Scoop: ’07 Cooper S to Drop Over 180lbs

MotoringFile Exclusive: As we mentioned last week the MCS will be going on a thorough diet when the next generation rolls out in a few months. However until now we’ve only heard rumblings of what the final figure would be. We can now report that the next generation MCS will weigh at least 180 pounds lighter than the current car. We’re told that a healthy portion of that savings will be from the new aluminum block – the best place to take weigh considering vehicle dynamics. That figure, combined with the increased power (175bhp) and better weight balance, should give the car a noticeable performance boost over the current R53.

The Cooper will see less of a weight reduction since it’s coming from a lower weight than the current MCS. However expect it to have a similar percentage of weight shed.

We’ll be rolling out new facts and figures on the next generation MINI everyday for the next week on MotoringFile. Be sure to check back tomorrow for more. And for expanded coverage of the new car browse MotoringFile’s R56 and R55 sections.

  • Jon

    FANTASTIC! I am looking forward to seeing more details. Teh weight savings, increased power and balance is going to make for a fun next gen mini.

    Thanks for the update Gabe

  • http://www.motoringphotography.com Dave

    From the sounds of it most of that weight savings should apply to the already lighter MC as well. Even if it’s only 2/3 of the MCS weight savings 120 lbs off the already lighter MC would be fantastic.

    This gives me hope that the R55 Traveller might come in at the same weight or less than the equivalent R50/R53 Cooper.

    I’m still looking forward to having a JCW R55 to go along with my R50. :)

  • John

    That’s great to hear. Now, after I get mine in March, I can tell my buddy [who just bought a Civic Si] to “Eat my Cheese” as I leave him behind in the dust

  • PeB

    180 lbs is well nearly 82 Kgs right ?

  • http://www.detailingconcepts.com matt

    now i’m going to have to get a JCW kit.

  • Nathaniel Salzman

    Wow that is a huge savings. 2400+ lbs is super light these days. I remember how quick my 2100 lb Prelude was on only 115 hp. That’s going to rock!

  • http://www.alldigitalnyc.com drew

    oohhhhh baby….

  • http://www.motoringunderground.com iDiaz

    Oh wow… that’s stunning! Taking 180 lbs off of the nose of the car will make a massive difference in its handling prowess! Now, imagine gutting it beyond that. Suddenly, a 2200 lbs MCS seems within reach!

  • http://www.motoringfile.com/ Gabe

    From the sounds of it most of that weight savings should apply to the already lighter MC as well. Even if it’s only 2/3 of the MCS weight savings 120 lbs off the already lighter MC would be fantastic.

    Dave – I wouldn’t expect the new MC and MCS to have same percentage of weight difference that is currently found in the R50 and R53. They will be essentially the same cars save a few notable components.

  • cct1

    What’s the big deal?

    Jarred lost more.

  • nrkist

    AWD JCW R55. Hmmm…

  • MillieTheMini

    For a car that’s growing in size, it’s not surprising to have a corresponding increase in power – but a drop in total weight goes totally against the norm.

    Many people forget the importance of weight distribution and power-to-weight ratio in gauging a car’s performance (or torque for that matter too).

    As much as the new VW GTI (new in North America that is) has been getting rave reviews for it’s 207hp turbo engine, it’s still over 3000lbs in weight – let’s say it has a 14-15lb per hp ratio. Assuming that the 2007 Cooper S is approx 2400lb in weight, with 175hp it’s pretty much even to the GTI that important category.

    Next thing to wait for is the torque numbers – if it’s 175lb or better in the 2007 Cooper S, it’s going to be as strong as the GTI off the line – and if the MINI can get close to 50-50 weight distribution, these factors plus the driving dynamics of the MINI ‘DNA’ will make it unbeatable!

  • http://www.motoringphotography.com Dave
    Dave – I wouldn’t expect the new MC and MCS to have same percentage of weight difference that is currently found in the R50 and R53. They will be essentially the same cars save a few notable components.

    Matches with what I’m thinking too then.

    We know the MCS is going to have a lighter exhaust (straight back from the appearance of the spy photos, versus the convoluted routing now), and there may be other savings from the supercharger->turbo change on the MCS too. One other area for potential weight savings on the MCS may be the battery harness, since the straight back exhaust would imply the battery was able to be relocated up front under the (now larger) bonnet.

    Still with the shared lighter block, it certainly looks like the MCS is going to be in the neighborhood of 2500 lbs and the MC would be around 2380 lbs

  • Jon2

    180 lbs is pretty significant! That should be good for some excellent responsiveness: this new car is looking better and better. Now if we can only find out if there’s a bit more legroom for the back seats, I can head out with my deposit cheque 😀

  • http://www.motoringphotography.com Dave

    Jon: I think you’re going to have to wait for the R55 (extendo wheel base traveller) for any appreciable change in rear seat legroom.

  • John

    Sounds like the best drop of 180 pounds of uneeded, useless weight I’ve experienced since I divorced my ex-wife.

  • FH

    Wow. Maybe a JCW R55 around 2010 would be in the plans.

  • http://www.2montoya.com Justin Montoya

    I bet money it won’t be half that.

    Any takers?

  • http://www.2montoya.com Justin Montoya

    MAYBE 70lbs… MAYBE

  • http://www.motoringfile.com/ Gabe

    I bet money it won’t be half that. Any takers? MAYBE 70lbs… MAYBE

    What do you want to bet and do you have a Paypal account?

  • http://www.detailingconcepts.com matt

    hehe, a “game of chance.”

  • http://www.motoringfile.com/ Gabe

    It’s less of a game of chance when one person knows the answer and the other one doesn’t. At that point it’s just called me taking your money.

  • http://www.motoringphotography.com Dave
    What do you want to bet and do you have a Paypal account?

    I want some of that action too.

    Mark me down in the more than 70 lbs column.

  • Timothy

    OK, I’ll say it: what was the point of the GP?

  • THP

    “OK, I’ll say it: what was the point of the GP?”

    Really none, just a good way of making people pay a lot more for less. The GP really should have been based on the new engine/body to showcase a true performance improvement in the platform.

    Honestly, with BMW pushing their RWD ad campaigns they could at least provide the mini with it as well.

  • http://mini.mdsbrain.com mdsbrain

    Gabe this bet sounds like something to take to the Woof Voicemail line game 😀

  • Pretzel Logic

    I wonder if those folks pushing for RWD live in sunny or well-snowplowed climes?

    Here’s to the weight loss and the bump in HP.

  • gokartride

    I’m surprised….but this is good news!!

  • rj

    I’m not understanding the comment/wish for the MINI to attain a 50-50 weight distro.

    Has any FWD auto achieved 50-50, or anywhere near that? Don’t see how it would be possible with the engine, transmission, battery, drive all positioned at the very front of the car, and little if any weight towards the back.

  • Liam

    That is awesome. And another example of BMW building the MINI to be a genuinely good driving experience from the ground up, rather than tweaking a compromised volume seller with some after thought hot hatchery. Bravo BMW!

  • Michael (Mayim)
    Don’t see how it would be possible with the engine, transmission, battery, drive all positioned at the very front of the car

    In the MCS, the battery is located further back to help with the weight distribution.

  • Mark

    My money is with Gabe. I bet 180lbs……or go with $1 Bob (Price is Right reference).

    When is the JCW kit going to be coming out for the R56?

    Any word on when they are going to move to a SMG/DSG setup? Not for me, but seeing the numbers/reviews on the VW setup I am confident there are enough people interested (Perhaps none are willing to ask on this message board).

    Thanks!

  • Mark

    PS Gabe, I like the shot of your new rims at the top of the page. They look great.

  • Mark

    Uh-oh – Gabe.

    I think MilliTheMini said “50/50 weight distribution…”

  • Mark

    …and so did rj!

  • Mark 1st 2 comments above

    I just looked back at some previous articles and answered the questions I just asked.

    DSG type transmission – 3-4 years if ever.

    JCW – Fall of 2007

  • http://www.motoringfile.com/ Gabe

    Well done Mark. I’d say that 95% of the questions asked by people regarding the R56 can be answered in previous stories. And 75% can be answered from just one story: Next Generation MINI Revealed

  • rj

    ‘….In the MCS, the battery is located further back to help with the weight distribution….’

    I thought I read that in the new MCS the battery is to be relocated to the under-bonnet area in the engine compartment…

  • Timothy

    I hope this weight savings is not the result of the new paint job. :-)

  • tony T

    Doubting Thomas here again…..

    We went through this with the GP didn’t we…? Some ‘insiders’ from the factory assured us it was going to drop significant weight and that output would be 230+bhp…. it didnt happen.

    If you look at the technical specification documents of both the old Cooper engine and the new cooper engine (turbo charged) you’ll see something interesting… the newer engine actually weighs more. The old Cooper engine weighs in at approx 104kgs, the current Cooper S engine with supercharger weighs 118kgs. These weights are from the technical specifcation for the engines at tritec.com

    The new Cooper engine weight…? according to BMW/Citroen/Peugot, 130kgs… !!! So according to BMW documentation, the new Cooper engine weighs approximatly 27lbs more than the current Cooper S engine… go figure…

    So, where is the weight being saved…? Pretty sure the car isn’t suddenly going to be made out of some super lightweight materials, because that usually means productions costs rocket and crash test results suffer.

    All new models weigh more than old models. That is why we have a constant rise in BHP output, to make up for this weight gain. So unless the chassis is made up from Carbon Fibre, and the body shell is 100% alumininum, I cant see how a total weight reduction can be achieved. Perhaps they’ve deleted the rear seats and tail wipe…?

    References:

    http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/document/presse_dossier/PK_PSA_BMW1103281940.pdf

    http://www.tritecmotors.com.br/english/motors/16L.htm#

    Let me just say, i dont doubt for a moment that Gabe has reported this story in all good faith. My doubts come from the ‘insiders’, who have let us down before.

  • http://bravo5.org/blog blalor
    Well done Mark. I’d say that 95% of the questions asked by people regarding the R56 can be answered in previous stories. And 75% can be answered from just one story: Next Generation MINI Revealed

    So, in other words, RTFM. 😉

  • http://www.2montoya.com Justin Montoya

    I’ve got two in the more than 70lbs column… anymore takers?

  • Jim Harris

    A 180 lb diet, combined with a turbo whose boost you can play with, is going to be a major deal. The current GP and JCW are going to get obsolete in a couple of years if this is true.

  • http://www.motoringfile.com/ Gabe

    Let me just say, i dont doubt for a moment that Gabe has reported this story in all good faith. My doubts come from the ‘insiders’, who have let us down before.

    Tony – I wouldn’t exactly trust Tritec’s figures on their site. For instance they claim the MCS and MC engines are exactly the same weight when we know that there is a fairly big different between the two.

    I’ve got two in the more than 70lbs column… anymore takers?

    When did this happen? Where is the money? Do you and they have a Paypal account?

  • nervous

    Delicious – I can’t wait for the next morsel! Thanks, Gabe!

  • http://Motoringfile.com Mark Hendrie

    I have to admit the new MCS sounds amazing and as a soon to be GP owner it is rather annoying. However in the defence of my motor the GP will hold its value well and has loads of exclusive kit which will ensure that it stands out from the crowd, for example those sweet Recaros! Then roll on the new MCS Works and the GP can be traded in at little loss (that is the plan anyway)!

  • Mark

    Gabe, any word if MINI is planning on releasing an ’07 JCW Automatic in North America? Or do we get to be the red-headed step children again?

  • tony T

    “Tony – I wouldn’t exactly trust Tritec’s figures on their site. For instance they claim the MCS and MC engines are exactly the same weight when we know that there is a fairly big different between the two. “

    Sorry Gabe, no they dont, you’re mistaken there. They quote 104kgs for the Cooper, and 118kgs for the S, which is in line with the extra weight of the Supercharger etc.

    Now even if their figures are a little out from BMW’s (although I cant see how they can be) BMW/citreon still quote the new engine at 130kgs. So where is this weight being saved on the rest of the car…..?

    Bigger cars (which the new Mini will be in comparison to the old) end up weighing more. Even the new Clio Cup, with its raised horsepower output, is still lower in terms of BHP per tonne as its gained some 130kgs in weight, which is mainly due to meeting higher crash test standards…

    So, where have BMW found 180lbs of weight saving over the older, smaller car…? I’m guessing that producing all the body panels in aluminium wouldnt even give such a weight saving on such a small car… and i’ve not heard of any change from the normal construction so far… but perhaps thats the big new secret???

    I’m just smelling a fish here. Perhaps there is a little bit of ‘marketing speak’ going on. Perhaps the car is 10% larger than the current on, but weighs the same, so in real terms, someone has extrapollated that to being a net weight saving..??

    Anyway, i’ve got paypal, so I’ll have a tenner (£10) wager with you (for charity) that the car doesn’t end up weighing this amount less… :-)

  • http://www.motoringfile.com/ Gabe

    I’m just looking at the engine statistics for each variation. Where are you seeing your numbers?

    Yes I will take your bet. That’s about $18.50 btw 😉 Who ever is on the short end can donate the cash via Paypal to your choice of charity. Sound good? Are we saying over 180lbs less and I win, under 180lbs and you win?

  • cct1

    That’s a great idea.

    Let’s all donate to the cct1 JCW engine kit charity, which has been around since 2005 established soley to do wonderful things for my MCS….

  • tony T

    Gabe: Go to this page: http://www.tritecmotors.com.br/english/motors/16L.htm# click on the Cooper S engine, when the page loads (larger picture of the S engine) click on ‘Technical Data’, bottom of the pop up page, reads 118kgs.

    Then click on the Cooper Engine, wait for the page to load (larger picture of a Cooper engine), then Technical Data, bottom of the pop up page it reads 104kgs…

    These weigths seem fine tooo me, but the weight of the new engine quoted at 130kgs..? Could this not be the error..?

    I’m happy to accept any measure of appreciable weight loss, doesnt have to be ‘180lbs’. So if its 150lbs lighter, you win too. If its less than 100lbs, I’ll think about it.

    Dont get me wrong, I’ll be very glad to see this car weighing a lot less, but if the engine weigths are correct as stated in these docs, then theres even more weight saved somewhere else… and I cant see how, unless they are doing something very drastic. As the Mini isnt a great profit maker in terms of manufacturing cost, I’d be surprised to see it investing so much in producing a lightweight ‘standard’ car.

    It puts me in mind of the M3 CSL. It was only 210lbs lighter than the standard car, yet cost £15k more and had trick CF roof etc etc…

  • http://www.motoringfile.com/ Gabe

    Good reasoning Tony – but I’ll just say one thing. Your comments will be interesting to read in a few months time – trust me on this one :)

  • tony T

    I was rather hoping details would be published a lot sooner… :-(

  • MillieTheMini

    “I’m not understanding the comment/wish for the MINI to attain a 50-50 weight distro.

    Has any FWD auto achieved 50-50, or anywhere near that? Don’t see how it would be possible with the engine, transmission, battery, drive all positioned at the very front of the car, and little if any weight towards the back.”

    Oh, my comments were with regards to hoping that the 2007 MINI moves closer to the ‘ideal’ of 50-50 weight distribution – not that it will, but with word of a lighter engine, that should shift more weight behind the front wheels, or at least less weight above them.

    Putting the battery back to the front, (approx 10-15lbs?) won’t help much, but if it’s put behind the front axle, that should minimize the effect.

    We can hope and wish, can’t we? Very soon we will know for sure!! :-)

  • MINIAC

    From MINI2 report:

    Despite the lighter engine block and other efforts to keep the bulge to a minimum, the Cooper S has also put on weight, around 10kg, whereas the Cooper (unavailable to drive) has trimmed down a little.
  • http://www.motoringfile.com/ Gabe

    Bizarre considering some of my sources. I’m pretty sure the 22lbs figure isn’t correct.

  • tony T

    I’ve been fed too many ‘nudge nudge wink wink’ lines from a certain ‘Mini HQ insider’ to believe they do much more than serve the tea and clean the toilets down there… :-(

  • http://xp.solidhelium.com Lucas

    Ouch, I was really hoping that Gabe’s sources were right and the new models will be quite a bit lighter than the current one.

    I guess Gabe owes Tony a case of beer!! Haha.

  • http://www.trackfaq.com Miniak

    That is a bummer. Maybe the tech specs are wrong instead…? 😉

  • 66CooperS

    So far I’m going the “performance/mileage by subtraction” route on my “03 MCS: 2 Rear Seat Backs 29.188 lbs. 1 Rear Seat Base 9.214 1 Cargo Top Tray 2.821 2 Seat/Shoulder Belt Assemblys 7.936 1 Service Jack 5.291 1 Ash Tray .044 1 Tow Hook Kit .749

    Total, So Far 55.214 lbs subtracted

  • http://www.motoringfile.com/ Gabe

    That is a bummer. Maybe the tech specs are wrong instead…? 😉

    (A) no official specs have been released and (B) I think the final figure may surprise you.

  • Pingback: MotoringFile » Archive » Is the 2007 MCS Faster than JCW GP?()

  • Pingback: MotoringFile » Archive » Official 2007 MINI Specifications()