I definitely made the decision to wait for the R56 for better gas mileage. Same reasons as everyone else. Economical and environmental.

 

Good comments / questions on other emissions data. Below is some info I found:

Original Mini/BMW press info: (source1, source2)

The Mini dropped 2 places in the European VED tax rating (from bad to good, in my simple interpretation), but I'm not familiar with that rating system enough to say much more.


Some EPA info can be found at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/23922.shtml:

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (5.60 tons)
Interesting that the stats above are given in tons/yr. I understand this, though it's hard to visualize. Maybe they should provide an easy conversion to "blimp-fulls".

 

The lower emissions are good but second link shows the 07 MINI Cooper, apparently not the S, getting 37 mpg on the highway. I would expect a lot more from the Cooper since my 05 MCSJCW has gotten very close to 35 mpg and that was while traveling at high speed for most of the tank. High speed meaning around 85 mph. Not racing folks, just keeping up with the flow.

Any thoughts on this?

 

The MPG data in the prior post was from old data (Aug 2006), possibly European. Current EPA data is discussed on this thread.

 

My prior post was focused on CO2 data - the MPG data was old (Aug 2006), and European. Current EPA data is discussed on this thread.

 

Thanks EENY. That's a bit more like it. Still, the spread isn't that much so I'll be keeping "Dingo".

 

Sure, fuel economy was a large factor in buying my '06 MC (R50). I'm averaging 35-37 MPG, but my '02 MCS (R53) got barely 25. I've owned other cars that got better MPG, but none with nearly as much fun-to-drive factor. Sometimes life is all about tradeoffs - but don't pretend that by buying this car you're being green, per se - if you want to really go green, ride a bike. Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy the ride!

 

I like the improved gas mileage on the R56, the lowered emissions and the fact that over the summer, before the new models debuted, Consumer Reports finally felt comfortable enough with the workmanship to recommend the Mini for the first time.

 

The Gas mileage is probably the single biggest factor that is drawing me to the Mini. I get about 19-21 in my RX-8, and I anticipate I will be able to get up to 40mpg even in the Cooper S under the right conditions. That's nearly double what I'm getting now.

I consider myself an environmentalist, but there's a bit of a problem with the notion that I'll be doing the environment any "good." That is that somebody is going to buy my old car and drive it around and drink lots of gas. OTOH I do drive quite a bit, so I'll be doing that much less damage to the environment compared to somebody who buys my old car and drives half as much as I do.

I'm not too upset about the gas mileage of the rotary, because I realize it's actually an incredible engineering achievement and could probably be made to be as efficient as a piston engine with enough R&D effort. But I'll feel slightly less guilty about taking an unnecessary trip to the mountains if I'm getting 40mpg.

 

I read this thread yesterday, and have been giving it some thought.

I primarily got my MINI because it's a performance car in econobox clothing. The decent mpg is a perc.

Whenever I read (or hear) Global Warming, my blood pressure rises. Two threads have been locked because GW is a political issue.

What happened to reduce, reuse, recycle? Basing your reason to buy a brand new car that gets marginally better mileage (okay the emmissions are less) lacks logic. Consider the energy it takes to manufacture any car, even if all the raw material is recycled. Then factor in components manufactured all over the globe that are transported to England, then shipping the car to the states. Seems buying American would reduce that embedded energy. The GW advocates really want us Americans to stop consuming oil and other resources, period.

If you really want to reduce your impact, stop buying bottled water (for over 1000% the cost of tap water which is all most bottled water is anyway) that is shipped from France. Don't buy fruit from the southern hemisphere either because of the fossil fuel consumed in shipping. Don't...don't... don't (get my point?).

Take that money you were going to spend on a new car and put triple pane windows, more insulation in the attic, the highest effeciency furnace available, etc. into your house. I built my passive solar rammed earth home in 1985, and I still live in it (versus building a new home just because).

I could easily have passed on posting here, but I'm not going to be guilted into shoving my head in the sand just to not **** off someone. The GW advocates (I'm being kind in my description) who want to put the detractors on Nurenburg style trials just because they disagree with a theory based on consensus based on a computer model (anyone remember the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?) are... um... nuts!

There... I'm saving the planet by not drinking coffee.

Enjoy commuting in your new MINI!

 

Well, that's just depressing. Are smog and asthma political issues, too? I don't know about this place sometimes.

 

I'm wondering what effect, if any, the "Sport Mode" button has on fuel economy. No doubt one would drive more aggressively, but apart from that. I had read somewhere that there may be a 1-2 mpg but this might have just been an opinion since it's so early in the R56 game.

 

It's true manufacturing something new, especially something big like an auto, requires a great deal of energy and has a lot of global impact, starting with mining the raw materials to applying the finishing touches, even moving it to the point of sale. Anyone with a goal of decreasing their environmental impact should consider this. Look at all the mountains being razed worldwide in the excavation of raw materials, etc.

However, not to dismiss this, but I don't think most of us are considering living in a cave eating moss and mushrooms, naked, just to decrease our impact (OK, I'm exaggerating to make a point). We take small steps, moving in the right direction. We add energy efficient light bulbs rather than live in the dark.

Currently, unless I were to totally change my lifestyle and live like a hermit, I need a car. My old car is dying, so I need a replacement. I wanted to drive it until it died, but it's costing me too much $$$ and time to fix the regularly breaking/leaking parts. It's an interesting mathmatical question of whether buying a used relatively high emission vehicle would be better in the "total equation" compared to buying a new much cleaner running vehicle. I don't know the actual answer, but I suspect that over the next 10 years I'm going to make a bigger impact by driving a clean vehicle (and hopefully decreasing miles driven as well), rather than buying another old "dirty" vehicle, and then another when that dies in a few years, and running them all into the ground. Complicated tradeoffs - mine raw materials or pollute more out the tailpipe.

Cars fall apart and die. Replacements are required, so replace them with as clean a new machine as possible.

I'm not sure I buy the theory that buying products manufactured close to home decreases total impact, at least not in practice. Raw materials are mined worldwide (usually not in the place of eventual destination), transported somewhere, assembled, etc., to place of origin. If 100% of raw materials were near my home, then maybe I'd agree it'd be most efficient if my products also were manufactured there, but that's not how the world works. Usually my reason for buying products bought/sold near to home is economic - I want profits, wages and taxes to be as "locally" focused as possible. Global environmental impact should be, though I recognize it often isn't, simply reflected in purchase price.

I'm picky enough to have considered the impact of adding chrome to my car, another mined substance, another impact. Perhaps I should have considered it more - point taken.

Good for you! (seriously, not tongue in cheek). But I still need a replacement car - believe me, I wish I didn't have to spend the $$$. So I'm getting the cleanest, smallest car that is practical for me. Home modifications will have to wait, and I'll get by until then by just turning my heater down and turning off some lights.

 

Curiously, just the opposite of my experience. I had to replace my car so looked for the most fuel efficient option, passing on hybrid technology because of my mountainous commute, and the performance was a perc. A very nice one

 

I very much agree with this... I feel a bit guilty choosing a 2006 MCS over a 2007 but I figured that if I reduce the amount I drive and take other measures around my home (which I already have!), I can achieve big improvements in my carbon footprint.

 

Personally...just seeing that there are others out there familiar with the carbon footprint term makes me happy...

 

Yeah...mpg is a big factor, but if its all I cared about I'd be looking for a hybrid. As it is, I need an automatic & can't help that, so mpg and price tag are the main reasons I wouldn't get an S.

However, don't you have to put one of the 2 higher grades of fuel in a MINI? My husband always puts premium in his 04 S. My current Subaru Outback gets 23-27 mpg, but is happy to drink the cheapest fuel. So I'm thinking I'd spend just as much if not more on fuel.

I'm about to take a job farther away, and we only take advantage of my Outback's haul-it capacity 2-3 times per year, less than we thought we would. Doesn't seem to make sense to use a wagon primarily for transporting one person to work, 70 miles round trip each day. At least I've got a year or 2 to decide. I really want a MINI for the fun factor, but I'd still miss my 'Scoobie' as it's the nicest car I've ever owned, and the 2nd most fun to drive...a decrepit old Maxima with a V6 was 1st, but 17 mpg!

 

New EPA rating is out

I used 2006 as examples for prev engine... all examples are
for manual transmissions.

2007 Mini Cooper: 27/36 or 31 combined
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=23921

2007 Mini Cooper S: 25/32 or 28
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=23925

2006 Mini Cooper: 24/33 or 28
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=21681

2006 Mini Cooper S: 22/29 or 24
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=21684

 

Just wanting to drive home my point about anyone's house (that you spend more time in than your car) impacts global warming. I've been way more ahead of the curve than other folks who are telling us to cut back.

 

Good gas mileage is really only a perk in my book. My MCS in the winter seems to get 22-23 mph in the city (true city driving, hardly any highway). On the highway in the winter I see 28-31mph depending on speed. In the summer those numbers go up by 2 or 3mpg.

If I really have fun, I am sure I can get my gas mileage to 15mph or less. Now that is fun. Fact is, the MCS is performance oriented and if you use it that way its not going to get great mpg.

 

dang, going 85 mph in my 05 MCS without the stuff on the roof i get 27 mpg at best, what the heck is going on.

 

I bought my 05 Cabrio despite the gas mileage. It isn't bad at all. The newer technology than my 91 Honda and 99 Jetta was all spent on power and fun . . . but there were no better choices balancing power and fun available. The other car we were looking at was the VW TDI Jetta. Unfortunately it wasn't nearly as much fun and our 99 gas Jetta had serious quality and dealer problems (we can glue the side molding back on but we won't promise it will stay).

It was amusing to me that on two trips from New Mexico to the Lost Coast of California, both on secondary highways, our Saab 9-5 and the MINI got exactly the same gas mileage. The Saab is perhaps a grand heavier (and has technology similar to the R56). (Which car was more fun. . . why the MINI of course. . . but then, we didn't get it airborne ).

 

Well, I for one think I am finally getting the 07. I saw yesterday that Maryland is trying to impose very strict emission standards for 2012. I think getting a car that is substantially more fuel efficient (whether I drive a lot or not) can be nothing but a plus. People are reporting 37.5 mpgs on the new MCS at just 1200 miles! I will be at the dealership tonight and will put my deposit down either tonight or tomorrow.. finally!!!!!

BTW, I am not getting a Prius because, from what I've heard, they get about the same mpg on the highway as the new mini... and they are no fun!

 

It was the reason I first got interested in the mini ,I have to drive a full size pickup for work that gets 10 mpg .I did get the s for fun. It's iceing on the cake that it's the funest car I've ever owned.

 

Congrats on the switch! Definitely an improvement!!!

I am getting the S because I don't commute... if I did I would get a Prius or just a Cooper, but any move in the right direction is always great