RE: Cooper S Works Kit Price Announced
Discussion
Jason_W said:
...clearly you're lacking some fundamental basic knowledge here.
...not surprising that you can't understand why others require useable torque given your choice of car...
...but for real world driving (in town/motorway) it [S2000] certainly suffers from that lack of torque.
But it pulls at least as quickly in 6th at M-way speeds as your typical TDi, FFS! I know, I used to own a Focus TDCi and I've driven other diesels. ...not surprising that you can't understand why others require useable torque given your choice of car...
...but for real world driving (in town/motorway) it [S2000] certainly suffers from that lack of torque.
The differences you seem to be missing (odd since you owned one) are the shorter gearing than a diesel and the consequent higher revs for a given speed. At 70mph in top on a M-way, my S2000 will pull harder than my old Focus TDCi...so how is that 'lacking torque'
I've got more 'basic knowledge' than you seem to believe, and some more advanced knowledge too!
Jason_W said:
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.
Not convinced, but going with it for a second, the chances are you wouldn't have the S2000 in 6th in that scenario, and if you did it's a matter of under a second's work to change gear, which gives you so much more to play with. I would defy anyone who can actually drive to be quicker in almost any realistic scenario (inc. M-way) in an MCS than they would be in an S2000.Also, peak torque is largely irrelevant with VTECs...look at their torque curve, and it's near-as-dammit flat from c.2,000rpm to VTEC point, where it jumps by 10-15% and then is near-flat until just shy of peak power. So although the peak is much higher, it's got a similar 'plateau nature' to all these FI cars, albeit over a longer rev-range.
Jason_W said:
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).
Suggest you actually drive the car before commenting on it.
a) Fine...each to their own. But IMHO that's a lazy style of driving. Easier, less hassle, granted, but it doesn't force you to read the road conditions and think. Oh...and around town I short-shift the S2000 anyway as I'd never use even 50% of it's power...so WGAF about torque there.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).
Suggest you actually drive the car before commenting on it.
b) I'd suggest you probably don't fully understand torque...it's been discussed regularly on here and the conclusion is that torque-at-flywheel is completely irrelevant without knowing the gearing. VTECs are short-geared as they've got such a tall rev-range, and short-gearing acts as a torque multiplier. So I'd suggest that, in reality (i.e adjusting for gearing), the S2000 has comparable at-wheels torque to your beloved MCS.
Oh...and I have driven an R53MCS. Power delivery was impressive...didn't feel much slower than my old 'teg, steering was lovely (feel and turn-in), ride was f'in awful (17" run-flats), supercharger whine really put me off.
havoc said:
Oh...and I have driven an R53MCS. Power delivery was impressive...didn't feel much slower than my old 'teg, steering was lovely (feel and turn-in), ride was f'in awful (17" run-flats), supercharger whine really put me off.
No wonder you don't understand. We're talking about the R56 (the current model) not the R53. If you thought the power delivery was impressive, then try the new one, although your refusal to admit in gear comparisons in 6th made me laugh.Try reading the Evo and PistonHeads comparison between the MCS and the Clio and maybe you'll understand.
PS - Perspective.
I'm not silly enough to suggest the S2000 is an easy car to drive quickly, but it IS quick enough to keep up with the flow-of-traffic around town or on a M-way without using VTEC, you just have to use higher revs than in a turbo car (but then as a % of redline it's probably similar).
Some people are happy with that, some aren't.
Delivery-wise, it's not going to compete with a 2.0 turbo or a 3.0 n/a, despite being easily as quick as them when used correctly. Again, horses for courses.
Back to the MCS...don't doubt it's a very effective engine, I just despair when I hear the words 'mid-range' applied to what is supposed to be a FUN car.
This obsession with torque (I blame diesels) is leading everyone to FI, which for some applications just isn't necessary.
Anyway, as you were...
