R56 2007 R32 GTI vs. R56 MINI - any comments?
#26
09-25-2006, 06:55 PM
One of the car mags had a 06 JCWS v a GTI and a SI civic comparison. The GTI was a clear winner from the Mini. The R36, as it will be, is in another class to the Mini altogether. AWD for 210hp+ is a must. Front wheel drive cars in the over 200hp range are uniformely mad and torque-steery understeering monsters. There is a Top Gear clip of a 250hp Alfa 147 ( a beautiful, sculptural undrivable beast) that shows what happens when you drop a V6 into a small front drive car
#27
09-25-2006, 07:03 PM
One of the car mags had a 06 JCWS v a GTI and a SI civic comparison. The GTI was a clear winner from the Mini. The R36, as it will be, is in another class to the Mini altogether. AWD for 210hp+ is a must. Front wheel drive cars in the over 200hp range are uniformely mad and torque-steery understeering monsters. [Emphasis added.] There is a Top Gear clip of a 250hp Alfa 147 ( a beautiful, sculptural undrivable best) that shows what happens when you drop a V6 into a small front drive car
#28
10-04-2006, 12:30 AM
3rd Gear
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: portland, SLC, Aspen
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
look at the car and driver review of the A3 3.2. overall it sound like the 2.T is a more pleasant car and better bang for the buck. also considering it is turbo, easily modified! the 2.0t is 500 lbs less then the 3.2.
I recently was in a r32 though and i must say i like it. torquey, fun, fast car, plus has a great exhaust note. i still like my mini, but now i want a throatier exhaust.
I recently was in a r32 though and i must say i like it. torquey, fun, fast car, plus has a great exhaust note. i still like my mini, but now i want a throatier exhaust.
#29
10-04-2006, 08:10 AM
6th Gear
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 3,802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
look at the car and driver review of the A3 3.2. overall it sound like the 2.T is a more pleasant car and better bang for the buck. also considering it is turbo, easily modified! the 2.0t is 500 lbs less then the 3.2.
I recently was in a r32 though and i must say i like it. torquey, fun, fast car, plus has a great exhaust note. i still like my mini, but now i want a throatier exhaust.
I recently was in a r32 though and i must say i like it. torquey, fun, fast car, plus has a great exhaust note. i still like my mini, but now i want a throatier exhaust.
#30
10-04-2006, 01:08 PM
3rd Gear
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: portland, SLC, Aspen
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i know that it has allwheel drive. but modding a naturally aspirated car is expensive business.
#31
10-04-2006, 02:22 PM
Just for the record, Volvo AWD prior to late 2002 did NOT use the Haldex system. The video you linked shows earlier model Subaru and Volvo (the old Volvo system was a viscous coupling). Also this was NOT a controlled, unbiased test.
In my opinion, the Haldex systems work great for low traction conditions, but are not the best choice for performance on dry pavement.
Dave
MCS 2005, Volvo XC70 2004
In my opinion, the Haldex systems work great for low traction conditions, but are not the best choice for performance on dry pavement.
Dave
MCS 2005, Volvo XC70 2004
Having been a Volvo guy for my whole life, I wouldn't necessarily just jump on the Haldex bandwagon. I've never owned an AWD Volvo but from what I've heard, the early versions (ie. late 98-01 or 02) were pretty weak. They have supposedly improved in recent years, but it really depends on which Haldex system is put on the R32 GTI. And to echo what has been said about the weight of the VW. I almost bought a Rabbit before I ultimately decided on my MINI. I thought the 150hp Rabbit would blow the 115hp Cooper out of the water. But the MINI feels just as fast and responsive if not more so than the VW. I don't know if this applies to comparing the GTI and Cooper S, but its just something to think about...
This video is also something to consider. Everyone seems to have different takes on it so take it for what its worth when considering Haldex.
I can't get the link to work but if you want to copy and paste the url:
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/06/...vs-subaru-awd/
This video is also something to consider. Everyone seems to have different takes on it so take it for what its worth when considering Haldex.
I can't get the link to work but if you want to copy and paste the url:
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/06/...vs-subaru-awd/
#32
10-04-2006, 03:24 PM
Just for the record, Volvo AWD prior to late 2002 did NOT use the Haldex system. The video you linked shows earlier model Subaru and Volvo (the old Volvo system was a viscous coupling). Also this was NOT a controlled, unbiased test.
In my opinion, the Haldex systems work great for low traction conditions, but are not the best choice for performance on dry pavement. [Emphasis added.]
Dave
MCS 2005, Volvo XC70 2004
In my opinion, the Haldex systems work great for low traction conditions, but are not the best choice for performance on dry pavement. [Emphasis added.]
Dave
MCS 2005, Volvo XC70 2004
#33
10-04-2006, 03:28 PM
#34
10-05-2006, 02:57 AM
3rd Gear
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: portland, SLC, Aspen
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes but my point is, that the 2.0t starts off as a fun car to drive, more fun then the 3.2, but slower, add lsd exhaust intake and a chip you will be way outperforming the 3.2 for the price of the 3.2. but it does depend on if you want allwheel drive, which is a pretty sweet thing. if you want to mod the 3.2 you can only make small gains unless you force some air in there, which is a major undertaking, not to say people won't or don't do it, its just very expensive. basically i think the 2.0 is a better buy even if you have plenty to buy the 3.2. i think it also says something that the S3 uses the 2.0t and not the 3.2 or 3.6.
on to the S3 if they just released the 2.0t with allwheel drive, you could have a S3 performer for a hell of a lot less then a S3.
on to the S3 if they just released the 2.0t with allwheel drive, you could have a S3 performer for a hell of a lot less then a S3.
#35
10-05-2006, 07:18 AM
yes but my point is, that the 2.0t starts off as a fun car to drive, more fun then the 3.2, but slower, add lsd [Emphasis added.] exhaust intake and a chip you will be way outperforming the 3.2 for the price of the 3.2. but it does depend on if you want allwheel drive, which is a pretty sweet thing. if you want to mod the 3.2 you can only make small gains unless you force some air in there, which is a major undertaking, not to say people won't or don't do it, its just very expensive. basically i think the 2.0 is a better buy even if you have plenty to buy the 3.2. i think it also says something that the S3 uses the 2.0t and not the 3.2 or 3.6.
on to the S3 if they just released the 2.0t with allwheel drive, you could have a S3 performer for a hell of a lot less then a S3.
on to the S3 if they just released the 2.0t with allwheel drive, you could have a S3 performer for a hell of a lot less then a S3.
The R32 (or R36) will have all of those issues sorted out from the factory with the additional bonus of AWD. If the AWD F/R bias can be selected by the driver, then you have a superior result to anything that can be done to a 2.0T. And MINI's R56 JCW variant starts to look a bit lacking before its first year of production is over with.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SosoMINI
MINI Parts for Sale
30
11-22-2015 03:17 PM
fm.illuminatus
R56 :: Hatch Talk (2007+)
0
08-10-2015 12:15 AM
jrezzo
MINIs & Minis for Sale
0
08-09-2015 10:32 PM
marendt428
MINIs & Minis for Sale
0
08-08-2015 04:44 AM
calebmil
R56 :: Hatch Talk (2007+)
0
08-07-2015 05:54 AM