>>...And still you haven't answered the question...have you driven a Cooper CVT yes or no?
>>

I drove a CVT at the dealer. It didn't seem quicker than an MCS to me. If a CVT ia a "very, very quick car" while the MCS is not, I'd like to know what makes such a massive difference between the two.

>>
>>Having a MCS does not mean you can comment on a vastly different car like the CVT model.

Since this is not the North American Gestapo board, I'll not make a note avoid commenting on anything of which you haven't pre-approved. The CVT is not a "vastly different car" than either the S or the Cooper.

>>I have both, so I can accurately comment on both. Having a MCS and CVT does not qualify me to issue an opinion on the Cooper 5-speed model, which I have never driven before.

I'll make the leap of faith and dare say that there is probably not significant enough differences between the three to make one a "very, very quick car" and the others not.

 

I guess taking a CVT for a 10-20 minute test drive around the corner fully qualifies you to comment on the performance characteristics of the CVT

 

>>I think most people purchasing a vehicle consider more than just one aspect of the vehicle. Looking at the total picture one can see that some people did not buy for Power only :smile:

And no one who is interested in something like a MINI would be interested only in power. It handles great, which is why I didn't take issue with the handling characteristics of the S. A lament about the lack of power in the S does not mean one is only concerned with power in a vehicle and not handling. It would probably be helpful to logo29a if faults with the car could be pointed out without users trying to misrepresent those criticisms. A user asking for opinions wants info, not propaganda.

 

A: Expect to print out what you get from an online build and pay that.. don't really expect anythign less thna that, btu what it says on line should be what you get I don't go to a dealer expecting more, Unless your buying off the lot

B: GOTO MINIUSA.com and build your own, save a couple, really fish out exactly what your looking for you won't find a better build your own car website on the web period.

C: test drive an S a cooper CVT or 5 or and/or a JCW if you can.. MINI delaers aer very liberal abnotu takignthe cars out for test runs.. hell that the trure ringer right there...

D: check out the dealer infos on this site over on teh left.. Personally I've dealt with BMW/MINI of sterling in DC, the TATE MINI in MD ( where I bought) Townson in Buffalo and Classic MINI they are all good and I've had very good dealing with them for the most part.

 

>>I guess taking a CVT for a 10-20 minute test drive around the corner fully qualifies you to comment on the performance characteristics of the CVT

The performance of a vehicle is measured by tests, like the ones alluded to by my questions above. Driving on a 2500 mile road trip, although it might help you characterize a car, does not provide that kind of reproducible, verifiable test data. It does not give you solid, verifiable handling data; and it does not give you solid, verifiable data regarding power.

When you get the data, do logo29a a favor and post it to demonstrate the vast difference between the cars.

 

>>>>I guess taking a CVT for a 10-20 minute test drive around the corner fully qualifies you to comment on the performance characteristics of the CVT
>>
>>The performance of a vehicle is measured by tests, like the ones alluded to by my questions above. Driving on a 2500 mile road trip, although it might help you characterize a car, does not provide that kind of reproducible, verifiable test data. It does not give you solid, verifiable handling data; and it does not give you solid, verifiable data regarding power.
>>
>>When you get the data, do logo29a a favor and post it to demonstrate the vast difference between the cars.
>>



C'mmon man! Give me a FREAKING break!

 

Wow all the negativity in here

As for the MCS vs RSX-S, I driven both and in the end decided to get the Mini. Here's my review,

Similarity:

- Both small with little usable back seat. Use it as a 2 seater with really big trunk.
- Good build quality - Better than most econobox (mazda 3 is an exception).
- Not a drag racer - speed is at the higher rev point.
- loved to be revved and that the whole point of these two cars (i.e. difference between sport and muscle cars).
- Same power - i know RSX-S is 200hp, but it really dosn't translate into a faster car.

Here's what decided for me (again, me):

handling - no question here - mini. Actually I was on my way to buy the RX8, but stop to test drive the mini on the way, bought it on the spot. RX8 handling is precise, but it wasn't as nimble as Mini - though more powerful than mini. The reason I bought the Mini was because I was in the market for "Fun" car and it fit perfectly (this is a 3rd car for me - m3, and 325i wagon is others).

Look - okay, mini may be perceived as chick car (I don't think so, but others have commented), but it still look lot better than generic Asian car.

Noise factor - both car is noisy, but try to push the car past 5000 RPM. Mini is noisy at this point, but I thought I was going to go deaf in RSX-S. It was deafening. This is important if you are going to drive aggressively.

Price - wasn't a point for me as I was looking for a toy, but RSX-S is cheaper with all the options (though, you cant get some items in RSX that is available in Mini).

Upgrade - RSX has more extensive after market (due to Civic platform), but Mini is fast catching up, plus they have a JCW if you want warranty.

Insurance - depend on each person, but it was cheaper for me to insure Mini. Honda/Acura is alway high on thief's eye. I'm paying $400 semi-annually, but I also have my house, business, and other cars tied in.

build quality - Every manufacturer have build problems (I have a neighbor that will never buy a toyota due to the problem they had), its almost like gambling, you may never have a problem or you may have a lot of problem, depending on your luck. Just go enjoy.

Not fast enough concern - If you are buying a Mini, the first mod you should do is sign up for performance driving class. If you learn how to heel/toe, left foot brake, defensive, and other technique, you could beat most driver out in the street, no matter what they drive (you souldn't race in street though).

Just go test drive - twice, then you'll know which one.

Oh, by the way, my modded M3 is super fast, but does not give me the grin factor my mini has driving up the twisty upstate NY.

 

>>C'mmon man! Give me a FREAKING break!

Actually, the problem is that you won't say anything substantial or verifiable. It would be more useful to give logo29a some info instead of propaganda.

 

>>>>>>You'd probably be much happier with the RSX Type-S.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't
>>>>
>>
>>Me either.

I'd much rather have the MINI...than the "cookie cutter" design of an Acura. The MINI is a design statement and more fun to drive than the Acura...I've driven both and that's just the way I feel, IMO.

 

Bye the way, I picked up my MINI from Baron MINI in Kansas City. They were great to deal with and I got it for sticker price...absolutely no markup and only a 3 month wait. I had to fly to Kansas and drive it back to California. It was very difficult to keep the car under 4500rpm during the breakin back to California, but when I hit Nevada I let it fly. Markup here in California was $5000 to $7000 over sticker when I decided to order my MCS. The plane ticket and gas was a hell of a lot less than the markup, so it was worth it. The only extra's I ordered were the clear front protection (xpel) and some car mats and paid $22,400 out the door.

The MINI is a great car!! Get one!

 

The argument should be settled by the numbers....we could start with basic specs...hopefully the chart will come out...all numbers from MINI USA web site....

weight Cooper Manual CVT S
weight lbs 2524 2557 2678
HP 115 115 163
Torque 110 ft-lb 110 155 Note coops @ 4500, S @ 4000RPM
Power to weight
Ratio 1 HP = 21.9 lbs 22.2 16.4
Fuel Economy 28/37 25/32

 

Somebody else commented on it and maybe my honeymoon period is over, but for some time this forum seemed to be very balanced in its collective commentary and positive for the most part. This particular thread has stopped that notion.

 

>>The argument should be settled by the numbers...

Exactly, and thanks for posting them, but this was hardly an argument. If I had really been concerned, I would have looked up the numbers and posted them myself. Don't read too much into a disagreement on a msg board.

I believe that when a potential buyer like logo29a asks for some info, we should give opinions but also be willing to provide data if we present arguable notions such as the idea that the CVT is a "very, very quick car" and a "vastly different car" in contrast to the MCS. After all, if I had had knowledge that a CVT was such a superior performer to the MCS and so vastly different when I was looking, I might have gotten one instead.

However, the numbers you posted don't seem to shed any light on the superiority of the CVT other than its lighter weight, so there must be some other performance aspect that was not included that more than negates the MCS's superior power-to-weight-ratio advantage. Maybe someone will post that info later.

 

I'm the one who called the CVT a "very, very quick car"...

It IS NOT a drag racing type of "quick". It's more a "use SD/steptronic mode correctly and get insanely high corner exit speeds due to perfect gear ratio" kind of car. Cooper4Us is absolutely correct, in the right circumstances the CVT (driven properly) can be scary fast. I'm saying this in comparison to other cars IN ITS CLASS AND PRICE RANGE. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many prospective Accord or Jetta (or other random midsize/small car) buyers ended up in MINI's. To say that the buyers of those cars wouldn't be looking for a MINI is absurd, they are in the same price range and attract some of the same market segments (recent college grads and pre-family couples come to mind).

Here's an example of a situation where no real numbers would apply:

You're driving into a turn very fast... driving an MCS (or a 5-speed Cooper) you would need to figure out the correct gear for downshifting to make sure you have a nice powerful exit. In the CVT you can put it in SD and be assured the engine is revved near 4500-5000RPM on exit as long as you give it enough gas NO MATTER WHAT. This makes for some surprisingly "quick" results. There are also techniques involving "flicking" from steptronic-->D-->SD for a nice little torque boost on takeoff and reacceleration after a turn.

 

I'd still race any and all of you guys.......drag strip, AutoX or road racing course, PKT RKT is ready when you are (once it stops snowing AND if it is within a day's drive from the land of Cleves.......)

