2010 Mini Cooper on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2019 Mini E Countryman Review | Not a great plug-in hybrid, but still great

At first glance, the 2019 Mini E Countryman plug-in hybrid is wildly unimpressive. It can only go a meager 12 miles on electricity alone, and when out of plugged-in electrons its turbocharged three-cylinder engine manages an EPA-estimated 27 mpg in combined driving. Pretty good for a compact SUV, but crap for a hybrid. Its price tag is eye-watering. Although it starts at $37,750, including $850 destination, my test Countryman hit the register at $45,750 and still didn't have power seats, leather, satellite radio, adaptive cruise control, and other items that should be included on a vehicle at this price range in this segment (compact SUVs like the Mercedes GLA or Volvo XC40). Admittedly, if you skip our test car's $2,000 John Cooper Works Appearance package (not a bad idea), you can add some of those extra niceties instead, but the price would still be steep. An E Countryman, or 2019 Mini Cooper S E Countryman ALL4 as it's officially and ridiculously known, is roughly about $4,000 more than a comparable gas-only Cooper S Countryman ALL4. There are some functional disadvantages as well. The plug-in hybrid lacks the regular Countryman's sliding back seat that adds cargo space without folding the seat backs and therefore wiping out passenger space (see video below). It also has only about 30 percent of the under-floor storage available in the cargo area, the result of the batteries needing to go somewhere. Now, Senior Editor Alex Kierstein reports that he found the E Countryman to still be perfectly space efficient. There was sufficient room for his wife to sit up front with a rear-facing baby seat behind her and a big stroller in the trunk. Still, he would've had even more room in the regular Countryman. The bottom suitcase in the right photo would not fit in the E Countryman since it lacks this regular version's removable floor panel. Really, all the above issues make the plug-in hybrid version of the Countryman a little hard to recommend ... at first. At second, third and fourth glances, it actually starts to make a lot more sense. Sure it only went between 10 and 12 miles on electricity after I recharged it, but hey, that's still 10 to 12 miles further than any other Mini can muster. You can even utilize the "Save Mode" that allows you save that electric range for times when you know it'll be most beneficial (say, the urban-driving conclusion to the morning commute).

2016 Mini Cooper Convertible First Drive

Conventional gearhead wisdom says to go for the biggest, most powerful engine. For the first two generations of Mini Convertible, this was a no-brainer. You bought the Cooper S. But as Senior Editor Alex Kierstein argued in our first drive of the Cooper S soft top, the less-powerful Cooper Convertible has an ace up its sleeve: a highly entertaining, three-cylinder, turbocharged engine. After some time behind the wheel, this two-time Mini Cooper S (hardtop) owner is ready to say the Cooper Convertible is the droptop Mini you should buy, full stop. The Cooper's 1.5-liter turbocharged three-cylinder makes just 134 ponies and 162 pound-feet of torque. That's a 55-horsepower deficit and an extra 1.5 seconds, compared to the Cooper S. But who's clocking a Mini Convertible with a stopwatch? The 8.2 seconds it takes to get to 60 mph is perfectly adequate , and the triple's power delivery is addictive. Peak torque comes in at 1,250 rpm, making for effortless acceleration around town. The engine is positively diesel-like in the way it generates twist below 4,000 rpm, and the way it runs out of steam well before its 6,500-rpm redline. But this isn't annoying. There's more than enough torque to make the Cooper's acceleration sprightly around town. Think about it this way: The Cooper S' 2.0-liter turbo has enough power to rescue you from bad driving. But because of the turbo lag and the wheezy top end, the base Cooper forces you to manage your momentum. In that way, it's not unlike the Mazda MX-5, Toyota GT86/Subaru BRZ, and other so-called "momentum cars," that require drivers to maintain speed for a good corner exit. That, friends, is fun. But some of the car's shortcomings are less fun. We praised the triple's "offbeat, enticing growl" in our first drive, but this is still a three-cylinder engine and it vibrates like one. There's a diesel-like clatter from the direct-injection system on cold starts. And when rolling off the line at part throttle, the triple sends a weird vibration right to our hips. It disappears quickly as the speed increases, but the sensation is consistent enough to be annoying. Aside from the interesting powerplant, the best driving goodies aren't reserved only for the Cooper S. Tick the right boxes, and the regular Cooper can fit the adaptive dampers we raved about on the Cooper S first drive – Dynamic Damper Control is a $500 standalone option or included in the $1,750 Sport Package.

Thanks to smaller engines, vehicle dependability falls for first time in 16 years

As automakers have made engines smaller and smaller to improve fuel economy, problems in those vehicles have gotten bigger and bigger. That's the synopsis of a J.D. Power vehicle-dependability study, which found that dependability dropped for the first time in 16 years, largely because the proliferation of four-cylinder engines is causing the vehicles to be less reliable. Specifically, the number of problems per 100 vehicles (or what J.D. Power calls PP100) during the past 12 months for 2011 model-year vehicles rose six percent from the year-earlier figures for 2010 model-year cars. Singling out four-cylinder vehicles revealed about a 10-percent increase in problems during the past year. This issues largely related to engine hesitation, rough transmission shifting and lack of power, signaling the inability of vehicle makers to iron out some of the problems in their smaller engines as they strove for better fuel economy. Six- and five-cylinder engines proved far more reliable. Among car brands, BMW's Mini sub-brand came out as least reliable, with 185 problems per 100 vehicles during the past year. Toyota's Lexus badge was easily the most reliable, with just 68 problems per 100 vehicles. Coming in second place was Mercedes-Benz. The overall average was 133. Check out J.D. Power's press release below. J.D. Power Reports: Increased Engine and Transmission Problems Contribute to Decline in Vehicle Dependability for The First Time in More Than 15 Years General Motors Company Receives Eight Segment Awards, While Toyota Motor Corporation Garners Seven and Honda Motor Company Earns Six WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.: o Owners of 3-year-old vehicles (2011 model year) report more problems than did owners of 3-year-old vehicles last year, according to the J.D. Power 2014 U.S. Vehicle Dependability StudySM (VDS) released today. The study, now in its 25th year, examines problems experienced during the past 12 months by original owners of 2011 model-year vehicles. Overall dependability is determined by the number of problems experienced per 100 vehicles (PP100), with a lower score reflecting higher quality. The study finds that overall vehicle dependability averages 133 PP100, a 6 percent increase in problems from 126 PP100 in 2013. This marks the first time since the 1998 study that the average number of problems has increased. "Until this year, we have seen a continual improvement in vehicle dependability," said David Sargent, vice president of global automotive at J.D.