Sections: Official News | R56 (Coupe) Dec 11th, 2006 19 Comments 
In light of increasing fuel prices, many manufacturers are striving to produce vehicles with an average fuel economy of 30 miles per gallon. The fact that the all-new 2007 MINI Cooper achieves 40 miles per gallon according to the latest EPA testing should be welcomed by car buyers across the US. And that the MINI Cooper delivers this miserly fuel economy with no effect on its performance and driving capabilities is an added advantage.
MINI USA’s growth in sales over the past 5 years to just over 170,000 cars and the overall growth trend of the small-car market demonstrates how the industry is responding to the need for increased efficiency. MINI is a prime example that buyers do not need to sacrifice performance, quality and fun when opting for a smaller, more efficient vehicle.
On average the new generation 2007 MINI hardtops realize an increase of 4 miles per gallon over their predecessors. The 2007 MINI Cooper with a 6-speed manual transmission achieves a fuel economy of 32/40 City/Highway with a combined average of 35 MPG. The same car with an automatic transmission offers preliminary values of 30/37 City/Highway MPG with a combined average of 33 MPG.
For the turbocharged 2007 MINI Cooper S with a 6-speed manual transmission the following EPA fuel economy values are 29/36 City/Highway with a combined MPG of 32 MPG. And for the MINI Cooper S with the 6-speed performance automatic transmission the preliminary values are 27/34 City/Highway with a combined average of 30 MPG.
As an important factor in improved fuel economy, the all-new 2007 MINI hardtops have a new family of lighter weight aluminum alloy engines that incorporate more efficient technology. Both in normally aspirated and turbocharged versions, the engines feature variable valve train technology. In addition, the engines feature a volume-flow controlled oil pump that delivers only the necessary oil needed at that give time. These are just some of the examples of how MINI has increased overall efficiencies.
“MINIs offer loads of fun style and substance but they also happen to offer a high level of fuel efficiency in a premium-small-car.” said Rich Steinberg, manager of US product strategy. “With the all-new 2007 MINI hardtops we have been able to improve our fuel efficiency without compromising what makes MINI fun.”
Source: MINI USA Press
Mike Dec 11th, 2006 Link
Interesting timing on this announcement as the EPA today released their revisions of mileage estimates. I think highway estimates will be reduced by about 12% to put things more in line with what the real world driver obtains. Still, these numbers are impressive given the fact that MINI drivers are not sacrificing performance for good gas mileage.
Reply
Brendan Dec 11th, 2006 Link
I presume that is premium for the Cooper S? or is it just 87 oct??
Reply
Kennedy Dec 11th, 2006 Link
It’s not that the mileage was bad with the outgoing models, but it wasn’t ever where I thought it was great mileage either. I’m pretty impressed with the 4 mpg leap, even if the epa estimates are off, it’s 4 mpg better than before, with both tested the same way… and with more torque throughout the entire rev band. Not too shabby!
Reply
Shamus Dec 12th, 2006 Link
Can anyone please explain why the international website’s fuel economy and the EPA’s numbers differ so much? In Europe, they’re claiming 26/41mpg compared to our 29/36mpg for the S. How can the testing be so different?
Reply
TroyF Dec 12th, 2006 Link
Wow. Better MPG, more HP, AND lighter. This car is guna be one HOT seller
Reply
Steve Dec 12th, 2006 Link
You gotta be careful with the UK numbers. They like to use the imperial gallon which is 20% more than the US gallon
Reply
Mark Smith Dec 12th, 2006 Link
European tests are different with a different method of measuring miles per gallon. Look at the disparity in those figures from Europe to the U.S.
Reply
Wessy Dec 12th, 2006 Link
Well these figures are great news, and even bigger gains than I was expecting. I just hope the cars actually deliver a fuel economy improvement on this scale in actual practice — early reports from new R56 owners in the UK who are disappointed in their cars’ fuel consumption make me skeptical, although I’m also aware that most of their engines probably aren’t entirely broken in.
Reply
Shamus Dec 12th, 2006 Link
Thought I’d read up a bit and found this on Wikipedia (looks to me like the Europeans are getting a little closer to real-world numbers than we are):
“The EPA tests do not directly measure fuel consumption, but rather calculate the amount of fuel used by measuring emissions from the tailpipe based on a formula created in 1972. The cars are not actually driven around a course, but are cycled through specific profiles of starts, stops, and runs on a chassis dynamometer in a laboratory environment. As emissions standards have become more strict due to smog, most of the resulting numbers do not directly correspond to what people actually experience when driving. Most often, the EPA estimate of mileage is several percent higher than what the average driver manages to achieve in practice, although there are some cases where the difference is nearly 200% higher than what the average driver achieves.”
