Mini Cooper Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just drove back from Carnoustie (beast of a golf course even on a calm day) to my home in East Lothian, Scotland.

I was trying my best to drive economically, keeping to a max of 65 mph, no AC.
Distance was about 95 miles. Temp 12 - 13C.

Until I hit the traffic around Edinburgh city bypass I was about 63 mpg. By the time I got home computer was showing 60 mpg. I did speed up to about 70 for the last 10 or so miles.

Pretty happy with what can be achieved. :)

60 mpg (UK) is about 48 in US terms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
Well done!
Those are very good mpg figures and probably realistically the best we should expect from a Cooper in normal, not hyper economy, driving.

My best in a run is about 53mpg keeping up with traffic and not trying to be economical, but I didn't really buy a Cooper for its economy....I had the most boring, underpowered car before it and pledged to start enjoying driving again, which I am now doing.

Great cars!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,082 Posts
Great mileage and riding in style...doesn't get any better than that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
After five months driving to town and back, my MPG is 31.7 US. 2014 Cooper S HT
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeremybingham

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Just drove back from Carnoustie (beast of a golf course even on a calm day) to my home in East Lothian, Scotland.

I was trying my best to drive economically, keeping to a max of 65 mph, no AC.
Distance was about 95 miles. Temp 12 - 13C.

Until I hit the traffic around Edinburgh city bypass I was about 63 mpg. By the time I got home computer was showing 60 mpg. I did speed up to about 70 for the last 10 or so miles.

Pretty happy with what can be achieved. :)

60 mpg (UK) is about 48 in US terms.
That is amazing for a 1.5 litre turbocharged car , it just shows have much bmw/mini have moved the game on. Well done for showing the capabilities of the cooper petrol :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
The 1.5 engine is a gem.
In the BMW i8 it is configured to give over 200bhp, while in the Cooper it gives a quite adequate 130bhp , considering its potential economy.
If they dropped the i8 version into the Cooper S that would be interesting! ( but not very economical, perhaps!)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,906 Posts
Now that would be a hoot. My best is 49-50 mpg measured not off the computer and am averaging 44/45 over the last 4000 miles of mostly short journeys compared to 40 from my R 56 Cooper s .pretty happy with that but 60's is outstanding.I always calculate.my mpg.npersonally I ever trust the computer and its amazing how cold starts destroy your.figures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
The 1.5 engine is a gem.
In the BMW i8 it is configured to give over 200bhp, while in the Cooper it gives a quite adequate 130bhp , considering its potential economy.
If they dropped the i8 version into the Cooper S that would be interesting! ( but not very economical, perhaps!)
Is this not the combined power of the petrol engine and electric motor at the same time?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,906 Posts
Nope the electric Is on top of that. Wool hooo!!!!!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,906 Posts
Fact 231 hp and 320nm torque from the petrol engine that is in our car with 131 hp electric motor.wowsers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenl

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
Is this not the combined power of the petrol engine and electric motor at the same time?
As Jeremy says the 200odd bhp is just the 1.5l IC engine.
The combined hybrid power is 320 + bhp, last time I checked.

Who needs chips and K and N filters, just gives us the i8 version of the 1.5!

Seriously though, I am more than happy with my current 1.5, for my usage of the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Wow!

Does it have the same turbo?

Seems strange that they put a 2 litre in the f56S if power like this is easily achievable. I doubt the 1.5 in the i8 is too uneconomical given that it is meant to be an "Eco" car?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
Wow!

Does it have the same turbo?

Seems strange that they put a 2 litre in the f56S if power like this is easily achievable. I doubt the 1.5 in the i8 is too uneconomical given that it is meant to be an "Eco" car?
I doubt if the turbo will be the same but who knows. I have read that although the initial projected mpg figures for the i8 were very good, in practice if the performance potential is used, as you would in a car like that, the actual practical economy figures are not so good.
As you suggest it would seem to be more logical to put the tuned 1.5 engine into the S as it is so efficient and powerful, but I imagine a 3 cylinder engine of such a small capacity would not sell as an "S", regardless of its power.
Works in the Cooper though!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,906 Posts
I agree and found it very odd bmw went for the two litre.must be a reason but Peugeot have over 200bmp out of the old 1.6 that's in the r56.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
From what I have read, BMW are developing the small turbocharged engines by using the same basic bore and stroke but varying the number of cylinders.

So the 2l S engine is a 3 pot 1.5l with an extra cylinder added.

Thus avoiding buying in externally sourced engines.

I wonder if they will make a two cylinder 1l, based on the same principle....?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
508 Posts
One of the main reasons why a petrol hybrid is more economical than a non-hybrid is that it can have a smaller engine and still achieve the acceleration of a bigger-engined car. Contrary to what lots of people think a small engine working hard to produce X hp is more fuel-efficient than a big engine working gently to produce the same hp.

So for the i8 what BMW would want would be the smallest engine that, with electric assistance, produces the required acceleration - reduce the maximum acceleration and an even smaller and more economical engine could be used. Or teach drivers to use full throttle to get maximum acceleration and throw away the hybrid stuff - too many drivers still think they should never push the pedal all the way down.

A small engine turbocharged to within an inch of its life is going to be more fuel-efficient. And the reality that few owners will use much of the performance for long means that even that small engine probably isn't turbocharged to within an inch of its life for long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Good info Angib.
But...what about the longevity of a small engine being pushed hard?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
On my trip this last weekend, my F56 was pulling 39 mpg - without taking any sort of gas saving measures and just about the entire trip was through the Smokey and Blue Ridge mountains. I wasn't flogging it, but I certainly wasn't in green mode playing don't slosh the fish either ha. I was thrilled with those numbers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
No doubt those are US Figures Tiger.

As a rough guide...

UK to US multiply by 0.8
US to UK divide by 0.8 (multiply by 1.25)

So your 39 US is ~49 UK.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top