http://www.businessweek.com/autos/co...ge_top+stories


This may be the worst written article I've seen on the MINI. Granted, I'm a MINI freak and am way too knowlegdeable about the more than "subtle" changes from the R50/53 to the R56, but this guy is out there!

I won't pick it apart here and take the fun away for you, but my favorite line is "the Mini spins out of control":impatient a lot easier than a BMW 3 -series...Sheesh!

Enjoy.

 

Say the word and we'll all storm the offices of business week...especially the writer of the piece.

 

Oh it's not SO bad, at least it doesn't complain about the Mini being "small" as much as some...

 

Anyone trying to sell the MCS as economical is out of their mind! Now take my 1993 Geo Metro, about the same size as the MINI that was economical at 46 MPG or my 2000 TDI NB that gets 48MPG on diesel. To say a car the size of a MINI getting 29MPG as economical is hilarious

 

The guy said he likes the MINI and would pick it over other competing cars... How is this such a horrible article considering the fact that most auto mags don't rate any of the MINIs well in head-head comparisons?

I hate to break it to all the MINI people who haven't realized it yet, but 99% of the population would not be able to pick out the R56 from the R53 even if they were parked next to eachother. The change is nothing like the difference between the classic Mini and the '02. I still haven't been able to get my fiance to tell the difference between the different generations.

 

Wow! Seriously, I never knew that!

 

Yeah, and what's with writing about a small car and then complaining that it's small?

 

It would seem to me that this Explorer driver (what car reviewer, car entheusiast, would drive a Ford Explorer as his every day car?), Thane Peterson, was asked to write a positive review on a car he actually doesn't like at all. For instance, here's how he states that the Mini handles extremely well:

"The laws of physics dictate that a boxy little front-wheel-drive car like the Mini can't really drive like a BMW. The Mini spins out of control a lot easier than a BMW 3 Series when you head into a curve at high speed. But given the constraints of its econobox design, the Mini handles extremely well." Did Thane Peterson have a Mini spin out of control on him? I very much doubt it. Is he trying to be the contrarian? Probably. True car magazine reviewers seem to say just the opposite.

Calling any car an econobox is an insult, In this case it's an extreme insult.

Let's see what else he says:

. To drive this car you need a short spouse. Why's that. There's just as much room in the spouse's seat than in the driver's seat. Then again, maybe he makes his wife sit in back.

. "Go cart feel as if it's a positive attribute" (any true car entheusiast would indeed consider it a positive attribute).

. "Ride overly hard and uncomfortable". Relative to what, a Lexus. Mine's not hard and uncomfortable.

. "Exterior styling is quirky", "interior styling even quirkier". "It all gets to be a bit much" (and I'm sure it is for a Ford Explorer owner).

Mr. Peterson gave this car 4 1/2 stars of a possible 5. That's obviously what he was told to do, but his review tells us what he really thinks (1 star at best).

 

That is because it is not true. My Cooper manual clearly states 91 octane or better. You can use 87 octane but the engine will knock.

The reviewer is your basic moron.

 

What do you expect from an auto review out of buisness week. We are all assuming he actually drove the car. The man drives a Ford Explorer, not a car enthusiast.

 

You're right about the octane rating, but actually, I think one of the things Mini did with the 2007 is put in a sensor that looks at actual octane then retards or advances the spark accordingly to assure against knocking even with lower octane gas. The price paid of course is in performance. 91 octane at sea level yields spec performance (at 2,500 feet elevation the equivelent is 90; at 5,000 feet it's 89, etc.)

 

My owners manual does say 87 for the MC and 91 for MCS.

 

Sounds to me like the guy was pissed that he had to test the MINI instead of the Lexus, but his boss's daughter drives a MINI.

 

Well, I wouldn't look to Road&Track for business advice, so why would I care what Business Week has to say about any car?

 

I wouldn't look to Rodent Track for car advice either.

 

Translation: "Anything less than a BMW, which I've been told handle really well, is beneath me." (coming from an Exploder driver)

I'd say that a MINI handles EXACTLY like a BMW, considering that it IS a BMW, and handles exactly the way that BMW designed it to handle.

 

Alright, I'll take a few unguarded layups...

"Just keep in mind that there's a 10-week or more wait for custom-built Minis."

At MINI of Peabody, the current wait is six weeks.

The regular Mini is especially popular with women, who account for 51% of purchases, according to the Power Information Network. That's less than the whopping 58% figure for the VW Bug, but it's still unusually high. By contrast, only 36% of buyers of the Mini Cooper S are women.

Sounds to me more like the MCS is especially popular with men. Basically he's calling the MC a chick car (OK, Explorer Boy).

Inside, the center console is narrower, resulting in more leg space.

He fails to mention that the MINI had more legroom than his Explorer to begin with.

The car is also set very low to the ground, so you really bounce around on rough roads and out on the highway.

The height of the car (which is similar to just about every single other subcompact) has nothing to do with the perceived roughness of the ride.

 

No, its a MINI, a car brand owned by BMW just as Jaguar is owned by Ford (albeit its becoming more BMW over the years).

 

OK, semantics. Let's change "IS a" to "was and is developed by and is under the purview of". The rest of my statement stands.

 

Engine is a BMW. Suspension design by BMW. Electronics same as BMW. I'd say it's more BMW than not.

 

And that is why I said albeit its becoming more BMW over the years. But the engine is joint with Peugot.

There is nothing wrong with that article. Some ppl find certain things more important than others. You gotta remember the audience. Who is reading Business Week? MINI has to market to the masses, the many tens of thousands of car buyers out there that could care less about "go kart on rails". To some ppl that means a harsh ride. Other people worry about the car being to small and a death trap (and dont quote safety stats, it dont' matter to their mindset). As they say ... "follow the money" and clearly MINI has chosen to do that by making the ride less harsh ... True? and dumping the burble that the masses apparantly hated.

You write to your audience.

If C&D was writing, they would write to "their" audience.

This article was written for the Business Week audience and it wasn't all that bad for its purpose. Consider this one quote:

"When I first started driving the new Mini I found the ride overly hard and uncomfortable."

I would imagine he is writing to his audience that drives more luxarious and soft cars. There is nothing wrong with that statement as its probably the truth ... exactly how he felt.

 

I wouldn't shoot this messenger. Sure, he said some stupid things, but isn't it good to get more perspectives of a product before buying it? I got mine because all the car enthusiast magazines fawned over the MINI.

Can a person live with a Mini Cooper on a day-to-day basis without going batty from the inconveniences of such a small vehicle?

Can a person live with stupid drivers on cell phones...

I didn't see a rating of article button.

 

Chows .. I know I asked you this before and hate being a pest, but just what kind of car do you drive?

 

Me? CS.

 

Sorry .. What's a CS?