Would a Clubman S be that much slower than a Cooper S in DS?

Maria Winslow · **Posted:** Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:16 pm

Piping in a little late... glad you liked my car. People are always surprised when they drive one

I drove a Clubman JCW loaner on a road trip in the spring, and it was SWEET. Enough difference in power that it felt lighter than my car. And yes, it was a lot less twitchy on the highway. You'd be out of D stock, though.

The R56 can get up to .7 neg camber in the front and 1.7 in the rear (but you don't want that - I have mine now as neutral as possible, maybe about .5).

Also, I weighed my current autocross wheels, and they are 20.6 lbs. If I get the 13.8 lb wheels, how much of a difference will it really make?

TomFreeman · **Posted:** Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:39 pm

Maria Winslow wrote:

Also, I weighed my current autocross wheels, and they are 20.6 lbs. If I get the 13.8 lb wheels, how much of a difference will it really make?

That's a BIG difference. That is well in to the realm of "I can definitely feel the difference." You're loosing the better part of 27 lbs of unsprung\rotational weight. You will absolutely feel that in acceleration/braking.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:54 pm

Holy shit, you have to drop the whole front subframe/suspension to put a front bar on these things!

Maybe I'll hold onto the WRX for a bit longer

Steve, I'm not sure about the top DS MCS having a sunroof or not. I had to drive Maria's with the seat ALL the way down and leaned back a lot or my helmet would hit the roof. So the sunfroof is a no no for both weight reasons as well as wearing a helmet

.

Keith Quistorff · **Posted:** Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:40 am

Steven Carter wrote:

I wager the upcoming FWD BMW sub-1 series (0-series) will give you LSD,

Really? Where'd you hear that?

I'd be inclined to wager exactly the opposite based on BMW's lack of LSD option on most (all?) non-M cars since 1996 timeframe.

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:56 am

Keith Quistorff wrote:

Steven Carter wrote:

I wager the upcoming FWD BMW sub-1 series (0-series) will give you LSD,

Really? Where'd you hear that?

I'd be inclined to wager exactly the opposite based on BMW's lack of LSD option on most (all?) non-M cars since 1996 timeframe.

{shrug}I didn't hear it anywhere, nor should my comment be read to indicate that I did, hence the "I wager" instead of "I heard that"...

The BMW marketing team has to figure out a way to make the 0-series work somewhere between Mini and the 1-series, and I took a SWAG that excluding LSD from Mini and allowing it as an option on the 0-series would be a way to do it...that's all. Unless of course an LSD makes the 0-series outperform a 1-series, then all bets are off.

Keith Quistorff · **Posted:** Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:41 pm

Steven Carter wrote:

The BMW marketing team has to figure out a way to make the 0-series work somewhere between Mini and the 1-series, and I took a SWAG that excluding LSD from Mini and allowing it as an option on the 0-series would be a way to do it...that's all. Unless of course an LSD makes the 0-series outperform a 1-series, then all bets are off.

I'd wager an LSD won't even been on the table for BMW to make the 0-series work somewhere between the Mini and 1-series. BMW seems to believe their traction control system is a viable substitute for LSD. :roll:

(Apparently, BMW has driven the same logic down to Mini also.)

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:08 pm

Keith Quistorff wrote:

Steven Carter wrote:

The BMW marketing team has to figure out a way to make the 0-series work somewhere between Mini and the 1-series, and I took a SWAG that excluding LSD from Mini and allowing it as an option on the 0-series would be a way to do it...that's all. Unless of course an LSD makes the 0-series outperform a 1-series, then all bets are off.

I'd wager an LSD won't even been on the table for BMW to make the 0-series work somewhere between the Mini and 1-series. BMW seems to believe their traction control system is a viable substitute for LSD. :roll:

(Apparently, BMW has driven the same logic down to Mini also.)

A fair statement, and probably the most correct. Perhaps, when referring to German-engineered limited-slip technology (at least BMW, Mini and Porsche) one should always put LSD in quotations...but I draw the line at air quotes :wink:

Gwen Habenicht · **Posted:** Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:11 pm

Maria Winslow wrote:

The R56 can get up to .7 neg camber in the front and 1.7 in the rear (but you don't want that - I have mine now as neutral as possible, maybe about .5).

Also, I weighed my current autocross wheels, and they are 20.6 lbs. If I get the 13.8 lb wheels, how much of a difference will it really make?

