Now, before everyone goes and fires up those nasty emails to the R&T editors let’s take a clear look at this. Having tested both the Civic Si and VW GTI recently I can completely understand R&T scoring both cars ahead of the JCW MCS. Both cars have less quirks, are more versatile due to being larger, and have a more mainstream appeal. All things I alluded to in my reviews of the cars.
Yet at the same time I very much stand by my reviews as comparisons to the MINI by an enthusiast driver. Both cars in stock form are clearly inferior in a number of performance related ways. R&T makes the same case by basically calling the MINI the car for the real enthusiast out of the group. It seems that they were taken with the MINI’s ability, just not all the details. In fact R&T Feature Editor Mike Monticello said this of the JCW MCS:
>If you plan to do an occasional track day, or some serious back-road bombing, the Mini Cooper S is the best choice. Though slightly twitchy, it’s the most responsive of the three and therefore the most fun; the harder you drive it the better it works. It would be my choice, despite its “too-cute” looks and ergonomically disastrous interior.
Of course the issue Mike has with the car is purely one that relies on an opinion. And an opinion that many other auto journalists I’ve read seem to generally not share. Yes there are a few areas of cheap plastic in the MINI (like both the Civic and GTI) and yes the US spec seats are clearly not as good as the GTI’s, but “disastrous”?
So what we have here is a very typical magazine comparison where the two new cars are the winners. No shock to the buying public and no shock to the advertisers of the magazine. R&T gets around this by calling MINI the drivers car of the group but slams it for essentially being small. Surely we could all go through the scores and test figures and challenge many of them as flat-out wrong, considerably worse than previous tests or purely based in opinions. But I say let’s take this comparison as what it is; a mainstream look at three cars, two of which probably appeal more to mainstream buyers.
You can read the entire article below:
[ JCW MCS vs Civic Si vs VW GTI ] Road and Track
Related
[ MF Review: The MKV GTI ] MotoringFile
[ MF Review: The Civic Si ] MotoringFile
A big thanks to all those that have sent this in over the past month or so. We didn’t want to publish anything about the story until it finally went live on R&T’s website.
It would be interesting to count ads related to honda and VW in there rag…em..mag.
The result is not surprising as all three cars are good, however, for down and out performance and the factor that I do not have any kids – I would still take the Mini over the others anyday!
I have kids and I still take the MINI over the others.
It’s too bad about the timing. I’d like to see how the 07 MINI compares to the new Honda and VW, especially with the new interior.
From the pics I saw over here, it looks like it’ll be more driver and passenger friendly (at least in the front). I think making the lower part of the center column smaller will help with leg room.
They can have these Civics and STIs. I prefer them in my rear view mirror anyway. Their owners will always be wondering what the peculiar grim on all MINI owners’ faces is for. Because we know better. 😉
There was a thread about this on NAM. It is interesting to me that even with the heavy ol’ 18 inch wheels, (what are they, like 26 lbs?), the Mini Cooper S still manages to be the superior track choice. Another point mentioned against the Mini was the price. There was only $2000 difference between the GTi and the Mini.
>There was a thread about this on NAM. It is interesting to me that even with the heavy ol’ 18 inch wheels, (what are they, like 26 lbs?, the Mini Cooper S still manages to be the superior track choice.
Part of that is because they are 23lbs (the previous ones are 22lbs) – a few pounds lighter than the stock sport package wheels. And part of that is because frankly, a few pounds difference of unsprung doesn’t exactly translate into seconds lost at the track.
However if you want to talk heavy wheels you may want to look in the GTI’s direction. I don’t know what the current 18″ GTI wheels come in at, but I know the previous R32 18″s were around 26lbs a corner.
A good example of why I subscribe to Car and Driver and not Road and Track. Their opinions are much more enthusiast-oriented.
Too bad the writers/editors of “enthusiast” magazines are now preferring mainstream cars. Oh well, that just keeps our MINI’s from becoming too mainstream.
Too bad they left the RFs on the JCW.
This is old news. I got this magazine almost 3 weeks ago. You guys are slipping. 😉
It is interesting to me that they chose to compare the JCW MCS to the Civic Si: they’re not in the same price range or competetive classes.
