2007 Mini Cooper S: Versus the VW R32

Would that be labeled an R20?
 
The Golf/Rabbit/GTI/R has lost it's way. I'd enjoy seeing a Mini run against an 80's GTI.

Eh, does the 32 really relate to the engine size? I suppose so...3.2. Guess just an AWD GTI would be nice...avoiding the added weight of a V6, while still getting the benefit of losing FWD.

Blueguy,
  The nomenclature does relate to an engine size of 3.2 liters. I think Audi/VW have made a 3.1 liter engine and called it a 3.2.... I don't think this is it though.
 
I for one miss the previous generation Jettas/Golfs though, they were a great little compact sedan/hatcback. The new ones seem to have succumbed to the unstoppable mantra of 'more size more weight' when it comes to redesigns.

The R32 weighs almost exactly TWICE as much as the original GTI. No wonder newer cars don't seem as exciting or "tossable" as the old hot hatches.

I've gotta agree there.
 
Imagine how great a car VW could have if they had a car the size and weight of the original GTI but with modern technology?

Me, I'd just skip both of these and take an Evo or a Mazdaspeed3.

Edmunds really needs someone to review and edit specs before their articles go live. The R32 first drive incorrectly states that the A3 has a different engine than the R32. They are the same exact powetrains. Audi makes does make a 3.1L 90 degree all aluminum directly injected V6 for the A4 and A6 but labels it as 3.2L.

I had an '85 Monte Carlo that weighed less than the R32. Good grief.

To be fair, there are things that you can do with the R32 that you can't with the Mini...like put people in the back seat...or put things in the trunk. I've never really seen a Mini as anything more that a fun "other car" due to its practical shortfalls. (I still wouldn't mind having one though!) I've always loved the R32, however. I know it's too heavy, and I know that the fuel economy isn't that great, but it always struck me as a car that could do anything. Snow? (I live in PA) Sure! Roadtrip? Why not? The only thing that keeps me from seriously thinking about one is the fact that the normal GTI almost as good as...or better (fuel economy, tossablity) than the R32 for 10 grand less.
 
On a seperate note, I wonder how the Mini would have stacked up against Edmunds' LT Civic Si? Anyone care to speculate?

To be fair, you can put people in the backseat of the Mini. I've had many adults ride in the back of my Cooper S since I bought it in March. And the trunk is fine. We've got an A3 also and while it's got a much larger trunk, I've yet to run into a situation where dropping the back seats of the Cooper won't allow me to fit anything I need to transport.
 
People see the exterior dimensions and don't realize just how much space there is behind the backseats.
 
I'd stack the Mini up as superior to the Civic in most ways. But I got rid of an e90 for the Cooper S, so I felt it was a stronger car than quite a few contenders. The GTI, Civic SI, Mazdaspeed3 and of course my BMW were all in contention but in the end the Mini offered the best blend of fun, economy, space, luxury items, cheap maintenance and tremendous resale value. The 4 door GTI was the strongest contender but it's just not much fun to drive in comparison and with an A3 already in the garage it felt weird to own two of essentially same car.
 
The R32 concept - AWD, tight suspension - in the 4 door GTI and sporting a tuned 2.0T would be a much, much stronger day to day car. I would go that route if it were available.

Chavis10: It would appear that you're right about the A3/R32/A4 engines. Thank you for pointing it out -- I'll let the right people know.
 
Sabastian: Conveniently, I spent a lot of time in the long-term Civic Si. It's not as quick or as nimble as the Cooper S, but it's still really fun to drive. I do like the Civic's interior design more due to its more functional layout. That it also comes with a manual transmission only is another plus in my book. -- Brent

VW would really have a winner if they could modernize the 2.0T. It's power output is way too low for a directly injected turbo 4. GM gets 260/260 out of the same displacement and mazda gets 263/280 from just .3 more litres. Both utilize the same technology with the advantage of lighter aluminum blocks. If they could get 250/250 from the 2.0T, the GTI would outperform the R32 since it would have less weight haul around.

Look for the upcoming hi-po model of the Audi TT to have a ~300hp turbo four.

