Acceleration
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Joined
·
177 Posts
Auto Express initially quoted 9.3 and then later on said it was 8.5.
All the other mags have always said it was in the low 9\'s.
I always wonder how they test it, \'cos my Rover is claimed to do it in 11 secs and when I last timed it it was under 10... I guess the speedo is at fault!
All the other mags have always said it was in the low 9\'s.
I always wonder how they test it, \'cos my Rover is claimed to do it in 11 secs and when I last timed it it was under 10... I guess the speedo is at fault!
Virtually everything I have read claims about 9 seconds for 0-60 with the Cooper. Originally they claimed 6 seconds for the S. Now they have scaled that back to about 7.5. I am still wondering if the Cooper would be a tad quicker with the Getrag six speed. Most testers say the Rover/Peugeot gearbox has a tall third gear that bogs the engine, so it seems that would give a slower 0-60 time. I drive in the mountains occasionally and having it bog in third could be a problem. I asked BMW if the Getrag will be available as an option on the Cooper, but haven\'t gotten a reply. Six gears might give it better performance, unless all the gears are taller to take advantage of the supercharged engine. Guess we will have to wait until the S is out officially and some specs are published on it.
Mr. Bill, you want the 6 speed gearbox and you drive in the mountains? Hmmmm... Sounds like a Cooper S would do the trick.
I understand that a turbocharger, because of the wastegate, is unaffected by higher altitudes, and pumps up the boost to give the same performance as at sea level. I would think that the supercharger in the Cooper S would almost do the same trick, wouldn\'t it? (I\'m sure I someone will set me straight on this.....)
I understand that a turbocharger, because of the wastegate, is unaffected by higher altitudes, and pumps up the boost to give the same performance as at sea level. I would think that the supercharger in the Cooper S would almost do the same trick, wouldn\'t it? (I\'m sure I someone will set me straight on this.....)
Joined
·
149 Posts
Yes a turbo compensates for altitude - the boost control takes care of that.
A supercharger does not have boost control so can\'t compensate - there just is no mechanism to do that. It reacts to altitude just like a N/A engine.
I\'ve pretty much ruled out the S for several reasons. I don\'t like the bulge in the hood or the scoop. BMW has admitted the scoop is not large enough, but to go to a proper one would make the car look very odd. The supercharger requires a richer fuel mixture, so that translates to worse fuel economy. (I have two friends with Nissan trucks. The one with the standard engine gets around 25mpg, the supercharged version gets about 15.) My insurance agent said the Cooper S is classified as a \"sports sedan\" and carries a higher premium than the standard model.
I would prefer the Getrag over the Peugeot gearbox, assuming the ratios are spaced closer together to keep the engine in the power band. It is possible BMW won\'t offer the Getrag on the Cooper, only on the S, and use it as a carrot to get us to buy the more expensive supercharged engine.
My 30-year-old Datsun pickup has a 1600 engine in it with less power than the Cooper engine. It has a camper shell and homebrew four wheel drive. It isn\'t a rocket, but it runs fine, pulls hills fine in third because the ratios are spaced nicely. Maybe the Rover box will be changed to get second and third closer together, but I would still prefer the Getrag as I would expect it to last a lot longer. I\'ve never been too keen on French cars.
I would prefer the Getrag over the Peugeot gearbox, assuming the ratios are spaced closer together to keep the engine in the power band. It is possible BMW won\'t offer the Getrag on the Cooper, only on the S, and use it as a carrot to get us to buy the more expensive supercharged engine.
My 30-year-old Datsun pickup has a 1600 engine in it with less power than the Cooper engine. It has a camper shell and homebrew four wheel drive. It isn\'t a rocket, but it runs fine, pulls hills fine in third because the ratios are spaced nicely. Maybe the Rover box will be changed to get second and third closer together, but I would still prefer the Getrag as I would expect it to last a lot longer. I\'ve never been too keen on French cars.
I\'m really surprised that an insurance agent would know anything at all about models that are more than 7 months away. Is the higher premium on the S just based upon the word \"supercharger\" or do you think BMW has actually released MINI information to insurance companies in the US?
My insurance agent couldn\'t give me a price quote, but said the MINI should be classified as a subcompact, about like the Geo Metro, but would cost more to insure because it is a more expensive car. Vehicles with superchargers or turbochargers are classified as \"sports\" models and cost more to insure. He did say that the rate structure will depend on the outcome of federally mandated crash tests. He said he has had several calls about the MINI, so it may turn out to be popular here. I figure, because I live in a \"redlined\" (oh, that\'s right, they don\'t \"redline\" anymore, they call it \"territorial rate adjustment\") it will cost me over $1,000 per year to insure it.
What Car? gives their own test time for 0-60mph in the Cooper as 8.6s
Also, I think the official 9.2s time is for 0-62mph (100kph?), not for 0-60. If you make wild assumptions about the rate of acceleration being constant, that extra 2mph would add about 0.3s to the time taken.
Also, I think the official 9.2s time is for 0-62mph (100kph?), not for 0-60. If you make wild assumptions about the rate of acceleration being constant, that extra 2mph would add about 0.3s to the time taken.
What Car? gives their own test time for 0-60mph in the Cooper as 8.6s
Also, I think the official 9.2s time is for 0-62mph (100kph?), not for 0-60. If you make wild assumptions about the rate of acceleration being constant, that extra 2mph would add about 0.3s to the time taken.
Also, I think the official 9.2s time is for 0-62mph (100kph?), not for 0-60. If you make wild assumptions about the rate of acceleration being constant, that extra 2mph would add about 0.3s to the time taken.
My previous car was a Ford Mondeo V6 (I know I\'m a sad person) with a listed 0-60 of 8.5seconds.
i\'ve had a new Cooper for 6 weeks and I\'m sorry to say that the Mondeo would have left me for dead. I haven\'t actually timed the Cooper but I would guess that it is - eventually!!
I am disappointed in the acceleration of the Cooper, especially until you manage to get it over 4,500 revs. Unfortunately 4.500 to 6,500 is not many revs to play with.
Are other Cooper owners finding this or an I the odd one out?
Still all isn\'t lost - I have an\'S\' on order!!
i\'ve had a new Cooper for 6 weeks and I\'m sorry to say that the Mondeo would have left me for dead. I haven\'t actually timed the Cooper but I would guess that it is - eventually!!
I am disappointed in the acceleration of the Cooper, especially until you manage to get it over 4,500 revs. Unfortunately 4.500 to 6,500 is not many revs to play with.
Are other Cooper owners finding this or an I the odd one out?
Still all isn\'t lost - I have an\'S\' on order!!
Joined
·
387 Posts
The reason you find your old mondeo a lot faster is the sheer amount of torque it has. You do not need to rev the engine to get the maximum performance out of it. The mondeo pulls strongly throughout the rev range whereas the MINI, as you say, only pulls strongly past 4,500 rpm.
The Cooper S has the same amount of torque as a Mondeo V6 so this problem should be solved, assuming the torque is generated quite low down the rev range.
The easiest way to see torque in action is to pull away in second gear from about 1000rpm. The more torque, the faster the revs will rise.
Someone please correct me if I am talking crap.
The Cooper S has the same amount of torque as a Mondeo V6 so this problem should be solved, assuming the torque is generated quite low down the rev range.
The easiest way to see torque in action is to pull away in second gear from about 1000rpm. The more torque, the faster the revs will rise.
Someone please correct me if I am talking crap.
I understand what you are saying about the torque and I agree with you that this is one of the reasons that the Cooper is slower than the Mondeo (at least it\'s a lot more fun).
What I was trying to say was it is obvious that the Cooper is a lot slower than the Mondeo - so, I dougt the 8.5 sec claims of 0-60mph being made by some members of the motoring press.
What I was trying to say was it is obvious that the Cooper is a lot slower than the Mondeo - so, I dougt the 8.5 sec claims of 0-60mph being made by some members of the motoring press.
50 to 100 would be an interesting number. All I can say is that the S is not very fast out of the hole, mainly due to gearing and not much low-rpm power available. It's not till you get to the middle of second gear (maybe 40mph or so) that it really starts to cook. For this reason, the published 0-60 and standing quarter mile times, in my opinion, don't really tell the whole story.UCSDxB0i said:
Car and Driver's top-gear acceleration figures are equally worthless, and it heavily favors cars with automatic transmission.
Sorry, I realize this doesn't answer your question, but subjectively the car feels faster than what the numbers indicate.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