Just curious, but why do you not want negative camber, at least on the front? A wider stance provides stability, gives you more tire surface in turns and greater cornering ability. The first thing Mini guys showed me was how to get as much negative camber as possible on non-adjustable camber Minis.

About the different wheels-Tom's probably correct about some difference, especially in the launch, but in the big scheme of things, we're talking 25 pounds, so, overall, maybe a couple of thousands? I'd be curious as to what others think.

Gwen (owner of 16 light weight wheels) Baake

TomFreeman · **Posted:** Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:23 pm

Gwen - I think she meant she wanted max negative camber on the front, but less camber in the rear - loosen up the rear of the car to make it understeer a bit less - probably how you have your car set up.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:24 am

Gwen Baake wrote:

Maria Winslow wrote:

The R56 can get up to .7 neg camber in the front and 1.7 in the rear (but you don't want that - I have mine now as neutral as possible, maybe about .5).

Also, I weighed my current autocross wheels, and they are 20.6 lbs. If I get the 13.8 lb wheels, how much of a difference will it really make?

Just curious, but why do you not want negative camber, at least on the front? A wider stance provides stability, gives you more tire surface in turns and greater cornering ability. The first thing Mini guys showed me was how to get as much negative camber as possible on non-adjustable camber Minis.

About the different wheels-Tom's probably correct about some difference, especially in the launch, but in the big scheme of things, we're talking 25 pounds, so, overall, maybe a couple of thousands? I'd be curious as to what others think.

Gwen (owner of 16 light weight wheels) Baake

25lbs of rotational/unsprung weight is like dropping a 100 lb dual sunroof

.

Maria Winslow · **Posted:** Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:05 pm

TomFreeman wrote:

Gwen - I think she meant she wanted max negative camber on the front, but less camber in the rear - loosen up the rear of the car to make it understeer a bit less - probably how you have your car set up.

Exactly. It took me two years to figure this out, because I got some incorrect advice from an expert. It really does make a difference in how well the car rotates.

Matt McGrain · **Posted:** Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:25 pm

Maria Winslow wrote:

TomFreeman wrote:

Gwen - I think she meant she wanted max negative camber on the front, but less camber in the rear - loosen up the rear of the car to make it understeer a bit less - probably how you have your car set up.

Exactly. It took me two years to figure this out, because I got some incorrect advice from an expert. It really does make a difference in how well the car rotates.

Now that y'all bring that up, is that the same thing as keeping the shocks 'loose' on a FWD platform? I've actually had a few folks recommend running them full stiff. :shock:

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:08 pm

Matt McGrain wrote:

Now that y'all bring that up, is that the same thing as keeping the shocks 'loose' on a FWD platform? I've actually had a few folks recommend running them full stiff. :shock:

No, you will want full stiff on the rear of the Si to aid in rotation. - AB

JamesShort · **Posted:** Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:54 pm

While in Asheville this weekend, I saw at least 3 R56 MCS without moonroofs! So long as they are 07-10, the LSD and sports suspension package were options so even if they don't have those, I could always add the LSD, stiffer springs and bigger bars. Oh well.

michaelsmiller · **Posted:** Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:19 am

BriceJohnson wrote:

We've never had it properly aligned, but I don't think you can get much more than 1 degree. Maria has like 1.5 if I'm not mistaken.

The JCW car of my wife's generation actually has the same suspension as the stock sport package, no changes there. Its just supercharger upgrades (smaller pulley, some coating on the rotors), mild headwork (and raised rev limiter), intake, exhaust, software, and the big brake kit (which is the standard brakes on the R56). Oh, and you also get screwed into C-stock instead of being allowed to run DS.

Brice, there is no such thing as being screwed into C stock. The competitiveness of the cars and drivers in C stock this year has been fantastic. If anything, Charlie and I should whine, the power to weight of Miata's are 14.8 vs the JWC at 12.9 lbs / hp. The stock MCS is 15.5 lbs/ hp. What about the JWC GP that's lighter and faster and also in C stock. With keith Q. in C stock, next year should be really competative. The RX8 is 12.4 lbs/hp and the same basic suspension, but stiffer, as the NC Miata. The fun of C Stock is the competition. Great competition gives you the best chance of improving. I'd rather lose to a good driver than win just by showing up.

THSCC Forums

Would a Clubman S be that much slower than a Cooper S in DS?

Who is online