2013 Jcw Mini Cooper on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mini ditches four-seat Countryman

Mini is walking away from the rear bucket seats in its Countryman crossover. MotoringFile.com reports that starting in 2013, the CUV will no longer offer just two seats in the second row. Originally, Mini was forced to offer the buckets due to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rules governing the the minimum vehicle width for the allowance of three-wide seating. That rule was recently changed, which allowed Mini to offer the bench seat. Not surprisingly, few buyers have opted for the awkward bucket-and-rail configuration since. Moving forward, all Countryman models will also come with the vehicle's flat-load rear floor as well.
During our time with our long-term Countryman, we found the middle rail between the two buckets to be a bit gimmicky, especially given the fact that the cup holders were only large enough to accommodate a 12-ounce can.

The electric Mini SE crushes its EPA range estimate in our real-world test

The range meter of my fully charged 2020 Mini Cooper SE reads 110 miles as I fasten my seatbelt, which is hardly a surprise because that number matches the official EPA-certified range of this all-new electric car. But then I turn on the climate control system, at which point the range prediction promptly falls to 103 miles. “Uh-oh. This could get interesting,” I say to myself. My range test course, you see, is a vast loop that measures about 105 miles around. I donÂ’t really think IÂ’ll end up walking, though. I remind myself that most electric cars IÂ’ve tested — the Porsche Taycan among them — routinely outperform their rated range. But “most” is the operative word in this train of thought, so I ease out of my driveway to begin the test under a tiny cloud of uncertainty. Will the Mini Cooper SE prove to be one of the outliers? Will I encounter any low battery warnings? All will become clear in the next three and half hours. None of my initial hand-wringing should be taken to mean the MiniÂ’s rated range of 110 miles is somehow insufficient. ItÂ’s not, in my view. The length of my course has no special meaning. It doesnÂ’t represent the “right” number of miles. How the test was run My loop in Orange County, Calif., represents what I call typical suburban city driving. ItÂ’s not as dense as the notorious gridlocked areas found in West Los Angeles or certain big-city downtown environs, so itÂ’s applicable to the vast majority of drivers. It features suburban residential and arterial streets, with speed limits that range from 25 mph to as much as 60 mph. But thereÂ’s no pure freeway mileage, and the entire route is peppered with more than 310 signals. As for elevation, it ranges from sea level to just over 600 feet. I run with the automatic climate control system set within the range of 72 to 75 degrees, aiming to settle on one specific setting throughout that delivers adequate comfort. IÂ’ll try whatever Eco drive mode there is, but if throttle response is anemic IÂ’ll use the normal setting. Here, the default mode is the “green” mode, and IÂ’m sticking with it because the SEÂ’s driveability is totally agreeable. As for speed, IÂ’m running mid-pack between the leadfoots and the slowpokes. I wonÂ’t try to out-drag anyone leaving signals, and I look far enough ahead that I can choose the best lane and anticipate when the next signal is going to change. In short, IÂ’m aiming to land halfway between hypermiling and hyperactive.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.