I'm not silly enough to suggest the S2000 is an easy car to drive quickly, but it IS quick enough to keep up with the flow-of-traffic around town or on a M-way without using VTEC, you just have to use higher revs than in a turbo car (but then as a % of redline it's probably similar).
Some people are happy with that, some aren't.
Delivery-wise, it's not going to compete with a 2.0 turbo or a 3.0 n/a, despite being easily as quick as them when used correctly. Again, horses for courses.
Back to the MCS...don't doubt it's a very effective engine, I just despair when I hear the words 'mid-range' applied to what is supposed to be a FUN car.
This obsession with torque (I blame diesels) is leading everyone to FI, which for some applications just isn't necessary.
Anyway, as you were...
havoc said:
I'm not silly enough to suggest the S2000 is an easy car to drive quickly, but it IS quick enough to keep up with the flow-of-traffic around town or on a M-way without using VTEC, you just have to use higher revs than in a turbo car (but then as a % of redline it's probably similar).
It'll keep up but with far more effort from the driver. I had mine for 18 months and did nearly 50k - as an everyday driver its too flawed. As a weekend car or if you live in a relatively traffic free area, its fantastic. On a Friday night, after a long week stuck on the M25 I don't want to have to swop cogs all the time - that's not lazynes, simply practicality.havoc said:
Back to the MCS...don't doubt it's a very effective engine, I just despair when I hear the words 'mid-range' applied to what is supposed to be a FUN car.
Why despair? There's nothing wrong with mid-range in a fun car. You can rev the nuts off it too if you want which it does admirably for a non-VTEC engine. My wife had the R53 a few years ago which I didn't like at all and I was determined not to like this one but for a turbo charged engine, its a revelation with almost imperceptible lag and all the deficiencies (bar the woeful packaging and a step backwards in the steering department) of the old model addressed.For a second car that's FWD it brings a smile to my face, which I still find surprising. There are plenty of flaws but as an alternative to my car it does a good job and if I had to I could probably live with it as an everyday proposition.
Jason_W said:
On a Friday night, after a long week stuck on the M25 I don't want to have to swop cogs all the time - that's not lazynes, simply practicality.
Fair 'nuff...the S2000 DOES require more effort to drive, whereas in something like a Focus or MINI you can probably just 'switch into cruise mode' mentally. Not always advisable, but we all do it..But...(and I apologise for harping on about it, but it really irritates me when people call VTEC's torqueless, esp. the S2000 which certainly isn't)...I'd suggest the engine is probably the least of the driver's focuses on long journeys...I've never found it lacking around town or on a M-way, and that's without switching cogs all the time. But then I've never been one to press on too hard on M-ways, and never around town, so maybe that's why I've not been troubled...
Granted it's not got the in-gear flexibility of a good turbo lump or the old straight-6 M-lump (superb engine...), but it's plenty good enough in my experience. I've other gripes with the car, but not the engine...
PPS - tvrbob - you stated that a 170bhp car is quicker than a 210bhp near-identical weight/shape car from 40-70. This I find extremely difficult to believe, unless you are (deliberately or inadvertently) being disingenuous (e.g. it was an in-gear test set a gear too high, like the Saab Turbo/Ferrari claim), or unless you made a mistake.
I've asked you to explain the comment (not unreasonably), which you've failed to do, repeatedly, going on about 'delivery' and 'torque' (neither of which, when measuring a straight interval, have any real bearing) instead.
So...I can only assume you're trolling to try and 'big the R56 up' for some reason. Which is pretty pointless...
havoc said:
So...I can only assume you're trolling to try and 'big the R56 up' for some reason. Which is pretty pointless...
I guess you really don't know how rude that sounds. This is the first time in my life that anyone has suggested that I am a troll. Let's call an end to this and live in peace 
tvrbob said:
havoc said:
So...I can only assume you're trolling to try and 'big the R56 up' for some reason. Which is pretty pointless...
I guess you really don't know how rude that sounds. This is the first time in my life that anyone has suggested that I am a troll. Let's call an end to this and live in peace 
So you're not going to tell me where you got that info from, or whether it applies to in-gear times only then?!?
You ARE trolling! I don't care if that offends you - your persistent refusal to actually let us know where you got a very-dubious piece of information speaks volumes about your attitude, quite frankly...
When comparing the R56 to the cars of yesteryear aren't you all forgetting the restrictions nowadays on new cars regarding emissions etc. This makes it very difficult to make comparisons against the golf etc! These curb the overall availability of all modern cars, also fuel economy is a major selling point so that becomes another compromise. Not all new car customers are willing to sacrifice economy for power, sounds like a fair swap to me though!
havoc said:
You ARE trolling! I don't care if that offends you - your persistent refusal to actually let us know where you got a very-dubious piece of information speaks volumes about your attitude, quite frankly...
That seals it you are nasty. Oh and by the way you say 'let us know' when it is perfectly obvious that you are the only person asking. If anyone is trolling it is you trying to wind up innocent forum posters. Perhaps you should look up the definition of trolling. It suits your posting down to a tee. I have repeatedly stated that I googled for the information last November. How on earth do you expect me to find the web sites again? I posted here the basic context of that information. I gave no figures because I simply can't recall that level of information. What do I need to do to stop you attacking me?
I held out the olive branch 'Let's call an end to this and live in peace
' and you spat in my face. Nice going.Edited by tvrbob on Tuesday 21st August 23:48
Bloody hell...
To back up tvrbob, I have driven every version of the R53 and own an R56 S. The R56 is quicker and feels quicker in all driving situations. Much as has been said it delivers its power in a totally different manner to the R53. As for in gear, out of gear, whatever gear... Who gives a stuff! I can pretty confidently say that if I drove an R53 and an R56 in different ways and matched then way for way the R56 would be quicker, not by much, but quicker... But I don't really care, and I definetly don't care how an S2000 or teg delivers power ( I have owned a teg), they are just different.
Now Peace...!
To back up tvrbob, I have driven every version of the R53 and own an R56 S. The R56 is quicker and feels quicker in all driving situations. Much as has been said it delivers its power in a totally different manner to the R53. As for in gear, out of gear, whatever gear... Who gives a stuff! I can pretty confidently say that if I drove an R53 and an R56 in different ways and matched then way for way the R56 would be quicker, not by much, but quicker... But I don't really care, and I definetly don't care how an S2000 or teg delivers power ( I have owned a teg), they are just different.
Now Peace...!
http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/showth...
Torque "curve" on the R56 looks pretty impressive to me.
Torque "curve" on the R56 looks pretty impressive to me.
@ Bob. Why do people think they can post up dubious info on here without then having to back it up, and then get angry with people questioning that information?!?
OK, so you can't remember, fair enough. But you were stating it as absolute fact (rather than 'I read somewhere on the oh-so-infallible web'
) that the R56 MCS is faster than the R53 JCW...which given a 40bhp differential I find staggering...just as staggering as the fact that you took it at face-value without questioning it.Looking at the torque curves for the two stock MCS (thanks for them...very useful), I can well believe that the R56 is a little quicker, and feels clearly quicker - it's got a thicker torque curve, even though peak power is virtually identical. It'll be easier to drive than the R53, but probably less entertaining as the torque drops off rapidly from before 5,000rpm...
But quicker than a JCW?!? Pull the other one...it's got bells on it!!!
The 175 bhp R56 is certainly slower than the 210 bhp Works R53 and a bit further behind the R53 GP i own.
The 192 bhp Works R56 will close the gap, but will still lag behind the older 210/218bhp supercharged Works cars.
Having driven the two std Cooper S versions back to back, the turbo feels faster, has a bigger thump in the back, so to speak, but in practice there's so little in it between the 170 bhp and 175 bhp cars that driver skill will make more difference than the engines ever will.
The 192 bhp Works R56 will close the gap, but will still lag behind the older 210/218bhp supercharged Works cars.
Having driven the two std Cooper S versions back to back, the turbo feels faster, has a bigger thump in the back, so to speak, but in practice there's so little in it between the 170 bhp and 175 bhp cars that driver skill will make more difference than the engines ever will.
well......personally i'd forget about jcw all together, there are much better modifiers out there - lohen, gt tuning, morego etc. take morego who have a 300 bhp mini (free revving up to 8000)with a limited slip differential and a few other extras - now i know some people think bhp doesn't count.....
sayanthan said:
well......personally i'd forget about jcw all together, there are much better modifiers out there - lohen, gt tuning, morego etc. take morego who have a 300 bhp mini (free revving up to 8000)with a limited slip differential and a few other extras - now i know some people think bhp doesn't count.....
Ahhh yes, but they all invalidate the warranty, and teh JCW upgrades tend to keep a portion of the upgrade cost..the same generally can't be said of any others.Don't misunderstand me I think the other tuners are very capable but warrant will always feature in a lot of peoples decisions..
Except your JCW warranty isnt as long as the BMW one Theres lots of posts on MINI2 RE this. Warranty was one of the reasons I originally JCWed mine, that and the fact that there werent many other reliable well known Tuners at the time... ah, if I knew then what I know now
Still, not planning to ever sell mine now so irrelevant cost wise, but the JCWs do hold their value well.
HP means bugger all if you dont upgrade your brakes and Susp as well, and the diff makes all the diff (no pun intended). RAF marham proved that - 3 MINIs, one standard JCWS (approx 210bhp)with slip diff, one Fettled JCWS with about 230bhp and coilovers, R888s and uprated discs pads etc but no lsd and a 245 bhp "other Tuner" on runflats and no other mods except engine. All day the order on track after a few laps no matter what order they went out was 1st; modded JCW, 2nd; facelift LSD JCW, and way last 245bhp S.
Great fun finding out!
Not saying which ones mine though
Theres lots of posts on MINI2 RE this. Warranty was one of the reasons I originally JCWed mine, that and the fact that there werent many other reliable well known Tuners at the time... ah, if I knew then what I know now Still, not planning to ever sell mine now so irrelevant cost wise, but the JCWs do hold their value well.
HP means bugger all if you dont upgrade your brakes and Susp as well, and the diff makes all the diff (no pun intended). RAF marham proved that - 3 MINIs, one standard JCWS (approx 210bhp)with slip diff, one Fettled JCWS with about 230bhp and coilovers, R888s and uprated discs pads etc but no lsd and a 245 bhp "other Tuner" on runflats and no other mods except engine. All day the order on track after a few laps no matter what order they went out was 1st; modded JCW, 2nd; facelift LSD JCW, and way last 245bhp S.
Great fun finding out!
Not saying which ones mine though
Scary when you hear the cost of the older JCW upgrades.... new one at £1,200 fitted is well cheap in comparison.
With the new R56's brakes being the same as the older JCW brake upgrade hopefully a better starting point.
I noticed they just released a JCW suspension upgrade, will be giving that a miss as presently teh JCW aero kit lowers the front enough that I scuff on speed humps, 10mm lower and it would be silly.
Presently I want to get the stereo upgarded and then maybe look at the power upgrade and after that...who knows... GTT Stealth Cat package maybe...
With the new R56's brakes being the same as the older JCW brake upgrade hopefully a better starting point.
I noticed they just released a JCW suspension upgrade, will be giving that a miss as presently teh JCW aero kit lowers the front enough that I scuff on speed humps, 10mm lower and it would be silly.
Presently I want to get the stereo upgarded and then maybe look at the power upgrade and after that...who knows... GTT Stealth Cat package maybe...
Gassing Station | New MINIs | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff