2004 Mini Cooper S Hatchback 2-door 1.6l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Mini John Cooper Works Hardtop First Drive [w/video]

In its previous iteration, the Mini John Cooper Works three-door was a bad little mother. It looked like an engorged puffer fish facing down a shark, sounded like squadron of hornets with even the tiniest provocation of the throttle, and turned corners like it was angry at them. It was hard riding and ill mannered in all sorts of daily driving situations, but supremely satisfying when used in the all-out-attack mode for which it was designed. I dug every minute I spent in one, when really concentrating on driving. (As a commuter or passenger, not so much.) It only took fifteen minutes of driving on the lilting, tree-lined roads outside of New Haven, CT, to realize that the 2015 Mini JCW Hardtop was a lot less pissed off. And with more power, refined ride quality, a better interior, and an available automatic transmission, a lot more suitable for a wide variety of drivers. The little hellion has matured. On that grownup tip, the first of the many '15 JCWs I sampled was fitted with a six-speed automatic transmission. Cue collective shocked gasp. I'll forgive you if you didn't know an auto was going to be available equipment on the JCW, as Mini product planners had to remind me that it had been offered for the first time on the model-year 2013 car. Even then, the manual trans saw an impressive 75-percent take rate, so it's not as if many of the auto-shifters made it to the street. That could change in this new generation, where the 6AT acquits itself quite well. Wheel-mounted paddles offer near immediate response to requested shifts, and programming for the sport setting causes gears to be held up to the top of the tach. The manual is far more engaging, even if the automatic is quicker than the human hand. The six-speed Getrag manual transmission is still the better option, even the car is two-tenths of a second slower to 60 miles per hour with it (6.1 vs. 5.9 seconds), and less fuel efficient in the city (23 vs. 25 miles per gallon). The manual uses a long-levered shifter that still feels positive going between gates, and a short-travel clutch that's got nice weight and an easy catch point. It also offers defeatable rev matching, smoothing out even very aggro downshifts. Mini measures the manual as slower than the auto, but I had a lot more fun using it to harness the increased power of the 2.0-liter turbo four-cylinder engine.

Psychology can wipe out 20-25% of your EV's range

There are two primary takeaways from a recent study of electric-vehicle driving habits in Germany. One: an electric vehicle with 25 percent of its battery charge left creates the same reaction in drivers as the fuel needle on "E" in a gas-powered car. Two: familiarity breeds comfort. The study, conducted by Germany's Technische Universitat Chemnitz and funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, put some real numbers on the concept of "range anxiety." According to Green Car Congress, that anxiety truly kicks in when there's less than a quarter of the driving range left on an EV's battery and the study found that a typical car's range is "shortened" by a 20 to 25 percent "psychological safety buffer." If we take the popular Nissan Leaf as an example, the official 84-mile single-charge range is really closer to 63 miles in the head of the driver. The longer the driver spent in the EV, the shorter his mental buffer became. The study was culled from data involving just 79 drivers who tooled around Berlin in Mini E EVs for about six months, collectively putting a quarter-million miles on the electric vehicles. The good news is that the longer the driver spent using the EV, the shorter his mental buffer became, which meant he could comfortably get more miles from the car. So, to all you EV advocates out there, know that once drivers spend some time with an EV, they get more and more used to what the car can do. It's a lesson we've learned before. Just remember that to new EV drivers, the single-charge range is a lot smaller than the one old-timers see.

Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study