Jump to content
Create New...
  • 🚗 Your People Are Here. Get In.

    The internet is full of car content. This is the community.

    Cheers & Gears has been bringing enthusiasts together since 2001. Join the conversation, show off your garage, and find your people.

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Mini To Possibly Separate JCW Models, Diesels Likely

    William Maley

    Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

    January 27, 2012

    Mini Boss Kay Segler has revealed some interesting information to Car & Driver this week. First, Segler talked about Mini’s John Cooper Works possibly becoming something like BMW’s M performance brand. This idea comes with good and bad news - if it was implemented, that would mean JCW models would be positioned as stand-alone models, which means more power to differentiate them.

    Unfortunately, Selger said that AWD was currently too expensive to implement in Minis unless the brand sees a large sales volume increase. Executives and engineers know they’re almost hitting the wall on how much power can be sent to the front wheels with the JCW models. The question of how power will be added is up in the air at the moment.

    Segler also talked about diesels. He said that the most common request American customers is diesel engines.

    “We’re delighted to hear it. We are looking into this not for the short term, but for the medium term,” Segler said.

    In other words, expect a diesel option after the third generation Mini is launched.

    Source: Car & Driver


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Yes we MINI and Mini drivers are unique. I for one would love to see the MINI COOPER D and D S models come to the states. I know I will buy one for commuting and such. People in Europe are getting up to 60 MPG out of them

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Independent Automotive Journalism

    25 years of honest automotive coverage — because someone has to do it.

    Cheers & Gears has never been filtered by manufacturer relationships or driven by algorithm. Just real people, real opinions, and a genuine love of cars. Subscribers keep the lights on and get an ad-light experience starting at $2.25/month.*

    View subscription options

    *A small number of ads feature member-exclusive coupon deals and will still appear.

  • Posts

    • That's a fair point. Even if it isn't "the same", it is certainly far too similar. 
    • Many Porsche owners assume the active engine mount has failed as soon as they see a PADM Disabled warning. However, after disassembling multiple OEM PADM sensors, we found that most failures are actually caused by the internal sensor chip becoming loose or detached. The OEM design relies heavily on adhesive to secure the chip. After years of engine heat and vibration, the adhesive gradually weakens, eventually causing sensor failure and fault codes. The issue is that Porsche’s official repair solution only involves replacing the complete active mount assembly, which is expensive and still uses the same basic sensor structure, meaning the problem can return again later. Lumistag PADM Sensors were redesigned specifically to address this weak point. The internal chip is mechanically reinforced with locking pins and protected by a CNC-machined aluminum housing for improved durability and stability. Fully plug-and-play with no coding required. Compatible with Porsche 981 / 982 / 991 platforms. https://lumistag.com/
    • That is certainly your opinion but I stand by it. That thing is hideous and just looking at the profile of the two, the $650K Ferrari looks way too similar to a $40K Toyota. That is not a Ferrari. That is a $650K bar of soap with wheels.    You are right about the rest of it though. Just a whole lot of “meh” for that kind of coin.  If it had a different logo attached to it, then it might look okay. However, if no one told us this was a Ferrari, we would never have guessed it was. That is my point here. Nothing about it says Ferrari and it looks very stale and boring for the price point. 
    • Oh that is just plain silly that they'd have the same vehicle but some trims do and do not have CarPlay. I'm also in the same boat in not wanting a base model of pretty much anything. I dig the Lyriq (even though the name is horrible), but they're too pricey around me still. The cheaper ones are 40-42k and I just can't justify spending that. 
    • The front 2/3 of the car are attractive enough.  I don't know much else about it.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search