Exclusive: MINI’s Surprising 2015 US EPA Figures Revealed
MINI has had a rough couple of months with the EPA. First MINI USA elected to switch from versions of its 2.0L four cylinder in the Cooper S from the B48 to the B46. The B46 is a variation of the 2.0L which is a classified as a super ultra-low emissions vehicle by the EPA (SULEV). From there we don’t know what happened but we do know that the EPA decided to re-test the entire line-up of F56 models from the Cooper to the Cooper S. This means that the 2015 car couldn’t be sold until certification was finished – something the EPA said would take until October 1. While the results of this testing hasn’t been published yet, we’ve obtained MPG figures for the 2015 model range that are a little surprising.
The numbers are…. down. Really down. Why? We’re still awaiting word back from MINI explaining what we’re seeing but suffice to say the EPA has decided to downgrade MPG in the 2015 F56 in a noticeable way. Has anything really changed or was the MPG simply off in their original assessment? And if so, how is it that MINI created an entirely new family of engines with more tech (and on the Cooper one less cylinder) while actually becoming no more efficient and in some ways less? We expect some type of statement from MINI shortly.
The 2015 MINI EPA Figures
|
model |
city |
combined |
highway |
|
2015 Cooper F56 manual |
29 |
33 |
40 |
|
2015 Cooper F56 auto |
28 |
31 |
37 |
|
2015 Cooper S F56 manual |
24 |
27 |
34 |
|
2015 Cooper S F56 auto |
TBD |
TBD |
TBD |
Now lets look at the bigger picture of how these updated F56 models fit into the previous family of MINIs.
The 2015 Cooper and How it Compares to the R53, R56 and 2014 F56
|
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 (2014) |
29 |
34 |
41 |
| Cooper F56 manual (2014) |
30
|
34
|
42
|
| Cooper F56 auto (2015) |
28
|
31
|
37
|
|
Cooper F56 manual (2015) |
29 |
33 |
40 |
The 2015 Cooper S and How it Compares to the R53, R56 and 2014 F56
|
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 (2014) |
27 |
31 |
38 |
| Cooper S F56 manual (2014) |
25
|
29
|
38
|
| Cooper S F56 auto (2015) |
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
|
Cooper S F56 manual (2015) |
24 |
27 |
34 |
<p>Ouch.</p>
<p>I have an F56S auto on order. If these figures translate to realworld driving with the smaller tank, I might just keep my ’12 R56S. The new 320i gets better mpg. Whats up? I wonder if they’re making BMW test the car in sport mode.</p>
<p>So was 2014 epa estimates bogus?</p>
<p>My ’14 justa is right on point with the EPA estimates. Within a single mpg on all 3 actually.</p>
<p>My real Mini (non-BMW) gets about 47 miles per gallon… My other real Mini (non-BMW) gets about 45 miles per gallon. Why doesn’t BMW bring back the real Mini.. Here is my suggestion.. bring back the real Mini, spell it Mini, not some silly way like MINI, offer it at one price, $ 10,000, no options, no radio, no online connection, no key fob, no power windows, no power locks, no turbo, no supercharger, no ugly black wheels, no version with a backwards baseball cap for a roof… make it with 10 inch wheels, 998 cc engine, center speedometer.</p>
<p>While your adding up all these no this, no that, maybe you should also eliminate, air bags, disc brakes, glass side windows,(use plastic side curtains to save weight), etc etc. What you’d like to see wouldn’t past muster here in the U.S. today, likewise, many other countries that aren’t stuck in the Dark Ages of the automobile world.</p>
<p>The classic Mini was great during its time. but sadly that has passed. I had several small misc cars from the 50’s to 70’s…old XK120 Jags, Sprite, old 356A Porsche Coupe, etc., even a ’72 Honda Z600 sport coupe with 600cc air cooled 2 cyl motorcycle engine with 36HP. Weight 1310 lbs…even less than the classic Mini. Also had 10″ wheels like the Mini.</p>
<p>These days I’ve had an ’08 MCS, & ’12 JCWCoupe & now looking to go with the new F55S. Obviously none of those are your cup of tea. But they are for many others.</p>
<p>What you are describing in the Mini fits that Honda closely. In late 1972 I paid a whopping $1795 for it NEW…$200 under retail. 0-60 took a shattering 19 secs! Imagine merging onto a highway today with that car. Make sure you have your life in order. That would be the case for the car that you would like to see on the road today…and with no safety features except seat belts. Good luck with that!</p>
<p>I get that a guy using a 40 year old car as an example is bogus, but looking at these new MPG figures, it makes me wonder. My ’12 R56S, in real world, gets better than the FS manual ( mine is a manual). I really enjoy my current car ( not an oil burner) and I think I might wait for awhile.</p>
<p>Because the original mini is so small and light weight… with no modern safety features or design or materials. I can see driving a classic mini around town at low speeds being a blast, but boy I don’t want to see what happens if you and I have a collision with my R56 at higher speeds. One of us would probably walk away… the other – yikes.</p>
<p>While we’re at it, make sure it can’t go 60 mph and has drum brakes as well. Oh and no power steering, no sound deadening, and no airbags. Our classic Mini was more terrifying to drive than my motorcycle is. At least IT can swerve to avoid traffic and stop quickly if need be.</p>
<p>Ummm… this isn’t helping..The emotional side of me wants to want a new MINI……the logical side is having trouble making it all add up. And why is a 320i which has similar outputs in a heavier car getting better numbers (and is it really in real world use) it makes no sense. Of course it makes even less sense that the MINI engine is supposed to be moving into the BMW lineup. Nope I don’t get it</p>
<p>This is a very good question. Two reasons, however, that the BMW 320i fairs better: The shape/aerodynamics of the vehicle and more importantly, the transmission. The ZF 8-speed automatic is far more fuel efficient than the AISIN 6-speed automatic in the MINI. Hopefully numbers (for the automatic) will improve tremendously when this [rumored] 8 or 9-speed AISIN transmission replaces the current unit.</p>
<p>100% agree here.</p>
<p>I saw pretty ridiculous mpg numbers for both the Cooper and Cooper S with the 8-speed transmission, 48 and 46 mpg respectively. That was actually here on motoringfile posted on Sept 17. If Kevin can’t wait for that, just think how much more fun to drive the MINI is vs. the 320i.</p>
<p>I would be a manual transmission buyer so no need to wait. The equation for fun varies greatly for us all. I have a great time in my R53 and prefer front drive small cars, but you can have a blast in a nice rear driver….not long ago the 320i’s output would’ve been terrific. I haven’t driven one so I can’t say it isn’t fun. I should go drive one this weekend maybe to find out.</p>
<p>I totally agree on the 8 speed making a huge difference. Shape of the vehicle could affect it to, but a quick check of the internets says the 2014 MINI’s have a .28cd and the BMW’s have .29cd. I don’t know enough about drag to know if .01 makes much difference. I can’t think it’s huge but it’s in the MINI’s favor anyway.</p>
<p>Transmission wise I’m a manual only guy when it comes to MINI (and probably BMW too). Manual in an F56 is 24 city 34 hwy. Manual in 320i is 23 city 36 hwy. BTW the 8 speed makes the same highway number and one better in the city on the 320 so 8 versus 6 makes very little difference on that car. So the MINI has a lower cd, lower weight, but makes worse highway mileage….. its not a lot and its not that big a deal really, it just doesn’t make sense, I’m guessing it comes down to gear ratios, maybe a taller 6th in the MINI would pay divedends.</p>
<p>I suspect that it is indeed the gear ratios. Much taller on the 320i, I am sure.</p>
<p>Even though the ’15 S auto has a six speed, I think the ratios in 5th and 6th are taller. It will be interesting to see the mpg for the S/auto</p>
<p>I may be wrong, but it’s mostly, no I’ll change that, it is all in the computer. Many have tuned their R 56’s to very good power, and then found out that then, they were getting 15 – 20% better fuel mileage. MINI/BMW can do the same thing if they have a desire to, unfortunately, they’d probably have to go back and get re-certified again. Why doesn’t MINI just give us the option at the dealers to do that. Just an idea.</p>
<p>As someone who purchased a manual 2014 F56 Cooper in July, I have found my actual miles per gallon to be much closer to these new EPA estimates than what was quoted on the Monroney sticker, which is frustrating because I traded in my 2011 (and gave up 0.9% financing!) because I thought I’d offset the bump in monthly payment with lower gasoline costs… something that isn’t proving to be true. At least I’m not crazy to think my car isn’t delivering on the gas mileage promise because of something I’m doing…</p>
