RE: Mini Mk3 unveiled

Author
Discussion

ARAF

20,759 posts

225 months

Thursday 21st November 2013
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Girls can race too!

skyrover

12,682 posts

206 months

Thursday 21st November 2013
quotequote all
MC Bodge said:
LuS1fer said:
I just walked past another Countryman and wondered who on God's earth looks at that and thinks "Hmmm...nice".
I had similar thoughts when I saw one in the works car park today.

I can understand the appeal of the 'small' hatch, (although a VW Up!/Skoda Citigo or the like might be more suitable as a city car), but struggle to comprehend the desirability of the pumped-up versions of the Mini.
I think the idea was to offer a small "stylish" alternative to the smorgasbord of bland, CUV's out there, which is the fastest growing market segment.

The mini countryman is different enough from the X3 to warrant it's own car and has a tenuous link to the original "utility" mini.

Stewiegriffin

846 posts

227 months

Saturday 23rd November 2013
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I can't really go with that .IMHO this engine is a peach. Would be interested what experiences make you think it's not very pleasant

Stewiegriffin

846 posts

227 months

Saturday 23rd November 2013
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I can't really go with that .IMHO this engine is a peach. Would be interested what experiences make you think it's not very pleasant

Aused

293 posts

171 months

Sunday 24th November 2013
quotequote all
r11co said:
This is real nauseating fanboi stuff. I can't be bothered with those who attach extra status to something just because of what it is. It is a bit like iPhone owners - completely lose their frame of reference.

Putting the original Issigonis one aside for a minute, the first new MINI was worthy, the replacement a bloated copy intended mainly to cut down on the production costs of its immediate predecessor. This is getting further from the Frank Stephenson concept, which deserves to be a classic in its own right IMO, and as a result has to stand on its own merits.

This is not a bonny thing, and overpriced as a car, but the brand has entered the realms where a turd on wheels will still sell.


Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th November 20:56
+1 well said.

Clivey

5,146 posts

206 months

Monday 25th November 2013
quotequote all
mike150 said:
...I think all mini's are overpriced parp
mike150 said:
When I stop beside a mini in an A3
rofl

campaj1

514 posts

138 months

Monday 25th November 2013
quotequote all
haha piss poor PH rating!
What a travesty this car is now... I'll stick to my 97 MPI thanks... if I can bear the embarrassment of being associated with this ghastly new one...

Amirhussain

11,491 posts

165 months

Monday 25th November 2013
quotequote all
campaj1 said:
haha piss poor PH rating!
What a travesty this car is now... I'll stick to my 97 MPI thanks... if I can bear the embarrassment of being associated with this ghastly new one...
In what way is this car a travesty? Have you driven it?

campaj1

514 posts

138 months

Monday 25th November 2013
quotequote all
Amirhussain said:
In what way is this car a travesty? Have you driven it?
"Travesty: a false, absurd, or distorted representation of something."

It is a false, absurd and distorted representation of the original car biggrin

skyrover

12,682 posts

206 months

Monday 25th November 2013
quotequote all
campaj1 said:
The VW Up! is the true spiritual successor to my car.
Fin.
surely it's the Tata nano?

bertie

8,550 posts

286 months

Monday 25th November 2013
quotequote all
campaj1 said:
Amirhussain said:
In what way is this car a travesty? Have you driven it?
"Travesty: a false, absurd, or distorted representation of something."

It is a false, absurd and distorted representation of the original car biggrin
It's also a far better car, in almost every respect.

LuS1fer

41,192 posts

247 months

Tuesday 26th November 2013
quotequote all
campaj1 said:
Not true, I talk to MINI owners lol
The VW Up! is the true spiritual successor to my car.
Fin.
Not really as the old Mini was never a premium marque - maybe a C1 or a base Citigo.

As for the last postyer, all modern cars are technically better than the old Mini, that is obvious, so being fugly doesn't make it OK.
The old Mini was also leagues ahead in urban handling and parkability and space utilisation so while OVERALL the new car is better, it is inferior in many respects.

Clivey

5,146 posts

206 months

Tuesday 26th November 2013
quotequote all
LuS1fer said:
Not really as the old Mini was never a premium marque - maybe a C1 or a base Citigo.

As for the last postyer, all modern cars are technically better than the old Mini, that is obvious, so being fugly doesn't make it OK.
The old Mini was also leagues ahead in urban handling and parkability and space utilisation so while OVERALL the new car is better, it is inferior in many respects.
Whilst the layout of the Issigonis design was undeniably clever, especially in it's day, if it were introduced today as a new car design it would be totally unsuitable. - One of my cousins restored one and although I could just about fit in it, there's no way I could comfortably drive it for any length of time. I'd also be considerably less able if I hit anything more solid than a crisp packet whilst doing so!

The new car (all versions) on the other hand has the most comfortable and best driving position of any supermini for a big lump like me. Managing this whilst also being smaller than a Corsa, Fiesta etc. is pretty good and criticising it for rear seat or boot space is missing the point IMO. - Despite the hatch shape, I liken it to a small sports car; if you look at it as a 2+2 in which you can fold down the rear seats to give you a larger boot, it easily beats something like a 350Z for space utilisation and If there's just the OH and you, it's actually a pretty practical car.

Agoogy

7,274 posts

250 months

Tuesday 26th November 2013
quotequote all
Clivey said:
LuS1fer said:
Not really as the old Mini was never a premium marque - maybe a C1 or a base Citigo.

As for the last postyer, all modern cars are technically better than the old Mini, that is obvious, so being fugly doesn't make it OK.
The old Mini was also leagues ahead in urban handling and parkability and space utilisation so while OVERALL the new car is better, it is inferior in many respects.
Whilst the layout of the Issigonis design was undeniably clever, especially in it's day, if it were introduced today as a new car design it would be totally unsuitable. - One of my cousins restored one and although I could just about fit in it, there's no way I could comfortably drive it for any length of time. I'd also be considerably less able if I hit anything more solid than a crisp packet whilst doing so!

The new car (all versions) on the other hand has the most comfortable and best driving position of any supermini for a big lump like me. Managing this whilst also being smaller than a Corsa, Fiesta etc. is pretty good and criticising it for rear seat or boot space is missing the point IMO. - Despite the hatch shape, I liken it to a small sports car; if you look at it as a 2+2 in which you can fold down the rear seats to give you a larger boot, it easily beats something like a 350Z for space utilisation and If there's just the OH and you, it's actually a pretty practical car.
completely missed his point...
'In it's day', the Mini was revolutionary in it's brief and execution and comparable in all other aspects of car design, safety etc.
'In it's day', the MINI (R53) was a good looking, good handling, over engineered badly packaged cash-in on the style and memory of the original. It didn't try to be revolutionary in any area really.

..so in that regard, as a revolutionary packaging masterpiece it fails.
Now the R56 added weight and bulk and retained the packaging faults
and this new one adds weight and bul and gets smacked in the face with the ugly stick.

they are two quite obvioulsy different propositions in their own moment in time.

To release this new 'travesty' on Sir Alec's birthday is a joke.

I recommend a vist to Sniff Petrol to better explain...
http://sniffpetrol.com/2013/11/21/bmw-plans-new-ca...

Clivey

5,146 posts

206 months

Tuesday 26th November 2013
quotequote all
Agoogy said:
completely missed his point...
'In it's day', the Mini was revolutionary in it's brief and execution and comparable in all other aspects of car design, safety etc.
'In it's day', the MINI (R53) was a good looking, good handling, over engineered badly packaged cash-in on the style and memory of the original. It didn't try to be revolutionary in any area really.

..so in that regard, as a revolutionary packaging masterpiece it fails.
Now the R56 added weight and bulk and retained the packaging faults
and this new one adds weight and bul and gets smacked in the face with the ugly stick.

they are two quite obvioulsy different propositions in their own moment in time.

To release this new 'travesty' on Sir Alec's birthday is a joke.

I recommend a vist to Sniff Petrol to better explain...
http://sniffpetrol.com/2013/11/21/bmw-plans-new-ca...
I understand the point fully and I'm not arguing with it…and actually, the spiritual successor is probably something like a Toyota iQ. My point though was that anyone dismissing the BMW Mini as a "fashion car" is only looking skin deep. smile

Agoogy

7,274 posts

250 months

Tuesday 26th November 2013
quotequote all
Clivey said:
My point though was that anyone dismissing the BMW Mini as a "fashion car" is only looking skin deep. smile
very true... however it is slowly becoming that way. R53 was a cracking car handling and performance wise, wiht some lovely engineering touches.
R56 less so..
This new one?...not sure yet, will have to wiat and see if it offers anything 'new' or different over any other hatch..

Clivey

5,146 posts

206 months

Tuesday 26th November 2013
quotequote all
Agoogy said:
very true... however it is slowly becoming that way. R53 was a cracking car handling and performance wise, wiht some lovely engineering touches.
R56 less so..
This new one?...not sure yet, will have to wiat and see if it offers anything 'new' or different over any other hatch..
I agree actually. - The R56, whilst still good, lost a little something…especially when they stuck electric steering in it. Even the "least PH" R53 One D was good to drive, despite the 75 BHP Toyota-sourced diesel.

I also agree that it's unnecessary for the car to grow though successive generations…and that this new one's been hit pretty damn hard with the ugly stick.

I also don't like the current trend for having a "display screen" in the middle / sticking out of the dash though. - As I've said multiple times, they're going to date horribly and look really naff (like an old mobile phone) in a few short years. - Not that BMW care though as their answer will just be "buy a new one then".

I wish they still made their standard ICE fit a DIN / double DIN-sized slot so that when it dates, you can pull it out and fit a new head unit. - That's what I'm doing in both of my cars! - I don't predict me buying a new car in the future unless I trip over a pot of gold and so proprietary non-replaceable ICE is a massive turn-off. It could put me off a used 435i in a few years, for example.

campaj1

514 posts

138 months

Tuesday 26th November 2013
quotequote all
bertie said:
It's also a far better car, in almost every respect.
Naturally, as the old design is over 50 YO?
There are better cars on the market for less.

campaj1

514 posts

138 months

Tuesday 26th November 2013
quotequote all
LuS1fer said:
Not really as the old Mini was never a premium marque - maybe a C1 or a base Citigo.

As for the last postyer, all modern cars are technically better than the old Mini, that is obvious, so being fugly doesn't make it OK.
The old Mini was also leagues ahead in urban handling and parkability and space utilisation so while OVERALL the new car is better, it is inferior in many respects.
Sure, a Citigo then.

campaj1

514 posts

138 months

Tuesday 26th November 2013
quotequote all
Clivey said:
Whilst the layout of the Issigonis design was undeniably clever, especially in it's day, if it were introduced today as a new car design it would be totally unsuitable. - One of my cousins restored one and although I could just about fit in it, there's no way I could comfortably drive it for any length of time. I'd also be considerably less able if I hit anything more solid than a crisp packet whilst doing so!

The new car (all versions) on the other hand has the most comfortable and best driving position of any supermini for a big lump like me. Managing this whilst also being smaller than a Corsa, Fiesta etc. is pretty good and criticising it for rear seat or boot space is missing the point IMO. - Despite the hatch shape, I liken it to a small sports car; if you look at it as a 2+2 in which you can fold down the rear seats to give you a larger boot, it easily beats something like a 350Z for space utilisation and If there's just the OH and you, it's actually a pretty practical car.
It's important to remember that the 'supermini' class just didnt exist back then though: the only credible alternative (at least to begin with) was probably the Hillman Imp.

Re the new car, surely BMW's home-grown 1 series makes an even better crack at your affordable sporting 2+2 idea for the price of a middling spec MINI?