I can't even count the number of times I've heard MINIs being described as 'slow.' Of course, I always presume that this is referring to its straight-line acceleration. But is it really slow in the truest sense of the word, even with respect to 0-60? As in, compared to the average car, MINIs are sllloooooooww. Isn't there such a thing as medium-quick? Does a car have to be characterized as either a Ferrari or a Peterbilt dump-truck when it comes to speed? If the Cooper is Truly Slow, then what does that make my mom's Corolla and a multitude of other ordinary, sedan-like cars out there.

I only mention this because of a short article I read in this week's U.S. News & World Report. It briefly discussed the MINI and how it is represented (or misrepresented as it were) in The Italian Job. I have to admit, this writer got under my skin for some reason. Maybe it was his use of the word 'petite' in describing the car. Whatever it was, I don't think this guy gets it. Right-hand lane my arse!


US News

Yes, I’ll agree with you, slow is a relative term, but I didn’t buy my MCS thinking it was a muscle car.

If you look at Road and Track’s stats page for comparisons of performance between not all, but most cars on the road, the MINI hits both high and low points. In the 0 to 60 test the MCS shows 7.7 seconds making it slower than 95% of the cars tested. On the other hand, looking at the slalom test it runs at a whopping 69.7 MPH, with only 1 or 2 cars in the world faster.

I bought my MCS for handling performance and sheer fun. So the way I see it, I’ve got one of the fastest cars in the world, not slowest.

God only knows how this guy was merging...yeah, if you hit an onramp at 2000 RPM's, it's going to feel slow. I don't care if he was driving and MCS, MC or what. I hit an onramp at over 4500 RPM's, the car has plenty of power if you know where to look and how to drive it.
If you're buying a MINI thinking it's going to blow Porsches off the line, you've got be nuts. Like sndwave said - you get it for the handling and the ability to leave yo-yo's behind in the twisties - or at least watch them desperately try and keep up :smile:

At 7.7 seconds 0-60 I doubt the MCS is slower than 95% of the cars tested. That is faster than any focus, civic, jetta, corolla, beetle... you name it.

I agree the Mini is not a sports car, but I definitely don´t think it is a slow car either. The normal Mini´s 115 hp are not enough on paper, but when you take into consideration weight (power to weight ratio is more important than just power) and the gear ratios, that turns into a very decent performer.

I can smoke my own civic pretty bad (an 01 model with 127 hp) and I have smoked a focus twice (130 hp) with my "slow" 115 hp Mini. On a super highway I´ve reached speeds of over 160 kms/hour (90-100 mph?) and I didn´t have the guts to continue accelerating but the little engine certainly could go on...

the term SLOW is in the mind of the beholder :grin:

Just read the article, and here are my thoughts.

1) This guy needs to learn to shift. It's called a powerband.
2) The MCs and MCSs I know are decidedly "left lane" (in this country, at least).
3) Never have a I had a problem merging on a highway, and I've driven the worst the East Coast has to offer...
4) I could have spent $2k on a rusty big displacement V8, if I wanted to run off at stoplights. As a BWM add once said: "Happiness is not around the corner...happiness IS the corner."
5) Only some of my relatives are 'slow'.

Short take,

Don't get your automotive "news" from a non dedicated source.

AutoWeek
Road & Track
Automobile
Car & Driver
Motor Trend
etc.

seem to think that the MINI isn't "slow". Looks like driver error to me.

I can see this being a hot topic when some reviews the Mini with negative words.

You can also tell he has never driving a Mini which I hate because it's close to slander then. Cutting down a product without even trying it.

The Mini isn't being sold as a sports car, it's being sold as a fun car. And it does this well. I think the Mini is a quick car, And from 20 to 80 it's great. Like everyone here I've never had a problem getting on a highway, or holding my own in the fast lane.

I wish they would compare apples to apples. Not a Mini to a corvette. A Mini to a Focus, Echo, Saturn, Civic is more liek it. And in that class, the Mini shines on speed, top speed, handling and style.

Slow is a relative term and in reality you can make the case that the Mini lacks power compared to the other cars on the road. This is a product of our absurd times. If you told John Cooper that the 2003 Mini Cooper made 115 hp, he would be quite pleased. I'm not sure how he would take the 2,500 lb news, but he would be amazed that the performance version made 163 hp.

However we live in an age where Accords make more power than first generation 928s (and weigh about as much as the portly Porsche) and base Nissan SUV's make 235 hp. Power is out of control and it makes the juiced ball argument in baseball seem like petty whining. If a base MC is slow, what would a 1983 RX7 be? One of the best sports cars of its era, was barely a ten second to 60 car in it's base version and the the highest performance (what was it GSL-SE?) barely made it to the low 8s. The "pocket rocket" Rabbit GTI made 90ho as introduced and did 60 in the mid 9s.

I am currently selling my Miata for when my MCS comes in and the Miata has long carried a reputation as an underpowered, chick car. The Miata is a 2200 lb car with 140 hp engine that goes over 120 mph, does sixty in a shade under 8 seconds and can out handle all but a select list of cars... ever. Compared to the great British roadsters, you need to talk about Jaguar and Aston Martin to get into faster cars. Yet when Subarus make 223 and 300+ hp then it probably would have to be categorized as slow. I think the question has to be, what's fast enough for you?

PS. If I was a guy who didn't know how to drive a stick, I wouldn't be casting aspersions about a car's performance or masculinity.

The MCS is plenty fast - if driven well, and that may be the key here, at least it is plenty fast for me. In fact, it is so fast it can easily get you into trouble! Sure, there are cars that are not electronically limited to a top speed of 136 mph, but who needs that. There are cars who are faster 0-60, but not that many, and certainly not 95% of the cars out there. Most of the small and mid-sized SUVs for example, and even the large SUVs except for those with 8 liter engines at 5 mpg, are slower, and in the US SUVs and trucks account for almost 50% of the vehicles out there. Most of the cars that are faster than an MCS, are faster on straightaways, but not in the twisties.

During our recent track day at TWS, I was surprised at which cars were faster than the MCSs, and which were not. Obviously, the Porsches towered over everything else. The Corvettes were fast on the straightaway, but I was able to keep up with them in the turns (but maybe they were not driven well, although it was also my first track day). But after the Porsches, the next fastes were two Miatas with stock engines and 'only' about 125 hp, but lightened and highly modded suspensions. They blazed around the track! Camaros, Corvette and other 'muscle cars' are typically fast straightaway, but are real slugs in the twisties, and there are lots of cars that would run circles around them, including the WRX STi and EVOVIII.
So, I would say to those that think an MC or MCS is slow: they don't really know how to drive such a car, and/or, they just don't get it!

All that aside, what matters to me is that my MCS is far more fun to drive than any other car I've driven before. Next in line was my old MGB-GT, a slouch by modern standards.

As some have noted above, many of these 'not so positive' reviews I believe are written by some that have either not even truly driven a MINI, or get into it with preconceptions. All true car magazine writers have and continue to laud the MINI in exceptional terms.

But it doesn't bother me if not everyone gets it. That makes us a more exclusive group!


:cool:

>>
>>If you look at Road and Track’s stats page for comparisons of performance between not all, but most cars on the road, the MINI hits both high and low points. In the 0 to 60 test the MCS shows 7.7 seconds making it slower than 95% of the cars tested. On the other hand, looking at the slalom test it runs at a whopping 69.7 MPH, with only 1 or 2 cars in the world faster.
>>

For some reason Road & Track's stats were much lower than other magazines like Car and Driver, Automobile, etc. I can't remember the exact numbers but they usually ranged from 7.0 - 7.4 and one article sited not a lack of power but traction issues (DSC related) for the resulting slower 0 - 60 times than reported by MINI.

Clearly the writer lacks a good concept of how to maximize performance. I'd be happy to provide a demonstration of proper technique for city performance.

>>The Mini isn't being sold as a sports car, it's being sold as a fun car. And it does this well.

Near the first of the year, I picked up an issue of Motor Trend - 2003 Car Issue. The MINI was listed in the Sports Car section.

My Mini is not slow. The morons in front of me are :grin:

im not so sure as to why there is such an emphasis on speed... this article doesnt talk about how speeding is illegal. I think MC has a great speed. And there is no need for people to be driving so fast anyway...movies are not reality!

enough said.

>>im not so sure as to why there is such an emphasis on speed... this article doesnt talk about how speeding is illegal. I think MC has a great speed. And there is no need for people to be driving so fast anyway...movies are not reality!
>>
>>enough said.

It was a remarkable stupid criticism that this journalist would write how his inability to drive in the face of aggressive drivers prevented his ability to drive aggressively. Frankly if this guy can't merge with traffic, I don't want to imagine him changing three lanes in heavy traffic.

The irony is the choice in titles. A problem facing many cities is too many immature punks running out and trying to copy the stunts they see cars do on movies with trained drivers and closed roads and here is this writer trying to do the same thing and then carping when he had a tough time doing it.

I wonder if he thinks that the mechanic in the film REALLY made the cars faster.

His criticism of the MINI wasn't half as bad as what he said about the Evo.
That was harsh enough to suck the soy sauce off a grain of rice.

>>However we live in an age where Accords make more power than first generation 928s (and weigh about as much as the portly Porsche) and base Nissan SUV's make 235 hp. Power is out of control and it makes the juiced ball argument in baseball seem like petty whining. If a base MC is slow, what would a 1983 RX7 be? One of the best sports cars of its era, was barely a ten second to 60 car in it's base version and the the highest performance (what was it GSL-SE?) barely made it to the low 8s. The "pocket rocket" Rabbit GTI made 90ho as introduced and did 60 in the mid 9s.
>>




Teldon -

I can't agree with you more... High HP vehicles are waaaay too accessible today. A sub 8 second 0-60 15 years ago was great - that's practically Minivan territory these days! Combine an inattentive driver with 200+ hp, an automatic tranny, a cell phone, and an ill-handling minivan/suv/family sedan chasis and you have american roads clogged with people driving like whack-jobs. How much HP do you really "need"?

I can't tell you how often a soccer Mom in a Honda Odessey tries to beat me off the line in my MCS... truth is those things are pretty fast off the line - how hard it is to floor an automatic - right? Check out Grassroots Motorsprots ac ouple of months back: they did a test called "Minvan vs Sports Car". It pitted a new Odessy against an early 911 and a Jag xke. Want to guess which one the 0-60, 1/4 mile, and the autocross? The Odessey... it only one the auto-x after some better tires were put on though. However, with that said - the other cars were still much more fun and "race-able."


I bet the guys in the starting grid of Monte-Carlo rally called the original Mini "slow"... we all know how that one ended.
:grin:

>>For some reason Road & Track's stats were much lower than other magazines like Car and Driver, Automobile, etc. I can't remember the exact numbers but they usually ranged from 7.0 - 7.4 and one article sited not a lack of power but traction issues (DSC related) for the resulting slower 0 - 60 times than reported by MINI.
>>

The 0-60 numbers for those who care about them (I don't much) are interesting:
the factory lists 6.9, but many tests show 7.2 to 7.9, for the MCS.
However, quite a few private enthusiasts have been able to reproduce under 7.0 times. Here's how:
MCS, no sunroof, no leather seats (adds weight), 16" V-spoke wheels (the 17" probably add 0.5 seconds), DSC OFF, Auto A/C off, keep rpm at at least 3500 for launch.
Most car mag tests had 17" cars with sunroof and leather, and may not have known about DSC and auto AC.

Not that this matters,
IMHO whjat makes a sports car is handling far more than off-the-line speed.
From a handling perspective, both MC and MCS are true sports cars.

:cool:

Yep, the MC and MCS are indeed sports cars in the true sense of the term. They're light, nimble, and quick. Most things we call "sports cars" today really are more of a "GT" There are many cars the magazines call "sports cars" that weight close to 2 tons! For me the term "sports car" means:

Miata
Lotus elise
Vauxhall 220
Caterham 7
etc, etc

All small, light cars with modest power, but amazing handling.

All of which many people would call "slow" because they have less than 200 hp

well let's just say that the officer who gave me a ticket for "exhibition of acceleration" didn't exactly think my MCS was sloooooooow. I don't normally squeal em in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, but just had my Magnaflow installed and couldn't resist. :grin:

When R&T compared the MCS against the PT Cruiser and Beetle Turbos, they said that the Mini's handling was on par with the Miata and Catherham 7. So I would agree with your list wholeheartedly. I have a Miata now, getting an MCS, now about the Catherham 7.

>>Yep, the MC and MCS are indeed sports cars in the true sense of the term. They're light, nimble, and quick. Most things we call "sports cars" today really are more of a "GT" There are many cars the magazines call "sports cars" that weight close to 2 tons! For me the term "sports car" means:
>>
>>Miata
>>Lotus elise
>>Vauxhall 220
>>Caterham 7
>>etc, etc
>>
>>All small, light cars with modest power, but amazing handling.
>>
>>All of which many people would call "slow" because they have less than 200 hp

>>well let's just say that the officer who gave me a ticket for "exhibition of acceleration"

I've heard of laws against speed, but never a law against accelleration? I wonder if they have one for unlawful decelleration as well? :mad:

To add on to the magazine car test drives, I have two examples of how the same car was evaluated different (same magazine, same cars different tests).

This is Automovil Magazine (Mexican). When they first tested the Focus SVT about a year ago they praised the suspension and handling capabilities of the car, saying it was one of the best handlers they had tested. On their last issue (June) they made a comparo which included again the SVT. This time they said this was a rough car that has severe understeering, rough ride and that it´s an easy car to loose. This sounds very contradictory, right?

Second example, Sentra SE-R. First tested a year and a half ago. Mentioned that at high speeds and under hard braking the tail of the car can get loose very easily, making it a car for "expert" drivers. In the last comparo (which included the SVT Focus) they mentioned this car was excellent for careless drivers because it can forgive all kinds of errors, that the car is a mild understeerer under severe conditions.

What do you think? What I see here is a TEST DRIVER bias. Of course people drive different, and two different testers can make a car handle very different

compared to the orginal cooper S, the reg MC is a screamer. I bought the MCS because of my original love affair I had with the mini in the 70's. I first saw the mini at a SCCA race in my hometown in Oklahoma in the late 60's. I saw it on the track at the same time as vettes, porsches, etc because different classes were on the track at the same time. After watching a couple of laps, my response was "what the hell is that", laugh ! The mini roared through the tight corners catching up to the vettes, mustangs, only to lose ground down the straights, then gaining again through the corners. There was only one long straight on the course and the mini really held it's own. I had a Plymouth Roadrunner muscle car at the time, and it wasn't till I went to to the pits and looked under the hood at the mini that I was blown away, because of the small engine, under 100hp. With the 10 " wheels, the mini was a blast to watch scream around the track against cars far superior in hp. Of course if these cars had been stopped at a light and had a 0 to 60 run, the poor mini would have been blown away, but the fascination was how it used it's advantage through the turns to stay competitive to cars much more powerful. I knew then I had to have one some day, which I eventually did in the mid 70's. The mini turned out to be not the romantic relationship I thought it would be, still incredibly fun to drive through the twisites, but very little sound proofing and the occasional smell of petrol as the english used to say, laugh !

Today's mini is similar....even though the MCS is no rocket for straight away speed, still the same handling fun as the orginal. Those expecting the speed of the rice burners are missing the point of the original mini IMO....the original mini was not for everyone, especially those wanting the speed of the hemis, vettes, etc...just like today's MCS is not for everyone, especially those wanting the speed of the WRX or Lancer...my take is those that were familiar with the original mini that have a mini today are not those trying to get it faster because that it is not what it is about for them, it's those that are expecting the mini to be what it was never meant to be and what they think it should be today...in that regard I think the new mini probably is right on, especially since it has a few idiosyncrazies like the old one with rattles that come and go, laugh !

Thought I would throw my two-cents worth in. Have a 1997 M3 that I've driven about five years now. To me it is a quick car. I wouldn't call my MCS slow, but I wouldn't call it quick either. Just remember the MINI is a Bulldog not a Greyhound. :razz: