[RickB]

The Cooper S finally showed up on the cover of Road & Track, in a comparo with the Turbo Beetle and P/T Cruiser (?). Anyway, R&T's S was about a half-second slower, both to 60 and through the 1/4 mile, than any other road test I've read. They thought the interior was a bit busy, and the ride a bit jiggly, but reckoned it was the most fun; and it displaced the Porsche GT2 as the R&T slalom king, putting the German supercar on the trailer by about 1mph.

[Halfgreek]

Maybe they had poor testing conditions that day.

[RickB]

The T Beetle's numbers were about what I've seen in other tests, so it seems they had a slow S.

[Mugami]

could it be the S they had ... had the cold start problem which did make it slower in the 1/4 and 0-60 than one who had it fixed. and or was the DSC on or off

[haz]

I read that article and its focus was on the 'retro-phenomenon'. There was, like, 2 sentences that mentioned that the S was faster than the uber porsche through the gates. It was an oh-by-the-way kind of reference to something that I find simply astounding. You would think that serious car people would make a point of EMPHASIZING something like that?!

(Our car went into production today. DS/B MCS. Let's hope they are bringing the love in Oxford!)

[rich]

I agree... The slalom seems a far more relevant measure than 0-60 and 1/4 mile timings

69.5mph is an incredible result. Speaks volumes about the car's inherent design quality. Hat's off to BMW's design engineers

[clallo]

Yes, but did you look at the whole picture?

The MINI was slower to 30 & 60, but by 80 it was a dead heat and it passed all of them in the quarter mile and had the highest trap speed.

I think this points to the launching of the car from a dead stop. The launch can make the slower benchmarks (0-30 and 0-60) vary far more dramatically than the higher speeds and are thus not a perfect indicator of a car's overall acceleretion.

I seem to recall another car a publication using what they called a 'street-start' where the car was brought to a steady 5mph first and then the throttle was opened fully. This, they argued, was a much better 'real-world' test of acceleration.

[BrantV]

I still haven't found this one. Is it the january edition? Currently the December issue is still on the shelves, and there's no MINI on the cover, or to be found via a quick flip.

The current issue (or the one on the stand) of Motor Trend did have a best of 2003 with both a MINI Cooper and MCS. The MINI Cooper bested all of the other vehicles in the pack when it came to their 600 ft slalom as well.

I think the MINI is Tracking a Trend of Motoring faster than any other production car on real twisty Roads.

Curious what slalom speeds might be achieved with a standard Cooper with the optional sports suspension and 16" tires, or even after market lighter wheels.

I'd have to agree with Rich's sentiments about slalom speeds being more relevant then 0-60 times. Who cares how fast a car can go, if it can't handle the speed when it gets there?

And clallo, I like the idea of comparing times from rolling starts much better myself, as they take clutch slippage out of the equation, and give a more accurate comparison of the engines and gearing with fewer induced timing errors due to to different launch RPMs.

Guess I'll have to keep an eye out at the news stand. This one could be a keeper, to go in the scrap book with the previous R&T article.

Cheers,
Brant

[MINImeat]

I'm a devoted R&T reader, but I've gotten alittle tired of their diplomacy lately. They never get too excited about one car in their tests anymore. I expected alot of amazement about the slalom speed. It bettered Porsches, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis, for heaven sake!
The sidebars were pretty good. 2 out of 3 editors basically said never mind the acceleration numbers, this car is a gas in the twisties!
In past articles, R&T has pointed out that they're alittle easier on the cars than most mag's in their acceleration runs and I think they'd have to hammer the S to make it get out of the hole quickly with its first-gear ratio.
The designers in the article weren't too appreciative of the MINI's interior, either. I guess it's a love-it-or-hate-it thing. I personally think it's much better executed than the American-car silly shapes inside the PT Cruiser. VW does interiors very tastefully these days, but I think they tried too hard to avoid the fun touches the original New Beetle had. I love my MINI interior!
MINImeat

[scottwkurth]

Quote:

Originally posted by MINImeat
The designers in the article weren't too appreciative of the MINI's interior, either. I guess it's a love-it-or-hate-it thing. I personally think it's much better executed than the American-car silly shapes inside the PT Cruiser. VW does interiors very tastefully these days, but I think they tried too hard to avoid the fun touches the original New Beetle had. I love my MINI interior!
MINImeat

I have to agree. I read the article and thought that some of the criticisms were valid, but I definitely love my MINI. I think that the Neo-Beetle is a VW low-point for their interiors; my parents have matching Passats that have very nicely designed interiors. The PT suffers from the same malady as most American cars these days - the interior looks like it was designed by Fisher-Price. Louds of cheap plastic everywhere and all the controls feel as if they might break off in your hand.

[lightbody]

Quote:

Originally posted by rich
Hat's off to BMW's design engineers

It was the ROVER engineers that took the BMW suspension and made it work for the MINI ;-)

FANTASTIC slalom result. MINI really does go where Classic Mini went in the 60s

[BruceK]

Quote:

Originally posted by MINImeat
I'm a devoted R&T reader, but I've gotten alittle tired of their diplomacy lately. They never get too excited about one car in their tests anymore. I expected alot of amazement about the slalom speed. It bettered Porsches, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis, for heaven sake!
The sidebars were pretty good. 2 out of 3 editors basically said never mind the acceleration numbers, this car is a gas in the twisties!...

Yes, I agree that editorially Road & Track has lost passion for automobiles. Over the past 10 years they've succeeded in bringing in a new generation of writers (while still keeping much of the old crew), they've changed their format size (for the better!), they've now got great art direction, but there really doesn't seem to be any hardcore automotive enthusiasts who write for them. Everything you read in R&T seems bland and uninspired.

Take this month's featured article with the Cooper S, Beetle Turbo and the Cruiser turbo; you get the feeling they are reporting on a trio of cars their neighbors might buy, but those cars are not for any of them. The editorial staff really seems to care little beyond snapping a few photos and scribbling a few words. I'm not saying they need to write full of false excitement and hyperbole, but the fact they glossed over the absolutely stunning slalom accomplishment shows they are “asleep at the wheel”, yet still cranking out a magazine.

[RickB]

I've been subscribing to R&T since '77, and agree that it is much more of a mainstream publication than it has been in the past, eschewing performance and racing for more tests of pedestrian transportation. Funny that the editors didn't make much of the fact that the MINI had the best acceleration (to 100mph), best handling (ever), and best brakes of the test group, focusing instead on the style and cuteness factor. I have always felt BMW blew their very expensive ad campaign (rumored to be as expensive as the engineering of the car itself) on the "yeah, baby" aspect, rather than the legitimate performance and engineering advances of the car; but then, I'm a car guy, not marketing guy. Road & Track seems to have bought into it, too.
I'd pay the cover price of R&T just to get Peter Egan's monthly contribution.

[MINImeat]

Quote:

Originally posted by RickB
I'd pay the cover price of R&T just to get Peter Egan's monthly contribution.

I'LL SECOND THAT!
MINImeat