What Would You Change About the 2015 MINI JCW?
The F56 based MINI JCW is a huge step forward in performance and technology. However that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. And now you have your turn to tell MINI what you like and what you don’t.
We know that MINI reads MotoringFile daily across both sides of the Atlantic. And while they’ve done a bang-up job on paper for the new JCW, that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. And that’s where you, the MINI experts and potential buyers of this new car come in.
So sound off in the comments below and tell us what you like and what you would love to see changed.
To recap, here are some quick facts, figures and standard features for the JCW:
– 228 hp and 236 ft-lbs
– Standard Aero kit and rear spoiler
– Unique JCW 17″ wheels with 18″ optional
– Standard LED headlights
– More aggressive exhaust
– Sport suspension standard (identical to the Cooper S optional sport suspension
– Exclusive color – Rebel Green
– Exclusive roof color – Chili Red
– More aggressive sport seats (standard in cloth with Dynamica optional) with higher levels of bottom and side bolstering
– Brembo four-pot set-up in the front (standard Cooper S single-pot in the rear)
<p>It is impressive. The numbers are great. Seeing it in person rather than photos is like a celebrity sighting. But if I were to suggest anything, it would be to get rid of the ridiculously oversized tail lights and do something about the overbite in the front.</p>
<p>Change the design of the car? It’s really inelegant and rough. And why do they keep using the red color to introduce a JCW model? It’s not original anymore. It’s also hard to tell the difference between the JCW bumpers and the regular ones on the F56. It doesn’t look a lot sportier.</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more! Great points vzben!
The main issue is that the design is to complicated. Bring back the simple, steampunk, bulldog look of the R53!
And please someone tell them to get rid of that front scared, cat fish, big mouth super plastic front bumper.</p>
<p>Unfortunately the euro pedestrian crash standards pretty much dictated a higher hoodline after 2006. It’s a shame I agree. MINI did the best they could with the R56 I think, but with the addition of the longer overhang on F56 the whole thing just falls apart.</p>
<p>I think squeezing the shared platform 2L BMW engine in the S really changed it, not the crash standards. BMW managmement ruined the look of the MINI. Big, fat and ugly. I really hope for the next version they forget about mass market appeal and return to roots, follow the Miata.</p>
<p>It’s the crash standards.</p>
<p>“It’s the crash standards.”</p>
<p>This is the general reason, yes. But MINI made design choices that arguably exaggerate the underlying safety requirements.</p>
<p>The lower facia is one example of such a choice:</p>
<p><a href="http://autoinfoquest.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/P90139112_highRes.jpg" rel="nofollow ugc">http://autoinfoquest.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/P90139112_highRes.jpg</a></p>
<p>I’m curious how the dimensions of the b48 engine differ from the prince or the tritec. I’m sure the crash standards are in play, but only after the decision to use the b48. Can you offer more information on this?</p>
<p>“return to roots, follow the Miata.”</p>
<p>Yep. This iteration of the MX-5 is shorter and lighter. The shortest since the original Miata.</p>
<p>It’s actually <em>possible</em> to do a 180, and focus design in this direction:</p>
<p>“I wouldn’t necessarily say the car was too big,” deputy chief engineer Hitoshi Takamatsu said. “But we wanted to rethink the idea of a light sports car and better fit it around the driver.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.autonews.com/article/20140908/OEM03/309089979/mazdas-mx-5-miata-gets-shorter-sportier" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.autonews.com/article/20140908/OEM03/309089979/mazdas-mx-5-miata-gets-shorter-sportier</a></p>