Chavis,
 
Drive a 2.0T-based car and then the Madaspeed3...totally different concepts. The 2.0T has full torque from below 2k up through 5k rpm. The Mazdaspeed3's engine is extremely peaky and does not have the same kind of linear torque curve. I won't even touch the fallacy of mentioning a GM engine..
 
250/250 sounds good on paper but unless the GTI has AWD you simply can't put the power down. Even now at the offcial 200/207 tq the GTI/A3 will smoke their tires off the line. Heck even in second gear you can get spinning at WOT.

Blueguy,
  
The MS3 engine's useful powerband dies shortly after 5500 rpm which is not what I'd call peaky. What you might be feeling is the electronic torque limiting algorithm.
  
Just because Mazda couldn't successfully apply that much torque does not mean it can't be done. The simple fact is that for the MS3's weight, 280 lbs-ft is too much torque. If they would've turbo charged the 2.0L version of their engine, the lower output maybe have been a little more manageable.
  
Also, you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously when you make comments such as this: "I won't even touch the fallacy of mentioning a GM engine.. " Face the facts, every other small displacement turbocharged engine has surpassed Audi's 2.0T. Saab's 2.0T has been make more power for years with fixed valve timing and port injection.

jr1m90, I've owned the previous generation Golf, as had my sister and a co worker. The most amazingly unreliable car I've ever had the unfortunate experience of owning. All 3 (different model years, one a v6, the other 2 turbos) just fell apart and had problems from day 1.
Never experienced buyer's remorse like that and because of that I'd never touch another VW again.
Short list:
coil caps on motor failed (known issue but no recall. And when they failed they would only replace the failed ones, not all of them. So it was just a ticking clock until the next one failed). Happened to both the turbo cars. For my sister as she was trying to merge onto a freeway..
Power windows failed.
Gas tank gasket failed, filling car with fuel fumes.
Gear synchros failed (at least they gave me a new clutch with that one!)
Electrical problems with lights that took numerous trips to fix
Oil leaks
Persistant squeak from dash, that was temporarily fixed by applying lube to the instrument glass...
Sunroof broke.
Shocks failed
All the above within 10K miles...

As far as the space...I bought a toilet & put it in the back of the MINI. I haven't had a problem yet with anything. The only gripe about the back seat would be that it is not comfortable to lay down in when car sick (from a lead-footed motorer).

Chavis,
 
I've driven the MS3...the engine is extremely peaky. It's like driving a turbo from the 90s. This has nothing to do with the silly torque limiter and everything to do with the 2.3's design. I've had the grave misfortune of driving the CX-5 and Mazdaspeed6 too. The engine delivers power in very obvious bursts without a hint of the flat torque curve seen on Audi/VW's turbos or BMW's new turbo.
 
As for the GM thing, I don't care if you take me seriously. If it's American, I have zero use for it.

"If it's American, I have zero use for it."
 
Are you American?

First, is that relevant?

Attempt at humour, An American that has zero use for anything American..... aww nevermind.
 
Should have gone with my first choice...
 
Jeremy Clackson, is that you?
 
but I didn't think many would get it.

I like the idea of comparing these two cars, if only to show how two cars that start at similar places (two-door hatches with sporting intentions) can differ in their execution. I still haven't driven a mini yet, but I have a friend that's dead set on getting one, and I plan to get a drive it when she does. =)
 
As far as the turbo-four thing goes, after driving a GTI, mazdaspeed3 and mazdaspeed6, the only difference that I saw going from the GTI to the speed cars was, well, the vast increase in power. The 2.0T's output felt pretty disappointing in comparison. Both of the Mazdas I drove put out a great wall of power from 2500rpm through to 5500rpm, although power does drop off a little after that. The GTI's power band was broad, but anticlimactic.
 
I should mention I'm slightly biased at this point, that test drive led to me buying a Mazdaspeed6, and I've never regretted it. Oh, and it's the CX-7 that also has their 2.3 turbo engine.

In an interesting turn of events, VW just topped KBB's residual value board.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119500709742992309.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

Blue,
  
The difference you feel is 63 extra horsepower and loads more torque. I have not sampled the MS3 but have checked out the CX-7 while my regular 3 was in for service and have not experienced this peakiness. Perhaps because the CX-7 weighs more and is hooked to an automatic but if you're implying there is some design flaw with the DISI MZR then you are just wrong.
  
The Audi 2.0T is tuned for consistent torque output across is useable range at the expense of peak output. This is fine for the Passat but not so great for a GTI. Actually, it's performance reminds me of old 2 valve per cylinder pushrod engines (from GM) that put out 90% torque from 1000-5000 rpm. Same tricks, just a new dog.
  
Every turbocharged directly injected engine makes its power lower in the rev range compared to a port injected engine (see Honda 2.4l turbo versus Mazda 2.3l turbo). Mazda is producing more power and torque from idle to redline compared to the 2.0T and that's just a fact. Some might call its power delivery more entertaining and engaging than the boring 2.0T.
  
Interesting that you have no use for American tech while Audi is still putting iron blocks in $30k cars.

Blue. I geuss you can call the mazda engine peaky, but its a 2.3 thats puts out 280ftlb.
 
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/0610_gti_civic_mazdaspeed3_dyno/honda_civic_si.html
 
has dyno testing on the gti vs civic si vis mspd3.
 
But what you are feeling when you drive the mspd3 is the sheer amount of power it has over 3000rpm that the other 2 cars dont have.
 
Just look at the gti engine and the mspd3. Both take off at about 2500 rpm. (the gti a bit earlier at what looks like 2250). And then reach their peaks about 500rpm later. Expect when you drive the msp3 you pull 50 MORE ftlb of torque. in that respect both engines are equally 'peaky' by your book. its true the mspd dies at 5500 rpm BUT its dieing from a much higher level then the GTI.
 
So what you see as 'peaky' is really a punch in the face of power thats abotu 25% great at the wheels then the gti, in a very similar range.

Guys, I've owned and driven far more faster cars than the MS3. It's not the torque I'm feeling. It's the bad gearing and the engine lurching up. In a way it's like a worse version of the power delivery in my BMWs and in most Honda 4 cylinder engines - a slow build and then a hard spike of power. I do not like that style of power delivery. You may like it; let it go as you'll never convince me that 2.3 turbo is anything but retro-grade trash.

^ and somehow just about every other review disagrees with you.
 
including edmunds
 
"We do, however, love the engine. You won't find more punch for this kind of money in any other car, and that goes a long way in a class filled with capable contenders. Serious grunt starts well below 3000 rpm but ends the party early with a power peak of 5500 rpm. We found upshifting at 6000 was the quickest in most cases, reserving redline only to save ourselves the hassle of shifting twice before a corner"

Opt, while i like Edmunds, I put zero stock in their reviews. In the end, who pays for the car you drive? So what difference would it make if Edmunds or RT said the G35 is great, if in your experience it was anything but? The only person who can judge if a car is fit for you - the one writing the check.
 
I don't like the 2.3T in Mazda's lineup - I do prefer BMW/Audi/VW's work with turbos. I've experienced the engines and the 2.3T was never a pleasant experience. Nothing more to be said as you will never change my view by pointing to a magazine or online review.

hey now the earth is flat too right blu?
 
(i'm just messing with you know).

Blue,
  
I'm sure a lot of us have driven cars with way more power than the MS3- I know I have. Nobody is trying to convince you of anything- you're entitled to your opinion it's just that no one agrees with you. Just don't try to preach as if you are much more knowledgible and stop crying because we have come to a consensus that you can't reach.
   
Side note: Mazda's MS3 gearing is indeed stupid but that has nothing to do with the engine. I am not sure why it is so convoluted but hey, I didn't design the thing.
  
BMW's approach to turbo charging seems to be similar to Audi's in that they are trying to create the illusion of a larger displacement naturally aspirated engine. Some may favor such emulation but to me, it takes away the whole joy in turbocharging. This is also easier to achieve with lower boost levels (2.0T) and twin turbo charging (smaller turbines pressurizing only 3 cylinders apiece- 1.5L).

Chavis, I prefer the style of seamless application of power. The sudden surge in power is something I never grew to like in BMW's inline 6s or Honda's 4s or old school turbos. Predictable power = more fun at the track.