 

I'm donning my Nomex suit for the ensuing heat that is coming on.
Sunglasses for D flames

 

Which is fine except that no results (even someone else's) were cited to back up a comparison claim. The issue wasn't whether the CVT was quicker (although I admit I had my doubts) but rather how
a) driving a 2500 mile road trip proves (provides verifiable data) that the CVT is quicker than the MCS or
b) driving 21,600 miles and 17 months of ownership prove (provide verifiable data) that the CVT is quicker than the MCS.

For example: Let's say I've had my MCS for four months, love it, and think it feels quick. This does not prove that the MCS is faster than any other vehicle including a CVT, and thus does not provide any basis whatsoever for me to claim that the MCS is quicker than the CVT.

Numbers always apply. All the conditions you mentioned are measurable--rate of turn, rpms per gear, speed, rate of acceleration, and ultimately the "quick" result. Telemetry aside, if you set up this test for both a CVT and an MCS, some result could be measured (a number)showing the difference between the two.

I have to credit you for at least providing some kind of example by which logo29a might understand why people would think that the CVT could exhibit quicker behavior.

 

>>I have to credit you for at least providing some kind of example by which logo29a might understand why people would think that the CVT could exhibit quicker behavior.
>>
To be short about it, I will eat my hat (fourth one on offer) if a vehicle with a 25% disadvantage in power to weight ratio (26% to be precise) is quicker than its counterpart with a 26% advantage. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....performance is in the eyes of physics.......the development of the CVT is, believe it or not, fuel economy based, period.......

 

"Nuh UHHH! Mine's better than yours!

 

>>
>>>>I have to credit you for at least providing some kind of example by which logo29a might understand why people would think that the CVT could exhibit quicker behavior.
>>>>
>>To be short about it, I will eat my hat (fourth one on offer) if a vehicle with a 25% disadvantage in power to weight ratio (26% to be precise) is quicker than its counterpart with a 26% advantage. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....performance is in the eyes of physics.......the development of the CVT is, believe it or not, fuel economy based, period.......

Not knowing much about CVT performance, I figured there was something I wasn't taking into account. Maybe one of the CVT owners with good analytical skills could fill in the blanks with regard to how the CVT might overcome that power disadvantage to end up quicker than the S.

Also, why is there an assumption that there is some kind of big flame war going on here? Although people seem to be dying for it to happen, I haven't seen it--at least not on my part. Arguing points is how we become more analytical and how the less-than-useful subjectivity is brushed aside so people like logo29a can get thoughtful opinions. Otherwise, we would all just be complimenting each others' bonnet stripes and wheels all the time.

 

No one has said that the CVT is quicker than the MCS.

 

Please folks.
Let me remind you that this thread is titled:
"New Potential Cooper S Owner"

If your discussion deals with "other things" then please do start your own thread or exchange PMs.
Thanks.

Personally I have owned a MCS for over a year and love it.
But I have spent quite a bit of time in both a CVT and 5 speed MC and both are quite good. Worth an extended test drive if you are interested. I agree that the CVT has quite a bit of potential when you understand how to drive in SD or manual mode.

Bottomline is all of the MINIs handle well and all are FUN FUN FUN to drive in any flavor. But the power is different with each model as is the weight of the car with options.

So to all you shoppers out there. Please do:
Take a test drive or two in whatever MINI you want to try.
Each MINI has pluses and minuses.
Make sure you like what you drive alot but there is a flavor for each person more or less.
FUN comes in different colors and styles.
Enjoy.

 

>>
>>So to all you shoppers out there. Please do:
>>Take a test drive or two in whatever MINI you want to try.
>>Each MINI has pluses and minuses.
>>Make sure you like what you drive alot but there is a flavor for each person more or less.
>>FUN comes in different colors and styles.
>>Enjoy.


And PLEASE, don't buy them ugly BRG ones...they are disgusting.....(my subtle plot to make myself wealthy, this is....)

 

>>No one has said that the CVT is quicker than the MCS.

Amen :smile:

I would never make such a claim. It IS a quick car, that is all I think was said.

Most of you ARE correct, no amount of technical wizardry in the CVT will make up for a ~25-30% hp/torque difference.

In the hands of an experienced driver, I fully believe an MCS would spank a CVT in almost every conceivable situation. Nothing could compare to all that extra hp/torque being used PROPERLY by an experienced operator. In the hands of an AVERAGE driver however, the benefits of the CVT (again, see my example about turn exit speeds) would make the car seem quite quick.

I just like to jump the defense of the CVT because most people see it and think "slushbox, slow". That's simply not the case. And btw, it WASN'T just for fuel economy... I do believe the CVT gets WORSE mileage than the other 2 coopers (though I don't remember the difference being astounding). The CVT has many manufacturing advantages over a traditional slushbox, most notably fewer moving parts and lower overall production costs due to a more simple design. I guess theoretically if the software was right (which it isn't) it SHOULD get better mileage.....