USA Today Reviews the Clubman
I’m noticing that the Clubman reviews very well. USA Today’s review of the Clubman Cooper is no exception, but I have seen more favorable reviews.
>Looks terrific. Drives great. Can be decked out inside as scrumptious as luxury cars priced twice the well-equipped test car’s $28,700 sticker.
>What’s more, Consumer Reports magazine gives the Mini Cooper hardtop – mechanically the same – the top scores in reliability, owner satisfaction and total ownership costs.
They do, however, have a few small issues.
>The sport setting minimized, but didn’t eliminate, the test car’s biggest driving disappointment. The engine was unresponsive when blipping the throttle to eliminate jerkiness in downshifts. Without sport engaged, you had to literally floor the throttle a moment to get the engine to rev enough (and back off before the engine overreacted). With sport engaged, the engine revved more willingly but remained less lively than desired during the blipping process.
I believe their test car was an automatic.
The also have problems with the seats, the rear visibility and the seat belt getting in the way of the Club door. And, there was this.
>Tank holds 13.2 gallons. Premium fuel is required for full power, but lower octane is OK, Mini says.
I don’t care what anyone says, the last thing you want to do, no matter what the cost, is run anything except premium fuel in a Cooper. I’ve done it, and it’s not a pretty sight.
[ MINI Cooper Clubman ] Usatoday.com
DB – Done Mid Grade in an R56 Cooper? R50?
MINI recomends 91 octane on all their vehicles. Just because it will run on lower grades, that does not mean it is a good idea. Generaly the loss in fuel economy alone negates any savings from the lower fuel grade.
I did. You can read my results <a href="http://dbmini.us/category/gas-testing/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
I’ve heard of some that have run regular in an R53, but I would not do it again in my R50. Lots of knocking, pinging and no power. Would be better off installing pedals than running the cheap stuff.
I just skip a latte on the days I get gas 😉
I’ve run mid-grade in my R56 for a couple of fill-ups and I noticed a loss of power on acceleration. The first fill -up had a little sputtering at first (I presume because of the mix) but smoothed out by the end of the first 1/2 of the tank. I moved back to premium due in part because of some recommendations (notably DB) and because I enjoy the power at take-off.
The last thing you want to do, no matter what the cost, is pay attention to what the USA Today writes.
I’m anxious to see what The Truth About Cars writes about the Clubman. They love the regular MINIs, but I suspect their Clubman review, like their 1-series review, is going to be very (and rightly) critical.
>I’m anxious to see what The Truth About Cars writes about the Clubman. They love the regular MINIs, but I suspect their Clubman review, like their 1-series review, is going to be very (and rightly) critical.
I trust TTAC reviews as much as I trust a car salesman selling used Ford Explorers with roof damage. Many of their writers are in it for the shock value and often aren’t really reviewing cars as much as they’re trying to further their writing careers. The 1 Series review (among others) is a great example of this.
>Many of their writers are in it for the shock value and often aren’t really reviewing cars as much as they’re trying to further their writing careers.
Amen! I was about to say the same thing.
Where do I start on that 1-series review?! I thought about commenting at TTAC but it has long been a “club” there with a wholotta groupthink going on and the writing style is simply tacky… no other way to put it… loud crashing metaphors chosen for melodramatic effect and disjointed thematic development are the rule rather than the exception.
I had to read that review twice (wincing in the same spots both times), because the things the reviewer listed as “negative” were EXACTLY the things that make the 1-series the only sedan-based bimmer currently on offer that holds appeal as a more driving-focused machine. I was sad actually that many “enthusiasts” no longer seem able or willing to find joy in driving a sporting car. Is this what reviewing ever-enlarged, ever-less-visceral model “updates” of cars does to a person? That a car that is edgier, nimbler, narrower, lighter (slightly, but i’ll take what I can get here!), and faster than its larger sibling has these positives criticized as negatives and the summary advice given by the reviewer is to buy the larger “more comfortable” model!
Couldn’t have said it better. BTW check out <a href="http://www.bimmerfile.com/2008/04/27/edmunds-tests-the-135i-vs-the-335i-vs-the-e46-m3/" rel="nofollow">this Edmunds review</a> if you were left wanting by the TTAC debacle. A great comparison.
I have run mid-grade in my last two MINIs, an R53 and an R56, on the recommendation of my service advisor at the MINI dealer. I have not noticed any difference in power or mileage, and I would only go to premium if there was knocking or pinging. So far, that has not been an issue. Calling the fuel “premium” is really a marketing scam. It should be marketed as high-octane, since the word “premium” carries a connotation of higher quality, which is not the case with gasoline. If a manufacturer “recommends” premium, you can try mid-grade, or even regular, to see how it works, with no problem, unless you are getting the dreaded pinging. And, if the manufacturer recommends regular, you are totally wasting your hard earned dollars if you use “premium” because it will not give you increased performance or mileage. Higher octane fuel eliminates pinging, and that is basically all it does. Modern cars have computers that will adjust the timing to compensate for differences in fuel, which helps eliminate any damage to the engine, and it is true that an engine that “requires” premium will perform less well on lower octane, due to the computer doing its job. However, since I am not all that agressive a driver, mid=grade works well for me, it may not for you.