"...you'll never convince me that 2.3 turbo is anything but retro-grade trash."
 
Blueguy - Does that mean you give MINI's (engineered by BMW no less) 1.6L Turbo even LESS credit? Interesting....
 
Back to the issue at hand, I wholeheartedly agree with Penboy's take on the matter. Here we have two 2-Door Hatchbacks with very dissimilar missions in life. The R32 has ALWAYS been more of a GT than a hard-core corner carver. It cruises effortlessly on the highway and has a stock exhaust note that is the best I've heard this side of Porsche's flat-six. Plus, 4-Motion gives you arguably better four-season sure-footedness, that is, if you replace the performance summer tires with reasonably neutral All Seasons.
 
The R32 also has oodles more substance than the MINI, and that goes beyond just being an outright bigger car. The fit and finish on the current MINI is dissappointing and a lot of the interfaces are just ergonomically wrong and/or confusing. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that when it comes time to cut into a corner, the MINI - with a 1000LB advantage - will be the more nimble and "tossable" of the two. It's just simple physics....
 
There are many reasons to like or dislike both these cars, but the area in which their expected missions cross paths is so small that it makes a fair, direct comparison very difficult.

Two days and no updates on any vehicles??? Might as well take all of next week off too, with Thanksgiving coming up.

their just brainstorming about whats next on there Aura complaint lists. Probably something like Why is the gas fill hole on the pasanger side vs drivers or the other way around.

That is odd...maybe it's because they're hanging out at the LA Auto Show getting goody bags from the dealers. ;)
 
Will an iPod buy a favorable review of the 1 series? Oh wait, it's a bimmer, so it gets an automatic good review regardless of actual ability.
 
j/k

blue hmm. I wonder, I would be more money on the fact that some reviews never get written because of a goodie then a report actually changing their feelings.thoughts.
 
more like hush money then actually a good review. With no review theres nothing on paper thats tieing the person the car

Peaky? Isn't that the whole point of having a turbo? Todays blowers are too linear--like having a larger, normally aspirated motor. No thanks.

elbee, that's the point of BMW and Audi's designs - so you don't feel like you're driving a more efficient, smaller engine.

I think people should leave blu alone. He knows what he likes and doesn't.
 
I dont nessercarily agree with him. But I can see his point. A v6 or v8 turbo will by its nature start out with alot more power off the line. Not only that but the larger displacement will spool the turbo quicker. or drive a larger turbo. the ms3 in an effort to get much more linear in its power, brings the power much steeper. look at some of those dyno graphs i posted earlier. below 2500 rpm it behaves like just about any other 2.3 engine tuned for power. above the engine wakes up with a vegance and blows past engines like the gti 2.0 within the same rpm range adding about 50 ft-lb to the wheels.
 
I wouldn't call it 'peaky'. A peaky engine would be more like the s2000, where theres almost no power down low, and you have a VERY narrow power range.
 
http://www.importtuner.com/powerpages/0405it_2001_honda_s2000_dyno/photo_05.html
 
sorry they did not have tq on that graph. But thats in my book a 'peaky engine

opfreak;
 
while i don't agree with blue guys comments on how the ms3's engine is 'peaky' (more like dead in higher rpm ranges, i def prefer the gti in this regard, and the civic si's engine is a different beast, and much better at being peaky), i just wanted to point out that having a bigger engine is not what makes a turbo 'spool' up quicker. not by a long shot.
 
at any rate, i'd love an r32 as a GT, and even taken as that, it is no slouch in the corners either. (in fact, edmunds follow up test praised the R32 for its ability to feel nimble despite its weight. It also put up astounding numbers for a car that WAS in fact wearing all season tires,and i belive this is the same R. Granted compared to a go kart like the mini, this is dumbed down quite a bit, but i'd still take the R. (my wife would take the mini.)

Having just test driven both of these cars - I have to agree with the author. The Mini is more nimble/more smiles. The VW feels more substantial - but sometimes that works - and other times it doesn't (ie. my 95 SL600). I'd like to see an article/blog comparing the Mini and Volvo C30. Any takers?