Here’s an excerpt:
There is a handful of cars that look very different from anything else on the road. They attract attention mostly for their snappy styling. Volkswagen’s New Beetle comes to mind, so does the Chrysler PT Cruiser. The Mini Cooper falls into this trendy category, but unlike the others, it has some serious sport baked in, which is what we’ve always liked about this car, especially the supercharged S model.
Like the two other eye-catchers we’ve acknowledged here, the Mini follows suit, adding a droptop version (naturally aspirated and supercharged forms). We got the hot one, all 1.6 liters and 168 horsepower of it, connected to a six-speed manual.
You can read more below:
[ Mini Cooper S Convertible ] Car & Driver
In case you missed it last November, you can read out in depth review of the MCS Convertible here:
[ The MCS Convertible Reviewed ] MotoringFile
<p>The interesting item in this review is the performance of this convertible. The convertible that they tested was quicker than any previous MCS they had ever tested, despite the fact that it was 115lbs heavier.</p>
<p>That difference is probably attributable to the revised gearing.</p>
<p>The 05’s are quite a bit faster due to that, so I wouldn’t be surprised if an 05 MCSc was faster than an 04 MCS.</p>
<p>It must be the revised ’05 gearing giving the MCSC the edge over the earlier MCS….despite the weight penalty.</p>
<p>-Erik</p>
<p>Anyone else hate it when the MINI is mentioned in the same breath as the VW Beetle and the PT Cruiser, regardless of what differentiation is explained afterwards?</p>
<p>They fail to mention all the other small details that the convertible option gives you in addition to the roof, that are not included on the coupe. Especially surprising when they discuss rear view, that PDC is included!</p>
<p>yeah.</p>
<p>If they are getting this low of numbers from the MCSa then we should at least see somewhere in the 6.3 seconds for a MCS and maybe even a 6.0 or 5.9 for an ’05 JCW.</p>
<p>I thought the braking numbers were pretty interesting. Does anyone know if there’s there any difference in the brake hardware between an MCS and and MC? I just got an 05 MC hardtop, so that’s my selfish motivation for wondering.</p>
<p>What’s the story with the brakes? Car&Driver tested an early MCS showing braking 70-0 in 169 ft. Then they did an MCS Cooper Works with braking 70-0 in 180 ft. or so. Other auto mags have also shown the MCS with relatively “ordinary” braking distances. Now C&D tests an MCS convertible showing the 70-0 braking at 155 ft. Have the brake rotors gotten bigger? Anyone have any info on what 70-0 braking would be with the Cooper Works brake package?</p>
<p>The MCS has different pads than the MC.</p>
<p>What’s up with the suspension beeing so hard?
“The rearview mirror shakes until it is useless. The steering wheel wobbles in hand. Interior panels rattle into a racket.”
Those are pretty harsh words. I thought the MCSc was softer than the MCS.
Anyone with a MCSc that can say otherwise?</p>
<p>I was surprised at the suspension comments as well, although I haven’t driven a mustang to compare it to. I don’t experience that with my MCSc in normal driving. Maybe if I was driving over moguls…</p>
<p>The only interior rattles I have experienced are when I leave stuff in the doors. And the occasional passenger seat belt when it doesn’t retract completely after someone else sat in it.</p>
<p>I have an 05 MCSc, traded in an 03 MCS and my but dyno says the 05 is faster. Brakes don’t seem any different, but the fit and finish of the interior is much better. I do not have the sport package and 17’s. The 16’s may not look as good, but they ride MUCH better!</p>
<p>With the MCS, ride quality with 16″ or 17″ wheels is fairly sensitive to tire pressure. I wonder if the one they tested had the tire pressures set above normal. Most manufacturers do set the tire pressures 10-20lbs higher than spec for shipping to prevent flat spot formation and to increase ground clearance. This is in addition to the suspension spacers that MINI uses. I have heard of some dealerships (not MINI) that have techs that sometimes skip steps in the PDI process. One of those steps it to set tire pressures.</p>
<p>Thats true, Whenever I go in for a flat, my car feels like it has no suspension. Turns out the techs put 38psi all around.</p>
<p>No kidding on the brakes. 155ft from 70-0 is EVO/STI territory. Very impressive!!!</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting number for the 60-0 braking distance… </p>
<p>The Feb 2002 issue of Road & Track (have it right here at my desk) shows the 2002 Mini Cooper (non-S) with a 60-0 MPH braking distance of 143 ft</p>
<p>yes, 143 ft!!!</p>
<p>Not too shabby….eh?</p>
<p>143 is actually kind of shabby. My 3600 lb G35 Sedan does it in ~120 ft.</p>
<p>Yeah I don’t understand the comments about the harshness of the Mini. I have driven a number of Minis, including some convertibles and I have never had rattles like those mentioned in all of these car magazines.</p>
<p>Yeah – 60-0 in 143 ft is terrible. If I remember right they had 175 snow tires on during that test though.</p>
<p>I’m pretty happy with the braking for my ’05 MCS. What the true rating is for 70-0 I don’t know… I can say that when I drive our ’05 Acura TSX (granted, bigger car, but not a ton heavier), the braking is much worse (or less responsive). </p>
<p>Realistically, probably not bad, I just have to press down harder in her car then in my car for the same result, sometimes NOT getting the same result, but worse. So from my perspective, the braking on the MCS is good.</p>
<p>I own a 2005 MCS Convertible with 17″ 5-spoke wheels & Dunlop SP9000 performance runflats, which are inflated to about 40psi cold all around. I have not noticed any major concerns with harshness of ride, except on really deteriorated PCC (Portland Cement Concrete) pavement, or old asphalt roads with lots of alligator cracks. I have no issues with blurry images in any of the rearview mirrors either.</p>
<p>I do have problems finding a comfortable cruising speed on freeways like the 110, with short, regularly-spaced concrete slabs that are no longer level, but most of the 405 is okay, with the grinding they’ve done to keep the joints from being ridiculous.</p>
<p><em>Dave</em></p>
<p>RATTLES! That’s all I hear in the cabin of my ’05 MCS, even with the HK blaring…</p>
<p>I’ve got the convertible with runflats and I’ve experienced the shaking and rattling that they write about which comes from the seat belts rattling against the plastic interior. The severity just depends on the condition of the roads, but overall the ride is just fine and there is no rattling and shaking. It is a convertible and no matter how stiff it is it will never be as stiff as the hard top.</p>
<p>05DSMCS didn’t like the comparison to the VW and the PT Cruiser, but people looking for a convertible will do that comparison. I looked at the VW but not the PT. After a minute into the test drive I knew there was no comparison. The VW can’t touch the MINI in the handling category and the body is not as stiff. It doesn’t have the cargo carrying flexibility either. It’s a nice convertible but targets a different driver.</p>
<p><strong><em>“Anyone else hate it when the MINI is mentioned in the same breath as the VW Beetle and the PT Cruiser, …?”</em></strong></p>
<p>No. I also own a 2003 New Beetle turbo.</p>
<p>I test drove an ’05 MCSC and thought it rode better (on 17s) and was faster than my ’04 MCS (on 16s). The interior seemed to be of a better quality as well.</p>
<p>Let’s compare apples to apples here. First off, for the pricing difference between the G35 (your stops in 120ft) and the MINI (the 2002 MC stops in 143ft), I can easily have the brakes upgraded and have it stop on a dime and still have money left over to replace the pads for the life of the car. LOL ;-)</p>
<p>So instead of comparing cars out of the price league as the MINI, let’s take a quick look back into the Feb 2002 issue of R&T I have here. I’m going to list comparably priced cars and lets see what’s shabby and what’s not.</p>
<p>141 ft Toyota Camary Solara SEV6 $24k
143 ft MINI Cooper $17k
143 ft Mitsubishi Galant ES $20k
146 ft Acura RSX Type S $23k
149 ft Ford Taraus SE $21k
150 ft Mitsubishi Eclipse GT $20k
150 ft Nisssan 200SX SE-R $18k
153 ft Honda Insight $20k
153 ft Pontiac Grand Prix GT $22k
154 ft Toyota Prius $20k
155 ft VW Beetle $15k
167 ft Honda Civic Si $17k</p>
<p>Yes, Gabe is correct, this testing was done on 175/65r-15s with Winter tires!!! Since the road test summary does not include tire size or type, I don’t have the resources to post their information here. I’m sure if you want to know badly enough, you can check with R&T.</p>
<p>BTW, I love the new tranny in the 05’s. I own an 03 MCS but am strongly considering an 05 as a replacement just because of the new gear ratios. However, anyone know how to make the clutch pedal action stiffer? My 03 is super stiff as compared to the 05’s clutch.</p>
<p>Check out the latest Consumer Reports reviews of convertabiles. The MCS stick went head to head with some heavy hitters (New Mustang Convert.) MCS was best but scored low on reliability(?) issues. I still do not get that! My 2002 MCS has had few if any problems in three years!</p>
<p>True, relative to it’s price point 143ft isn’t horrible, but is still nothing to brag about. I was just amazed that the 2500lb mini had such a long stopping distance compared to a car that weighs 1100lbs more, both with stock brakes….especially when a resonably well optioned Mini will be nearly level with what I paid for my G35 in 2003 (26k). Maybe it just means that the G35 had unusually good brakes in its class (which it does), or that I need the go ahead and get the Brembo’s for my JCW :)</p>
<p>“Anyone else hate it when the MINI is mentioned in the same breath as the VW Beetle and the PT Cruiser, …?”</p>
<p>The VW is a “re-body” Golf
The PT is a “re-body” Neon
The MINI is ,well, a MINI. All new, tryed and true, Parts that are ment to be togther.</p>