I mentioned earlier about the embargo lift, right?
This time, Channel4.com gets a chance at the JCW MINI and have quite a bit to say. Their review stretching across 10 pages including a gallery.
>The added bonus is that the JCW is emits just 165g/km of carbon dioxide and fuel consumption is a very creditable 40.4mpg on the combined cycle. You get the best of both worlds: awesome performance and cheap running costs. So what’s the catch? That’ll be the £21K purchase price, which certainly concentrates the mind. You have a simple choice: do you want to pay an extra £4,750 to get a little extra performance, or hand over £16,245 for the standard Cooper S, which still takes you from 0-60mph in a pretty handy 7.1 seconds?
Pretty sure it’s the only review to mention fuel economy, emissions and price. Looks like it’s even expensive in the UK. But there’s still more.
>The Mini’s seating is still a little too firm, but it is easy to get a decent driving position. The steering wheel adjusts for reach and rake and while it’s not exsctly limo-like, you do feel reassuringly cosseted behind the wheel of a JCW.
A very in-depth review if you are looking for loads of information. Worth checking out.
[
Mini John Cooper Works (2008-) Review ] Channel4.com
The 0-62 time of 6.5 seconds is exactly what was reported for the stage one JCW. We have seen reports here on MF that state a stock MCS is sub 6 seconds 0-60(average times of 5.7 bt Grass roots motorsports). The stage one has to be a few tenths faster with the factory model must be close to 5 seconds.
Why does Mini self sabotage themselves with ultra conservative numbers?
Keep in mind that the UK gallon is 1.2 US gallons. That translates to 33.7 mpg US.
Surprising how this isn’t well known…
European standard is to record 0-100km, which is 0-62mph. Given the MINI’s tranni & final gearing, that requires a 2-3 shift, thus another 0.3 or so seconds. … US spec 0-60mph is 6.2 seconds.
…. which I’m sure is also underrated. CarTest2000 simulations with the car as spec’d lands exactly at 0-60 6.2 seconds when you slip the clutch on start. Keep the engine @ 1400 RPM and dump the clutch and you’re around 5.5 sec 0-60mph. ….science!
p.s. last post is incomplete. I forgot to say. I have heard/read often that they are known to not only underrate power and 0-60[2] to keep insurance rates down, but also overrate the weight… same reason? either way, that bodes well for the power/weight ratio.
p.p.s. my bad! i just ran CarTest2000 again to check. The 5.5 seconds on the simulation is for non-overboost. Simulation says 5.15 seconds with.
Holy s***! I accidently tapped into the rocket science site!
5.15? That’s about what I guessed. Time to embarress some Mustang GTs and hang with the Cayman S.
I just built a very nice JCW for $35k. OK, I admit it. For this type of performance, it’s a freek’in deal!
Both MINI and BMW have always understated performance numbers.
You can upgrade the suspension and get it lowered by 10mm at a cost of £140 so it’s stiffer and tighter around corners, but we think that’s just silly behaviour. Leave it alone – it’s fine as it is.
Every article has said that it would be silly to change the suspension. Now i am very confused :-
True IZZY, that is at least if your interest is having a car to barnstorm down the public streets. For me the reason for having a sports car is to use the speed on the track where a decent suspension is golden. Talk to most people that spend anytime driving on a circuit and I would bet their number one upgrade would be suspension work. It seems Mini’s greatest desire is to make a car that is great at breaking the speed limit around town and on the highways. But seems to forget that the proper place to truly enjoy these little beasts are on the track.
As a example look across the fastest cars on the Ring and you will find its rarely about maximum horsepower but rather keeping speed around the corners, stability at speed, and fantastic brakes.