<p>Gabe….any word as to we can expect to see MPG figures for the 2015 F56 S ‘auto’ & the upcoming F55 Cooper & S manual & auto???</p>
<p>How is an engine (the3 cyl in the 2015 Cooper) that generates more power and torque and gets better mileage less efficient than its predecessors?</p>
<p>Wow. My ’11 R56S manual is getting 32.25mpg over 52,000 miles (I am a nerd and an engineer — yes, I have the spreadsheet to verify these numbers). Stunned to see the revised figures for the F56. Eager to see how the numbers evolve over time and compare to real-world experiences.</p>
<p>Just came back from a 2500 mile trip thru the Black Hills and the Colorado Rockie Mountains and averaged 36.4 mpg after a horrific head wind for the first two days of this trip. Without that head wind, I’m sure I’d have been over 37 mpg. That’s with a MINI S Roadster and automatic. Still hate that dam automatic. Always shifts when I don’t want it to, or doesn’t shift soon enough, especially in the mountains.</p>
<p>This makes sense to me. When my R56 Cooper S was at the dealer for two days, my F56 Cooper S loaner got slightly <em>worse</em> mileage during my daily commute.</p>
<p>Also, note that in the much-maligned R&T MINI-vs-GTI comparo, their combined real world mileage in the MINI (officially 25/38) was 29 MPG, while the GTI (officially rated at 25/34) returned 30 MPG. That meshes well with these new figures.</p>
<p>This doesn’t make the new numbers good news, of course. This level of efficiency in a MINI is unacceptable in 2014.</p>
<p>Could it be that MINI knew (or at least thought it was possible) that the MPG figures could be lowered by the EPA and that is why they preemptively changed from the B48 to the B46 on the S?</p>
<p>Very disappointing and yet another stumble on the release of this car. You’d think they were a new car company by how poorly this has been handled.</p>
<p>Any news on if they will need to retest the 2014 F56? I have to assume those numbers are off as well as I can’t believe the switch to the B46 would have that much of an impact.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about these numbers, just doesn’t make sense. Driving always in sport mode, I average 30 mpg on the back country roads and I achieved 41.6 mph highway from Winston Salem NC to Greenville SC which is about 150 miles all while doing 70-75 with the A/C on in my 2014 Cooper S manual. This was better than my 2010 Cooper S, it usually only got between 34-37 highway and 30 back roads, and this was up from stock which usually got around 35 highway 29 back roads after I had Jan tune the car with the intercooler. But I did like the 13 gallon tank versus 10 in the new mini. My 1978 Mini 1000 gets 43 mph but lacks A/C, crash protection, and a radio lol.</p>
<p>I had a 2014 F56 S automatic loaner and in a mix of driving got 38mpg. When I do the same routes with my 2004 R50 manual, I get 33-34mpg. I still find the EPA estimates to be very useless in correlating with real world mileage. My E91 automatic gets an average of 25-26mpg in a mix of driving, and 29-30mpg for straight highway; this is better than what the EPA states.</p>
<p>The real way to go is diesel. I had an F30 328d xDrive loaner. I got 39mpg in a mix of driving, low 40s with straight highway. If the R54 Clubman ends up with a diesel here and a manual with it, that’s probably the way I’ll go. Although that F31 328d is quite appealing… still not the handler my E91 is though.</p>
<p>At least the Cooper manual is still rated 40mpg highway….</p>
<p>I agree with your comments about diesel being the way to go. The F31 328d is an amazing vehicle, especially if you option it with the M Sport package and summer tires! I have a VW TDI and it has been a great car – returning better than proposed MPG and a different, but fun driving characteristic, which makes me think that a MINI Cooper SD would be a complete BLAST to own/drive. This would make serious business sense for MINI, since they view VW as one of their prime competitors and VW is considering bringing their Golf GTD to the states next year.</p>
<p>EPA numbers are there so you can compare apples to apples. It shouldn’t be used as what YOU will get since we all have different driving style and environment. What’s surprising about the news is that how this will affect the 2014 models.
