Just wondering if anyone has experience with pre- and post-05 gear ratios mated to an engine in the JCW range of hp and torque. I'd think the closer ratios of the early transmission would be preferable, but maybe not.

 

Wow, no opinions on this?

 

If you could choose between pre- and post-05 gearing for a 200hp car that you would drive hard on the street and track occasionally (no auto-x), which would you choose?

Just looking for some informed opinions. Thanks!

 

I haven't driven an 02-04 JCW, so my opinion is one-sided. I LOVE my 05 - it's a rocket. You'll have a much harder time finding someone who has owned or driven BOTH an 05/06 and a pre-05/06 JCW, although I'm sure that some are on here.

I suspect that in all cases, except for gas mileage, that the 05/06 gearing is preferred (performance-wise), regardless of whether you have JCW or not.

Case in point... people have said that a factory stock 05 MCS feels just as fast as an 04 MCS JCW. The gearing change (combined with the small HP bump for 05s) makes a HUGE difference.

 

Thanks, Edge. You're probably right that there aren't too many people who have driven both in 200hp cars - just hoping I might find a couple. My gut says the wider gaps between the lower gears in 05-06 would be a step in the wrong direction, assuming you have enough low-end torque.

 

The gear ratios of the 05/06's are not spaced wider the spacing is approx. the same, each gear is just lower.

 

This was ripped form the other current thread on the MCS transmission, 5sp. to 6sp.

From MINI2 FAQ:

Builds through 06/2004:
Gear Overall Ratio
1 11.425
2 7.181
3 5.397
4 4.407
5 3.656
6 2.986

Builds from 07/2004:
Gear Overall Ratio
1 12.789
2 7.793
3 5.651
4 4.615
5 3.828
6 3.126

 

Thanks. Guess I got some bad information. I thought I read that they had dropped 1st by something like 12%, 2nd by 8% and 3rd by 4% with 4th-6th unchanged. That would space them out wider down low.

Is that definitely not the case?

 

It is definitely not the case.

 

Thanks a lot!

 

Minor grumble... he said he ripped it from the other thread but didn't say who from.

 

I'm curious. Although I have neither the newer gen ratio nor a JCW, I'm wondering what is your rpm in sixth gear at 80mph?

 

I'll tell you tonight based on my commute home if someone doesn't beat me to it

mb

 

Sorry Edge.

 

mbcoops might beat me with the 80mph measurement, but I have the 60mph measurement for you... thanks to this thread:

2002-2004 MCS: 2300rpm in 6th gear (measured by JCW Driver)
2005-2006 MCS: 2500rpm in 6th gear (measured by yours truly)

All is forgiven. I was just a bit miffed since I took the time to transpose the numbers. I couldn't cut and paste easily, it would have been messy (there's much more data on the MINI2 FAQ, with tire fitment speed numbers, etc.).

 

I have an 05 MCS/JCW, and my buddy has an 03 MCS with a 15% pulley, exhaust, cold air intake, lightweight wheels, and non-runflats. We both agree that my car accelerates quite a bit stronger than his. Both of us greatly prefer the 05 gearing. Both of us live in the NW Ga mountains, so we appreciate hill climbing ability. We're considering trying swapping wheels to see if we can tell a difference between my S-Lites/runflats vs his lightweight setup. My guess is that it'll be repeatable and reproducable with a stopwatch or G-Tech, but not obvious from driving it.


Rawhyde

 

Update on myself. 80mph measurement, 2005-2006 MCS: 3300rpm in 6th gear. :smile:

 

Damn, I got 3,500 rpm in 5th at 80mph in an 05 mcs. Tire diameter? Eye problems? In any event, it's somewhere around there.

mb

 

So, actually, these numbers line up exactly with what I had read earlier. The new ratios are spaced wider between 1st-2nd and 2nd-3rd by 3.4% and 3.8%. Gaps above 3rd are all the same, although ratios are 4.7% lower.

(Sorry if this table doesn't line up well.)

[size=2] 02-04 05-06 Diff
----------------------
1 11.425 12.789 -11.9%

2 7.181 7.793 -8.5%

3 5.397 5.651 -4.7%

4 4.407 4.615 -4.7%

5 3.656 3.828 -4.7%

6 2.986 3.126 -4.7%[/size]

So, if your numbers are correct, then the earlier box "definitely" has closer ratios down low.

What sayest thou now, Lord Abbett?

 

Must be my 215/40 tires...I get around 4200rpm at 80 in 5th...sweet spot:smile:

 

XAlfa... I did own a 197 hp 2004 with jcw tuning, and now own a 207 hp 2005 jcw tuned car... I initially pondered that the jcw 207 hp may be better matched to the 2002 to 2004 gearing, but had to get that LSD available in the 2005, thus the reason for my trade (didn't want to spend $3k for a quaife and void the tranmission warrenty)... After owning both, and driving the 2004 about 13k, and the 2005 now with almost 7k, I think the gearing is not really an issue, meaning the 2005 gearing with JCW just makes the car that much faster (a bit more more beast like but OK), pulls great and it feels fine, not geared incorrectly. Both run about 3k at 70 mph if I remember correctly... In thinking of this, the question you pose appears the same for 2002-2004 cars with a 15% pully and the 2005 with 15% pully...

 

I'm sorry, I'm an idiot, I meant 6th

mb

 

Well, since our tachs don't have lines except for on the thousand marks, it's subjective. It might have been 3,350 or 3,400... but I am pretty sure the needle was left of center between 3,000 and 4,000.

I know. :smile: