<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MINI USA Releases 2007 MPG Numbers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/</link>
	<description>MotoringFile &#124; MINI news, reviews and opinion. MINI Cooper, Cooper S, Clubman, Countryman</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:14:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Mac Mini</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69663</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Mac Mini</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:54:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69663</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;My &#039;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.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My &#8217;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.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: petsounds</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69655</link>
		<dc:creator>petsounds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:26:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69655</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Check out the EPA site:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The MINIs get a 2 for Air Quality (10 is the best), while most other cars get 6 and above.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>

<p>Check out the EPA site:
<a href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm</a></p>

<p>The MINIs get a 2 for Air Quality (10 is the best), while most other cars get 6 and above.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69645</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69645</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I have been able to get over 40 mpg (according to the car&#039;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.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been able to get over 40 mpg (according to the car&#8217;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.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GZ</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69595</link>
		<dc:creator>GZ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69595</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I realize it&#039;s too soon to guess on the R56 but how did the last model JCW fare in MPG compared to an MCS?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I realize it&#8217;s too soon to guess on the R56 but how did the last model JCW fare in MPG compared to an MCS?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pchilton</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69593</link>
		<dc:creator>pchilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:27:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69593</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I heard the new gas tank is smaller on the Cooper so, even though we&#039;ll get more mpg, we probably won&#039;t get more miles from a tank.  Is this true and, if so, why is the tank smaller?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard the new gas tank is smaller on the Cooper so, even though we&#8217;ll get more mpg, we probably won&#8217;t get more miles from a tank.  Is this true and, if so, why is the tank smaller?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69550</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69550</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Has anyone experienced improved fuel economy by installing a smaller pulley on the MCS?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has anyone experienced improved fuel economy by installing a smaller pulley on the MCS?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69546</link>
		<dc:creator>Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:53:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69546</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Those numbers donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t sound that impressive considering the weight loss and complication of the as-needed pumps.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m not a powertrain engineer, but I&#039;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&#039;d gladly take more of course, but even if we&#039;re not at the EPA estimates, I&#039;m betting it&#039;s still improved from the 28 mpg I see in mostly non-congested rural/interstate driving.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>Those numbers donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t sound that impressive considering the weight loss and complication of the as-needed pumps.</blockquote>

<p>I&#8217;m not a powertrain engineer, but I&#8217;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&#8217;d gladly take more of course, but even if we&#8217;re not at the EPA estimates, I&#8217;m betting it&#8217;s still improved from the 28 mpg I see in mostly non-congested rural/interstate driving.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rocco Rocket</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69530</link>
		<dc:creator>Rocco Rocket</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69530</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Yet another example of the USA ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œdoing our own thingÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â and confusing the heck out of everyone! Heh. (like spellingÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ color instead of colour, etc.)&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I switched to colour and I&#039;m getting 6 more miles to the gallon! ;)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>Yet another example of the USA ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œdoing our own thingÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â and confusing the heck out of everyone! Heh. (like spellingÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ color instead of colour, etc.)</blockquote>

<p>I switched to colour and I&#8217;m getting 6 more miles to the gallon! ;)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69513</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69513</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Those numbers don&#039;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&#039;t have the numbers behind you.  But at least the on-board computer is standard, so you can point out the numbers to passengers.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those numbers don&#8217;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&#8217;t have the numbers behind you.  But at least the on-board computer is standard, so you can point out the numbers to passengers.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edge</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69473</link>
		<dc:creator>Edge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69473</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Can anyone please explain why the international websiteÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s fuel economy and the EPAÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s numbers differ so much? In Europe, theyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re claiming 26/41mpg compared to our 29/36mpg for the S. How can the testing be so different?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;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.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Yet another example of the USA &quot;doing our own thing&quot; and confusing the heck out of everyone!  Heh. (like spelling... color instead of colour, etc.)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>Can anyone please explain why the international websiteÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s fuel economy and the EPAÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s numbers differ so much? In Europe, theyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re claiming 26/41mpg compared to our 29/36mpg for the S. How can the testing be so different?</blockquote>

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Yet another example of the USA &#8220;doing our own thing&#8221; and confusing the heck out of everyone!  Heh. (like spelling&#8230; color instead of colour, etc.)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shamus</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69468</link>
		<dc:creator>Shamus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:09:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69468</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Thought I&#039;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):&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&quot;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 &quot;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).&quot; 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).&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thought I&#8217;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):</p>

<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>

<p>&#8220;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 &#8220;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).&#8221; 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).&#8221;</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wessy</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69467</link>
		<dc:creator>Wessy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:07:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69467</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;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&#039; fuel consumption make me skeptical, although I&#039;m also aware that most of their engines probably aren&#039;t entirely broken in.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 &#8212; early reports from new R56 owners in the UK who are disappointed in their cars&#8217; fuel consumption make me skeptical, although I&#8217;m also aware that most of their engines probably aren&#8217;t entirely broken in.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69452</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:11:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69452</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69449</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69449</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;You gotta be careful with the UK numbers.  They like to use the imperial gallon which is 20% more than the US gallon&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You gotta be careful with the UK numbers.  They like to use the imperial gallon which is 20% more than the US gallon</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TroyF</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69447</link>
		<dc:creator>TroyF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69447</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Wow. Better MPG, more HP, AND lighter. This car is guna be one HOT seller&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow. Better MPG, more HP, AND lighter. This car is guna be one HOT seller</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shamus</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69444</link>
		<dc:creator>Shamus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69444</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Can anyone please explain why the international website&#039;s fuel economy and the EPA&#039;s numbers differ so much?  In Europe, they&#039;re claiming 26/41mpg compared to our 29/36mpg for the S.  How can the testing be so different?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can anyone please explain why the international website&#8217;s fuel economy and the EPA&#8217;s numbers differ so much?  In Europe, they&#8217;re claiming 26/41mpg compared to our 29/36mpg for the S.  How can the testing be so different?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69428</link>
		<dc:creator>Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69428</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;It&#039;s not that the mileage was bad with the outgoing models, but it wasn&#039;t ever where I thought it was great mileage either.  I&#039;m pretty impressed with the 4 mpg leap, even if the epa estimates are off, it&#039;s 4 mpg better than before, with both tested the same way... and with more torque throughout the entire rev band.  Not too shabby!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not that the mileage was bad with the outgoing models, but it wasn&#8217;t ever where I thought it was great mileage either.  I&#8217;m pretty impressed with the 4 mpg leap, even if the epa estimates are off, it&#8217;s 4 mpg better than before, with both tested the same way&#8230; and with more torque throughout the entire rev band.  Not too shabby!</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brendan</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69413</link>
		<dc:creator>Brendan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69413</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I presume that is premium for the Cooper S? or is it just 87 oct??&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I presume that is premium for the Cooper S? or is it just 87 oct??</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.motoringfile.com/2006/12/11/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-69406</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:45:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://motoringfile.com/2006/12/12/mini-usa-releases-2007-mpg-numbers/#comment-69406</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

