Anyone catch the latest Road and Track comparison test between the Mini, VW and Honda?

JCW Mini comes in 3rd, and is most expensive. GTI wins on best all-around. Mini does take the top honors on driving excitement, handling, and exterior styling, however.

Not a bad showing given the Mini is a bit on the stale side now.

 

What I thought was funny was how R&T went on and on in the February issue about how weight is a performance car's enemy, then they give top marks to the almost 3200 lb GTI. The other thing I would have liked to see was a more specific explanation about what they did not like about the MINI's ergonomics. Personally, I think of the 3 cars, I'd rather have the 911 GT3 RSR in their other comparison test.

 

is that anything that is "non-standard" gets marked down, as they only have the car for a few days, and never get used to stuff. So I'm sure the window controls were always in the wrong place, for example....

The GTI is a new kid on the block, and the Si is a perenial favorite. Wonder why they did the works as opposed to the MCS... Sure costs a lot more.

Matt

 

The mag and TV reviews tend to use the highest prefomance factory model, so even tough you can get more than 210bhp for le$$ from an MCS the JCW is the factory standard, much like they used a GTI not a modded up Golf and the Civic I'm assuming wasn't ricerized (haven't seen this comparison yet, my mian source of TV is torrents of Top gear and Fifth gear).

 

That works for me. What did it lose on, cup holders?

 

I read the test and concluded from what they said that I preferred the MINI.

They almost apologized for placing the MINI third. I think it was mostly because the other two just got major changes that they were ranked above MINI. That and $31,000.

 

$31k!? Holy crap! No wonder the Mini lost. Back in the day, you could get a JCW car (sans brakes) for $26k. That's what my 04 cost.

 

For just north of $20!

But it doesn't come with a Team Craptastic membership......

Matt

 

If the MINI lost on the "Gotta Have It" factor, I'm going to be pissed off. I haven't seen the article yet, so I won't jump to conclusions.

The GTO beats the Mustang in every category every time they test the 2 together, but they put the Mustang ahead using their totally bupkis "gotta have it" points. If the MINI got screwed the same way, I'll never buy another R&T again. I'll stick to the British mags

 

They basically had to use the more expensive JCW, a straight S would have gotten slaughtered in the acceleration tests. As it was, the JCW was just able to hold its own. Also they did have two overall rankings - price dependent and independent - but the rankings didn't change (meaning they were all relatively cheap).

The Mini seemed to be the "purist/enthusiast" choice of the three, but the others were simply better, more practical all-around drivers.... I think that I'd have to agree.

Was very surprised that the Mini came in last on the lateral G and slalom tests, however, even with upgraded 205/40-18 wheels.

 

Surprised me too. I was going to go back and look at what tires they had on all three, it could be a statement of that more than anything.

 

Snapper, were the other cars running runflats? My opinion of the runflats is looooow, even the performance ones (although, admittedly, I haven't driven on them). I wouldn't be surprised if it lost some maneuvering points due to them if the other cars were on regular rubber.

Did the GTI have DSG?

 

?

Matt

 

- Dunlop SP Sport 01 DSST on the Mini, non-run flats on the others (they show they carry spares under the trunk)
- GTI had DSG and they loved it... even commented that the quick/perfect shifts against the sticks erased any slight power/weight advantage of the JCW or Si in the acceleration tests. That's OK with me, I tried a DSG A3 and didn't like it... like to row my own.

TooTall: GTI - Conti Sport Contact 225/40 - 18; Si - Mich Pilot Exalto PE2 215/45 - 17

If it comes down to the tires, then it just really shows how much the other cars have improved, that's fair enough... Seen enough tests of the MCS kicking butt with stock 195/55-16 run-flats. Also, maybe it was just a bad day/tester.... or the "18 wheels are not as performance oriented as we like to believe.... the slalom stats in the back of the same mag show a 1st place capable 69.5mph, and that's gotta be with the 195/55-16 or 205/45-17 run-flats.

 

Well.... ummm.... the wheels did add $2500 to the "price-as-tested" .

 

It was the April issue. They always do an April Fool's feature.

Seriously, you have to look at the test results and determine what is most important to you.

Car and Driver has those silly "gotta have it" factors in their tests and actually include them in the test scores. Pretty easy way to throw a test, I say.

 

Is this comparison test available online anywhere? I'd really like to read it.
Cheers

 

I would beleive the Civic beating the Mini on the slalom, I was behind a test mule and it was killing the on/off ramps. The VW I do not beleive for one nanosecond in Webster's dictonary there is a GTI on the page next to pig, I heard pigs were offended. VW has so screwed up the GTI over the years, if only they could get it right and make a cheep light sporty car again. The original is the best the rest are a slow move toward pigdom.

I am just glad to see a car test that allows a car that has been on the market for more than two years. Anybody else tired of top 10 and car of the year being limited to cars that are new for that year? I mean really most years the best car is either a 3 or a 5 BMW no matter what anybody esle comes to market with those cars are the best.

 

I just got the latest R&T in the mail today and the first article I read was this comparo. I was more than a little shocked too. I thought I had seen similar performance numbers on a review of an MCS to what they got out of a JCW MCS. I'm sure the heavy 18" wheels and tires were a limiting factor for the acceleration and handling tests, as well as putting a big crimp in the pricetag.

Having owned the original GTI (1983) I keep wanting to like the newer ones, but I haven't really considered another one since the A2's were out. Every generation they get a little larger and heavier and they add more horsepower, but don't get much faster due to the extra weight. IMO the Mini is more a true successor (in many ways) to the original GTI, small, lightweight, and nimble on its feet.

-Keith

 

What were the performance numbers from the comparo?

 

Price can quickly tip the scales in these types of Comparo's. They should have run the non-CW S.

 

Somebody posted up scans of the article on autoweek.com:

http://forums.autoweek.com/thread.js...28381&tstart=0

 

If the JCW got the best MPG, the others must really suck down the gas!

Matt

 

These comparos bug me. Cars are like hammers; some are better at certain jobs than others. For somebody looking for an agile commuter that they can take to the track on the weekend, you're telling me the (3300 pound) GTI is the "best" choice of these three? Come on.

 

I know I am biased, but a couple of things anoyed me about this test.

First: without the 18" wheel package the JCW would be cheaper than the GTI, and the difference between 31,376 and 29,405 really isnt that much to begin with.

Second: How was the JCW in this test so much slower through the slalom than previous tests with an MCS?

Third: Nothing in the article said anything about how good that JCW looked in PW/B