I read that there was a software update to fix some major problems on the 2014 Hardtop, and now it no longer freewheel coasts on highways as it used to. I’m thinking maybe the 2015 already comes with that update, and that’s what’s causing the lowered highway numbers.
I think 2014 Hardtop owners should pay attention to their new MPG averages after the software update, if they done the update.</p>
<p>I concur with you on this. But something that people forget is the break in period and how they drive during that time. I buy my MINI’s about 6 hours from where I live. I live in Iowa and buy in Chicago. That way, I can very the speeds, low and high, not constant and I usually can figure on better power, as well as better mpg. It’s the way I was brought up, and how I’ve driven all new cars since my first 67 Plymouth GTX. Of course the dealer will tell you now, that you don’t have to break in cars like the old days, but I don’t quite agree. Same for the first oil change as well.</p>
<p>I think vw or ford bribed someone bribed someone at the EPA. :p</p>
<p>I had an R56 MCS manual which shows on these figures at 30 combined & 35 highway. I always got better than those figures…generally 31-32 combined & 37-39 highway. If I kept within 5 miles of the 70MPH speed limit I could get over 40 MPG. On one 1800 mile round trip between Tampa & the D.C area I got 41.2 MPG but Drove no faster than 75 & did a little tractor trailer truck drafting.</p>
<p>My current JCWCoupe gets about 29 combined & 34-35 highway. Can’t believe the F56 combined is no better than my JCWCoupe!!!!</p>
<p>I find all this tooling and froing interesting. BMW has only one interest – making as much money as possible . Yes, the company does make good cars but good will be sacrificed in favour of profit every time. There are always several ways to calculate statistics and more ways to present them which could all be claimed to be honest – yet they would all give different results. Maybe BMW has been pressured, or just decided out of honesty to come up with more realistic figures for MPG.</p>
<p>I don’t agree that it’s a great idea to reproduce the original mini for the modern world, but wouldn’t it be cool if the most basic Mini was fun in the same way that the classic Mini was? The basic cars today are really made to look as miserable as possible next to the high spec version. The original was widely considered a cross-class vehicle, was innovative, didn’t share a platform with a super long nosed relative, was properly small and light and was relatively inexpensive. Qualities that the BMW VERSIONS lack. Only a passing resemblance and the ‘lifestyle’ elements remain.</p>
<p>I’ll cross my fingers that BMW will get some MOJO into the Rocketman. Germany has a great history of innovation – it is widely recognised as the origin of built in obsolescence, chemical weapons, guided missiles, nuclear bombs and also the original people’s car – maybe they will make another.</p>
<p>Welcome back to MF! Hope you are still enjoying your MK6 Golf GTI.</p>
<p>You say, “Germany is the origin of the original people’s car – maybe they will make another”. Well they already have, and you drive one! It’s called the Golf. More than thirty million have been built since its launch in 1974, and it’s the biggest selling passenger car of all time . A true “People’s Car” if ever there was one!</p>
<p>You think my Golf R convertible (current list price £35,200 or $56,212) is a people’s car? Even the most basic Golf in the UK has a list price of £16,975 ($27,108) – more a honeybabyoldbean machine (well off person’s car) than people’s car I’d say. Maybe I’m meeting the wrong sort of people?</p>
<p>Though I’ll concede that you are right about what I said. More accurately, I’d hope that BMW (not Germany) would make an affordable, uncomplicated, light, fun, less lifestyle orientated and marketing driven drivers’ car (which the Golf is really not).</p>
<p>I’m waiting to see the right, lightly used Ford Fiesta to buy at the moment so I don’t have to hustle that fat old Golf around every day – there’s a real people’s car.</p>
