R56 2007 MCS comes in 3rd place in C&D comparison!
5th Gear
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 855
Likes: 1
Another take on the Mazdaspeed 3. I'm and R53 S owner so I will not comment on comparisons to the R56, or to street performance in general since I have not driven the MS3 on the highway. I did autocross a new MS3 (just purchased by my brother) last month at a San Francisco Region SCCA Solo event. I finished first in a field of 13 in stock street-tire class. The MS3 is classed in DS compared to GS for the MCS.
My general impressions: rather like driving a larger version of the MCS with good performance 18" non-runflats. Mild understeer, decent rotation, good exit traction (LSD equipped), and relatively flat cornering with good steering feel. The MS3 has much better stock tires for autocross compared to the MCS runflats. I can see why C&D might think the MCS is twichy in comparison; of course changing to non-runflat high performance tires changes that.
The MS3 did not feel a whole lot quicker around this rather tight course compared to my past experiences with the R53 MCS. I think this is due to a torque-limiting function in the MS3 which is designed to reduce torque-steer and low speed understeer in 1-2 gear. I think this car will do well in its class in SCCA competition.
The MS3 is a nice sized 4-door hatch with better rear-seat passenger and luggage room, but higher fuel consumption compared to the MCS. If you need that kind of space it is a nice car and good for the money. I don't need the space, and I love my Mini for its small size, low weight, styling, and reasonable fuel economy.
My general impressions: rather like driving a larger version of the MCS with good performance 18" non-runflats. Mild understeer, decent rotation, good exit traction (LSD equipped), and relatively flat cornering with good steering feel. The MS3 has much better stock tires for autocross compared to the MCS runflats. I can see why C&D might think the MCS is twichy in comparison; of course changing to non-runflat high performance tires changes that.
The MS3 did not feel a whole lot quicker around this rather tight course compared to my past experiences with the R53 MCS. I think this is due to a torque-limiting function in the MS3 which is designed to reduce torque-steer and low speed understeer in 1-2 gear. I think this car will do well in its class in SCCA competition.
The MS3 is a nice sized 4-door hatch with better rear-seat passenger and luggage room, but higher fuel consumption compared to the MCS. If you need that kind of space it is a nice car and good for the money. I don't need the space, and I love my Mini for its small size, low weight, styling, and reasonable fuel economy.
2nd Gear
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, TX
I read the article while flying to Florida this past weekend.
My gripe with the article is that it calls for a testing of cars with a price cap of $25k. Then the article states that the #2 GTI had an as-tested price of 29k, and the Speed3 at 26k. The CooperS was 23k, and I fail to recall the prices of the other cars.
I just find it sad that the magazine couldn't compare cars that are actually in the price bracket that they themselves set up.
I'm also mildly dissapointed that rear seat room and trunk space were factors in a test of performance and driving enjoyment.
That said, I'm happy with the order that the magazine chose. The Speed3 is a great performer for the price. The GTI is an excellent car... high in class yet still a good performer. Both of these cars have attributes that rank highly with your average car buyer.
Personally, I would have switched the possitions of the GTI and the MINI.
My gripe with the article is that it calls for a testing of cars with a price cap of $25k. Then the article states that the #2 GTI had an as-tested price of 29k, and the Speed3 at 26k. The CooperS was 23k, and I fail to recall the prices of the other cars.
I just find it sad that the magazine couldn't compare cars that are actually in the price bracket that they themselves set up.
I'm also mildly dissapointed that rear seat room and trunk space were factors in a test of performance and driving enjoyment.
That said, I'm happy with the order that the magazine chose. The Speed3 is a great performer for the price. The GTI is an excellent car... high in class yet still a good performer. Both of these cars have attributes that rank highly with your average car buyer.
Personally, I would have switched the possitions of the GTI and the MINI.
5th Gear
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
From: Alexandria, VA - Old Town
Just got through reading this article. I have to say, that the MINI came in first in exterior and interior design, handling, braking, fuel economy. It lost out in rear seat passenger room (who cares),trunk space (trade that for enhance parking ability in the city any day! Trunk space? That's what roof racks are for!) some ergonomics, top speed, 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. (it was competing with a 263 hp Mazdaspeed 3! If the MCS had over 200 hp, which may be possible in the JCW version, I daresay it would outrun all these cars) Basically, in all the areas that are important to me, the MINI came in first or tied, and was only bumped down to third by a few niggling things.
So, what I am saying to R56 owners, is if, like me, you bought a MINI because:
- it handles great
- it's fast enough to keep a constant grin on your face
- it has great fuel economy
- it's safe
- it's cute as a button
... don't worry too much about the Car and Driver article. Just saw a Mazdaspeed 3 on the street, and it is huge and fugly. I suspect the seats don't fit me well either, MCS sport seats are very comfortable.
My two cents!
So, what I am saying to R56 owners, is if, like me, you bought a MINI because:
- it handles great
- it's fast enough to keep a constant grin on your face
- it has great fuel economy
- it's safe
- it's cute as a button
... don't worry too much about the Car and Driver article. Just saw a Mazdaspeed 3 on the street, and it is huge and fugly. I suspect the seats don't fit me well either, MCS sport seats are very comfortable.
My two cents!
0-60 in 6.2, 1/4 in 15.0 .88g skidpad. Not bad, but it got blown away by the Mazda 3 GT.
They really panned the new cars fake hood scoop and uber-sized speedo. They also didn't care for the Playskool looking HVAC controls. (I have to say that personally, I agree with all of that).
Called the car twitchy and difficult to control on the twisties.....
Wow!
They really panned the new cars fake hood scoop and uber-sized speedo. They also didn't care for the Playskool looking HVAC controls. (I have to say that personally, I agree with all of that).
Called the car twitchy and difficult to control on the twisties.....
Wow!
6th Gear
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 15,966
Likes: 1
Just got through reading this article. I have to say, that the MINI came in first in exterior and interior design, handling, braking, fuel economy. It lost out in rear seat passenger room (who cares),trunk space (trade that for enhance parking ability in the city any day! Trunk space? That's what roof racks are for!) some ergonomics, top speed, 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. (it was competing with a 263 hp Mazdaspeed 3! If the MCS had over 200 hp, which may be possible in the JCW version, I daresay it would outrun all these cars) Basically, in all the areas that are important to me, the MINI came in first or tied, and was only bumped down to third by a few niggling things.
So, what I am saying to R56 owners, is if, like me, you bought a MINI because:
- it handles great
- it's fast enough to keep a constant grin on your face
- it has great fuel economy
- it's safe
- it's cute as a button
... don't worry too much about the Car and Driver article. Just saw a Mazdaspeed 3 on the street, and it is huge and fugly. I suspect the seats don't fit me well either, MCS sport seats are very comfortable.
My two cents!
So, what I am saying to R56 owners, is if, like me, you bought a MINI because:
- it handles great
- it's fast enough to keep a constant grin on your face
- it has great fuel economy
- it's safe
- it's cute as a button
... don't worry too much about the Car and Driver article. Just saw a Mazdaspeed 3 on the street, and it is huge and fugly. I suspect the seats don't fit me well either, MCS sport seats are very comfortable.
My two cents!
And this is coming from an R53 owner. Some folks just don't get the MINI. It's their problem not mine. 
R56 owners, stop worrying about what magazines say. It's just an opinion & the only opinion that really matters is yours.
1st Gear
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
From: NorCal
And the Mazda speed3 is..
Ugly
Has no history
or Lineage
Is boring
It might be a rocket, but if you don't feel right, it doesn't matter.
If one is a golfer, then you know that if you don't like the look of the club when standing behind it, you'll never hit the ball well.
We now have a 2 week old R56 Cooper S - Turbos rock. The Smile is back. MINI cannot be generic by its nature.
Former owner of '94 Honda del Sol VTEC with adapted Jackson Racing Supercharger, and a bunch of other mods. Never had the low end like my new R56 -The car rocked. Let it go in 2003- but it was a very cool car.
Has no history
or Lineage
Is boring
It might be a rocket, but if you don't feel right, it doesn't matter.
If one is a golfer, then you know that if you don't like the look of the club when standing behind it, you'll never hit the ball well.
We now have a 2 week old R56 Cooper S - Turbos rock. The Smile is back. MINI cannot be generic by its nature.
Former owner of '94 Honda del Sol VTEC with adapted Jackson Racing Supercharger, and a bunch of other mods. Never had the low end like my new R56 -The car rocked. Let it go in 2003- but it was a very cool car.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
chandler_vt
F55/F56 :: Hatch Talk (2014+)
51
Apr 29, 2017 08:08 AM
fm.illuminatus
R56 :: Hatch Talk (2007+)
0
Aug 10, 2015 12:15 AM
jrezzo
MINIs & Minis for Sale
0
Aug 9, 2015 10:32 PM