Exclusive: 2014 F56 MINI Official US MPG Figures
Next week the EPA will officially release final MPG figures on the 2014 F56 MINI manual and preliminary ones for automatic models. As we could see with MINI’s estimated figures back in January, these final figures paint an interesting picture of how MINI has attempted to further differentiate the Cooper and Cooper S and the results that has had on efficiency. Let’s take a look at the rundown.
– Cooper auto: 29 City / 34 Combined / 41 Highway (preliminary)
– Cooper manual 30 City / 34 Combined / 42 Highway
– Cooper S auto: 27 City / 31 Combined / 38 Highway (preliminary)
– Cooper S manual 25 City / 29 Combined / 38 Highway
The Cooper and How it Compares to the R50 and R56
The Cooper especially has substantially increased performance while increasing MPG. However it’s not the upward trend some had hoped when it comes to city figures. We’d expect the new 9 speed auto to change this in a few years. In the meantime however we have a Cooper that is much quicker than before with substantially better overall MPG. Not bad in our opinion.
|
model |
city |
combined |
highway |
|
Cooper R50 auto |
23 |
26 |
31 |
|
Cooper R50 manual |
24 |
28 |
33 |
|
Cooper R56 auto |
28 |
31 |
36 |
|
Cooper R56 manual |
29 |
32 |
37 |
|
Cooper F56 auto (Preliminary) |
29 |
34 |
41 |
|
Cooper F56 manual |
30 |
34 |
42 |
The Cooper S and How it Compares to the R53 and R56
This is where things get interesting. W’ve mentioned previously that it was MINI’s intention to pull apart the Cooper and Cooper S in terms of performance and this is perhaps a by-product of that. The Cooper S manual has actually lost ground on the “CITY” cycle dropping 2 mpg. In fact that drop alone affects the overall combined score enough to actually drop the new MINI 1 MPG from the previous manual MCS. Keep it in perspective though. The engine is now a full 2.0L with with seat of the pants performance equal to the previous JCW power plant. Based on our experiences driving the car, there’s a greater drivability to the engine given the amount of torque and the eagerness of the engine to rev. And with 2.0L there’s also much more potential in the engine for JCW and tuners alike.
Of course that doesn’t change the fact that the new MINI Cooper S manual (the one many if you will likely want) is technically less efficient than the previous one in the city and overall. You’ll have to do more highway mileage to truly call the new MCS an improvement in efficiency.
|
model |
city |
combined |
highway |
|
Cooper S R53 auto |
21 |
24 |
29 |
|
Cooper S R53 manual |
22 |
24 |
29 |
|
Cooper S R56 auto |
26 |
29 |
34 |
|
Cooper S R56 manual |
27 |
30 |
35 |
|
Cooper S F56 auto (Preliminary) |
27 |
31 |
38 |
|
Cooper S F56 manual |
25 |
29 |
38 |
<p>Interesting and awesome, although I was expecting slight higher highway numbers. Still, 41 is pretty awesome and I bet on a long road trip with cruise control that number could be a little higher. Maybe a day of hypermiling during MTTS is in order.</p>
<p>That’s not a good thing to do in a large group of cars. It’s okay for you, but murder on the cars following, and on the leader trying to keep everyone together.</p>
<p>I’ve led many groups of MINIs on drives, and the most disruptive member of the group is the laggard.</p>
<p>My R53 JCW has always done 25MPG at the worst (normally in the winter), and often does 27 to 28 MPG on my combined normal commute. BUT I’ve never done better than 30 MPG on the highway so if the F56 can do 38 MPG with consistency it would be a welcome gain. I will keep my eye on what people really report as the new cars hit the streets. In my mind I still prefer the supercharger I’ve got to the turbo cars.</p>
<p>Agreed. I consistently average 29mpg on my 2006 R53 with mild mods (Pulley, intake, exhaust, intercooler).</p>
<p>My feeling is that BMW was a bit conservative with their economy numbers. Would like to see what consumers report after a while behind the wheels. Hopefully a bit higher than what is reported here as these numbers for the S are not impressive. This car is essentially a decade newer technology with the same combined mpg that I already average on my R53.</p>
<p>Yes BMW is conservative in the typical German fashion in regards to any MPG or performance figure. An example of why you should do this is the current MPG related class action lawsuit against Hyundai.</p>
<p>…and a similar one against Honda.</p>
<p>and Ford, lol.</p>
<p>It appears that the city/combined figures for the base R56 have been mistakenly transposed on both the auto & manual in this article!!! There is no way that combined figures can be LESS than city mileage. And to add to that error, the narrative carries it by stating ‘the F56 cooper actually loses 2MPG in the city while gaining overall’. NOT TRUE!</p>
<p>By transposing the city/combined figures of the R56 Cooper to their correct positions, the F56 would GAIN 1 MPG city. I saw this error 2 months ago when ‘estimated’ figures were coming out. Proof reading is always a good thing!!</p>
<p>Looks right to me. Either you misread or they must have fixed it after your post.</p>
<p>It’s fixed. Numbers were transposed for a few minutes after posting.</p>
<p>It’s interesting to see in these figures that the F56 Cooper’s mileage figures for the preliminary automatic are equal/LESS by 1 MPG than the manual. Then looking at the S, they are equal/GREATER by 2 MPG for the automatic over the manual.</p>
<p>Based on this, the automatic is less efficient than the manual on the 3 cyl, & more efficient than the manual on the 4 cyl??!! Any word as when these ‘preliminary’ figures for the automatics will become ‘official’??</p>
<p>Soon I’m told.</p>
<p>I posted about this awhile back. Without doing the calculations and posting them again, the Cooper S manual has a more aggressive gearing than the automatic. I forgot the numbers, but if I recall MCS has a higher final drive ratio and over drive gears… so MCS engine needs to rotate more to cover the same distance as non S.</p>
<p>Our 2011 MCSm does a real-world combined 34 mpg. It will be interesting to see what the F56 does in the real world.</p>
<p>Mileage for the departing R56 S hatch indicates 27/30/35 for city/combined/hwy. When I had my ’08 MCS S hatch with manual, I averaged about 31+ MPG for combined in my local driving. But I was able to get lots more on a hwy trip than the official figures. On a 900 mile trip from TPA to DC, keeping within 5 miles of the speed limit, I was able to get 41.2 MPG average for the 1800 miles round trip!! The toughest part of that trip was KEEPING it within 5 miles of the speed limit as everyone flew past me!!</p>
<p>So the F56 S driven the same way on that trip could probably get ‘well above’ the 41 MPG that I got with the R56S. Doing the same trip with my current ’12 JCWCoupe which has 26/30/35 figures, My combined is no more than about 29-30 MPG. But I was able to squeak out about 36 MPG hwy if keeping my speed below 80 on the interstate. Tough to do with the JCWCoupe!</p>
<p>How big is the gas tank on the F56 Hatch?</p>
<p>I could be a couple of tenths off, but I think the gas tank on the F56 is down to ‘about’ 11.7 U.S. gals compared to 13.2 on the R56. Saw the specs info back in Jan but don’t have it at hand right now. Why they would drop the capacity that much, is strange. So even with better mileage the cars won’t go any further on a tank.</p>
<p>Found the MF article from Jan 30 F56 Cooper/S U.S specs… It only has a 11.6 gal fuel tank. That’s 1.6 gals less that the 13.2 R56 tank!!! Guess the higher the mileage rating the smaller the fuel tank!! But that seems quite a bit less capacity for the new mileage figures.</p>
<p>I would expect MINI planned on having a similar range given estimated fuel economy. I’m guessing in the real world range will be about the same.</p>
<p>The UKL platform is part of the equation, also the fact they squeezed another 2 cu. feet of storage space in the back ( basically a full size carry-on piece of luggage) is another reason. Most people purchasing MINI’s live in the city so trips to the pump won’t be that noticed with the size only dropping 1.6 gallons. I will gladly be able to show newcomers to the brand how a MINI is the perfect all-around vehicle if there needs dictate a smaller (and more fun) alternative to the completion.</p>
<p>I thought I saw in one article that the Cooper and the S had different sized tanks. ??</p>
<p>“the F56 Cooper auto actually loses 2 mpg in the city” – I’m sorry but the numbers don’t support that statement at all.</p>
<p>I’m curious. How will the eco mode affect these figures if say you drive 1/3 the time in that mode?</p>
<p>Also worth nothing, I don’t believe these cars were tested in Green Mode… numbers may even be higher for those who can resist the temptation of mashing the throttle.</p>
<p>No – they are tested in standard mode.</p>
<p>Just got back from test driving my F56 Cooper S. It arrived at the dealership early. It is unbelievably improved. It is a tighter more comfortable ride than the R56 S yet the engine is a revelation of refinement and power. I have owned two R56’s, an S hatch and a Clubman S. This is definitely a totally different car.The auto is quite improved and the suspension is really top notch. I drove through some pot holed streets, construction on the highway as well as city backstreets and highway straights. I drove in economy, mid and sport mode. Economy was nice, mid was fun and sport was terrific. In the R56, Sport was a wild setting reserved for special occasions . The current sport has such a fun character with tight control that you want you will want to keep it set that way all the time. Now I also ordered the adjustable dampers but couldn’t find that setting. Gabe, do the dampers adjust based on drive setting or is the control hidden in the beautiful Center Nav system? The interior was much richer than the R56. I ordered the leather, cloth cross check. It looks very nice. I also ordered the red color line and I think it makes the interior of the car. Two small niggling points, I didn’t like the Blazing red, it doesn’t look
like the photos and seems more orange, also the boot lid cover is black and looks out of place with the white roof. Unfortunately, I will not be able to take delivery until
4/15 at the earliest and lease plans and proving are unavailable. It is a terrible tease. I’ve posted one photo but will have to edit their size for posting.</p>