Just one more reason I didn't get an S- my insurance is already at risk w/ just my regular Cooper!!!

 

I agree. I now have 2 tickets within 3-4 months. What kills me, 1 I really should have gotten, I was playing around. The second, the MC was just cruising at 63 in a 45 (it was just such a smoth ride I didn't know how fast I was going). Without a doubt both cars can get you into serious speeding tickets (both well get 110+ without much problem).

 

Try powering out of a curve at a higher RPM, like 5000RPMs. You'll really "power out".

 

>>Of course the MINI CVT is faster off the line...its computer controlled shifting and can find the best target speed and gear ration as soon as you press the pedal.


Well if thats the case then why is the CVT Cooper about 1.5 seconds slower to 60 ?

 

I don't think neither is faster than each other, at least from standstill. The only "Seat of the pants" difference that I can tell between the Cooper CVT and the MCS is that the latter feels torquier and accelerates a bit more effortless than the Cooper, but not necessarily "Faster".

I think people concentrate too much in Horsepower and how fast it pulls in a straight line, but to me the main difference between the MC and MCS is torque.

Of course high up in the power band the MCS will have a clear advantage but be warned that the Cooper CVT is a pretty darn fast car specially in Sport Mode or Steptronic modes.

 

I was thinking of this thread while driving my MCS with a bunch of other MINI owners last weekend, and about the SVT vs. manual question.

I've always thought that it made sense for the MC to be faster off the line, and to have more pull at low rpms than the MCS. You've got different pistons in the MC that give it higher compression (something like 10:1 for the MC vs. 8:1 on the MCS). So until the MCS starts to get enough boost from the compressor, to offset its lower compression, the MC will have a torque advantage. All other things being equal (little or no compressor boost), higher compression equals more low-end torque. The MCS is rated for more horses than the MC, but you'll only see that advantage as the compressor comes on at higher rpms.

Then there's the difference of CVT vs. the manual 6-speed. Last weekend, if I wanted to keep up with an SVT/MC on a steep uphill, I had to downshift and grab some rpms. All the SVT driver had to do was press the accelerator. Normally, I wouldn't bother downshifting, since the MCS has enough torque to accelerate uphill, but if "keeping up" was an issue, I had to. Of course the CVT owner was downshifting too, but it wasn't a conscious action, just the normal operation of the CVT. So, its easy to see how the CVT/MC would *seem* faster in this case.

I haven't driven an SVT yet, but my impression is that, in sport mode, it?s just easier to use than a manual, and probably delivers about the same performance for a skilled driver. In non-sport mode, it would be even easier, and skill isn't an issue.

So, if you like the tactile feedback and satisfaction of a "good shift" (breaking with downshift into a corner, then gas and upshift coming out), get a manual. If that's not an issue, get a CVT.

As for MC vs. MCS... Assuming equally skilled drivers in both cars, and the same type of tranny in both cars, The MC may best the MCS if there are enough hard hairpins that bring the MCS below 3500 rpms in 1st gear, and if there are not enough straights for the MCS to catch up. Otherwise the MCS has an edge. The MC shouldn't pull the MCS out of other turns if the MCS driver is using his tranny right, and keeping his engine in its power band.

 

>>I was thinking of this thread while driving my MCS with a bunch of other MINI owners last weekend, and about the SVT vs. manual question....

>>Then there's the difference of CVT vs. the manual 6-speed. Last weekend, if I wanted to keep up with an SVT/MC on a steep uphill, I had to downshift and grab some rpms. All the SVT driver had to do was press the accelerator....

>>I haven't driven an SVT yet, but my impression is that, in sport mode, it?s just easier to use than a manual, and probably delivers about the same performance for a skilled driver. In non-sport mode, it would be even easier, and skill isn't an issue.


SVT? What does the Special Vehicle Team have to do with MINIs or this thread? Are we talking MINIs, Mustang Cobras or the Focus here????

 

He is talking about the CVT. For some reason he kept typing up "SVT" when in reality he meant "CVT".

 

has everyone gone mad? If an automatic was better for autocrossing than why would every racecar you see have a stick? This includes Nascar, Indy, touring series, scca races etc, etc. Besides once you start modifying, the MC doesn't have the potential of an S by a long shot. Except for maybe the first 50ft the MCS will take the MC in every aspect. In my experience of autocrossing i have not seen a MC owner beat an MCS yet. Granted only 4 races but there were multiple MCS and MC's racing. I dunno they are both great cars, do we really need to start an argument. I haven't seen any stats on the CVT in magazines, has anyone else?
Peace

 

>>has everyone gone mad? If an automatic was better for autocrossing than why would every racecar you see have a stick? This includes Nascar, Indy, touring series, scca races etc, etc. Besides once you start modifying, the MC doesn't have the potential of an S by a long shot. Except for maybe the first 50ft the MCS will take the MC in every aspect. In my experience of autocrossing i have not seen a MC owner beat an MCS yet. Granted only 4 races but there were multiple MCS and MC's racing. I dunno they are both great cars, do we really need to start an argument. I haven't seen any stats on the CVT in magazines, has anyone else?
>>Peace


The CVT is not your everyday "slushbox". Drive one and you'll understand. The CVT keeps enegine's RPMs at peak performance at all times and with 3 program modes (Normal, Sport and Steptronic) the CVT is a very deceptively fast car in the track.

