2014 MINI Cooper & Cooper S MPG (Estimated) Numbers Released
But don’t get too excited. These are preliminary numbers and may fluctuate slightly before they’re announced by the EPA in February. Now with that out of the way let’s look at the numbers. And we have to warn you, a few are a little surprising.
The Cooper
The Cooper especially has substantially increased performance while increasing MPG. However not all is an upward trend. Somewhat surprisingly it would seem that whether it’s intentional or a by-product of the engine, the F56 Cooper manual actually loses 2 mpg in the city while gaining overall.
– Cooper R50 auto: 23 City / 26 Combined / 31 Highway (auto)
– Cooper R50 manual 24 City / 28 Combined / 33 Highway (manual)
– Cooper R56 auto: 31 City / 28 Combined / 36 Highway (auto)
– Cooper R56 manual: 32 City / 29 Combined / 37 Highway (auto)
– Cooper F56 auto 30 City / 34 Combined / 41 Highway (auto)
– Cooper F56 manual 30 City / 34 Combined / 40 Highway (manual)
The Cooper S
Look at this. The Cooper S manual has lost considerable ground on the “CITY” cycle dropping 4 mpg. In fact that drop alone affects the overall combined score enough to drop it 2 MPG from the previous manual MCS. Is this right? Could these numbers simply incorrect? MINI will only say they’re preliminary and that they’ve done quite a lot of work to balance efficiency and performance on the F56. Reading between the lines perhaps they’ve also tried to separate the Cooper and Cooper S a bit more. While it’s not particularly important to us in the grand scheme of things, we do wonder what the MF readers think considering the manual MCS is the most popular model with the enthusiast community.
– Cooper S R53 auto: 21 City / 24 Combined / 29 Highway
– Cooper S R53 manual: 22 City / 24 Combined / 29 Highway
– Cooper S R56 auto: 26 City / 29 Combined / 34 Highway
– Cooper S R56 manual: 27 City / 30 Combined / 35 Highway
– Cooper S F56 auto: 28 City / 32 Combined / 40 Highway
– Cooper S F56 manual: 23 City / 28 Combined / 37 Highway
<p>If those numbers are correct, I’d say they blew it. Cars should be getting more effecient, not worse. Especially considering the Copper S doesn’t have much more power (at least according to the numbers), then the current one. I’m very disappointed…</p>
<p>I am as well. I don’t think they blew it but something is up with these numbers. Granted BMW is a notoriously conservative company with MPG figures.</p>
<p>Yes, your right, perhaps blew it was a bit harsh. I guess it’s taken for granted that every generation will be better than the last. In general the numbers are better, it’s just that city S that has me scratching my head. That is quite a reduction from the R56…</p>
<p>There is a more advanced transmission coming which will improve economy.</p>
<p>No kidding. I was hearing on the White Roof Radio podcast we should see in the 40’s with the F56 cars. It just barely hit 40 on the highway. Still, I’ll wait until some real world tests come out before deciding, but this doesn’t look that great, just run of the mill for a car of this size.</p>
<p>Why such the discrepancy between the S auto and manual? It used to be manuals were more efficient, now they’re 4 mpg worse? Pretty disappointing. I was assuming the major lack of power increase, specifically for the 2.0 L S, was due to them tuning so much for mpg, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.</p>
<p>Modern auto transmissions are more efficient now, especially the “auto clutch” variety that does away with the torque converter. Combined with computer (consistent) controlled shifting and more gears, you should expect manuals to always be the lower EPA # now. :(</p>
<p>I know things have swung the other way now, but comparatively, the F56 Cooper is almost the exact same between auto/manual, while for the S the manual is 3-5 mpg behind. Just seems like a drastic difference. I could understand 1-2 mpg…</p>
<p>Did some calculations.. this might explain why highway MPG is worse… the overdrive gears are more aggressive on the manual require more work from engine per wheel rotation.</p>
<p>Gear
Ratio
Auto
Engine Rotation / Wheel Rotation
Manual
Engine Rotation / Wheel Rotation</p>
<p>1
4.459
15.615418
3.923
14.075724</p>
<p>2
2.508
8.783016
2.136
7.663968</p>
<p>3
1.555
5.44561
1.393
4.998084</p>
<p>4
1.142
3.999284
1.088
3.903744</p>
<p>5
0.851
2.980202
0.892
3.200496</p>
<p>6
0.672
2.353344
0.756
2.712528</p>
<p>Final
3.502</p>
<p>3.588</p>
<p>The city numbers is probably just a function of the motor. S motor is quite different from the non-S.</p>
<p>Oops. That did not display the way it was shown when I copy and pasted from excel… sorry.</p>
<p>Summary for 5/6 gear engine rotations/wheel rotation
Auto: 2.980202/2.353344
Manual: 3.200496/2.712528</p>
<p>So engine needs to be driven harder to maintain same speed.</p>
<p>this has always been my 1 complaint with my R53, the final gear ratio is terrible for covering highway miles unless you live in an area with 55mph limits. FL traffic regularly travels 75-80mph and i’m at 35-3700 rpms while cruising, which is quite high compared to most cars.</p>
<p>Exactly my complaint!</p>
<p>But is this right? This isn’t getting a modern auto, unless I’ve missed something. I thought MF reported that this is getting the same mediocre trans from the R56S et al. Sure, you can do a little with shift points in the computer, but that’s lipstick on a pig.</p>
<p>While it’s true that autos have gotten a bit better with locking torque converters, etc., a major reason for the rising efficiency of automatic transmissions (that no one will openly admit to) is that automatic transmissions are now programmed to game the fuel economy tests. The test cycles are well known so basically every manufacturer programs their transmissions to shift in a way that maximizes the resulting fuel economy number. This is obviously not possible with a manual transmission. The end result is a window sticker number that’s artificially inflated vs. the manual transmission (ceteris paribus of course).</p>
<p>Are these city figures with or without start/stop? I could care less about the MPG ratings going down on the Cooper S, its very subjective to driving style anyway (I could see with stop light pulls and the irresistible urge to tip into the low end torque, how easily it would be to use some extra fuel here). The Cooper on the other hand, is already known to touch the 40s with the R56. I wouldn’t be surprised if the official highway ratings on the F56 reach well into the mid 40’s.</p>
<p>You may be right.</p>
<p>I immediately thought about start/stop as well. Previously automakers stated that one reason for not bringing start/stop was (besides the price/cost) with the specific US EPA testing guidelines, start/stop showed no difference in mileage even though there is a real-world difference. Thus, start/stop was difficult to market. Unless the EPA testing methodology has changed, (which would have likely been wildly publicized) I would expect the actual city numbers to be slightly higher for all four configurations, Cooper/S and manual/auto.</p>
<p>Start/Stop has NO improvement on EPA testing for MANUALS- for stop start to work the car must be placed in neutral; this is not the current procedure for manual cars in EPA testing.</p>
<p>Start/Stop DOES improve for AUTO as the car is placed in drive and never touched- which allows Start/Stop to function and improve MPG. This is the reason Start/Stop was brought to the US in AUTOs first (M3 with DCT). With the 8HP BMW and ZF had created an instant on pump for an AUTO and was able to bring that to market as well since the majority of cars sold in the US are autos it made sense to bring it for EPA reasons and fleet numbers- the manual system is cheap to implement and the volume in EU offsets the development costs… with the recent intro of the “next generation” automatics Europeans have begun to embrace the auto box for economy reasons.</p>
<p>I’m wondering if the test protocols have changed since the R56 was rated . . .</p>
<p>The EPA guidelines were revised in 2008 but these numbers are showing the adjusted numbers and are all correct.. If you go to <a href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.fueleconomy.gov</a> all numbers use the revised 2008 scale. One thing that misleading is that the original non-valvetronic 2007 R56 S 6spd is rated at 25/32 which is lower than what MF is stating. That’s because the 27/35 rating is of the LCI 2011 R56 6spd with valvetronic. For autos the 2007 R56 auto is rated at 23/30 while the LCI 2011 R56 with valvetronic is 26/34 FYI! Not all R56s are alike!</p>
<p>That is quite disappointing. You told us early to expect high 40s. Seeing the new three get less mileage than the old four… wow! Were the R56 #s artificially high?</p>
<p>There’s something wrong w the R56 Cooper numbers. City is higher than combined. Maybe that explains why the Cooper seemed to go both down and up in efficiency.</p>
<p>You win the prize! Swap them and it makes much more sense.</p>
<p>So the R56 figures are wrong. City driving more than combined what utter rubbish!</p>
<p>Literally.</p>
<p><a href="http://i.imgur.com/1sxUhcg.jpg" rel="nofollow ugc">http://i.imgur.com/1sxUhcg.jpg</a></p>
<p>Don’t know how this translates into what units
you guys use in the states but our magazine reviews 10.5mpg
improvement in the manual model’s fuel economy across while the auto’s economy jumps by 15.9mpg.</p>
<p>Cooper R56 manual: 32 City / 29 Combined / 37 Highway (auto)</p>
<p>For a start they cant even get this part right it’s a manual
but has (auto) at the end why??????? Because someone had to much MINI hospitality beforethey wrote it. Next time lay off the booze. Or best still just Copy the English
reviews that have th right figures.</p>
<p>This is straight from the MINI USA spec sheet. It’s been verified by several product managers.</p>
<p>Cooper R56 manual: 32 City / 29 Combined / 37 Highway (auto) why has it Auto at the end? And I own two R56 Coopers and have done for six years and Combined is not higher than city. Its called Combined for a reason. 29 City / 32 Combined / 37 Highwaymakes sense. So mixed driving away from traffic and lights is lower than stop start slow city driving, what have the BMW guys you talked to been smoking or have they ever driven an R56???</p>
<p>Sorry that should read “Combined is higher than city”</p>
<p>I really wanted to stay with the MINI brand for a 3rd car, but there are just too many hits this time around where other brands are just a far better deal. My biggest peeves with these mpg ratings are that the gas tanks are much smaller on the 2014’s meaning that the range you can travel between fill-ups has gone drastically down. I don’t know why they thought going from a 13.2 gallon tank to a 10.6 gallon tank was a smart idea. Even if mpg had gone up, it would have to be 50+ highway in order to equal the current generations range. This with the movement to a more ‘traditional’ instrument layout, removal of the cd player and those god awful tail lights are causing me to shop around for the first time in 10 years. It makes me sad :(</p>