<p>It’s odd that MINI has cited the compliance with the Euro ped crash standard as the reason for the higher line on the bonnet and front end changes. If you look at other vehicle brands such as Honda, Toyota, etc, many of their cars have a sloped front end. Do they make a different front end for the US market vs. Euro market? If not, why is it those cars have a lower sloping front and the MINI can’t (i.e. like the R50/R53)?</p>
<p>The vehicles which you mentioned already have the engine located back far enough that their styling an remain as is. But soon that may change as the pedestrian standards get more complicated I was told.</p>
<p>This is just flat out wrong. Yes, the European crash standards affect design, but there is more than one way to skin this cat! For example, some Cadillac models have a feature that raises the rear of the hood to meet the pedestrian crash standards. No change to overhang was done. No raised front hood.</p>
<p>While the crash standards mandated changes, the way MINI chose to do it is what created what we have now.</p>
<p>As far as what I’d change, I’d take every non-functional style accent and trash it. For so long, MINIs have had a longitudinal power bulge on the hoods (heck, my 02 MCS even has one). This makes NO SENSE on a car with a transverse mounted I4 under the hood. Most of the busy features of the front are after the appearance of sportiness, not the actual act of being faster. Personally, a dual exhaust tip on an I4 is a waste of flow capacity, as is an exhaust system that has one main pipe and two exit paths (with two mufflers and the like). I’m a function dictates form kind of guy, and it seems that a lot in MINI design aren’t.</p>
<p>And yes, the brake ducting and radiators took some space, but you can’t claim that there are no low profile LED fog lights that couldn’t be put onto the car. It’s just they chose not to do it.</p>
<p>I like the longitudinal power bulge. Yes it’s a style accent but for me the MINI wouldn’t be the same without it. The dual exhaust on the S is also what makes the S vs. the Base. I also don’t mind the non function bonnet inlet on the S.</p>
<p>There are other items/features that I feel MINI needs to fix/correct, first and foremost. One being the horrible plastic glued on look crap fuel gauge. If MINI is suppose to be a premium car that is sporty (especially the S) then put in sporty/race inspired gauges, such as: Real Fuel gauge and a chrono pkg (all standard). Also reposition the headlight controls (and the boot open button).</p>
<p>Other items, offer (as an ala carte) option:
1. Stainless steel pedals (and footrest w/o having to get JCW Interior pkg),
2, Factory installed driving lights
3. On the Base – the added spoiler w/o having to get Ext JCW pkg
4. More colors for Bonnet stripes
5. Roof color choices: Silver or Red
6. Real Time Traffic included in all Sat/Nav versions</p>
<p>Standard on all models:
1. Lumbar support on all seat types and seat material
2. Standard LED fog lights (vs Halogen type) w/o having to get LED headlights.
3. Fuel tank size back to 13 gallons.
4. Voice Activation standard
5. Standard blind spot tech
6. Paddle shifters standard on S with Auto and option on Base model
7. Include car jack, lug wrench kit even on models with RF tires.
8. Lockable glove box</p>
<p>When I look at the M3/M4 compared to the regular 3-series there are definite elements that make them stand apart. Larger fender flares, unique front /rear bumpers, wheels, colors, lower ride height, etc. Except for the red roof there doesn’t seem to be much that sets the JCW apart from the lesser models.</p>
<p>Very true. The “body in white” is almost entirely different and this has its own vehicle code. In addition to this M cars have an entirely bespoke suspension as well – not just a tweaked version of what’s in the standard car (as MD, Audi etc do). BMWM often boasts that its key products are 80% new as compared with the standard cars they’re based on. However the downside of this level of customization is a much larger price delta between the M3/M4 and the 328i or 335i (soon to become the 340i).