Believe it or not, the CVT requires lots and lots of skill and practice to master it and get the best out of it. Like I said, one day take out a Cooper CVT for a spin...be prepared!!

 

ill see if i can do that. it sounds interesting. i would still never get one because i like shifting too much and slowing down by downshifting is very effective and fun also. peace, and thanks for info i am pretty clueless on the CVT's abilities.

 

Oh and for your info, Formula 1 uses SMG transmissions (Clutchless semi-automatics). High performance cars such as the Ferrari Enzo and BMW M3 come or are available with sequential transmissions.

 

I have a friend that has a modded MC and I hate to say this, but his MC kicks MY MCS *** from the start. I'm sure it is as fast or faster 0 to 60. He doesn't have the sunroof, I do, so his MC is well over 200 lbs lighter....it definitely out performs my MCS through the corners & coming out because of the weight advantage. Once we hit the freeway at 50 to 90, then the supercharger helps me pull away, but not as much as you I would have thought. The other thing I noticed driving through the hills & curves around Phoenix with his MC requires more shifting with the 5 speed to keep the rpms up....again hate to say this, but with more shifting, felt more of a fun drive...ouch ! Straight away on the expressway and for passing, my MCS still had the edge.


Not to put you down here by any means, but it also sounds like your friend might be a better driver and/or shifter than you. You mention his "MINI" takes the curves better and faster - 200lbs really shouldn't make that much of a difference. And if his Cooper really is faster than yours 0-60, he's obviously shifting better than you and he's probably launching much better than you as well. It may not be his MINI that launches better and corners better, it more than likely is your friend!

 

>>He is talking about the CVT. For some reason he kept typing up "SVT" when in reality he meant "CVT".

Yeah, CVT. SVT... CVT... just a brain fart.

 

HHhmmmm,

went to a track day at Texas World Speedway some time ago.
One guy, Chris, had an MC with MINI Mania stage 1 mods (I think intake and exhaust only) as well as lowered suspension and rear sway bar.

On the street course at the TWS he was as fast as my MCS. I could only make any gains on him on the straightaway at higher speeds, abopve about 80-90 mph.

I think the MC has a definite weight advantage, and low rpm torque advantage as well. The CVT should actually help that.

Copper4us:
I thought the F1 SMGs are not clutchless: they are a fully manual transmission with gears and a clutch, except the clutch is operated by hydraulic actuators that are controlled by a computer (with input from the paddle shifters), so the F1 cars do not have a clutch pedal, but they do have a clutch. Just like the M#-SMG.

I have waffled between MCS and MC at purchase. I coudl just as easily live with an MC, and maybe in afew years will switch over to one. I definitely would if the One D was available here, that engine has LOTS of torque (as much as MCS) and a 6-speed tranny!

 

This is the part I like....

_________________
-goin440
IB/IB MC on 17" Volks

 

heheheheheheheheheh

 

People keep saying things like "I don't think the extra weight should matter" and "if the MC is faster from out outset why is the MCS faster from 0 to 60 mph" and "how come racers prefer manual if AT is so much faster."

My previous post that quoted a Solo II expert already addressed these issues with real-world validations. Not only is the MC 150 pounds lighter at the front, it has a better front/rear weight distribution ratio. For anyone who's ridden a motorcycle or studied motion physics, the weight up front isn't just pounds, it acts like force. That's why brakes up front will stop you faster than rear brakes.

The MCS is way heavy up front - 2/3s of the weight is up front, only 1/3 to the rear. So it's not just the 150 extra pounds added by the supercharger etc. you're dealing with, it's the fact that they're all up front. The MC has a better front/rear distribution of weight. The ideal is 50/50. With 50/50, you could roll the car forward with your own body strength. Try push starting the MCS - you'll need a couple buddies.

The MC is faster from 0 to 40, but the extra HP and torque of the MCS kick in from 40 to 60 mph. That's why the MCS is faster from 0 to 60.

In a Solo II competition where you're constantly making tight turns, an MC will recover faster than the MCS, but given enough time and straight lines, all else being equal, the MCS should beat the MC. I'd like to have an MC in addition to my MCS for stock solo II, and keep my MCS for mods and passing people on the freeway. The stock MCS does terrible compared to the other cars in its class, which all have more than 200 hp.

As to why AT is faster than MT, I've heard many a race car driver say that unless you've got Mario Andretti at the wheel, the modern AT, especially CVT, will outshift a manual every time in a drag race. Even with someone like Mario driving, the difference is only 1/10th of a second. But you still want MT for Solo II because the car won't know what you're doing, won't know to keep the RPMs up higher than normal. A computer won't thrash like a human, even in Sport mode.

Now unless you have hard data and real-world experience could we PLEASE lay this argument to rest? Both cars are great cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides once you start modifying, the MC doesn't have the potential of an S by a long shot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is the part I like....

did you not understand me or something? The pulley for instance. An intake. Cheap mods with good hp gains. Because of what you are starting with, the MCS has more potential.

