RE: Mini Crossman SUV Sketches Leak Out
Discussion
Escort Si-130 said:
Sorry dude but that is rubbish, why would BMW by Rover just for the 100 badge.
I was stopped for inciting racial hatred for having the union flag painted (by my six and seven year old) nephews on the bonnet of my MGB GT one time I was driving on the North Circular on the way back from Enfield. Then a German built car with an American engine drove by with the same thing on it's roof.
BMW only bought Rover because they wanted the copywrite to the number 100 so they could replace the 3 series compact. That car got shelved the Compact got a rushed face lift and BMW made a Chrysler Neon engined, Vauxhall Astra sized, abomination and called it the Mini because thay happened to notice they owned the rights to that name as well. Sold a car that costs £8,000 to make for £14,000 to any idiot willing to pay that much for a car that is outclassed by nearly all of the hot hatches out there. Just as I was starting to think "ok it will never be as good as a real Mini but you have to hand it to BMW for they've played the game well" they do a Rav-Four with a Mini shell. They already use Toyota Diesel engines so why not the chassis as well? Still anyone who's ever bodged a Mini shell on to a SJ110/114 chassis can sue BMW for breach of copywrite.
Because Rover have held the rights to the number 100 since the 40's.Robert060379 said:
Villan57 said:
Robert060379 said:
Not as BMW have made enough money insulting Isigonis already. 
Well said Robert glad I'm not the only one who hates these brand stealing barstewards ! I could spit when I see a new mini with a union Jack painted roof , what a ferkin joke !!BMW only bought Rover because they wanted the copywrite to the number 100 so they could replace the 3 series compact. That car got shelved the Compact got a rushed face lift and BMW made a Chrysler Neon engined, Vauxhall Astra sized, abomination and called it the Mini because thay happened to notice they owned the rights to that name as well. Sold a car that costs £8,000 to make for £14,000 to any idiot willing to pay that much for a car that is outclassed by nearly all of the hot hatches out there. Just as I was starting to think "ok it will never be as good as a real Mini but you have to hand it to BMW for they've played the game well" they do a Rav-Four with a Mini shell. They already use Toyota Diesel engines so why not the chassis as well? Still anyone who's ever bodged a Mini shell on to a SJ110/114 chassis can sue BMW for breach of copywrite.
Parrot of Doom said:
Sickens me slightly that it takes a German company to be so successful with what should be a British product.
It's pathetic.
Because the English way is too short termist, doesnt reward engineers with technical merit at all, and is typically top heavy with focus on managers with MBas and that are 'business savvy'- look at the result! The Germans that reward engineers at all levels with managers that aren't bull sIt's pathetic.
tters and meeting go-ers manage to sell a steaming great turd like this and market it as a lifestyle product- nd do bloody well from it as well. Who would have thought?Edited by Marquis_Rex on Saturday 9th January 17:35
Marquis_Rex said:
900T-R said:
Defense of Bini
I think you're out numbered ,my friend, defending this abonimation- this steaming lifestyle turd , this insult towards Issigonises innovation, directed towards the pretentious lifestyle set 
Issigonis had his blind spots; the driving position of the Mini was borderline acceptable in its class in 1959 - and he copied it in the supposedly upmarket 1800/2200! Sorry, but if I wanted to drive a bus I'd bl00dy well made sure I got paid for it.
The work of a certain mr. John Cooper was the Mini's saving grace and the reason that it has become an icon all over the world; as utilitarian transport the car was well past it's sell-by date as early as 1970.
Unlike BL, who took the crap bits from the Mini, forgot why people still bought them and called it the Metro, BMW realised that the Mini would have long ceased to exist without the sporting appeal and sense of fun - yes, the old one was just as much a 'lifestyle' item in 1960s London as the BMW one is in the 2000s. Thankfully this time, BMW make sure none of the crap bits of the Mini - and there's a long list of it from the driving position, the rust, it being a death trap even if it weren't rusty, did I mention the rust yet? - made it to the new car. The result is the only moderately-priced hatchback except maybe a couple of Renaultsport specials that I'd call a properly good drive - and yes, I've driven pretty much everything else.
If you want utilitarian transport in the 2000s you'd buy a Korean sh*tbox on scrappage; there's no way a car that is being built here should aspire to competer with them.
What a lot of vitriolic MINI responses; this forum is becoming a self-parody almost as large as the central speedo in the R56.
The new MINI is very comfortable, handles well and, in JCW form, extremely quick; it is wide compared to, say, the Panda but corners far flatter and can change line mid-corner. In contrast the i10/i20 has seats like park benches that cripple within 20 miles. I am happy enough with the standard Cooper as 120bhp is as much power as I need in day to day traffic and it reports 50mpg on the trip average, though the 15" wheels on EcoContact tyres understeer rather early. I shall look for less Eco and more Grippo when replacements are due (or I finally get the Schnitzer suspension).
Rover's original mini was small and well marketed, but not at all suitable for dicing with today's 1.5 tonne plus hatchbacks. And probably not that great in the 60s; the rust bucket I used for a few days back in the early nineties was an interesting experience, but not something I would want to use as regular transport. We expect far more refined transport these days, whether by train, bus, plane or car.
Car manufacturers are expected to make a profit - it is their reason for existence. Rover barely made any on their standard mini models - it was sold almost at cost, and only the optional extras put cash in the coffers. Ford reverse engineered a Mini and realised it could not compete [Laban, Brian (2005) The Little Book of MINI]. The lack of money to invest in product development led to an iconic design, but the hatchback Renault 4 was more innovative (not to mention rather good at getting through the snow and, alas, sliding on its roof down the M6 after being picked up bodily by a side wind). In the long term Rover died because of lack of investment in new models and technology, ending its days with an abysmal selection of rebadged/bodged Hondas and engines which were lagging badly in the emissions race that marked the post-millenium car market. In contrast BMW led the market in providing a highly flexible production line that allowed a large 'lifestyle' option list. Nothing wrong with giving customers choice (but I do wish I could have optioned a more practical dash - the digital speed in the rev counter is vital due to the near useless dish-plate size speedo that is too far from line of sight; while the heater controls have no kinaesthetic feedback, requiring visual confirmation of the current setting). Many other hatch manufacturers are now falling over themselves to support this (lucrative) options list - for example, Fiat's 500, Citroen DS3 & Audi A1 are all desperate to milk the premium hatch market that BMW created.
The Clubman was a niche vehicle and was not intended to sell in large numbers; I quite like it (would have liked it even more without the third door - the long, unbroken rear quarter of the left side is far more pleasing to my eye). The guys at work threatened to push it into the river if I bought one - Would sir like Marmite on one's chips?
The Crossman is a vehicle I await with interest to see in the metal. In the premium 'SUVman' market I see it as a rival to the RAV4 and new Landrover LRX and, bizarrely, the X1. It will probably split opinion as much as, if not more so, than the Clubman. but at least it looks and must handle better than this
.
(Will he finally get the picture link to work...)
The new MINI is very comfortable, handles well and, in JCW form, extremely quick; it is wide compared to, say, the Panda but corners far flatter and can change line mid-corner. In contrast the i10/i20 has seats like park benches that cripple within 20 miles. I am happy enough with the standard Cooper as 120bhp is as much power as I need in day to day traffic and it reports 50mpg on the trip average, though the 15" wheels on EcoContact tyres understeer rather early. I shall look for less Eco and more Grippo when replacements are due (or I finally get the Schnitzer suspension).
Rover's original mini was small and well marketed, but not at all suitable for dicing with today's 1.5 tonne plus hatchbacks. And probably not that great in the 60s; the rust bucket I used for a few days back in the early nineties was an interesting experience, but not something I would want to use as regular transport. We expect far more refined transport these days, whether by train, bus, plane or car.
Car manufacturers are expected to make a profit - it is their reason for existence. Rover barely made any on their standard mini models - it was sold almost at cost, and only the optional extras put cash in the coffers. Ford reverse engineered a Mini and realised it could not compete [Laban, Brian (2005) The Little Book of MINI]. The lack of money to invest in product development led to an iconic design, but the hatchback Renault 4 was more innovative (not to mention rather good at getting through the snow and, alas, sliding on its roof down the M6 after being picked up bodily by a side wind). In the long term Rover died because of lack of investment in new models and technology, ending its days with an abysmal selection of rebadged/bodged Hondas and engines which were lagging badly in the emissions race that marked the post-millenium car market. In contrast BMW led the market in providing a highly flexible production line that allowed a large 'lifestyle' option list. Nothing wrong with giving customers choice (but I do wish I could have optioned a more practical dash - the digital speed in the rev counter is vital due to the near useless dish-plate size speedo that is too far from line of sight; while the heater controls have no kinaesthetic feedback, requiring visual confirmation of the current setting). Many other hatch manufacturers are now falling over themselves to support this (lucrative) options list - for example, Fiat's 500, Citroen DS3 & Audi A1 are all desperate to milk the premium hatch market that BMW created.