“In the United Kingdom, the Vehicle Certification Agency [5] has initiated a similar fuel economy rating system in accordance with European Community Directive 93/116/EC. The ratings are based on an urban and extra-urban driving cycle. The urban cycle is a cold start followed by “a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerations and idling. Maximum speed is 31 mph (50 km/h), average speed 12 mph (19 km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4 km).” The extra-urban cycle is conducted immediately following the urban cycle and consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75 mph (120 km/h), average speed is 39 mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3 miles (7 km).”
Reply
Edge Dec 12th, 2006 Link
Can anyone please explain why the international website’s fuel economy and the EPA’s numbers differ so much? In Europe, they’re claiming 26/41mpg compared to our 29/36mpg for the S. How can the testing be so different?
European tests are different with a different method of measuring miles per gallon. Look at the disparity in those figures from Europe to the U.S.
This is probably caused by the fact that the Euro gallon is different than the USA gallon. 1 UK/European gallon = about 1.2 US gallons.
Yet another example of the USA “doing our own thing” and confusing the heck out of everyone! Heh. (like spelling… color instead of colour, etc.)
Reply
Chad Dec 12th, 2006 Link
Those numbers don’t sound that impressive considering the weight loss and complication of the as-needed pumps. Though it would be interesting to see what other cars would get under the new testing standard. Doubt Toyota is looking to re-test anything unless it has to. Kind of hard to get a warm fuzzy fuel saving feeling if you don’t have the numbers behind you. But at least the on-board computer is standard, so you can point out the numbers to passengers.
Reply
Rocco Rocket Dec 12th, 2006 Link
Yet another example of the USA “doing our own thing†and confusing the heck out of everyone! Heh. (like spelling… color instead of colour, etc.)
I switched to colour and I’m getting 6 more miles to the gallon! ;)
Reply
Kennedy Dec 12th, 2006 Link
Those numbers don’t sound that impressive considering the weight loss and complication of the as-needed pumps.
I’m not a powertrain engineer, but I’d expect as with most other things, the higher you take the fuel economy, the tougher it is to make further improvements. So you have to do a lot of little things to make a noticeable improvement. Considering the claimed broader powerbands from the new powerplants, a roughly 10% improvement seems like a nice improvement to me and certainly a step in the right direction. I’d gladly take more of course, but even if we’re not at the EPA estimates, I’m betting it’s still improved from the 28 mpg I see in mostly non-congested rural/interstate driving.
Reply
Brian Dec 12th, 2006 Link
Has anyone experienced improved fuel economy by installing a smaller pulley on the MCS?
Reply
pchilton Dec 12th, 2006 Link
I heard the new gas tank is smaller on the Cooper so, even though we’ll get more mpg, we probably won’t get more miles from a tank. Is this true and, if so, why is the tank smaller?
Thanks.
Reply
GZ Dec 12th, 2006 Link
I realize it’s too soon to guess on the R56 but how did the last model JCW fare in MPG compared to an MCS?
Reply
Glenn Dec 12th, 2006 Link
I have been able to get over 40 mpg (according to the car’s computer) on the highway lately with my 2006 MCa. Last time I filled up right next to the highway the average was close to 45mpg by the time I got home. But since that I have been doing stop and go city driving the average for the same tank is down to about 27. So the gap between city/highway is pretty wide.
Reply
petsounds Dec 12th, 2006 Link
It is great that they increased the gas mileage, however have they improved the absolutely terrible emissions rating the MINI has? Hopefully the new engine improved this.
Check out the EPA site: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
The MINIs get a 2 for Air Quality (10 is the best), while most other cars get 6 and above.
Reply
Dave Mac Mini Dec 12th, 2006 Link
My ‘05 MCS, in just over 34,000 kilometres, has an overall average of 28 mpg (imperial gallon). Much of this is city driving, and our cold winters are also a factor, but considering the performance and the fun, I am happy with the mileage. If the new model does better, that will be a bonus, but I did not buy the car because it gets good mileage, I bought it for all the other reasons one buys a MINI, and I am happy with it.
Reply
HTML Formatting Tips
MotoringFile also allows use of Markdown formatting in the comment section. This accomplishes the same formatting as HTML but is typically easy to use.
| _your text_ | → | your text |
| **your text** | → | your text |
| `my code` | → | my code |
| * Bulleted list * Second item | → | • Bulleted list • Second item |
| 1. Numbered list 1. Second item | → | 1. Numbered list 2. Second item |
| [link name](URL) | → | link name |
| *** | → | Horizontal ruler |
| <http://url> <email@add.com> | → | Auto-linked |
|  | → | Image |
Copyright © 2002-2010 Gabriel Bridger
