We saw this coming. When the EPA required extensive re-testing of the 2015 F56 MINI models we assumed that things we’re going to head in a positive direction for MINI. We exclusively reported the results of that testing early this month and we’re left wondering if 2014 models would deb affected. Wonder no more. Here are the revised figures and as you’d expect, they’ve been downgraded.
Official Release: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising estimates for four 2014 BMW Mini Cooper vehicles to ensure consumers are given accurate fuel economy values.
The EPA performed a fuel economy audit on the BMW Mini Cooper and obtained values that differed from those BMW submitted to EPA for certification. With EPA oversight, BMW conducted new emissions and fuel economy testing, and EPA conducted its own testing at its National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. As a result of this subsequent testing, EPA is requiring BMW to relabel four of its 2014 Mini Cooper models with lower fuel economy values.
The specific changes to fuel economy stickers are listed in the table below.
2014 BMW Mini Cooper Fuel Economy Value Updates
Old Label Values | New Label Values | ||||||
Model
|
Transmission |
Combined (mpg)
|
City
(mpg) |
Highway (mpg)
|
Combined (mpg)
|
City (mpg)
|
Highway (mpg)
|
Cooper 3-door |
MT
|
34
|
30
|
42
|
33
|
29
|
40
|
Cooper 3-door |
Semi-Auto
|
33
|
29
|
40
|
32
|
28
|
39
|
Cooper S 3-door |
MT
|
29
|
25
|
38
|
28
|
24
|
34
|
Cooper S 3-door |
Semi-Auto
|
31
|
27
|
38
|
30
|
26
|
35
|
“Fuel economy values matter to consumers and automakers,” said Christopher Grundler, director of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “To provide consumers with the most accurate, reliable and repeatable fuel economy values, we are continuing to strengthen our oversight to ensure fair competition among automakers.”
EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory conducts fuel economy testing on vehicles each year to ensure that their performance matches the mileage and emissions data automakers submit to EPA. These audits are part of the oversight program that helps ensure all carmakers are following the same procedures for calculating mileage estimates. The oversight program also helps the EPA verify that vehicles on the road meet national tailpipe emission standards to protect public health and the environment.
More information on today’s update: www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/updates.htm
2015 MINI Cooper S Figures
Interestingly the figures for 2015 are not identical to those just released for the 2014 models.
The 2015 MINI EPA Figures
model |
city |
combined |
highway |
2015 Cooper F56 manual |
29 |
33 |
40 |
2015 Cooper F56 auto |
28 |
31 |
37 |
2015 Cooper S F56 manual |
24 |
27 |
34 |
2015 Cooper S F56 auto |
TBD |
TBD |
TBD |
Interestingly they’re not identical. But that’s not surprising given that the 2015 Cooper S engine is a new variation of the 2.0L
MINI has had a rough couple of months with the EPA. First MINI USA elected to switch from versions of its 2.0L four cylinder in the Cooper S from the B48 to the B46. But what about the difference between the Cooper models? What has changed in the 2015 models that would have affected this? We hope to uncover that shortly.
<p>The credit union I just qualified for a loan from for a manual cooper s offers a .25% rate discount for “green” cars (cars that get 28mpg combined or better).</p>
<p>Nice job Mini…</p>
<p>And so, the politics of the EPA continue. By the way, don’t most mileage ratings not t hat your mileage may or, probably will vary? By the way, don’t blame MINI too much, this is our wonderful government controls at work again.</p>
<p>How dare that regulating body regulate! The nerve!</p>
<p>Am a bit disappointed in the new lower figures. Seems those for the 2015 S auto are still TBD. But noticed for 2014, the S auto was 2MPG HIGHER across the board than the manual. Yet for the base F56, the auto MPG was LESS than the manual. Why better MPG for the 2.0L auto but worse for the 1.5 auto compared to the manual???</p>
<p>These EPA S figures are no better than my 2012 JCWCoupe figures, yet the JCW has about 19 more HP. Wonder what the figures will be for the F55…same as the F56 or even lower??</p>
<p>2015 S auto numbers are at fueleconomy.gov: <a href="http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35793" rel="nofollow ugc">http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35793</a></p>
<p>31 Combined, 28 City, 37 Highway</p>
<p>Also, numbers for the F55 are exactly the same as for the 2015 F56. I’ve heard rumblings that the EPA had them combine the two for their Monroney sticker testing.</p>
<p>indeed, I have confirmed the 2dr and 4dr EPA ratings were combined along with updated procedures by the EPA for testing, these updated procedures will affect other manufacturers soon and have already affected others like Mercedes</p>
<p>Those EPA figures for the 2015S auto are slightly higher than my 2012 JCW Coupe manual of 28 combined, 25 city, & 33 hwy. In my driving I get a bit better than those figures…about 29-30 combined & 34-35 hwy.</p>
<p>Wonder if any of the tests are done in the ‘green’ mode or all done in the ‘normal’ mode? On the highway, the green mode would likely be used by most, including me, giving better mileage. I found on that site that the F55S auto has the same EPA figures as the F56S auto despite the added weight.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that the reason for the revision is that initial testing of the 2014 F56 was done in “Green” and then they had to re-test in “Mid” as that’s the default mode and the one most likely to be used by drivers (and by the EPA in their audit).</p>
<p>“pretty sure” or “guessing”?</p>
<p>An informed and researched supposition. :)</p>
<p>In BMW’s 2014 filing with the EPA on the F56s, section 15.2.9 (CAFE Calculation) indicated that based on data they gathered during service visits since 2007 models with select-shift transmissions are operated predominantly in economy mode.</p>
<p>I can buy this since Sport mode needs to be specifically selected after starting the vehicle. But then they take a leap of faith- “Using good engineering judgment, BMW has concluded that it is appropriate to carry-forward and carry-across the results of the earlier surveys. Accordingly, BMW will use only economy-mode fuel economy test results for calculating fuel economy label values…”</p>
<p>But in the F56 economy or “Green” mode is not the default. And they may have used similar reasoning to put the manuals in Green mode as well as the Automatics, though the Dear Manufacturer letter CCD-02-10 that BMW references is meant to address select-shift automatic transmissions.</p>
<p>I just picked up my 2015 F56 Cooper S. I love my F56 – But the range is not even close than what I was getting with my R56 Cooper S. MINI needs to find a way to put a larger tank in this car. Right now I am on my Second Fill since owning the car, The first Fill lasted 200 miles to Empty and that was with mid mode and driving 80% City and 20% Highway (Averaging 18.5 mpg ) . The second Fill I am averaging about 25 mpg. I have been told it will take about 6-10 Fills before I start to see an improvement in the MPG. I am interested in seeing if MINI can make a larger Fuel tank and make it available as an upgrade to those who want greater distance. Even with the revised numbers that puts you at about 300 miles per tank (City). My R56 Cooper S, was getting about 400 miles (City)</p>
<p>That’s insane. 200 miles? I get about 130 more miles on my R56 Cooper S give or take. Depends on how many bars. Usually I fill up when 3 bars are still lit. They manage to make the car a bit bigger, but make the tank smaller. Hmm. And assuming the JCW version of the F56 comes out, it’ll eat more gas. Eek.</p>
<p>Sounds like the 200 miles on a tank was when the computer was still finding its head. If he was getting around 25mpg on the next tank, that’s almost 300 miles. Still not very far, but a lot better than 200.</p>
<p>Amazing that you say you got over 30mpg in the city with your R56!</p>