MINI has designed the JCW to offer a great deal of additional performance without as big of a price jump. Could they have gone the M route? Absolutely but the downside would have been a higher price delta. And let’s be honest, the amount of engineering that goes into the M3/M4 isn’t always evident in track times. It’s evident in performance and more importantly how the car feels and reacts to driver input. Would it make sense for MINI to invest so heavily in that area considering how light and responsive the car already is? MINI made a bet that it wasn’t and that the JCW would be plenty impressive with the tweaks and additions made.</p>
<p>Couple points…. Bespoke is some thing you get from guys with workbenches who work slow, expensive, and one off. Like hand done engraving on a silver cup. “Model specific” is what BMW does with M suspension. Seems to me nothing mass produced is ever “bespoke”.</p>
<p>But MINIs philosophy of basically bolting onto the MINI Body in White is pretty low sales numbers. Seems like most who want to buy something as special as a JCW WANT that extra something. MINIs in a tough spot: They want to offer a something special, but the price points of the base cars nor the anticipated number of sales don’t leave a lot of room for a premium model before most everyone just buys a Boxter or Cayman (Golf R or whatever).</p>
<p>Instead of saying that the car is so good that it doesn’t need a special version, seems to me it’s more accurate to say that the base S is so expensive that there isn’t much price room to offer a special version.</p>
<p>Overall, all car companies are in a tough spot. Look at the performance figures for a Honda Accord V6 (2013 model did 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, car and driver). Somewhere around 0.85 skidpad (with commuter tires!) These are numbers that you used to HAVE to buy a M (or R or GT or XT or whatever fast sounding letters were appended to a name) to get. But now, the V6 version of a commuter car will smoke most 60 era muscle cars. So, now the base 3 series (or MINI) is more capable than most drivers can really master, it’s mostly the faster 0-60 times that people actually get to use in the high end models. Most drivers couldn’t even access the limits of handling on the base version! Me included!</p>
<p>To make maters worse, there are CUVs like the GLA45 that are just as much fun as a MINI, offer more space and if a MINI is going to win a race, it will probably be an AutoX, nothing with a straightaway. Let’s face it, the reasons to buy high end models are decreasing with time as base models get more and more capable.</p>
<p>So for driving enthusiasts this is good and bad news. The good news is that pretty much any car handles worlds better than even sports cars of 20 years ago did. The bad news is that if one wants the best that the automotive manufacturers offer, one needs a lot of money, or one has to be happy with an excellent momentum car (like the Toybaru twins or a MINI).</p>
<p>I really don’t like the new design. No side skirts, no rear diffuser, a bunch of plastic that looks gaudy. IMO, MINI continues to go further away from Mini. Very disappointed! BMW is no different. Both are appealing more to the mass market and are loosing their identity. I’d take my WC50 with GP2 rear diffuser and underbody panels with AccessPort over this hands down.</p>
<p>Something like this? Lol WC50 297 here ;)</p>
<p>Something like this? WC50 297 here ;)</p>
<p>Exactly!</p>
<p>One has yet to arrive at our dealer so I haven’t driven it. But I think I can still confidently still say this without driving it. I’d like more power and dual clutch! The 3 cylinder out of the cooper is in the i8 and that cranks 230 horse power! JUST the 3 cylinder. The 2 litre 4 cylinder should EASILY hit 300 hp. With the Golf R here, it can’t afford not to. Will it sacrifice fuel consumption? Probably. But our BMW M customers don’t buy an M3 because they want fuel efficiency, they want power, speed, and performance. And so do I, but in a MINI. And again, have yet to drive the auto JCW which is hear is near dual clutch, but why can’t we have actual dual clutch as an option? Yes, I KNOW, dual clutch and auto transmissions are heresy. Especially in the MINI community, but we’re now at the point where autos are better. Better for speed, fuel efficiency, 0-60 times, everything. I do love manual though, and as a second car or a “toy,” I’d get manual 100%. But as a daily driver, I can’t justify it anymore. Just my thoughts. Other than that, I LOVE this car. Can’t wait to get one.</p>
<p>If the JCW had a DCT that worked like the E90s (or other M cars) it could be a game changer.</p>
<p>Bespoke suspension parts (dampers, springs and swaybars) and limited slip differential.</p>
<p>My desired change is not to change anything in the JCW Cooper S, but I want to see Mini also offer a JCW Cooper, with a higher tune on the 3cyl engine, putting it up in the same HP as the base Cooper S, with JCW suspension stock, exhaust, brakes.</p>
<p>In short I want a 3cyl JCW Cooper – the Cooper S we should have had and never got.</p>
<p>How would it be fit out.
– 3 cyl tuned to 185-190hp
– JCW suspension
– JCW exhaust
– JCW brakes
– JCW wheel arches
– Stock Cooper front fascia and rear fascia
– Cooper S spoiler?
In general, less cosmetics, more Go’s.</p>
<p>I could really enjoy that car. I like my ’15F56S auto, but the car that you suggest just seems like the perfect MINI.</p>
<p>that’s a brilliant idea – JCW Cooper.</p>
<p>Be happy with what you have because you’re stuck with it for the next 6-7 years</p>
<p>Price. I just cannot justify $40k for a well optioned MINI.</p>
<p>Things I wish I could change:</p>
<p>250+hp
Lower ride height
Hide the black front bumper behind the mesh grill
Having Light White or Alpine White available
Cockpit chrono package with a variety of gauges (oil pressure, oil temp, boost, coolant temp, etc)
On the fly suspension damping changeable in all driving modes.</p>
<p>I agree 100% with the Chrono package with gauges. Forgot to add that to my list.</p>
<p>Available front fog lights
Offer Black 17″ Race Spoke wheels/Rims
Have other materials besides Diamanica for the JCW Sports seats
Enhanced Bluetooth Standard (should be for all the F56, or atleast the voice activation part should be standard)</p>
<p>I would change The engine. The 1.6l, to me, was more special. BMW has The 2l petrol engine on all its cars and on The mini it isnt any special. I would have loved to see the i8 1.5l petrol on the mini jcw. I think the reason they didn’t use it on the jcw f56 is the fact that the 100k + price i8 would have had the same engine as the 30k mini. I really believe the engine would have been used in the mini if it wasn’t on the i8. Other than that I like the jcw as is.</p>
<p>I posed the question to MINI engineers last year. Research showed that consumers had a hard time swallowing a Cooper S with a three cylinder engine – despite the fact that they could have created one with the same output as the 2.0L 4 cylinder.</p>
<p>“consumers had a hard time swallowing a Cooper S with a three cylinder engine”</p>
<p>That is one of the reason I didn’t purchase a Base F56. I’m still not convinced on the long term reliability and hold up of a 3 cylinder engine. It may be fine, but outside of the i8 (and Base Cooper) there are only two other cars with a 3 cylinder in the US market: Fiesta and Mirage</p>
<p>(I didn’t care for the Brakes on the Base either vs the S).</p>
<p>Also by the time I added options to the Base to bring it up to a standard S and then add the other options I was getting, the Base Cooper price would have only been about $750 less then the S I had spec’d. Didn’t make any sense paying that much for a Base with 55 HP less than the S.</p>
<p>If the price difference would have been a few thousand, I might I gone with the Base, even with my hesitation on a 3 cylinder engine.</p>
<p>honestly I love the idea of the 3 cylinder engine. Of course I could be bias since I also have a Triumph Daytona with a triple. :-)</p>
<p>Yeah…its 3 cylinder and not 4 but the decision for not going with the 3 , I am sure , it was based more on the U.S. Market research. I really hope the Lci copper s/jcw will get the 1.5l though</p>
<p>Two things:</p>
<p>Offer the JCW PRO options as factory installed options
Offer a mechanical limited slip differential instead of a compromised brake-based one. If this is MINIs “M” then the LSD should be included really.</p>
<p>I would also add: Don’t wait for LCI to add the black headlights, and center stripes.</p>
<p>except that as Gabe already said, jcw is NOT ///M
(or the mini would cost 50000$)</p>
<p>I thought they we’re going for being the M arm of MINI. Didn’t @GabrielBridger say that too?</p>
<p>It is… but proportionally !