 

Unfortunatly I think you may be off there with your " Because of what you are starting with, the MCS has more potential." Comment...

The MCS has LIMITED Potential because of those.
The MC is more or less a Blank Canvas....
You can throw on an aftermarket supercharger or even a turbo..There is SOOOO much room under that bonnet compared to the S....take a look sometime.
Just that alone has given more "potential" to the MC
The MCS is already up there and replacing a pulley sould not be considered "potential" Since it is a piece of performance that is ALREADY in place. Honestly... after over a year of Intake spotting and watching and comparing... I dunno if they could be considered "True" performance upgrades... ( putting on the flame suit) The Factory Intake is not BAD.... the Dyno's seen on intake products available seem to be misleading. Sure they make neato sounds...cool.
Now, if you throw a turbo and a NOS and new headers, new shift kit, ignition kit, new suspension and rolling bits, lose weight off the body , but lose it evenly and responsibly... that is potential.
Of course you can add a turbo to an s... but really, Where?
Both machines have potential, if you think you NEED it, and that is all I will say.

 

>>Unfortunatly I think you may be off there with your " Because of what you are starting with, the MCS has more potential." Comment...
>>
>>The MCS has LIMITED Potential because of those.
>>The MC is more or less a Blank Canvas....
>>You can throw on an aftermarket supercharger or even a turbo..There is SOOOO much room under that bonnet compared to the S....take a look sometime.
>>Just that alone has given more "potential" to the MC
>>The MCS is already up there and replacing a pulley sould not be considered "potential" Since it is a piece of performance that is ALREADY in place. Honestly... after over a year of Intake spotting and watching and comparing... I dunno if they could be considered "True" performance upgrades... ( putting on the flame suit) The Factory Intake is not BAD.... the Dyno's seen on intake products available seem to be misleading. Sure they make neato sounds...cool.
>>Now, if you throw a turbo and a NOS and new headers, new shift kit, ignition kit, new suspension and rolling bits, lose weight off the body , but lose it evenly and responsibly... that is potential.
>>Of course you can add a turbo to an s... but really, Where?
>>Both machines have potential, if you think you NEED it, and that is all I will say.


You can throw an aftermarket turbo on a MCS. I know someone that will be doing exactly that.

 

Me Too

 

Me Too

But it won't be a big one... no room.
The MCS is JAMMED under the bonnet...
For adequate turbo piping, you need the room... like in the MC
and I would assume, that a turbo in an MCS would have to be without the seperate intercooler, forced cold air intake only.

Even the MC shouldn't be given too much turbo boost... I cannot imagine the MCS being able to handle much more. Also, I believe the Turbo should be a final mod for an MCS, after the ECU and smaller Pully upgrades etc etc or even after a new SC install.

Good Luck!
Send Pics

 

>>Unfortunatly I think you may be off there with your " Because of what you are starting with, the MCS has more potential." Comment...
>>
>>The MCS has LIMITED Potential because of those.
>>The MC is more or less a Blank Canvas....
>>You can throw on an aftermarket supercharger or even a turbo..There is SOOOO much room under that bonnet compared to the S....take a look sometime.
>>Just that alone has given more "potential" to the MC
>>The MCS is already up there and replacing a pulley sould not be considered "potential" Since it is a piece of performance that is ALREADY in place. Honestly... after over a year of Intake spotting and watching and comparing... I dunno if they could be considered "True" performance upgrades... ( putting on the flame suit) The Factory Intake is not BAD.... the Dyno's seen on intake products available seem to be misleading. Sure they make neato sounds...cool.
>>Now, if you throw a turbo and a NOS and new headers, new shift kit, ignition kit, new suspension and rolling bits, lose weight off the body , but lose it evenly and responsibly... that is potential.
>>Of course you can add a turbo to an s... but really, Where?
>>Both machines have potential, if you think you NEED it, and that is all I will say.


As far as modding is concerned isn't it true that the Cooper's gearbox cannot handle more than 140bhp whereas the Cooper S 6 speed can handle a fair bit over 200bhp ? Might be wrong though, but I read that somewhere

 

>>As to why AT is faster than MT, I've heard many a race car driver say that unless you've got Mario Andretti at the wheel, the modern AT, especially CVT, will outshift a manual every time in a drag race. Even with someone like Mario driving, the difference is only 1/10th of a second. But you still want MT for Solo II because the car won't know what you're doing, won't know to keep the RPMs up higher than normal. A computer won't thrash like a human, even in Sport mode.>>


This does make sense but in practise doesn't work. The reason I say that is because of the official figures :

Acceleration (manual only):
0-62mph (s): 9.2
Top speed (manual only): 125mph


Acceleration (CVT only):
0-62mph (s): 10.4
Top speed (CVT only): 115mph


Looking at these figures it would suggest that 10 times out of 10 the manual would win in a drag race. I'm really not trying to start an arguement but automatics are always slower with both top end and acceleration with all cars, the MINI is no exception.