At the autocross, the Civic Si and the normal MCS compete in GS, but the JCW MCS competes in BS. I’m guessing the GTi goes to BS, too.
>This is old news. I got this magazine almost 3 weeks ago. You guys are slipping. 😉
As stated above – despite getting daily emails for the past month from readers, we waited to post this story on MF until R&T put the entire piece online.
As a person who just did the unthinkable, going from a 2003 MC to a new GTI, I thought I would offer a couple of comments on this. Do I miss my MC? Yes, very much. I am happy with making the change? Yes I am. Are there tradeoffs? Yes, many.
I agree that the comment in the R&T review about the seats was fairly harsh, but I would like to add that one of the reasons that we decided to get rid of the Mini is that my wife and the leather sport seats, with the lumbar adjustment, just could not come to a comfortable arrangement. Her stature is such that the lumbar, even when completely “loose” pushed in on her back and she had no support for her upper back. We test drove a couple of 06 Minis with leatherette and they don’t seem to have the same issue, maybe something has improved.
If you have not driven a MKV GTI, you really should. The engine is amazing. People are getting stock, readings of 225-240 ft-lb of torque at the wheels, VW rates it at 207. This torque is there at 1900 RPM. This car has a lot of “grunt” and is fun to drive off the line. R&T tested the MCS with the JCW package and they got that 0-60 testing with the GTI and the MCS JCW being equal. This is a quick car. The DSG transmission is also very amazing, the shifts are lightning quick, so quick that the car backfires a bit between shifts. The 6 speed manual does not do this.
The steering of the GTI is a little lighter than the Mini, but not totally offensive. One of the interesting things about VW and Audi products is the huge following of people with the tool called the VAG-COM that lets people go in and tweak a multitude of settings for the car. In the case of the steering, which is electrically assisted, not electro-hydraulic like the Mini, you have six settings for the boost and the steering effort can be increased to feel very close to the Mini.
The Mini is a little better at keeping the wheels on the ground on windy, bumpy surfaces. Either that or the VW traction control is too sensitive. That may be able to be tweaked by the VAG-COM as well. Look at the lateral acceleration and slalom tables of the review, the GTI slightly edges out the MCS. It is not a poor handling car, the Mini has the slight edge in quick maneuvers and bumpy conditions, in my opinion. Also see that the GTI stops a little faster than the MCS.
The controls in the GTI are a little easier to find in the dark than the Mini, but that is more of an issue if you are new to the car. I am the first to admit that familiarity leads to everything becoming second nature. The blue interior lights are a fun change. The GTI has a steering wheel that telescopes as well as tilts, so there is a little more flexibility in finding the ideal driving position. Having a choice of XM or Sirius, along with an in dash six CD MP3 changer is also nice.
Then there is the interior room. I am six feet tall and by the time I had the driver’s seat of the Mini where I was comfortable, nobody could fit behind me, so we treated the Mini as a three person car. The GTI can truly be a five person car. That is nice for those times when you are taking friends or family out to dinner or similar. The area behind the rear seats is also much larger than in the Mini, making driving vacations a little easier to pack for.
Then there is the issue of price. I was able to get the GTI, including 18″ wheels, sunroof and XM for $22,500. You certainly can’t do that with an MCS, at least in Southern California, and even doing it with an MC might be tough.
So, ask me again in three years at the end of my lease, after I have had to pay for scheduled maintenance. Who knows, I may be back to a Mini.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
Cheers
Rocco Rocket comment (1st above) made me laugh until I clicked on the link for the story at R&T website:
Top = New Honda Civic
Side = New Honda Civic
Middle of Story = New VW Golf
Hmmmmm…….
>I agree that the comment in the R&T review about the seats was fairly harsh, but I would like to add that one of the reasons that we decided to get rid of the Mini is that my wife and the leather sport seats, with the lumbar adjustment, just could not come to a comfortable arrangement. Her stature is such that the lumbar, even when completely “loose†pushed in on her back and she had no support for her upper back. We test drove a couple of 06 Minis with leatherette and they don’t seem to have the same issue, maybe something has improved.
The no cost Leatherette and cloth seats don’t have lumbar support – that’s the difference.
>The DSG transmission is also very amazing, the shifts are lightning quick, so quick that the car backfires a bit between shifts. The 6 speed manual does not do this.
This is the transmission gently blipping the throttle to match revs. As I noted in my reivew, this is a nice feature that has unfortunately been toned down for the US market. Despite that I still love the DSG.
>The Mini is a little better at keeping the wheels on the ground on windy, bumpy surfaces. Either that or the VW traction control is too sensitive. That may be able to be tweaked by the VAG-COM as well. Look at the lateral acceleration and slalom tables of the review, the GTI slightly edges out the MCS. It is not a poor handling car, the Mini has the slight edge in quick maneuvers and bumpy conditions, in my opinion. Also see that the GTI stops a little faster than the MCS.
The slalom time R&T got is very odd since that is by far and away slower than any time I’ve ever seen (and much slower than their own previous tests). I doubt it’s the wheels or tires as I’ve seen that combination perform well in the past. They also got the GTi to stop 2 feet short 60-0 than the MINI with JCW brakes. From my seat time I would say that sounds about right. The GTI’s brakes are very much equal to the JCW set-up (if lacking in some feel).
But all the numbers aside, from my experience driving both back to back to back the GTI is really not the drivers car the MINI is when entering and exiting corners. The biggest contributing factor? Weight. You can especially see this in the video on the R&T review. That doesn’t mean the GTi doesn’t handle well and feel good. It just doesn’t have the composure the MINI does.
Anyway great comments Pete – hope you enjoy your GTI!
On the wheels subject………………..I was at my dealer last week and my SA showed me a set of those JCW rims, like Gabe has on his MCS, mounted that were waiting for instal. I picked one up and I was surprised by the weight! Sitting next to them were some S Lites and they seemed very close in weight. I had thought they [JCW’s] were supposed to be a lot lighter than my S lites. YES? NO? They both had the same tire mounted.
To each his own but…..the interior was one of the selling points for me. I love the Art Center look and for me the new stuff, if it is indeed ever used, a bit over the top.
Seems truly USA slanted as it seems, in my travels abroad anyway, that people in Europe/England have less problems with their family car size than we do here in the USA.
All in all pretty decent review.
If they had used a non-JCW MCS, several things would have been apparent:
1.) The MCS would have a better “value for dollar” aspect (and give it a 2nd in the price-sensitive rating, rather than 3rd), and have minimal impact on performance stats (being 2nd to the VW in most tests)
2.) The MCS would have a solid “fun PER dollar” rating. I define this as being different from their “Driving excitment” rating. In this category, you also factor the cost of the vehicle (price-dependant excitement, if you will) towards your DE. Again, subjective, but should be rated even if one assigns 1 vs 2 vs 3 points in a test.
3.) R&T would then deduct points for MCS then being “under-valued” against the other 2.
I have always beieved they harbor a slight bias towards, what they consider, “consumer standards” like the Honda/Toyota/VW vehicle line.
nothing like a little competition to bring out the best in people/cars.
I am sure when the new MINIs roll out, there will be improvements across the board.
if you look at the article, price was also a big factor in the R&T decision. Optioned out slightly differently the JCW MCS might have not been so penalized.
<blockquote>I was at my dealer last week and my SA showed me a set of those JCW rims, like Gabe has on his MCS, mounted that were waiting for instal. I picked one up and I was surprised by the weight! Sitting next to them were some S Lites and they seemed very close in weight. I had thought they [JCW’s] were supposed to be a lot lighter than my S lites. YES? NO? They both had the same tire mounted.</blockquote>
Actually LTZMOTR, the tires on the JCW 18s (Dunlop SP Sport 01 DSST) are different than the ones available from the factory on the 17s… although one of the performance tire options is very similar (Dunlop SP Sport 9000 DSST). Of course the sizes are completely different too (205/40R18 vs 205/45R17). The JCW wheels are roughly 2 pounds lighter than the S-lites, but the tires are a LOT heavier (27 pounds vs 21 or 22 pounds, depending on the tire). So yes, the JCW configuration ends up being heavier than S-lites.
I would agree with their assesment of the 3 cars … not sure about ranking them 1/2/3 does any of them any favors …
But I do think the review was fair.
Ok, I’ve read Gabe’s piece and everyone’s comments…now I’m off to send my nasty email to R&T! 🙂
Motor on!
I think it was a very fair review. Fair enough, that I am not at all angry that the MINI came in last… They gave very good reasons why it finished last. Reasons that aren’t news to any of us MINI owners.
The difference is, we’re just more willing to put up with the MINI’s “quirks” and harsher, stiffer ride quality, because most of us value the fun-to-drive factor of a car above most anything else.
So don’t get mad that MINI finished last in their test. It’s a good thing, actually.
These three cars are ultimately very similar. Though there are areas where one edges out the other in acceleration, or handling, or interior room, or ride, it’s very much an apples vs. oranges argument. So a major deciding factor, I think, ends up being character – and the MINI certainly wins in that department. Give me a car with personality any day. Personality more than offsets a smaller boot and back seat. I want that “darty” steering response. I want the eager turn in. I want to feel the road a little bit. People often mistake the MINI as “retro” but that’s mostly ignorance on the part of US drivers who haven’t seen the Mini zipping around Europe for the last five decades. In their minds, it’s been hauled out of a time capsule and dusted off, which is rubbish. Again, the look of the MINI has a character wholly lacking from the GTI or the Civic Si. Though both cars are attractive, the GTI has fallen into the “family resemblance” trap and the Civic Si is getting ready for orbit. To each their own, but the MINI has that quality of character and personality in its aesthetics as well as it’s performance that transcends its stats on interior cargo space.
I suppose that’s just the long way of saying “I like the MINI better, regardless of what R&T says.”
Gabe, those 18″ forged BBS’s in the GTI are 29lbs. Ouch.
I find it most shocking that they consider the STi’s interior “Stylish” in the video. That has to be one of the most horrid interior’s i’ve ever seen!
But for the most part, I welcome the new competiton because for 1, the JCW Cooper S is 5 years old, 2, the competition isn’t much over it as we can see from this review, and 3, the 2007 is surely to top all of them… again. 🙂
Edge…….
Thanks for the info.
They both had the Dunlop Sports and yes one was the 9000 like I have on my 17″ S Lites. I find the weight difference interesting as most think, it seems I have read here in the past, that the JCW’s set up to be lighter. So whatever the JCW’s are very attractive.
I do like both the new GTI and the Si, although I like my MCS very much. You can tell why R&T has GTI (and Si) won over MCS by finding just right there inside the article, there is an ad of the new GTI. 🙂 Just marketing.
Come on, folks. Let’s not all get insecure. The three cars in this comparison are similar and comparible in all measured categories. The problem is they have to rank them to get the readers to want to read the article. We all like the excitement of a competition. The rankings are based on subjective criteria. Kind of like cooking the books in accounting.
R&T needs to introduce 2 new models of cars to the general car buying public and they find a model that is at the end of its model run to compare it to. That’s a pretty good backhanded compliment to the MINI folks.
I’m pretty sure that if they did the same comparison again next year with a 2007 MINI, the rankings would be different.
Personally, I like all three cars. I could use them all for the same reasons, but the driving experience is different for each one. If I were to lay my money down for one today, I would still pick the MCS (if I could afford the GTI, then I’d buy the MCS-JCW).
The MINI as a car model is more exclusive (fewer out there on the road), yet the owners are less exclusive….we smile when we drive, wave at each other and get along better 🙂
<blockquote>A good example of why I subscribe to Car and Driver and not Road and Track. Their opinions are much more enthusiast-oriented.</blockquote>
R&T <em>does</em> have Peter Egan’s <em>Side Glances</em> column going for them.
I’ve noticed waving is down from 2003 when I got my ’02 MCS at least here in SoCal.
I own an A3 (which is just a GTI with a nicer interior and better looks IMHO) and I have to say it’s a much nicer car than my MCS. It’s faster, handles better, quiet inside, etc, etc… However, my wife takes the A3 to work every day and I get in my MCS. There are NO regrets when I get into the MCS.
Quantifiably, I’d be highly suprised if the MCS was ever able to achieve the position of the “hottest hatch”. It’s just something you <i>know</i> when you drive it.
BTW, I think the GTI is sweet 🙂
HORSES FOR COURSES. I am not going to buy or look at either the Honda or VW because I am a MINI person.
Let’s see some sales figures comparisons, and also the growth percentage of the three cars. Let’s also see some crash test comparisons.
Why does MINI do so well in USA? Its all about population. Thats why about 4 million Ford F series pickups are sold each year.
Codemunkee
Huh….Handles better????….boy not sure how much different the A3 is from my wife’s A4 Quattro but it’s [A4] only better in the rain. You must have the “S” model…if they make an A3 S. I also haven’t seen any track data to back that claim your claim of “Handling Better”…but if you have a source would love to see it. Her A4 seems to have a lot of understeer but it’s a much bigger car with way more front end overhang.
I will admit the interior of my wife’s A4 is very nice….better….? Hard as hell to see outta that A4, the seat adjustments are crap and on her model it’s only electric on the driver’s side….what’s that all about.
But it is a nice car…..never replace my ’04 MCS though.
Boils down to…
The MINI is a sports car masquerading as a passenger car, the Civic and GTI are passenger cars masquerading as sports cars.
R&T didn’t relize that. 🙂
my A3 does, in fact, have the sport package (with stiffer spring and struts, and i believe larger sway bars). A4 is a bad comparison, it’s slower than the A3 (doesn’t have a FMIC) and the quattros are heavier. go drive an A3 and it will all suddenly become clear to you.
in any event, i was not referring to faster times on the track. i honestly don’t know which would be quicker there. the a3 is stiff and handles awesome without being jarring like the MCS.
I duuno, when I test drove the A3 it didn’t seem as put together handling wise as my MCS. A very nice car, if I had to get a 4 door it would be between that and a WRX wagon. DSG tranny is great (same as GTI), but I know it wasn’t near as quick as my MCS.
quick handling wise or straight line?
straight line, i think only the JCW might have a chance. my pulley equipped 04 can’t keep up 🙂
>my A3 does, in fact, have the sport package (with stiffer spring and struts, and i believe larger sway bars). A4 is a bad comparison, it’s slower than the A3 (doesn’t have a FMIC) and the quattros are heavier. go drive an A3 and it will all suddenly become clear to you.
Having recently driven the A3 3.2 I also found it to be a nice package. However weighing in 1,000lbs heavier than MINI it’s not going to give it a MINI owners any grief at the track . And like the GTI, it’s very much let down by it’s weight and placement of the engine way out over the front wheels. Even in moderate cornering this felt evident. Now that I think of it, at 3,660, it’s 300lbs more than my 3 series wagon!
But like I said, nice package, good looks, and a good solution to someone needing a four door hatch. I just wish Audi/VW would see someone about their general weight problems. The A3 2.0 (FWD) solves some of that by trimming the fat down to a more respectible 3329. That’s the one to look at as far as I’m concerned.
I was on a track (actually, the track in the UK, Silverstone) on monday in my 230ish bhp Works/GT. (modified Works) and there were many ‘great’ cars that could not handle a well driven Mini, but there was a well driven Audi A3 3.2 DSG that was flying around the track – the only car that I had real trouble dealing with – it was driven very well (by a woman) and I struggled to keep her in my sights, let alone pass her…. (I did succeed once, but she had me three times during the afternoon).
Thats apposed to a badly driven Carrera S that got a right spanking all afternoon by my little Mini….
So I think the 3.2 Audi A3 is better than you might think on track (at least a fast track like Silverstone anyway – horses for corses etc)
Did anybody else notice the overwelming amount of ads for both VW and Honda on their site?
You’ve got to wonder if their results are driven by ad space sales.
Which came first the sale of the space or the results of their review?
I’m sure their journalistic integrity is in tact, but it does make you wonder.
I agree with Nathaniel, We all like these things, that’s why we are fans of te MINI.
They were fair in saying if sport is what you are looking for, the MINI is it. They simply were basing the outcome of who won on which is the most all around car, not surprisingly the GTI won, not really excelling in anything in particular. Just the best all around.
I’m fully prepared to be a fan of the MINI also. IF IT EVER GETS OUT OF THE VDC and to the dealer.
From Robert Farago’s The Truth About Cars……….
Audi A3 3.2 DSG
Model Tested: A3 3.2 DSG
Curb Weight: 3660 lbs.
Engine: 3.2 liter V6 DOHC
Horsepower: 250 hp @ 6300 rpm
Torque: 236 lbs-ft @ 2800 -3200 rpm
Drive Type: Haldex quattro® all-wheel drive
0 to 60: 5.9 secs.
1/4 Mile: 14.4 secs.
Price as Tested: $37,750
Top Speed: 130 mph (limited)
Towing Capacity: NA
MPG: 21 / 27
Seems a very good vehicle, especially the 0-60 & Torque……………….
As Hans J. Stuck once said…”Ve go Balls out n da conahs!” Of course that was when he was with the rings. Yah….Stucky!
I’m with dickdavid, the ads for Honda and VW all over that article remove any credibility for R&T’s subjective criticisms,
yeah, respectfully, i don’t think gabe’s comment about the A3 not giving the MCS any grief at the track is very accurate. 😉
Clearly, VW and Honda are bigger advertisers than MINI. Like any auto magazine (R&T, MT, C&D, etc.), their reviews are often beholden to their advertisers. Let’s not be naive about this. If you want objective reviews, read Consumer Reports.
I liked the review, it was fair to all three cars.
And did any of you stop think that the ads on the site are probably content-sensitive? Penalizing the magazine for making money is ludicrous.
<blockquote>And did any of you stop think that the ads on the site are probably content-sensitive? Penalizing the magazine for making money is ludicrous.</blockquote>
There was MINI content, but I didn’t see any MINI ads. It could have just as easily worked the other way, where MINI could have pulled its advertising based on the review. Unless we talk to their media rep, we’ll never know.
There’s nothing wrong with a magazine making money. Nobody is penalizing anybody. All I’m saying is that it looks odd that their revenue is so closely related to their review which makes it seem like it could be financially skewed. That’s their prerogative and nobody said they couldn’t do that.
Personally, I’m glad there’s some good competition for the MINI. It helps make them work harder to make better cars. As good as the MINI is, there’s always room for improvement.
You can always improve your MINI by adding some Crap to it. 8^)
I think’s Gabe’s comment about the A3 vs. a Mini at the track is spot on. I was at the track last weekend, and spanked cars with twice the horsepower (e.g., Corvettes, 911s) in my lightly-modded MCS (Webb rear swaybar, 15% pulley, intake). I would not sweat an A3 at all, unless it had some significant mods and was driven by a serious shoe…
micah,
you just made the point that a better driver will equal better times. no one contends that (here). the question is whether an A3 and a MINI will have similar times, and if so, who would be quicker?
tonyT just pointed out that he did go to a track in a significantly prepared MCS and had trouble keeping up with an A3.
Good point codemunkee. My guess is that the A3 had some sticky rubber and suspension mods to help dial out that car’s inherent understeer (after all it does have a heavy iron block V6 in front of the front axle). Is Silverstone more of a handling or horsepower track?
I honestly believe that if you take the same driver in a MCS (with a few basic mods) next to an A3 or a Mk. 5 GTI that the Mini would be quicker on most tracks, and that the advantage would increase over the session as the 3600 pound beast (it’s a hatchback for pete’s sake!) had to haul its heavy ass down in the braking zones repeatedly every lap.
I’m going to wait and get the Civic Si Sedan and just try to be happy with that at $22K. At $350 a month for 5 years I can have it paid off before I even need a tune up. I hope they have some cool colors, not sure about the carbon fiber hood though.
I quit reading R&T a long time ago…
I’m with Pete! They’ve long had a positive bias towards American muscle, often to the point of absurdity. Comparing two hot new designs to a five year old model is just silly…which is why I won’t even pick it up when I’m browsing the magazine rack.
R&T has had plenty of praise for BMWs in the past, and certainly well deserved praise. I remember an article back a few years ago called “Why the M3 handles so well”
I think they do a fair comparision most of the time, but testing a MINI with 18″ wheels is a huge mistake. I sold MINIs for over 3 years and whenever our demos had 18’s on them the test drives were always terrible. The ride was, of course, horrid. And the noise that transferred through the tires and suspension was bad as well. The turn-in suffered (not only that but the steering in general becomes cumbersome, helping explain their steering rating in the car with the best ratio), and then the car would rotate in a very unstable fashion in the corner once the car finally got settled at the apex. For the $2600 bucks they spent on those wheels, they could have put on a set the 5 spoke 17s (the lightest factory 17″ wheel) with about $1600 left over, putting it under the GTi’s price. This would certainly result in enough incremental improvement in each test to make a real difference in both the objective and subjective sections (steering, ride, handling, slalom, braking, and a tenth or two in 0-60).
In either case the fault there lies not with R&T but whoever coordinates the press cars at MINIUSA. Save the 18s for the dime a dozen compact car mags.
I do fault R&T for the motor replacement on their long term tester from some bonehead on their staff driving through water and then not taking responsibility for crossing what I’m sure was more than the “puddle” that they mentioned. The intake does not run low enough on an S to get a hydrolock going unless this guy is coming off a jump and landing in a pond of runoff water(or fording the Ganges). But I can’t blame the guy for wanting to keep what has to be one of the best jobs on the planet.
I definetly agree that Peter Egan writes an excellent piece each month.
Speaking of R&T ads, I also remember an ad that Lincoln ran in 2002 in which they touted that their new LS was “stiffer than the 5 series BMW.” What they neglected to mention is that the 5 they were comparing to the then brand new LS to was a design that was seven years old. So 1995 = 2002, good to know how easy it is to gauge just how far behind other car companies are in their production processes.
Here’s to our little rigid boxes with wheels!
Cheers,
Matt
i prefer car and driver to road and crap. a friend used to give me his old ones after he was done and i would just pitch them. automobile the autoweek are my second and third choice.
<blockquote>R&T does have Peter Egan’s Side Glances column going for them.</blockquote>
I enjoy Egan’s writing and he’s a nice guy and a MINI owner, too. He was at the Brian Redman International Challenge last year and he told me he loves the car.
In general, I like R&T and don’t find the comparison test worthy of getting worked up about. The point were very close. In price independant points, the Si got 372.7 and MCS 372.5 so it was essentially a tie for second place. One of the writers said the MCS was his favorite. No need for hypersensitivity about this, IMO.
Mark
It should be pointed out that an A3 3.2 DSG has 4 wheel drive and huge disc brakes – it may weigh significantly more, but unlike a standard MCS JCW, comes with real stopping power….
Silverstone is a fast track – not a handeling track.
As I said, horses for courses. My mini owuld probably wipe the floor with this car at some tracks, but 250bhp, 4 wheel drive, DSG box, big brakes as standard, 0-60 in 5.9 and 14.4 q/m is a better car quite frankly….
And I’m happy to admit, the lady was probably a more talented driver too…. (her name was ‘Trish and she was mighty fine looking to boot)…..
And she destroyed the ponces in their carreras….
Picked up a copy at lunchtime in London, UK. Gonna have a good read tonight.
>Silverstone is a fast track – not a handeling track.
Yeah – I was going to mention this. On a tighter track the result would be quite a bit different.
>And I’m happy to admit, the lady was probably a more talented driver too…. (her name was ‘Trish and she was mighty fine looking to boot)…..
So Tony the most important question – did you get her number???
<blockquote>It should be pointed out that an A3 3.2 DSG has 4 wheel drive and huge disc brakes – it may weigh significantly more, but unlike a standard MCS JCW, comes with real stopping power…</blockquote>
The brakes are massive compared to JCWs, and I agree that brakes are the primary weak point on Minis for track use. I have upgraded the fluid and front pads on my regular MCS, and still have significant and noticable fade and pedal mush that starts after just a few laps in a track session.
Do you have the JCW brake cooling ducts (that replace the fog lights) on your Mini? If so, have you noticed improved braking performance as a result?
>The brakes are massive compared to JCWs
Honestly I don’t think there’s that much of a difference between the JCW brakes and the stock A3 brakes. The size isn’t <em>that</em> different. Now as compared to the stock MINI size, yes – big dif.
The stock MINI brakes are a weak point to the car when tracking and even during spirited driving. Upgrading to the JCW brake kit helps for street use but if you plan on being on the track more than once a year there’s more to do.
<blockquote>So Tony the most important question – did you get her number???</blockquote>
Gotta love cute women who can drive quickly! 🙂 I have noticed that a couple of Audi and Mercedes drivers in DTM this year fit that description…
<blockquote>Upgrading to the JCW brake kit helps for street use but if you plan on being on the track more than once a year there’s more to do.</blockquote>
Very true…only problem is that it’s quite expensive to do, with prices starting at around $1000 for a Wilwood front kit and going up from there to over $2500 for Brembos! It has to be done, however…
(and that’s also why I was asking about a less expensive solution like cooling ducts — I’m already running an open wheel design in five-spoke Team Dynamics Pro Race 2 16s)
>Very true…only problem is that it’s quite expensive to do, with prices starting at around $1000 for a Wilwood front kit and going up from there to over $2500 for Brembos! It has to be done, however…
Yeah – at below $900 (which you can find pretty easily) the JCW brakes make more sense for mainly street use and an occasional track day. But if you are spending more than that (or hitting the track more) a good set of Wilwood’s or comparable kit may be worth having a look.
I’m running EBC pads and disks (same size a stock) which ar eOK but not great. The JCW disks are a bit better, but the audi seemed to be running much bigger front and back – although standard to the 3.2 over here I’m sure…..
time i saved for brembos….
It’s nice to read real-life driving comparisons from codemunkee and Pete. I too am a VW/MINI owner/enthusiast and I see the plusses and minuses between both. That said, I’m really interested in owning an A3 someday as a stablemate to my ’05 MCS. No need to get all insecure whether or not your favorite ride is judged the best by some automotive publication. Everyone has their own criteria based on their lifestyle and interests. Not everyone tracks their cars or have families to consider. Bottom line is to go on test drives and then make your decision based on what suits <em>you</em>.
when they did their first comparo they used the Si, the GTI and the Focus SVT, the latter being the ultimate winner…it would be interesting to see if the new VW knocks would change that scoring.
the earlier article couldn’t get the new MCS at the time…when they did it still didn’t finish first.
GB
I saw a Harley Davidson bumper sticker that said:
“I would rather push a Harley than drive a Honda”
Well I would rather push a MINI that drive a Honda (or a VW).
I find it odd that in all of the test drives, no one has mentioned about the odd driving position that VW subject its drivers to. I’ve test driven the GTI twice, both times I simply cannot find a comfortable driving position. The front end of the drivers seat is simply too high, and has a pretty firm edge that feels like sitting in a comfortable seat with a bar underneath your thigh at the edge of the seat that is noticeably higher than the rest of the seat, lifting your thigh up.
Admittedly I’m short (5’2″) and I prefer a high seating position, but without any way to raise or lower the front part of the seat, at higher seating positions, the seat actually lifts my knee up high enough that I could not reach the pedals without bumping into the dashboard. The high dashboard doesn’t help either. At the highest seating position, the dash board rises up to the level of my mouth — so I cannot see the area immediately in front of the car very well.
The steering wheel “raises and lowers” rather than tilts. The angle of the steering wheel doesn’t change all that much when raised or lowered. This with the lack of good seating position made it a very awkward and uncomfortable drive.
I’m not sure whether it’s because of my height (doubtful since I never had such problems with any other car, including MINIs, SAABs, BMWs, AUDIs, Porsches, previous generation of GTIs) — perhaps all of the test drivers in these magazines are taller and do not run into this problem.
Another possibility is that ALL of the reviews I’ve seen so far have been done on the DSG version — so seating position isn’t nearly as critical as when manually shifting (and hence less noticeable). Both times I’ve test driven the stick shift, since I prefer to do my own shifting.
This seating-position problem had made my consideration for GTI as MINI replacement completely out of the question. The seating position issue aside, I did find the car a joy to drive. Perhaps not nearly as spirited as MINI — it has a quite a bit calmer and confident feel to it. The gas pedal is a bit too light for my taste, likewise the steering wheel.
I absolutely adore the engine — more than enough torque is always available, and when you need it.
I don’t really see how the Civic SI fits into this compare being almost 10k less than the MCS. Once you get into the 30k range and are speaking of performance you open the fields to a ton of cars. The MCS is a fun and well designed small car with some reasonable performance but a serious performance car it’s not. The 2007 turbo engines should make a big difference but in the end it’s still FWD.