2014 MINI Cooper & Cooper S US Specifications
Hot off the presses, this is the data-drop that many of you have been waiting for. It includes weight, estimate MPG and just about everything else you could ever hope to know about the 2014 MINI in number form.
<p>23 mpg city for an S???</p>
<p>Its preliminary but yup. They went for more performance with the manual MCS.</p>
<p>But the manual is slower 0-60, so that doesn’t make much sense.</p>
<p>With manuals it’s not about numbers anymore.</p>
<p>Clearly not, it’s slower, almost as heavy, and MUCH less efficient. This is ironic, especially because MINI just had that ad campaign about the manual a while back.</p>
<p>So the manual is slower, gets worse gas mileage, and only 35lbs lighter? Am I reading this wrong?</p>
<p>One spec that is of interest to me. In my Clubman, the cargo capacity with the rear seats down is 32.8 cu. ft. In the F56, it looks like that number has increased to 38 cu. ft. Am I reading that correctly?</p>
<p>Yes – I asked about this.</p>
<p>The F56 felt tall inside to me whereas the Clubman has always felt tike there isn’t much vertical space when the seats are down. Isn’t cargo capacity measured as the volume up to shoulder height if I am correct? If BMW is measuring to the ceiling (which I don’t think they would), that would explain the difference.</p>
<p>Good question – I figured some of the increase is due to the seats folding flat. But I wonder if the measured area is to shoulder height or to the ceiling.</p>
<p>Thank you! Looking forward to the more detailed review. Great work!</p>
<p>Wow. Compared to my R53, manual trans, this thing is a pig.
1/2″ taller = more wheel gap (yuck!)
8″ longer (wonderful for parallel street parking in Chicago)
200lbs heavier (words cannot express-what about new composites and alloys??)
1ft larger turning radius (on a vehicle I already get laughed at while making u-turns)
Fuel Tank shrunk by 2 gallons with worse city mpg than R53 (every other car manufacturer is emphasizing visiting gas stations less….)</p>
<p>Physically we all knew it would grow but this sheet gave an interesting comparison against data I dug up on the R53. Hopefully this thing has an incredible torque curve and minimal torque steer. Something’s gotta give here but the economy numbers are horrendous.</p>
<p>According to the specs it’s 117lbs heaver. I was hoping it would get a bit lighter as well but for a car that is longer by 8″, likely safer and with a more rigid chassis, it could have been a lot worse and hardly a pig. Also, the height of the car in no way means that they have raised the suspension to increase wheel gap, the chassis may simply be taller. The smaller gas tank and larger turning radius are head-scratchers though. The city mileage is actually 1mpg better. Don’t forget that the EPA adjusted the way it rates cars in 2008. Thus my 2006 R53 S is rated at 22 city and 29 highway as opposed to 23 city and 37 highway for the F56 on the same scale. Also due to the EPA testing steps, the benefits of an auto start/stop system (at least on manuals) are not visible therefore expect higher numbers. My commute is mostly highway so an extra 8mpg is very much appreciated. Compare it to a VW GTI for example which is rated at 21/31 and the MINI’s highway mileage is a lot better. If only the city mileage could have been as good as the R56…</p>
<p>The bore and stroke of the 1.5L and 2.0L engines are the same. Mistaken information or has BMW found a new trick?</p>
<p>Whoops, forgot about the 3 and 4 cylinder engines, built as cousins to the 6 cylinder BMW.</p>
<p>Are they kidding about an 11.6 gal fuel tank? That is 1.9 gal smaller than the R56. The preliminary MPG increase doesn’t make up for this. Guess this is where the extra interior room comes from.</p>
<p>I may be reading this wrong, but could these cars have spare tires? Where it says run flat tires it says “nein”, isn’t that German for no?</p>
<p>The Cooper as a spare.</p>
<p>Some of these specs are wrong. The fuel capacity is listed sa 11.6g across the range, but on the S models, it’s 4 liters greater (but not in gallons). This can’t be correct.
Also of note: the gearing for the S is shorter than the Cooper. Is this correct? Wouldn’t you put the shorter gearing on the less powerful car to make it a bit faster? I see transmission swaps in the future.</p>
<p>44 liters is 11.62 gallons, 40 liters is 10.56 gallons. This sheet is not making total sense.</p>
<p>I read somewhere the Cooper has a 10.6 gallon tank and the S 11.6 – can’t remember where. Although this sheet says it’s 11.6 across the board. Sucks, I was hoping they would keep 13.2 gallon tank so increase in mpg would increase range, not decrease it…</p>
<p>Sorry MINI, the mpg estimates combined with the smaller gas tank are pretty much a deal breaker for me. I already have to fill up too often in my R53, not looking to do it even more frequently!</p>
<p>Any chance you can nail down these MPG figures for the UK????</p>