For anyone shopping for an MCS and trying to decide what wheels to go with, or for anyone thinking about getting rid of your X-lites... here's more proof that 16 is the way to go if you want performance:
This MINI2.com article reviews the JCW MCS, and it is equipped with 16" X-lite (aka V-spoke) wheels, and I quote, "for better handling."

 

Thanks for the 411 !

 

I thought that was a very fair article. The line that I related to most from my driving experience with the JCW was "The power when you're at full throttle is so much more jolting than in the standard S it's just fantastic. "

That about sums it for me.

 

My understanding is that with smaller wheels, you actually get more HP to them.
Any of you TireRack gurus lurking here who could enlighten us?

 

>>My understanding is that with smaller wheels, you actually get more HP to them.


From my limited understanding it's due to two reasons. Both of them are weight related.

First stock 16" wheels and tire combination weighs less than the stock 17" combination.

Secondly it has to do with weight being positioned further from the center of rotation. The 17" have weight further out from the center of rotation as that of the 16". Image lifting a gallon of milk with your arm streached out versus lifting that same gallon of milk with your arm close to your body...

_________________
Happy Motoring!

 

This is exactly why I am not getting the Sport Pack on my MCS.

I will buy the other bits but I do not want the 17" wheels at all!

 

If you put lighter 17" wheels on the car, lighter than the 16" you have more than solved that problem I would think no?

Also, the tires that were on that test car, the run flat Dunlops are not exactly the best tire for that set up don't you think?

 

It's funny, I was looking at 70's era Porsche 911 running 16's. Now if you buy the current 911, 17's are the standard with 18's optional. The Carrera 4S has 18's as standard. I know we're talking two different beasts here, but the current trends for almost all cars are bigger wheels. I do recall though that when the press were given MCS's to test drive, they were running 16's...

 

>>If you put lighter 17" wheels on the car, lighter than the 16" you have more than solved that problem I would think no?


Not necessarily, see item #2. Depends upon how much lighter and in what parts of the wheel it's lighter. Of course this is pure speculation on my part as I don't have the fund$$ to put forth to perform scientific testing of my hypothesis.

 

>>It's funny, I was looking at 70's era Porsche 911 running 16's. Now if you buy the current 911, 17's are the standard with 18's optional. The Carrera 4S has 18's as standard. I know we're talking two different beasts here, but the current trends for almost all cars are bigger wheels. I do recall though that when the press were given MCS's to test drive, they were running 16's...

I think if you have mucho HP, then it really won't matter as much what size of wheels you run. Then the big differences will be in car weight and suspension set-up. If I had a 250 hp MINI, then I'd run 17"s for the looks.

 

Wheel and tire weight is always important. Sure, more HP will help to overcome this added unsprung weight, but lighter tires and wheels make a big difference.

Cutting weight at the wheels is much more crucial and worth more than cutting the same amount of weight elsewhere.

The 17" wheels (i.e. R90) are so damn heavy. I think they weigh about 10 lbs more per wheel. They do look cool, however, but that's the only reason to consider them.

-Jim

 

I would trade my 17" superlights shod with Goodyear run flats @ 9,000 miles for 16" stock x lites to anyone interested. Straight up trade. Anyone in the Chicago or Indy area?

 

>>The 17" wheels (i.e. R90) are so damn heavy. I think they weigh about 10 lbs more per wheel. They do look cool, however, but that's the only reason to consider them.
>>
>>-Jim
Another reason to consider 17" wheels is the ability to put larger brake rotors and calipers on. Many of the best kits will not fit under 16" wheels. I'm selling my stock 16" v spokes and getting 17" (15.5 lb) OZ Superleggera's for this reason

 

I'm not so sure that #2 above applies in this matter on a car that is firmly planted on the road. I can only see where this would apply if the wheel were able to spin freely on the axle, and then yes, angular acceleration would be greater for a wheel whose mass were more centered. But, on a firmly planted vehicle, the mass that must be effectively moved is not simply the wheel - it's the weight of the car itself. So, I contend that the only benefit gained from the 16" wheel can be attributable to its lighter absolute weight. When you look at that milk carton analogy, the 16" and the 17", which have the same diameter with tires, from a complete stop, would be "holding" identical weights when you hit the gas pedal. The benefits of a 16" wheel would only kick in at lower torque levels, as angular momentum would take over and the weight of the car is effectively reduced.

So, to sum up, upon hard acceleration, I cannot see any benefits to having a 16" wheels of the same weight as 17" wheels as long as the effective weight of the car creating tire friction is much greather than the weight of the wheel itself. But, I can see where you would get better fuel economy with the 16" wheels. The 16" wheels would simply allow you to travel further before stopping at starting at identical car speeds, and this is where the analogy of an ice skater who brings the arms inward to increase angular velocity applies.

I could have made this clearer, but it's getting late... :smile:

 

The folks over at EVO magazine (UK Publication) have expressed, several times, their preference for the 16" wheels. Citing overall feel, weight and (their opinion) aesthetics as reasons to go with the smaller wheels. I made my choice for 16" wheels for one reason. I wanted more padding to deal with Colorado roads.