So few people would buy a $50/60,000 Mini</p>
<p>larger engine, larger tyres, wider, taller, third row seating. change the name, Mini sounds too cutesy not manly enough… oh, I thought this was a focus group.</p>
<p>Hard to add to what’s already been stated, but will give it a try</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The JCW needs its own suspension, something different from what is offered on the Cooper/S. The JCW motor and brakes are fantastic, the suspension equally need an upgrade to match. It feels unbalanced otherwise. JCW Pro would be nice, but simply providing a different rear sway bar and/or lower springs would suffice. There was a time when BMW and MINI sport suspensions sat 10mm lower. Maybe bring this back? To be direct, needs more low.</p></li>
<li><p>Recaro seats. Probably already planned, just putting this on the wish list for sooner rather than later</p></li>
<li><p>Better wheel options and sizes, better proportioned with the rest of the car. A Y-spoke option, along the lines of the R90 or R112 is needed for the JCW in 18″. Think BMW 1M wheels and you’ll be on the right track.</p></li>
<li><p>Styling. Let’s tidy up the front bumper area please. Something far simpler, simar to what’s been show on the Clubman Concept and Superlegerra Vison would be welcomed. Sometimes less is more.</p></li>
<li><p>Interior. Would like to see materials which are a bit more exclusive offered on the JCW. Carbon fiber, leather dash, alcantara, etc. The graphic around the center display are unnecessary. Let’s tone down the whimsy in favor of presenting a more serious performance car.</p></li>
<li><p>Just want to thank MINI for listening to our prior feedback offering Rebel Green (previously known as Connaught Green).</p></li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li><p>Mini NEVER has its sport suspension lowered compared to the normal suspension</p></li>
<li><p>it already exists (R506 wheels)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Actually both the F56 and R56 were down a few MM.</p>
<p>it turns out that it is not the case !</p>
<p>Mini Germany officially answered “no”
( <a href="http://www.mini-f56-forum.de/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.mini-f56-forum.de/</a> )</p>
<p>Sorry was thinking JCW.</p>
<p>Performance-wise the car is perched on the edge of what a FWD car can effectively put to the road so there is not a lot I would change in that regard. Without moving to AWD there is only so much MINI can do beyond keeping cornering speeds high.</p>
<p>Appearance-wise I would have liked to have seen a lower ride, but that wasn’t in the cards with the suspension carry over from the “S”. Another nice to see would have been 18″ wheels as standard opposed to 17″, flared fenders and wider tires to fill them.</p>
<p>Still, I can’t wait for MINI Canada to give me a crack at this thing on a closed course…</p>
<p>Well most of my thoughts have already been expressed by others, but I’ll add a descriptive… ITS FUGLY. There I said it, I will not purchase any more Minis unless the design improves. Yes I’ve driven an F56 “S” and I’m not impressed with the arcade on wheels . I prefer a more traditional sports car… a little rougher around the edges. Thus I purchased a JCW Roadster fromMini of Knoxville, should be arriving shortly. Yeah I’m 20 HP down from the new JCW hardtop… but you’ll be riding inside a box and I’ll be enjoying sunny days with the top down ????</p>
<p>Totally agree! 20hp down is easily fixed with the AccessPort 🙂 And it’s totally worth it! Night and day difference!</p>
<p>R58/59 are quite ugly, don’t you think ?</p>
<p>Not in the least Eric… witness my Roadster I’ve had for a little more than a week. Not one negative comment on line or in the real world ????????</p>
<p>It’s the best looking of the R56 generation in my book.</p>
<p>Maybe people do not like, do not want to offend you</p>
<p>Give it a functional hood scoop. I can’t believe they put the blocking plastic in the scoop.</p>
<p>silly as this sounds…. I’d like to return to having tachometer as the big gauge on the steering column (sigh…)</p>
<p>Definitely would boost the HP output to keep up with the times and to compete with other rivals. 228 bhp is not bad and given the size of the car it is fun to drive; however, having the ability to perform sub 6.0 second 0-60 MPH with this one does not seem so far fetched. Overall love the car, just find given its performance nature, it just needs a little more heart.</p>
<p>Can someone there finally fit this and all Mini-s with a proper sunroof shade that is solid and not perforated? It’s my only complaint.</p>
<p>The F56’s sunroof shade is dramatically darker than what came before.</p>
<p>Gabe, that not what MiniMonger complaint is. The shade may be dramatically darker but it’s not solid and from friends who have a MINI, they want a solid shade not one that is darker or perforated.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen one yet, but it doesn’t look all that different then the F56. The fJCW thing was more about the turbo and brakes than the body kit. I’m sure it’s a way faster car but I agree it doesn’t stand out much looks wise. And they do overdo the red roof thing. True, I have a red roof on my JCW too, but at least it’s a Coupe!</p>
<p>What I would change…
Drop the heck outta this beast.
Competition Orange Highlights
Bigger Wheels (maybe even black)
Large Diffuser
Snow Plow Front Splitter</p>
<p>Just a few minor tweeks…. :)</p>
<p>Not my cup of tea, but to each their own.</p>
<p>Is the gas cap on the passenger side on the f56? Or is this photo reversed? What a pain if it is.</p>
<p>Yeah I don’t like the gas gap filler cap on the passenger side either (on my F56), prefer on Drivers side. I’m seeing other car makers putting the gas cap on pass side now too.</p>
<p>It’s for safety according to automakers.</p>
<p>Hmmm, well not according to info on these two websites:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.quora.com/How-do-car-makers-decide-what-side-to-put-the-gas-tank-on" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.quora.com/How-do-car-makers-decide-what-side-to-put-the-gas-tank-on</a></p>
<p><a href="http://blog.allstate.com/gas-tanks-arent-on-same-side/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://blog.allstate.com/gas-tanks-arent-on-same-side/</a></p>
<p>Per these sites it’s either: engineering preference or consumer preference (US vs other countries).</p>
<p>MINI could improve:
1.The Piano Black center ring with the JCW Graphics that houses the radio.
Its bad quality and I’ve had to replace mine already because the graphics wore off prior to me taking delivery.
2.The Chrome JCW Exhaust tips should be the ones that say John Cooper Works on the tips…not on the JCW Tuning Kit. This has been going on for years! Time to give the people their monies worth for buying the actual JCW.
3. Under the Bonnet there should be JCW badges….once again like the tuning kit version.</p>
<p>My question is off the subject matter but since there is so much talk going on here I thought I would ask…has anyone come across a GREAT detailing product for the exterior black plastic on the MINIS? I’ve tried a couple different ones and haven’t come up with any I’m overly impressed with.</p>
<p>Black WOW by Richard Lin. He’s a MINI guy and runs a detail business. He also offers Pre-WOW for cleaing the plastic.</p>
<p>100% agree. I’ve been meaning to do a write up on Black Wow for years. It’s an excellent product.</p>
<p>Thanks guys, appreciate the feedback…Will check it out</p>
<p>Additional gauges (oil temp, press temp, water temp).</p>
<p>Been driving my new F56 JCW for three weeks now, and I love it ! I cannot see so much that has to be changed , (comparing with my old R55 JCW), but one thing is really shit , and it is the wheels , there is not rubber enough! 205/40/18 , it is like bicycle tires ! And it is impossible to increase the width ! the ET , the dampers , the brakes, the arches – everything works against me to fit Toyo 888 in 225/40/18 , it is impossible.. :-(</p>
<p>Make it a GTI?</p>
<p>Ouch!</p>
<p>Ahhh, a car made in Mexico. I think not.</p>
<p>Make it a Golf R.</p>
<p>I used to be quite keen on the Mini products and especially the “to-be” JWC portfolio, but I have to say (like I have been saying some times in here as well) that the JCW products are just becoming both meaningless and pointless if you are looking for a dynamics product to offer “high end” capabilities in that area. I keep ending up with wanting more (and I am not even going to venture into the design discussion here; that one has already been covered). But I do however feel that Mini is in the same “trap” as BMW; most of their products in my view offer the same degree of boredom with its design that fails to inspire and move.
I would like to see much more differentiation of the JCW products. The current ones offers “fake” design and “too little” for a man’s heart to get excited. Some explanation has been offered in this forum as to why Mini hasn’t cracked the code yet; it is really not like Mini’s are cheap products either – so I do expect they have some flexibility in their arsenal to make use of.
I would like:
– More engine still in combination with 4wd for the JCW.
– More wheels
– More options in the “driving dynamics” area (e.g. carbon ceramic wheels)
– Far better exterior design
– DCT transmission
– Get rid of the stupid centrally placed speedometer, and place the rev counter there (like the old layout was)
– Seat cushion angle adjustments (in combo with el.seats)</p>
<p>I do actually like to interior adjustments made to the new F56. In general I find them successful (apart from the speedo).</p>
<p>Blackout all the chrome, give it black wheels and add more extreme race-inspired bodykit/styling.</p>