The Clubman was a niche vehicle and was not intended to sell in large numbers; I quite like it (would have liked it even more without the third door - the long, unbroken rear quarter of the left side is far more pleasing to my eye). The guys at work threatened to push it into the river if I bought one - Would sir like Marmite on one's chips?
The Crossman is a vehicle I await with interest to see in the metal. In the premium 'SUVman' market I see it as a rival to the RAV4 and new Landrover LRX and, bizarrely, the X1. It will probably split opinion as much as, if not more so, than the Clubman. but at least it looks and must handle better than this
.Edited by sad61t on Saturday 9th January 19:01
(Will he finally get the picture link to work...)
Edited by sad61t on Saturday 9th January 19:07
sad61t said:
sense
Thank fk for that... 
sad61t said:
though the 15" wheels on EcoContact tyres understeer rather early.
Hmmm, mine has got PremiumContacts... No R888s admittedly, but a bit more tenacious than the Michelin Energy's on my former R50 One (which let go rather early and suddendly in the wet, as they did on my Energy-shod Citroën ZX before). Wouldn't want a much 'sportier' spec tyre on the Cooper, anyway - now it's progressive, fluent and fun, unlike cars on the 17" runflats...sad61t said:
Rover's original mini was small and well marketed, but ..... probably not that great in the 60s
You have won today's prize for utter and complete twaddle. I doubt anyone could even spell "well marketed" way back then. It was simply the right car in the right place at the right time. Can you imagine a jump being made today as big as the jump from a Morris Minor to a Mini? Seems unlikely to say the least.If BMW can exploit the Mini through many versions then good luck to them. IMO some work versions and some don't, but that's business.
Are you equally critical of development of the Range Rover from a modest 3-door farm vehicle to the bloated multi-version bling-cruisers on the roads today?
number2301 said:
BMW are making some astonishingly bad cars at the moment. First the X6 and now this atrocity.
I think the ph-o-meter needs extending to -10 for this one.
I think the ph-o-meter needs extending to -10 for this one.
+1 I Hate "SUV"'S . -Fullstop, and this one is a joke.
As for the x6, most pointless car in history, really pisses me off when i see one.
Ozzie Osmond said:
sad61t said:
Rover's original mini was small and well marketed, but ..... probably not that great in the 60s
You have won today's prize for utter and complete twaddle. I doubt anyone could even spell "well marketed" way back then. It was simply the right car in the right place at the right time. Can you imagine a jump being made today as big as the jump from a Morris Minor to a Mini? Seems unlikely to say the least.If BMW can exploit the Mini through many versions then good luck to them. IMO some work versions and some don't, but that's business.
Are you equally critical of development of the Range Rover from a modest 3-door farm vehicle to the bloated multi-version bling-cruisers on the roads today?
The Range Rover and Mini histories have similar design arcs - starting as utilitarian vehicles and migrating to the premium end of the market. However, I am not familiar with the range and so will not critique them.
ETA: The Citroen 2CV preceded the mini by a decade by demonstrating the optimal use of space from a front-engine, FWD design. The Renault 4 & 5, and Fiat 127 arrived a couple of years after the mini and fitted the market far better with the hatchback and larger interior. They are the templates of the modern entry level vehicle, not the mini, and outsold it. Source
Edited by sad61t on Sunday 10th January 08:59
The Range Rover was always marketed as a luxury 4x4 - it's only the idea of what constitutes luxury that has changed.
The 2CV is not well-packaged at all, it has a long bonnet and a narrow interior and is far longer than a Mini. The R4 was 3.6m long, the Mini a mere 3.05m and the 2CV 3.83m. Only the Fiat 500 was shorter at 2.96m but not space efficient at all.
The 2CV is not well-packaged at all, it has a long bonnet and a narrow interior and is far longer than a Mini. The R4 was 3.6m long, the Mini a mere 3.05m and the 2CV 3.83m. Only the Fiat 500 was shorter at 2.96m but not space efficient at all.
Edited by LuS1fer on Sunday 10th January 12:09
toppstuff said:
joshc said:
toppstuff said:
I cannot think of ANY small, 4x4, rugged little car on the market that is currently desirable.
Fiat Panda 4x4 - actually very capable off road, rugged, small, reliable and cheap to buy.There is no need for this Mini Crossman SUV.
BMW X1 Jobbie
Suzuki Grand Vitara
Toyota RAV4
Renault/Kia Jobbie
Honda CRV
FORD KUGA
Vauxhall Antera
The Yeti concept was FABIA based, the production model was TIGUAN based scaled up to meet market needs a Micro SUV was not the way forward.
These Chelsea "Handbag cars" ie MINI,BEETLE,500,X5,RANGEROVER Sport, will be an interesting part of Automotive history as they will have a profound impact on Marketing strategys in the Future!
Villan57 said:
Robert060379 said:
Not as BMW have made enough money insulting Isigonis already.
Well said Robert glad I'm not the only one who hates these brand stealing barstewards ! I could spit when I see a new mini with a union Jack painted roof , what a ferkin joke !!Surely the original concept was of a small car designed to drive and sell well so hasn't the updated version done just that?
raf_gti said:
Villan57 said:
Robert060379 said:
Not as BMW have made enough money insulting Isigonis already.
Well said Robert glad I'm not the only one who hates these brand stealing barstewards ! I could spit when I see a new mini with a union Jack painted roof , what a ferkin joke !!Surely the original concept was of a small car designed to drive and sell well so hasn't the updated version done just that?
Robert060379 said:
raf_gti said:
Villan57 said:
Robert060379 said:
Not as BMW have made enough money insulting Isigonis already.
Well said Robert glad I'm not the only one who hates these brand stealing barstewards ! I could spit when I see a new mini with a union Jack painted roof , what a ferkin joke !!Surely the original concept was of a small car designed to drive and sell well so hasn't the updated version done just that?
Range Rover Sport Wheelbase 2745mm Length 4783mm ( Source)
Mini S Hatch Wheelbase 2470mm Length 3660mm ( Source)
LuS1fer said:
The Range Rover was always marketed as a luxury 4x4 - it's only the idea of what constitutes luxury that has changed.
The 2CV is not well-packaged at all, it has a long bonnet and a narrow interior and is far longer than a Mini. The R4 was 3.6m long, the Mini a mere 3.05m and the 2CV 3.83m. Only the Fiat 500 was shorter at 2.96m but not space efficient at all.
Even BMW would have problems selling vinyl seats and a hose down interior as a luxury. But if they could source an IP66 rated entertainment system for the back seats the built-in shower option could be programmed to run at 8am. Just leave the kids in there and they'd be automatically washed while it drove itself to the school gates.The 2CV is not well-packaged at all, it has a long bonnet and a narrow interior and is far longer than a Mini. The R4 was 3.6m long, the Mini a mere 3.05m and the 2CV 3.83m. Only the Fiat 500 was shorter at 2.96m but not space efficient at all.
Edited by LuS1fer on Sunday 10th January 12:09
Would probably clash with my idea for a Go Sushi bar in the refrigerated glovebox complete with little dishes circulating on the Centre Rail. Ideal way to get the evening started on the way into Town.
sad61t said:
Robert060379 said:
raf_gti said:
Villan57 said:
Robert060379 said:
Not as BMW have made enough money insulting Isigonis already.
Well said Robert glad I'm not the only one who hates these brand stealing barstewards ! I could spit when I see a new mini with a union Jack painted roof , what a ferkin joke !!Surely the original concept was of a small car designed to drive and sell well so hasn't the updated version done just that?
Range Rover Sport Wheelbase 2745mm Length 4783mm ( Source)
Mini S Hatch Wheelbase 2470mm Length 3660mm ( Source)
Robert060379 said:
sad61t said:
Robert060379 said:
raf_gti said:
Villan57 said:
Robert060379 said:
Not as BMW have made enough money insulting Isigonis already.
Well said Robert glad I'm not the only one who hates these brand stealing barstewards ! I could spit when I see a new mini with a union Jack painted roof , what a ferkin joke !!Surely the original concept was of a small car designed to drive and sell well so hasn't the updated version done just that?
Range Rover Sport Wheelbase 2745mm Length 4783mm ( Source)
Mini S Hatch Wheelbase 2470mm Length 3660mm ( Source)
So by definition there is no such thing as a small car on the market anywhere more?
If the car hadn't been called a Mini and had a different design but was equally as well built and competant would you still be criticising it?
Front wheel drive BMW that isn't a marketing ploy? If the car wasn't called Mini then they couldn't sell it for 20% more than it's worth so it would be better value and therefore a better car. Interesting? The car would have to be a lot better to measure up to the market without the name, so it would be a better car. Taking that into consideration the current Mini by another name wouldn't be as good (slower, heavier, thurstier, more prone to understeer) or sell as well as the rest of the hot hatches so it wouldn't be an issue of the name but the fact the isn't as good as the competition.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff