RE: Cooper S Works Kit Price Announced
Discussion
typical comments as usual from those who've never driven or owned a MINI 
early road test reports so far suggest the headline BHP figures don't do it justice and the delivery is very impressive
don't forget the 'Works' is being marketed in 2 stages now, this aftermarket kit and a full factory JCW MINI on the way with >210bhp as I understand, that will be a storming drive!
early road test reports so far suggest the headline BHP figures don't do it justice and the delivery is very impressive
don't forget the 'Works' is being marketed in 2 stages now, this aftermarket kit and a full factory JCW MINI on the way with >210bhp as I understand, that will be a storming drive!
bencollins said:
mid range
davislove said:
delivery is very impressive
Are you guys drivers or lazy posers?!?
Mid-range is for effing diesels!
Mid-range is no bloody good when you're off on a charge down a B-road...you want a blistering top-end and a stunning exhaust note!
Mid-range is pointless around town where you'll not use 20% of the car's power.
Mid-range IS useful on a motorway...but WGAF whether a hot-hatch is any good on a motorway...that's not what they're about!
Mid-range, in short, is for lazy drivers who don't understand what that little stick to the left of them is for...
havoc said:
bencollins said:
mid range
davislove said:
delivery is very impressive
Are you guys drivers or lazy posers?!?
Mid-range is for effing diesels!
Mid-range is no bloody good when you're off on a charge down a B-road...you want a blistering top-end and a stunning exhaust note!
Mid-range is pointless around town where you'll not use 20% of the car's power.
Mid-range IS useful on a motorway...but WGAF whether a hot-hatch is any good on a motorway...that's not what they're about!
Mid-range, in short, is for lazy drivers who don't understand what that little stick to the left of them is for...
I've steered clear of this debate so far but people appear to be reading figures, bhp, torque, 0-60 and using that data to make up their mind about how this upgrade will work.
The fact is that the power delivery of a turbo is very different than that of a SC. Right from the outset the numbers failed to do justice to the R56CS. 0-60 was the same as the R53CS but it's not about the traffic light grand prix, it's about delivery where it counts. The R53CS is faster 0-20 but the R56CS wins over the range 40-70, in fact the standard R56CS is faster 40-70 than the R53CS Works, add Works upgrade to the R56CS and it's bound to be better where it counts. 40-70 is where we all play, that's why the R56CS Works will be a better drive than the R53CS Works. The traction control is more refined too giving less power drop than we had in the R53.
Oh and yes I have driven an R53 GP Works and I own an R56CS and an R53 ONE.
The fact is that the power delivery of a turbo is very different than that of a SC. Right from the outset the numbers failed to do justice to the R56CS. 0-60 was the same as the R53CS but it's not about the traffic light grand prix, it's about delivery where it counts. The R53CS is faster 0-20 but the R56CS wins over the range 40-70, in fact the standard R56CS is faster 40-70 than the R53CS Works, add Works upgrade to the R56CS and it's bound to be better where it counts. 40-70 is where we all play, that's why the R56CS Works will be a better drive than the R53CS Works. The traction control is more refined too giving less power drop than we had in the R53.
Oh and yes I have driven an R53 GP Works and I own an R56CS and an R53 ONE.
tvrbob said:
...but the R56CS wins over the range 40-70, in fact the standard R56CS is faster 40-70 than the R53CS Works
Is that in-gear, across set gears (pretty much the same thing at those speeds), or free choice of gears?!?- If it's the former, then it doesn't prove anything, bar the 'flexibility' :spit: of the engine, or maybe that the gearing means it can do 40-70 without changing (bit of an odd interval...most people use 50-80, but that might yield a different result...), and you're being slightly disingenous by stating the above without qualifying it (bit like that old 'Saab turbo quicker than Ferrari' b'll'cks!)
- If it's the middle-one, then ditto, largely.
- If it's the last one then I'm truly surprised - how a slightly heavier car with 170bhp can out-accelerate the older one with c.210bhp is beyond me unless they've used clearly shorter gears...but then it's getting better economy so I doubt it.
tvrbob said:
havoc said:
tvrbob said:
...but the R56CS wins over the range 40-70, in fact the standard R56CS is faster 40-70 than the R53CS Works
Confusing stuff Bob...please answer the question - that 'faster 40-70 than the previous Works MCS' quote from you - is that in-gear or through-the-gears?!?
Or don't you know and have just quoted it from BMW's marketing guff?!?
havoc said:
Is that in-gear, across set gears (pretty much the same thing at those speeds), or free choice of gears?!?
- If it's the former, then it doesn't prove anything, bar the 'flexibility' :spit: of the engine, or maybe that the gearing means it can do 40-70 without changing (bit of an odd interval...most people use 50-80, but that might yield a different result...), and you're being slightly disingenous by stating the above without qualifying it (bit like that old 'Saab turbo quicker than Ferrari' b'll'cks!)
- If it's the middle-one, then ditto, largely.
- If it's the last one then I'm truly surprised - how a slightly heavier car with 170bhp can out-accelerate the older one with c.210bhp is beyond me unless they've used clearly shorter gears...but then it's getting better economy so I doubt it.
Its quite simple. Too many people believe figures as they're presented to them and as has been proved many times the standard MCS is putting out considerably more than the factory quotes - that's why its quicker than the R53.- If it's the former, then it doesn't prove anything, bar the 'flexibility' :spit: of the engine, or maybe that the gearing means it can do 40-70 without changing (bit of an odd interval...most people use 50-80, but that might yield a different result...), and you're being slightly disingenous by stating the above without qualifying it (bit like that old 'Saab turbo quicker than Ferrari' b'll'cks!)
- If it's the middle-one, then ditto, largely.
- If it's the last one then I'm truly surprised - how a slightly heavier car with 170bhp can out-accelerate the older one with c.210bhp is beyond me unless they've used clearly shorter gears...but then it's getting better economy so I doubt it.
Additionally, you're assertions regarding turbocharging and mid-range torque are nonsense. When I'm bimbling along at 70mph on a motorway, I don't want to have to swap a couple of cogs just to keep up with a soot chucker as I did in my old S2000 which woefully lacked torque.
Edited by Jason_W on Tuesday 21st August 14:47
Jason_W said:
havoc said:
Is that in-gear, across set gears (pretty much the same thing at those speeds), or free choice of gears?!?
- If it's the former, then it doesn't prove anything, bar the 'flexibility' :spit: of the engine, or maybe that the gearing means it can do 40-70 without changing (bit of an odd interval...most people use 50-80, but that might yield a different result...), and you're being slightly disingenous by stating the above without qualifying it (bit like that old 'Saab turbo quicker than Ferrari' b'll'cks!)
- If it's the middle-one, then ditto, largely.
- If it's the last one then I'm truly surprised - how a slightly heavier car with 170bhp can out-accelerate the older one with c.210bhp is beyond me unless they've used clearly shorter gears...but then it's getting better economy so I doubt it.
Its quite simple. Too many people believe figures as they're presented to them and as has been proved many times the standard MCS is putting out considerably more than the factory quotes - that's why its quicker than the R53.- If it's the former, then it doesn't prove anything, bar the 'flexibility' :spit: of the engine, or maybe that the gearing means it can do 40-70 without changing (bit of an odd interval...most people use 50-80, but that might yield a different result...), and you're being slightly disingenous by stating the above without qualifying it (bit like that old 'Saab turbo quicker than Ferrari' b'll'cks!)
- If it's the middle-one, then ditto, largely.
- If it's the last one then I'm truly surprised - how a slightly heavier car with 170bhp can out-accelerate the older one with c.210bhp is beyond me unless they've used clearly shorter gears...but then it's getting better economy so I doubt it.
Additionally, you're assertions regarding turbocharging and mid-range torque are nonsense. When I'm bimbling along at 70mph on a motorway, I don't want to have to swap a couple of cogs just to keep up with a soot chucker as I did in my old S2000 which woefully lacked torque.
Edited by Jason_W on Tuesday 21st August 14:47
I think what people are trying to say is that this is supposed to be a crazy little car, a proper hot-hatch -not a motorway mile eater. So it should be more of a drivers car and provide full oopmph whenever you want it throughout the rev-range? My 2004 MCS does take a while to spin up the Supercharger and the gearing as some of you will know is quite long -but I dont mind changing down a couple of gears to get the instant kick!
Jason_W said:
When I'm bimbling along at 70mph on a motorway, I don't want to have to swap a couple of cogs just to keep up with a soot chucker as I did in my old S2000 which woefully lacked torque.
Erm...don't know if you've spotted but I own an S2000 and it'll quite happily keep up with the flow in 6th on a motorway*, and I've never found it lacking - even in the midrange (the 'teg, meanwhile, IS a bit thin in the midrange...).Oh, and as for 'woefully lacking torque...it's got c.153lb/ft, which isn't miles away from the MCS's 177lb/ft. So by that measure the MCS must be a bit torque-less too...
So what that post says about you is:-
a) You're lazy;
b) You get taken in by perceived power (i.e. torque curve) as opposed to actual power (i.e. bhp);
c) You're confusing (as has been said above by someone else) the purposes of a hot hatch as against a mini-exec or a diesel repmobile. Maybe you've got the wrong car?!?
- c.110bhp at 4,000rpm up to 150-odd at 6,000rpm before VTEC kicks in...so directly comparable to these TDi's at their peak, in a lighter car...quite sufficient, thanks! You must have had something wrong with yours...
havoc said:
tvrbob said:
havoc said:
tvrbob said:
...but the R56CS wins over the range 40-70, in fact the standard R56CS is faster 40-70 than the R53CS Works
Confusing stuff Bob...please answer the question - that 'faster 40-70 than the previous Works MCS' quote from you - is that in-gear or through-the-gears?!?
Or don't you know and have just quoted it from BMW's marketing guff?!?
I put the R56MCS on the track (Croft Circuit) in July for my sons to play with, I was in my Chimarea. Other than the tyres being too new, cooking the standard brake pads and the gear lever coming off, the car drove very well.
Edited by tvrbob on Tuesday 21st August 16:41
tvrbob said:
The 0-20 versus 40-70 is probably because from standing start there's little or no boost from a turbo but the SC will give air pressure from the line. Once boost is established then the R56 come into its own.
So are these YOUR figures then? Or from a professional source? (And if so, what?)You still haven't told me:-
- where you got the info from?
- whether it's in-gear or through the gears?
- what the actual data IS?!?
...in fact, you're doing a very good job of trying to fudge the issue Bob...makes one wonder whether you're trying to ignore the question as you've been caught out!?!
havoc said:
tvrbob said:
The 0-20 versus 40-70 is probably because from standing start there's little or no boost from a turbo but the SC will give air pressure from the line. Once boost is established then the R56 come into its own.
So are these YOUR figures then? Or from a professional source? (And if so, what?)You still haven't told me:-
- where you got the info from?
- whether it's in-gear or through the gears?
- what the actual data IS?!?
...in fact, you're doing a very good job of trying to fudge the issue Bob...makes one wonder whether you're trying to ignore the question as you've been caught out!?!
I have said from the outset that in my opinion 'data' means very little. I used it on this occasion because I was placing a deposit on a car that was not yet in production. The chance came to drive both the GP Works and the R56MCS and that was enough to convince me that I had chosen wisely. If you need to know the numbers then google for it. I would suggest if you have a real interest then go drive the cars and find out that way.
The information you need is on google. I don't do fudge
havoc said:
Erm...don't know if you've spotted but I own an S2000 and it'll quite happily keep up with the flow in 6th on a motorway*, and I've never found it lacking - even in the midrange (the 'teg, meanwhile, IS a bit thin in the midrange...).
Oh, and as for 'woefully lacking torque...it's got c.153lb/ft, which isn't miles away from the MCS's 177lb/ft. So by that measure the MCS must be a bit torque-less too...
So what that post says about you is:-
a) You're lazy;
b) You get taken in by perceived power (i.e. torque curve) as opposed to actual power (i.e. bhp);
c) You're confusing (as has been said above by someone else) the purposes of a hot hatch as against a mini-exec or a diesel repmobile. Maybe you've got the wrong car?!?
Strewth, I wish I hadn't started as clearly you're lacking some fundamental basic knowledge here. The S2000 is always defended by its owners (not surprising that you can't understand why others require useable torque given your choice of car) as a car that is good for cross country blasts, which is true but for real world driving (in town/motorway) it certainly suffers from that lack of torque.Oh, and as for 'woefully lacking torque...it's got c.153lb/ft, which isn't miles away from the MCS's 177lb/ft. So by that measure the MCS must be a bit torque-less too...
So what that post says about you is:-
a) You're lazy;
b) You get taken in by perceived power (i.e. torque curve) as opposed to actual power (i.e. bhp);
c) You're confusing (as has been said above by someone else) the purposes of a hot hatch as against a mini-exec or a diesel repmobile. Maybe you've got the wrong car?!?
Your torque comparison completely misses the point because the S2000's peak torque occurs much higher up the rev range (circa 6000rpm from memory) whereas in the MCS its much lower down (say 1800 rpm onwards) which is why its so much more driveable than a high revving normally aspirated engine. That's why, if the two cars were side by side (say in 6th) and were booted the MCS would pull away from the Honda - its called useable torque and is something that the likes of Evo and Pistonheads have commented favourably on.
So, what my post says about me is:
a) I'm realistic enough to admit that around town and on motorways, I rely on torque instead of having to swap cogs.
b) I know the difference between power (bhp/hp as an measurement of an engine's output but really only useful for impressing mates in the pub similar to 0-60 times) and torque (twisting action that provides in gear acceleration).
c) Err, not confusing anything. The Mini is simply a second car for the wife which is an enjoyable hack and pretty useful in most situations which is surprising given that I was determined not to like it when I took it out for a test drive. It impressed me so much after the R53 which was a reasonable attempt but way too flawed.
In conclusion, for every day situations I'd take the MCS but if it was a simple cross country thrash then I'd take the Honda. Actually, no I wouldn't as I've got something far more entertaining than that.
Suggest you actually drive the car before commenting on it.
turbochrisgti said:
Guess it's alllll down to personal preference! But just to throw a spanner in the works, if you want oooopmh without changing gear then wouldnt you buy a diesel automatic?! You get the best of both worlds, lazyness and torque.
I think what people are trying to say is that this is supposed to be a crazy little car, a proper hot-hatch -not a motorway mile eater. So it should be more of a drivers car and provide full oopmph whenever you want it throughout the rev-range? My 2004 MCS does take a while to spin up the Supercharger and the gearing as some of you will know is quite long -but I dont mind changing down a couple of gears to get the instant kick!
Turbo, I know what you mean about the market this car has to fulfil, however the fact of the matter is that in the real world it has to fill a number of roles - motorways and towns included. Around the country lanes in my area its possible to find a deserted road and give it a good caning which it does admirably alongside the stop start driving in town and on other roads.I think what people are trying to say is that this is supposed to be a crazy little car, a proper hot-hatch -not a motorway mile eater. So it should be more of a drivers car and provide full oopmph whenever you want it throughout the rev-range? My 2004 MCS does take a while to spin up the Supercharger and the gearing as some of you will know is quite long -but I dont mind changing down a couple of gears to get the instant kick!
Its simply a case of practicality. When I'm in the mood or circumstances allow the car can be driven hard but when I'm not or the road conditions don't allow it, the torque allows for more relaxing progress. Its not lazyness, simply a matter of having a car that's a good all rounder.
The MCS has plenty of flaws, as do any of the other cars I've got but unlike many people I'm more than happy to admit that whilst basing my opinions on cars I have first hand knowledge of.
Edited by Jason_W on Tuesday 21st August 18:07
Gassing Station | New MINIs | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff