-08-01, production not measured as ended) in one body: SUV 5-doors. There are 2 versions, and both are named AT in the data. They are not interchangeable: distinguish them by output — AT 184 hp (135 kW) versus AT 218 hp (160 kW). Both are Electro / Electro, Automatic with 1 speed, FWD, and CO2 0.

Which MINI Aceman version to buy (2024–, 1 generation)

The MINI Aceman exists as one generation (from 2024-08-01, production not measured as ended) in one body: SUV 5-doors. There are 2 versions, and both are named AT in the data. They are not interchangeable: distinguish them by output — AT 184 hp (135 kW) versus AT 218 hp (160 kW). Both are Electro / Electro, Automatic with 1 speed, FWD, and CO2 0. There is no second generation to compare, so the buying choice is entirely between these two AT versions.

Which MINI Aceman version to buy

Buy AT 184 hp if the goal is the lighter, slower-to-list package: 1720 kg kerb, 7.9 s to 100, 160 top speed, 290 Nm. Buy AT 218 hp if the goal is the stronger figures: 218 vs 184 hp (+34 hp), 160 vs 135 kW (+25 kW), 330 vs 290 Nm (+40 Nm), 7.1 vs 7.9 s to 100 (0.8 s quicker), 170 vs 160 top speed (+10). The extra output is not free of mass: AT 218 hp kerb is 1785 kg, 65 kg more than AT 184 hp.

What the extra 34 hp “buys” on these numbers: +13.8% torque (40 / 290), +10.1% top speed (10 / 160 is not that — 10 / 160 = 6.25%), 0.8 s off the 0–100 time (about 10.1% quicker than 7.9), and 65 kg more kerb (+3.8% vs 1720). Power-to-weight still improves: AT 184 hp is 1720 / 184 ≈ 9.35 kg per hp; AT 218 hp is 1785 / 218 ≈ 8.19 kg per hp. Torque-to-weight: 290 / 1720 ≈ 0.169 Nm/kg versus 330 / 1785 ≈ 0.185 Nm/kg.

There is no displacement figure for either AT, so power-per-litre is not measured and cannot decide the purchase. Cylinders, cylinder layout, valves per cylinder, boost, engine location, and fuel system are not measured on both versions — do not treat either AT as a different combustion layout; the data only labels Electro.

Drive, gearbox type, and gear count do not split the choice: both AT versions are Automatic, 1 speed, FWD. Wheels, suspension, and brakes also match (see dimensions). CO2 is 0 on both. Fuel use (city / highway / combined), tank, ground clearance, gross weight, and eco class are not measured on both, so they cannot pick a winner.

If the only numeric split you care about is time to 100 and top speed, AT 218 hp is the faster catalogue line. If the only split you care about is listed kerb mass, AT 184 hp is the lighter line. Prices are not in this dataset and are not a criterion here.

MINI Aceman generations compared (what changed)

1 generation is the only generation: start 2024-08-01, stop not measured, body SUV 5-doors, 2 versions, both AT. There is no restyling row and no earlier generation, so nothing “changed between generations” except that this generation is the whole catalogue. All version-to-version differences below are inside this generation, not a facelift split.

MINI Aceman specs: AT 184 hp vs AT 218 hp

AT 184 hp: 184 hp, 135 kW, 290 Nm, fuel Electro, engine type Electro, displacement not measured, cylinders not measured, layout not measured, boost not measured, Automatic, 1 speed, FWD.

AT 218 hp: 218 hp, 160 kW, 330 Nm, fuel Electro, engine type Electro, displacement not measured, cylinders not measured, layout not measured, boost not measured, Automatic, 1 speed, FWD.

Power gap 34 hp and 25 kW; torque gap 40 Nm. Same gearbox family and same FWD — the spec table does not give a second driven-axle option.

MINI Aceman performance and mpg (0–100, top speed, consumption)

AT 184 hp: 0–100 7.9, top speed 160, city consumption not measured, highway not measured, combined not measured, CO2 0.

AT 218 hp: 0–100 7.1, top speed 170, city not measured, highway not measured, combined not measured, CO2 0.

The performance choice is therefore 0.8 s and 10 units of top speed, not mpg: mpg / consumption is not measured for either AT, so “which is cheaper to run on fuel” is not measured in this dataset. CO2 does not break the tie (0 and 0). Eco class is not measured on both.

Relative to the lighter AT, the stronger AT is quicker to 100 despite 65 kg extra kerb, which matches the better kg-per-hp figure (8.19 vs 9.35). Top speed still caps 10 above the 184 hp line, not a large multiple of 160.

MINI Aceman dimensions, weight, wheels, tank

Kerb: AT 184 hp 1720; AT 218 hp 1785 (+65). Gross weight not measured on both. Ground clearance not measured on both. Tank not measured on both — there is no fuel-tank size to prefer one AT over the other.

Wheels are the same three sizes on both AT versions: 205/55 R17, 225/45 R18, 225/40 R19. Front suspension Independent, spring on both; rear Independent, spring on both. Front brakes Ventilated disc on both; rear Disc on both. Chassis hardware in this data does not justify picking one AT for “better listed suspension/brakes”; those fields match.

MINI Aceman reliability and problems

Reliability, common faults, and service intervals are not measured in the supplied data for either AT or for 1 generation. Do not infer a “more reliable” AT from horsepower or kerb. The only documented mechanical split is output, torque, 0–100, top speed, and kerb mass.

Bottom line on the two AT versions

• AT 184 hp — lighter (1720), 290 Nm, 7.9 to 100, 160 top speed, 135 kW, 9.35 kg/hp. Same Electro, Automatic 1, FWD, wheels, and CO2 0 as the other line.
• AT 218 hp — stronger (218 hp / 160 kW / 330 Nm), 7.1 to 100, 170 top speed, heavier (1785), 8.19 kg/hp. Same body SUV 5-doors, same generation start 2024-08-01, same unmeasured consumption, tank, clearance, and gross weight.

With 1 generation and 2 versions, the arithmetic choice is: pay the 65 kg and take +34 hp / +40 Nm / −0.8 s / +10 top speed (AT 218 hp), or keep the 1720 kg line (AT 184 hp). Displacement, mpg, tank, clearance, and reliability are not measured and should not be used as if they were listed.