36 replies to this topic

[Ethel]

I don't think you should underestimate the Min's weight advantage when it comes to mpg. Sure it can be caned by, even quite big, modern cars on paper, but throw in enough stop-start traffic and those impressive new car brochure figures come tumbling down. It would have to be a spectacularly more efficient engine to accelerate twice the weight from rest to 30mph on the same amount of fuel.

[Cooperman]

I was comparing the consumption of the BMW 325i SE I've just sold to my old Cooper 998. Overall for almost 2 years, the BMW gave 34 mpg. That included long journeys and a lot of town & country driving. On the 998 Cooper I had I got an average of just over 38 mpg. The BMW was so much quicker, much bigger and heavier, but so fuel efficient.

It's the same on all classics. I had a Mk.1 Cortina GT 1500 in 1966 and I was lucky to get 25 mpg overall. What does a 1.5 litre saloon car give these days? If it's petrol around 40 mpg and if diesel around 55 to 60 mpg. There really is no comparison.

To get over 40 mpg from a Mini it has to be driven very gently and not cruised at much over 60 mph.

[Gulfclubby]

Just for fun, a Volkswagen Up! gets around 50mpg on average using the industry mix of cross country and city traffic. The car is quite comparable to an estate or traveller. There is just no way you could get that kind of mileage out of a CE with an A-series engine. Add the extra safety and comfort of the UP! and you arguably have a much better daily driver.

Now I'm not saying the Mini is bad, obviously. It's a wonderful car to own, drive and work with and particularly the estates were absolute space/weight wonders. But as has been said, the design doesn't get any younger. It's like comparing a horse carriage to an automobile in a way, they both have their charms and advantages, but you can't really compare them.

Now you can also use a horse carriage as your daily commute, but few people would do so voluntarily.

[Rog46]

Hey, I thought this thread was about a service shedule ! !

Now I've thoroughly enjoyed the entries about fuel consumption but it's getting a bit out of hand. Could we agree that the mini was very good for it's time, but since then engines have got much more efficient, but cars have got bigger, heavier and more powerful, so the increase in engine efficiency doesn't always make it through to significantly better miles per gallon, but sometimes it does!

[firstforward]

Well I have to disagree about driving a mini very gently to get 40mph +, I do not hang about, and get 46-48mpg mixed driving, its an SPi.

[Screwdriver]

I get 46+ mpg on the highway and 35 mpg in Central London after my 1996 JDM SPi 35th edition Stage 1 (with aircon) was serviced by Sussex Road and Race (Kevin Fullbrook). He changed the vacuum hoses, fuel trap, spark plugs, oil and filter. I also used Auto-RX to clean engine internals and Chevron Techron to clean the fuel system, as I have with all my cars, which delivered excellent results. 

 

Modern cars are far safer and can be more fuel efficient. (Frankly, I live in fear that the pre-1996 cars won't allow us to walk away from a 30 mph crash). That being said, nothing I've driven offers the level of control, handling, ease, low operating costs and sheer unadulterated fun that the Classic Mini offers. They also don't appreciate like a well kept, rust free Mini and transform the driver into the equivalent of an on road celebrity, both because of how rare they are. 

 

Overall, its a purchase decision that I'm grateful I made, every single time I sit in the Mini. I have a feeling I will keep it for as long as my joints let me. 

[cal844]

Holy thread revival batman ☺