+1

 

Why does everyone keep saying this who doesn't own one?

All the auto journalists are reporting 6.2 times for the R56 and 6.3/6.4 for the 06 JCW. Nobody believes them or just dont want too? And I seriously doubt you can tell 0.1/0.2 second difference anyway.

 

First of all I do own one of the two, and spent the afternoon with the other. So while I'm not an auto journalist, I tried to be objective on both. Yes, I prefer the R53, but if you read what I wrote, you'll see there were plenty of things I preferred on the R56--I tried to be unbiased as possible, including on how fast they drove. Drive them both yourself side by side, then post your impressions. Maybe they'll differ from mine, but jeesh, why all the hate for an honest opinion?

Where are you seeing 6.4 on the JCW? I've only seen that on the earlier JCW's, before the gearing change. And I've seen 6.5 for the 2007, with the same testers claiming 1 second faster for the 2007 S over the previous R53 S, but this was an R53 prior to the gearing changes. Where are you seeing 6.2 on the R56? We're going to have to compare apples to apples; like edge said, its going to have to be the same people testing the same cars under the same conditions, as even apparently even altitude can have a serious impact on 0-60 times, at least with the supercharger...

Have you driven both back to back? I have, and I'd be seriously surprised if I'm wrong. Hey, I'm not discounting that I could be wrong, but having driven both, at least I can give an honest impression. Its not like I really care which is faster--I love the car I own, and even if the R56 was faster than my JCW, I'd still stick with my 2006. And I do suspect that the stage I JCW for the R56 will be as fast, if not faster than my current JCW--and I'm totally fine with that!! That's excellent progress, at a much more reasonable price than what I paid to upgrade my car--I'm happy that people are going to be able to get that type of performance relatively easy.

And I can't wait to see the stage II--that's what I really want to see. Now that might get me out of my 2006 JCW....

 

Factory published numbers go as follows: 2006 R53 MCS stock: 6.8 secs (manual) 2006 R53 JCW MCS: 6.5 secs (manual) 2006 R53 JCW GP: 6.3 secs 2007 R56 MCS: 6.7 secs (manual) These are numbers published by BMW. Somehow the argument that a bone stock R56 S is faster than a '05-'05 JCW car or even the GP doesn't seem to jive with the above.

 

One of the reasons I mentioned "credible source" in my previous post is because of the Wall St. Journal review of the new R56 MCS. In the article, the claim of a 6.2 sec. 0-60 time for the '07 MCS was quoted as coming from R & T by WSJ writer Jeff Sabatini, making it faster than both an '06 JCW or GP. I sincerely doubt that Mr. Sabatini spent any time behind the wheel of either of these other cars. I had the following email exchange w/ him:

-----Original Message-----

From: FMS
Sent: Tue 5/1/2007 4:47 PM
To: Sabatini, Jeff

Hey, Jeff.

Pretty low 0-60 numbers for the new R56- is the 6.2 seconds based on
your own runs? The industry (MINI) claims a 6.7 sec. 0-60 for the new
S. Just for interest's sake, have you done any 0-60 runs in an '06 all
JCW (John Cooper Works) MINI S? MINI claims they'll do 6.5 sec, while
the even more lightened and modded MINI GP edges the JCW by a tenth @
6.4, again, according to MINI. If you're getting a 6.2 run w/ a new 177
BHP MCS, then w/ the 210 BHP '06 JCW or the 218 BHP GP one could
rightly expect sub 6 second 0-60 times!"

His reply:

"As it stated in both the article and the accompanying chart, the road test data came from Road & Track. I believe its tests found the straight-line speed of the new Cooper S to be faster than the JCW in every benchmark.

Thanks for reading,
Jeff"

Again, credible is the key word here!

 

Not very credible from here. This also makes me wonder what kind of launches and clutch dumps are needed to make the R56 post 6.2 sec 0-60 runs. The R56 feels faster yes, and the added low end grunt helps. But to say it is faster than a JCW or GP is quite frankly a stretch. I would love to see a head to head comparo as others have said.

 

My problem w/ most of the comparison discussions on this board re: old v. new is that there's very little actual head to head stuff going on, which is why your post is very helpful- an experienced MINI owner DID do a side-by-side!

From a reliable- read credible- source (Gabe, at MotoringFile), there is speculation that the new ECU mapping on the upcoming R56 JCW MCS will bury the '06 JCW acceleration-wise. From what Gabe and most everyone else says about the torque of the '07 MINI, I have little doubt that it's true. In the meantime, I'm much more interested in hearing what experienced folks who have driven both think of actual head-to-head performance.

 

Where do the times come from.

OK R&T ... http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...data_panel.pdf
06 JCW ... 6.3

For the R56 ... http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...pockets_dp.pdf
07 R56 6.2

Same magazine ...

Now as to "dumping the clutch", its fairly well known that some magazines abuse the cars more than others. If you look at C&D, they usually have quicker times. R&T is more conservative.

Go read the Elise forums. C&D o some magazine was getting 4.4 0-60 times. Owners were complaining they could not get anywhere near that time, closer to 5.1 or more. The reason, some magazines dumped the clutch at 8K. Not something most normal people would do to their car.

Another thing to consider is some car companies underrate their times ... just like in the Muscle Car Era, HP ratings were under the published ratings simply for insurance purposes. I'm not saying MINI underrates its times. Edmunds, for example, I believe was getting 7.1 or so for a 06 MCS, close to the published MINI time. Porsche tends to underrate them and the cars must be properly broken in. For example, a 997S is published as 4.6 second. R&T in their "best sports car" a year ago pulled 3.9. If you read the article they could not believe it so put it on the dyno and it all checked out. They attributed it to the fact most car mags get new cars, not properly broken in, and this test car had 5K miles on and the engines get stronger when properly broken in. I would not always believe what the car maker says. The other thing to consider is the QC of the engines. MINI QC is not exactly the best. People on MINI2 have claimed dynoing many OEM cars and getting a wide variance in HP ... you could get one on the bottom of the curve or one at the top of the curve. I really doubt they ensure every MINI has exactly 172 bhp (or whatever).

I had a 04 JCW, probably accelerated slower than the 05/06 because of gearing but the car was not fast by any means. I doubt it was a 6.5 car.

Its easy to find the performance figures from the magazine, just look them up

 

I have driven two R56's one stock and the other with intake and exhaust. I have also have driven R53 JCW's and my own car with $11,000 worth of motor mods and crap. In the real world, the R56 is a very underated car I would bet $1000 buck it would beat a stock R53 JCW, this is a fact. I know that bothers alot of people and even me because I own an R53. I was amazed on how quick the R56 took off with very little effort. I also have raced an R56 about 25 times and I beat it every time but I also have about 45whp more than a typical JCW. I beat the R56 but not by that much (2.5 car lengths). I'm sure with an ECU, downpipe and boost control I will be the one looking at the back of an R56. When I raced a R53 JCW's I beat them by 9 car lengths.
What does this mean, it means I have spent way toooo much money in my car and I will not be beaten by an R56 with only $3000 dollars worth of mods, and this why I'm going down to Fireballed tomorrow, to test drive their Turbo R53 (310whp). Soon I will be throwing away my supercharger for a Garrett turbo.
I love my car and the R56 is growing on my.
Mario

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree until some more direct numbers/comparisons come out. I can honestly say though that when I took the R56 out, I expected it to be a bit quicker than it was, given what I'd read. This isn't meant as a knock--it's a great car, and significantly quicker than a stock MCS, which I fully expected, but I'd have a hard time believing its quicker than my JCW, at least from what I experienced Monday.

Again, I wouldn't bet against the Stage I, even with less horsepower (but with all that torque), being quicker and faster than the 2006 JCW, and the Stage II should be very, very interesting.

 

Mario,

I must add that my R56 was buit on a Wednesday

 

I will take overall driving experience over a a slightly faster car. I just love the Supercharger whine and the look and feel of the 2002 - 2006 models. I am not saying the the 2007 models are bad in any way they are just a bit different. I think the 2007 models lost some of the rally car expereince that attracted me to the mini.

This is just my opinion

 

The R53 JCW is really not that speacial, really all it is is a stock Mini with an exhaust, pulley and a poorley designed intake. When I first bought my R53 I added a Pulley, intake and exahust, and I was dead even with two JCW's. Mini claims the JCW has a head but it is really just a cleaned up stock head. You guys have to let go of the past and move foward.
I hate to say it but the JCW is a stock mini with $800 worth of mods, nothing to brag about. I have spent thousands and my car is ok fast.
Mario

 

I don't understand the first sentence. SInce R&T has tested both cars and the R56 tested slightly faster, is that not "direct numbers"??? Or maybe you think R&T is not a reliable automotive resource? What do you need to believe it?

As to the second sentence, if its only a tenth or 2 tenths quicker, I seriously doubt your butt dyno (or anyways) is going to feel that.

 

This is a great post. I love how defensive folks get about their cars. I had an '03 MCS. I loved it, but thought it was a slug, especially with the tall first gear and drive-by-wire launches. Replaced it with an '06 JCW. Quite a premium in cost, but between the '06 gear ratio update and the JCW enhancements, I am now able to enjoy my car. Is it FAST? Well, not compared to cars that I typically think of as fast, such as sub-six second 0-60 machines. So, I guess this whole "fast" mini cooper thing boils down to people's subjective interpretation of fast. What I can say is, my '06 JCW MCS, which I really, really love, is not very fast, unless of course, we are comparing it to a 1979 VW rabbit diesel. It's supercar fast, then.

 

Wow, an '07 came up just a little short versus the owne'rs JCW.
I am suprised the newbie did so well.

 

I've taken in car video of my car accelerating, and watched back with a stopwatch. Certainly not the most scientific way to do it, but every time I timed the video, I came up with the same numbers (within a1/10 of a second). also see this link:
http://www.ross-tech.net/andy/mini/d...artermile.html

Look under the 14 sec 1/4 mile range and you will see stock JCW's in the low to mid 14's, mirroring my own achievment.

 

Chow4US, those are R and T tests, but they're not truly head to head--same track, but different drivers, different days, although conditions appear to be fairly close. Close, but not quite what I'm looking for.

I suspect from all this the two are closer than I thought. We'll need a direct comparison, same day, same conditions, same driver to sort it out definitively.

 

True ... you want the same driver, same conditions, etc.

However, since other magazines have gotten the same results. I'm going to bet the results will not be much different. R56 is consistently shown just a bit quicker than an 06 MCS JCW consistently across magazines.

 

There is simply not the same level of believability, and a car magazine should be the first to admit this, unless comparisons are done same day, same track, same driver, like most any comparison articles. None of the ones claiming R56 superiority have been done that way, and none are coming from experienced '06 JCW drivers. More humidity, higher or lower temp and the supercharger performance will vary-not the case w/ a turbo, which gives the R56 a bit of a bump in the face of temperature changes. That being said, what doesn't vary is that the '06 R53 JCW has 33 more horsepower and an improved gear ratio over anything previous. It's not about being defensive, it's about actual head-to-head results. If I test drive an R56 and find it outquicks my JCW, I'm going to be very interested in making an upgrade, but no one in an '06 JCW has had that experience yet- they all say the JCW has the edge. No mistake, however, a remapped ECU on an R56 will be formidable, I'll concede on that one sight unseen.

 

The R53 JCW GP, if memory serves, hit 0-60 in 5.7 seconds.

Anyone who thinks a bone stock JCW or MCS is fast, go drive a Mazdaspeed 3, an STi, an Evo, a Mustang GT, a GTO, a Cayman, a 335i, etc.

I've driven an R56 and a 06 JCW. The R56 is torquier, but the JCW feels quicker. In reality, they are probably the same.

The tuning potential of the new turbocharged mill should be revealed within the next year or so. Then people can compare and R56 JCW and an R53 JCW. My money is on the R56........

 

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

"Fast" can be defined in many ways. Yeah, straightline a stock R53 is gonna get chewed by a Mustang, GTO (Australian muscle car ), Speed3, et al. It's not what we bought these cars for, if we did we're not real bright...But try following a R53/R56/hell even a R50 on the Dragon in a Stang and you'll get left behind to wallow in all your Shelby goodness.

 

Yo Skip ... where did you find that number? You got a URL?

How you doing?

Fair point on the mustang ... different kind of car that does what it's intended to do ... Modern muscle car.

 

My bad Art - it's 5.9 seconds - here's the link:

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...ecs-page2.html

Things are going well - busy - but well.

Still loving the CS?

 

I'll be the first to admit there is a fair amount of absurdity arguing 0-60
times on the MINI, as its not particularly fast, and I agree with you, thats not what we bought it for. If so, in this price range, we'd all be driving Elise's (Heck, I might get an Elise down the road too, but not as an everyday driver).

Funny thing about the Mustang though--one of my friends bought a 2005, when they just came out (It was the V-6 though, not the GT). White, very nice looking car. I told him I was going retro too, and bought my Mini. After I had the JCW engine kit, we got a chance to tool around the track a bit--he knew next to nothing about MINI's, and just assumed I'd never be able to keep up with him. I just bit my tongue for the months it took for us to get the cars side by side--all the subtle digs at my MINI, how the Mustang was a real man's car, etc., etc.

He was all excited to get blue vipers for his Mustang; that was next on the to do list. Then we got the cars out. Not only is he losing the idea of the viper stripes, he's losing the Mustang (Its already sold). Couldn't stand the thought of his baby getting thrashed by a little 4 cylinder MINI, which is exactly what happend (the fact that it was a road course with turns out the wazoo did't exactly help matters). He's got an SLK on the way. His wife still isn't speaking to me.

I'm thinking about taking some serious drivers courses, because I think if I can hang with his SLK, I might be able to get him into a Ferrari...