2007 MINI Cooper S, 19000 miles

[lemming]

Originally Posted by John V

It's a lot faster than the R56, which is nice. But I have complaints. The gearing is really wonky. I think it does 50-something MPH in second gear, which is silly. The car is a torque monster. It should be geared taller. The other issue is fuel economy. For a small turbo four, it's not good. The engine is also pretty noisy.

As a result of all that, I'm shifting constantly when driving the car. And the shifter isn't great. It's heavy and very notchy and does not like to be rushed.

Final complaint is the powerband. From what I've learned about the car, Mazda used a small turbo to allow for fast boost generation. It pretty much is done for by 5,500 RPM. I think the redline is 6,500 (ish) but the car doesn't like to rev up there. And even with the small turbo, it takes some time to come online. Not much is available under 3500. So the powerband is pretty narrow. It feels as though our 1.8T jetta has a broder powerband. I get full boost (15psi) at just 2,500 RPM and it holds almost all the way to redline. Obviously the MS3 is stronger, so maybe that fat midrange is deceiving me.

As far as the handling goes, it doesn't really compare to an R56. The MS3 is a heavy car, over 3,100 lbs. Lots of that is on the nose. Narrow tires. Tall CoG. Struts. Do the math. It's got great Mazda steering feel and good directional stability, but it isn't what I'd call nimble or tossable.

It's still a very fun car to drive. It's comfy, fast, absurdly cheap, reliable, and it has a ton of space to haul things which has been very handy of late. But some days I think we would have been better off buying her a used E46 330 or an E92 328/330.

i drove the speed3 extensively, so i remember these things (vaguely). the only thing i wanted for in the R56 was more top end, but obviously that foolish given its low end and midrange power.

there were times when i wanted "more" highway passing (military grade) power and you know, you can hear the engine just straining and giving you all the boost its got to get there. those were the (many) times i wished for more displacement or an added turbo.

the speed3 has that military power for highway cruising and passing. i think the R56 is much better suited for stop and go commuting (less weight, more immediate turbo power), but those moments of open road.....

[TD]

When I've driven the MCS, I've thought it could really use 10-15% more power. But, really, that's not what the car is about. There's a balance to it as it is. And that is what you appreciate (or don't, as the case may be).

[lemming]

Yeah. I know. I agree with you, TD.

The 135 is slightly on the wrong side of the balance, but I'm happier just a smidgen on this side if the equation. The one thing people miss is how great the short wheelbase is on the mini. It makes a huge difference.

[JST]

Originally Posted by TD

When I've driven the MCS, I've thought it could really use 10-15% more power. But, really, that's not what the car is about. There's a balance to it as it is. And that is what you appreciate (or don't, as the case may be).

There are always tradeoffs. The JCW has a nice jolt of extra power that really wakes the car up, but the tradeoff is a weaker low end (or perhaps just the perception of a weaker low end). It's not substantial, but it's there, and it takes away a little from the point-and-shoot nature of the MCS that is one of its main virtues.

More displacement would solve this...but more displacement would likely mean a bigger, heavier engine, beefier drivetrain and suspension bits, increased weight, decreased balance, and on and on.

Aside from the torque steer that you get in full throttle corner exits, the MCS is just about perfect for me, dynamically. I wouldn't change much of anything.

[TD]

Originally Posted by lemming

Yeah. I know. I agree with you, TD.

The 135 is slightly on the wrong side of the balance, but I'm happier just a smidgen on this side if the equation. The one thing people miss is how great the short wheelbase is on the mini. It makes a huge difference.

I think we are all looking for someone to make a small, light, RWD, high-powered slot car that is neither ridiculously priced nor absurdly impractical.

EDIT- And at least kind of attractive.

[ZBB]

My wife had an '02 MCS, so an R52. It was a blast to drive, although it had a power gap under ~2500 rpm or so where it was very sluggish. Other than that power gap, we never felt that it was underpowered.

We tested an R56 Clubman S about ~20 months ago. The newer engine solved most of that power gap issue -- it felt like more torque was avail lower in the RPM range. It also felt more refined overall -- not as much road noise in the cabin for example.

[SARAFIL]

Originally Posted by ZBB

My wife had an '02 MCS, so an R52.

R53

[ZBB]

Originally Posted by SARAFIL

R53

Thanks for the correction. Its been gone for over 4 years now and my memory isn't what it used to be ;-)

[SARAFIL]

Originally Posted by ZBB

Thanks for the correction. Its been gone for over 4 years now and my memory isn't what it used to be ;-)

It's confusing, I'll admit.

R50 = Cooper
R52 = Cooper and Cooper S Convertible
R53 = Cooper S (why does this get its own "R" number when both of the convertibles have the same one?)

I wonder what the R51 was?

[TD]

Originally Posted by SARAFIL

I wonder what the R51 was?

Up through the E39, BMW skipped very few E #s in terms of vehicles that were actually produced. Since then, they seem to skip many more than make it to market.