In th September issue of Road and Track there is a generally short and favorable review of the MCS which was compared to it's "run of the mill" sibling, the MC.

Except for the MCS supercharger (with 45 extra h.p.) and the excellent Getrag 6-speed transmission, the two cars are bsically the same as to handling, suspension and fun factor, so I wonder what the author's criteria is in calling the MC a run-of-the-mill comparison? By the way, the article is so short on specifics of the MCS that i am convinced the author knows little about cars. A very superficial article.

 

Maybe he wrote "FUN-OF-THE-MILL" and the editor changed it cause he thought it was a typo???

 

I too sometimes wonder why almost no one seems to have any interest in the MC. In my opinion it looks better than the MCS. It cost about $2000 less, which if money manners to you can buy a few accessories. Also, based on what I've read it has fewer problems. Is it really so slow than people don't want it? I hope not.

 

I drove an MCS before I bought my MC. Other than the 6-speed I didn't notice that much difference. Of course, my MC has the sport package, so it has the same suspension as the MCS. The extra few horses just wasn't enough to justify the added expense in my opinion.

 

:smile:
donna@dcmetrominis.org

 

Considering that the MC consistently sells better than the MCS, I think they are
writing for a different crowd. Just like Consumer Reports only likes reliability,
Road & Track only likes the fastest.

Here's the US Sales figures showing the MCS a$$-kicking.

 

Wow, that sounds like really irresponsible writing. I'm surprised the editor let it get by. If you post the link or e-mail for reader's comments I'll certainly protest!

Even if they were writing from a track car perspective the Mini is not run-of-the-mill, as experienced Solo II racers have noted. The regular Mini will beat the MCS on a curvy Solo II track because it isn't weighed down by the supercharger etc.

 

I guess the writer must be a "valley girl", "That's so 20 minutes ago".

 

CAR magazine out of the UK is a highly respected automotive journal and I trust their opinion a heck of a lot more than R & T's. They've given the Cooper 5 out of 5 stars since day one. If that's run-of the-mill, then what does that make 99% of the other cars out there that didn't get such a rating?

 

Any "mill" putting out products as visually arresting and fun to drive as the MC has nothing to worry about from writers such as the one responsible for this laughable statement. I guess "run of the mill" has a new meaning- "Makes me smile!"

 

Mini's are being produced 60-40
60%MC 40%MCS

That is why they are selling more MC's, plus I think some people dont want to wait the extra time.

PS: Not an MC bash in any way.

 

"I too sometimes wonder why almost no one seems to have any interest in the MC."

Wrong on that count.

"In my opinion it looks better than the MCS."

Right on that count (at least to me)

"It cost about $2000 less"
It costs at least $3000 less, not $2000.

From 0-40 mph, there's not much difference between the two in accelleration. After 40 mph or around 4000 rpm, the MCS supercharger kicks in and then ...race over.

 

I do love the MC. Its maintained the more classic look I have loved since my mum bought a Austin Cooper 850. I think its really a matter of choice but I wouldn't get a MCS over my MC anday. Nothing against the MCS but its not what I wanted. Plus I tweaked the engine on mine enough to give the MCS a very good run for his money!

A matter of pure opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....