<p>Ps. Thanks for the welcome back.</p>
<p>After 2500mi I have a avrg. of 34.7 MPG on my F56 Cooper S Automatic – I would not expect better for a 190hp car…. Strange that EPA is so different now.</p>
<p>Great, so how much of that is city and highway mileage? Because without that information no one can judge how good the mileage is not to mention how hard you are on the throttle…</p>
<p>Sorry for my late reply, creed, it’s exactly from Riverside to Bethel,CT and back. I would say, 10mi hw, 10 city, 10 outside city. I usually drive in normal mode. Everything additional is city.</p>
<p>Has the 2015 F56S Auto been certified and what are the numbers?</p>
<p>Interesting that today, 4 days after the ‘partial’ EPA results came out (minus the S automatic), the figures have still not arrived on the MINIUSA configurator!! These new figures just don’t make sense for what was expected. Getting lower MPG with a smaller tank doesn’t compute!!!</p>
<p>It’s kinda like the statement that was expected shortly…. MINI has seemed to try to keep this whole episode as silent as possible.</p>
<p>Interesting info from a 2009 Car & Driver article:
“The EPA says its test results are almost always very close to the automakers’ numbers. When they don’t match, a long discussion ensues. According to the rules, if the EPA retests a vehicle to assess an automaker’s results, the fuel economy should be within three percent. If not, the automaker can choose to accept the lower of the two sets of numbers or request one additional retest.”
<a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates-comparing-epa-figures-page-3" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates-comparing-epa-figures-page-3</a></p>
<p>Maybe that helps explain the long delay in this process… sounds like the EPA just isn’t able to reproduce BMW’s figures.</p>
<p>I think you’re on to something. My crazy, mildly fact-based theory/wild speculation? MINI/BMW used an option (from CCD-02-10) to justify doing testing in economy or green mode for the 2014 F56. It goes like this: they had surveyed driving data downloaded during service calls since 2007 and determined vehicles will be operated predominantly in economy mode. (technically has to do with shift-select transmissions but they might have used a creative interpretation here)</p>
<p>Well for the R5* series you could claim this because Sport mode is an explicit selection. For the F56, green mode is not the default- but they used it to help their MPG (& CAFE numbers). Now the numbers they submitted and the normal driver’s experience don’t match. And the EPA got wind of this and is giving them extra scrutiny.</p>
<p>Once the 2015 Certifications are available to download from the EPA, it’ll be easy to tell if the language from 2014’s 15.2.9 is still same.</p>
<p>from MINI USA:</p>
<p>2015 MINI Hardtop 2 door</p>
<p>Manual Transmission</p>
<p>Automatic Transmission</p>
<p>Cooper</p>
<p>29 city/40 highway/33 combined</p>
<p>28 city/37 highway/31 combined</p>
<p>Cooper S</p>
<p>24 city/34 highway/27 combined</p>
<p>26 city/33 highway/29 combined</p>
<p>You said you got those 2015 F56 Cooper & S mileage figures from MINIUSA. I just checked their site & no figures were given for the F56. Although the figures for the manual & auto Cooper as well as the manual S have been released by the EPA, we still haven’t seen them for the S auto.</p>
<p>If your S figures are correct then the EPA mileage on the S is no better than my R58 JCWCoupe with it higher HP. Yet these new models’ have a fuel tank a good bit smaller than the R series…so shorter distance between fill ups!</p>
<p>I am a MA at a MINI dealer, trust me, these are the new numbers</p>
<p>The figures in this article are from MINIUSA. Now sure what the confusion is.</p>
<p>my post is your numbers plus the newly released numbers for the F56 S automatic</p>
<p>You all make me laugh</p>
<p>You want better perfomance, and you hope better mpg ?
I call this <></p>