Actually those comments were made by Gabe way back in 2002. Don't really apply to the second gen MINI.

 

yeah right ... the second gen closes that gap even more. I am really beginning to think that to most of you driving fun stops if you can't just slam on the throttle and get to 60mph in trivial 1-2 seconds faster

 

And keep in mind that Gabe owned a 2005 MCS and 2007 JCW MCS after his 2002 MC....

 

It is much more than straight line speed

Look, I owned a 2002 Cooper CVT for 6 years. It was deemed the "Slowest" MINI of them all. It was a very fun car. But after driving the S it was no turning back for me

You guys are missing the point....Is not all about speed...Is the ability to have power at any given spot on the range when you need it Passing is a perfect example of this. Out in the open road, the S shines in this regard.

I think this thread has turned into a pissing contest between 8 year old boys If you are happy with your Cooper, then so be it. Likewise, if you enjoy your S (Supercharged or turbo) then so be it as well

I have driven all flavors of "Justas" and they are nice cars but out in the highway I simply need a more flexible power range and more robust power delivery, That is all.

And in the Clubman S, I am still getting 38MPG with the Turbo boost, A/C, sport mode button on and a car fully loaded

 

I know he did ... and all S's are fantastic cars. My argument is that some people just don't need the extra juice.
I also know people that stepped back to a MC after owning several S's for various reasons.

I have driven S's extensively for weeks before but they seem less involving to me than the MC. There is something old school, "getting up through the gears magic" lacking.

 

Some people don't need MINIs either, any "econobox" with 4 wheels would do, right?

It all comes down to:

- Your purchasing power
-Your needs/wants
- Your driving environment

In the 1st gen MC, the steering response was better than the R53 S because it had a faster ratio and the car was lighter up front. That is no longer the case in the R56 and R55. I also never cared for only 5 gears in the R50.

If you come from a R50 to a R56 or R55 MC, yes it is a big/dramatic change. Not only you get a 6 speed manual (Or a superior automatic over the old CVT) but you also get an engine with 95% of its torque available as early as 1,600 RPM.

But if you come from a R53 S to a R56 or R55 S turbo, the change isn't as dramatic as some would like to make it out to be.

Again, it is all personal preference. Im my opinion, the Clubman Justa needs at least 130HP and another 15-20 pounds feet of torque as it is heavier than the standard hardtop. Hopefully the next gen MINI will make the justas more competitive in the power dept.

 

good points .... however I am still wondering what previous cars everyone owned and most importantly showed up with when doing their test drive?
(assuming they did not have a previous gen MINI)

It makes a huge difference in evaluating any car when you jump from a higher hp to a lower one in the matter of 5 minutes.

 

"Amen" brother Lurch!

My car history - VW Beetle, VW Super Beetle, Toyota Hatchback, Volvo 240 Wagon, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Subaru Outback.

 

I have owned mostly "average" cars before engaging in MINI ownership:

1988 Ford Tempo GL
1989 Honda Accord LX 5-speed
1990 Honda Accord DX auto
1994 Honda Accord LX auto
1995 Acura Integra LS sedan 5-speed
1997 Acura 2.5TL auto
2000 Chevy Impala LS (3800 V6)
2001 Chevy Impala LS (3800 V6)

 

Yes, MINIUSA seems well aware of the different types of folks who buy MINIs and that their needs/wants/expectations from the car are somewhat different. I suppose some debates will go on forever (like MCS or Cooper) which is fine w/ me as long as it helps owners find the car that is right for them.

 

I think the Cooper buyer, in general, tends to be more concerned with fuel mileage, does not seek higher performance from the powertrain, and it is either a budget conscious buyer or prefers gadgets/options over vehicle performance, speed, etc.

And again guys, there is nothing wrong with that criteria. The problem with these threads is that people tend to get way too defensive on both sides of the discussion. After all, they spent a lot of money on their cars and no one is going to openly admit.."Yep I made a mistake. I should have gone with A or B or B or A".

Simply agree to disagree, move and and let live. My first MINI was way under $20K new and took nearly 10 seconds to reach 60MPH from standstill. We were happy with it and the car was sufficient for our needs and wants. But once we drove the S there was no turning back. We rediscovered an already outstanding car made even better by a more responsive, smooth and efficient powerplant.

Some folks will never consider an S. Some will upgrade to an S. In rarer situations some will downgrade to a Justa.

To me the S models offer the best bang for the buck. Offer acceptable levels of performance for North American driving conditions and make the cars much more well rounded packages.

We initially had ordered a Justa Clubman. When the price climbed up to $25.5K with just a few options, we decided to spring up for the S. Sorry, paying that much money for a car with just 118HP seemed ridiculous. Our first MINI with just 115HP was $18,500. 6 years later we were paying $7K more to get a car with barely more power didn't seem to make much sense. Yes it is an improved car, more comfortable, practical, etc but not worth that much money. An extra two grand for the S seemed like a reasonable compromise to step up to a better performing car. We haven't regret it to this day.

 

Very true.

 

I hear this alot, but just what do people deem as "North American driving conditions"?

 

Ok, I think besides maybe the Tempo, all the others are much faster,more powerful cars than the MC ... so I see where you are coming from. So now it all makes sense why you would want an S. Its all good

 

Oh gosh, you had no idea how slow that '89 Accord was.....98HP and torque was not more than 100 pounds feet (and it came at over 4K RPM). It was a 2.0L 4 cyl 12-valve engine but it was carburated (It was the last year of carburated Accords). The LX-i model of that year, had the same engine but fuel injected at 120HP and a little more torque.

Even with the 5 speed it was a DOG off the line. But highway mileage was impressive as in the mid-40's.

By comparison, the 2002 MC CVT was a rocket right next to it.

 

Emphasis on torque over high speed... In a nut shell...

 

Those holes will bearly flow enough air to do anything of consequence.
Functional as in providing meaningful airflow.