I've posted before about my impressions of driving the R56, as well as my very subjective views on how it looks. I'm not a huge fan of either, but I certainly respect people's purchase decisions. Blah blah blah let's be friends and accept each other's opinions...

Anyhoozle, I was following an R56 on the NJTP today (for a while) when I realized what I don't like about it. I noticed that the tail lights (which were on; it was dark) are higher than a lot of cars, thus making the car look much taller. At first, I was like, hmm, I wonder if it's just because I was comparing it to the 350Z it was next to, but then it passed many cars and had a much higher presence than most of them. Most notably, a corolla had lights that were just barely taller than the R56.

This is just something I noticed that solidified a thought I had beforehand - that the overall presence of the car seems to have drastically changed.

Has anyone else noticed this? I know the beltline seems a lot higher, but it makes me wonder where the R53 tail lights are compared to other cars on the road.

Let's repeat - I haven't made any attempt at offending R56 owners here. The tail lights are higher, which I don't like. I found it an interesting observation. Discuss.

mb

 

Interesting. Never noticed. I do wish they didn't make the car longer, I enjoy barely squeezing into parking spots. Unfortunately, my bumpers show it. I'm thinking about lowering my R56. Then the tail lights would be lower.

 

That brings up an important point - the lowered R56 I saw (and drove) from Helix had a much better overall appearance to me.

mb

 

I hadn't really noticed the differences until a couple of weeks ago, at a run with a local club, an R56 parked a couple of spaces away. A R53 parked in between us and the R56, man did the differences pop out. Beltline, hood, bumpers, everything. When compared that way they look like two totally different cars.

 

I don't object to the look of the rear of the R56 at all, and actually find it better looking than the previous body. It's the styling of the front that I'm disappointed in. The headlights in particular are odd, wrapping around the fenders instead of facing forward as before. It just seems to me that they now accentuate the nose, making it appear even more "bulbous". Given that they had to make the hood taller to accommodate pedestrian safety regulations, they could have also shortened the front at the same time. That could have been interesting, and perhaps make it more similar to the classic Mini....but that's easy for me to say, as I don't have to fit all the mechanicals into the space! I just wish they had asked me before restyling.

 

[quote=mbcoops;1834460] I noticed that the tail lights (which were on; it was dark) are higher than a lot of cars, thus making the car look much taller.

The R56 is a short car, but it is by no means a low car.

We have a Buick Regal in the family and the roof height on that is slightly lower than the MINI. The height of the seat (from the the ground) is higher on the MINI than on the Buick. After driving the MINI, you feel as if you drop down into the Buick seats. People don't believe it until they see it for themselves.

 

I think the styling differences, while noticable upon inspection, are of little real importance. The presence of the car remains essentially the same unless one feels the urge to put a very fine line on the matter. That said, I think it's natural to pick, poke, and prod at every detail of our beloved little cars, but in the end the changes were well-considered, purposeful, and in many cases advantageous. And once one is out motoring it all matters even less.

 

Personally, it is the back of the car I am not fond of. It appears raised too high, or something that gives that impression. I do seem to be able to see a lot more of the underneath of the car from the back.

Ken

 

I get the exact opposite impression - I can spot an R56 a mile away within one second of seeing it, because in my mind, the presence is completely different. Maybe I never gave it a chance...who knows?

mb

 

Right on, Bro!

 

[QUOTE=mbcoops;1834460]
Has anyone else noticed this? I know the beltline seems a lot higher, but it makes me wonder where the R53 tail lights are compared to other cars on the road.
/QUOTE]

Yep, I posted about it, among other things, in some thread a long time ago with photos of the rear of both cars. It really surprised me because it further pushes the car design away from the Mini it was based on which had quite low rear lights (there are several versions/years but you get the picture) and an overall low butt-line



I would have thought the designers would try to avoid distancing the car from its 'retro' roots so quickly by more gradually changing details that evoke the original. They actually had the opportunity to pick up on more classic Mini cues instead, but c'est la vie, it is still better then a lot of cars. Seems like it will simply evolve more into its own, ultimately bigger product then try to be a modern tiny Mini anyway, and I'm sure BMW/Mini will make the predicted huge sales figures (hopefully with more dealers).

 

Hmm,..I liked it better than the 06 model I could have bought for about $3,000 less. Go figure.

I think the styling is smart. Still cannot mistake it for anything but a Mini. And now it is so unique, previous owners can spot the car a mile away. I like that!

 

I can spot a school bus a mile away, too

Kidding people. Calm.

mb

 

As long as you can tell the difference between a bus and a Mini, you are okay.

 

the beltline, along w/ many things, is higher. to me, very noticeably higher. i think this is all due to the need to raise the hood height for some pedastrian crash safety regulations in europe. the hood of the r56 is higher than the r50/r53. it also looks fuller. as a result, i'm sure they had to lift everything up to make the whole design package work. i do agree that this makes the new car look less lean and a lot bigger than before. the same thing happened for the same reason w/ the new miata. the nose/hood had to be a lot higher than before for the same reason and everything looks higher and bulkier and bigger. part of it is just a visual illusion, too, and the fact that headlights and taillights of the r56 are bigger also doesn't help. one of the redeeming acts, however, is the still sloping roofline and how they made it look a bit chopped. the car looks bigger and taller, but as a whole is still a pretty good look. i remember when i first saw the r50/r53 in person, i thought it was such a tiny and compact design (even tho compared to the old mini it's huge) and all the details like the lights, etc. were so small and elegant. the same can't be said about the r56; it looks a bit cartoonish, like all the new retro cars. the mustang and fj cruiser look HUGE to me

that said, the r56 has grown on me a lot. dynamics-wise there're still few like it on the market. and it's still a mini. it looks a lot better when i see it now, especially the mcs. and especially the red one w/ jcw body kit on miniusa's website right now

 

With the way things are going...stylistically that is...

mb

 

I cant see the tail lights when I'm driving it ,sorry they offend you .

 

Apology accepted. Never said they offended me

mb

 

Having the tail lights up higher might help the inattentive SUV driver behind you notice that you are braking!

 

mbcoops

Now that's Grade A internet trolling right there.

 

I don't think that is fair esp considering how long they have been on NAM. I know trolling when I see it and I think it would have been far harsher then what you see here (or in a thread started by someone else interjecting it with insults and taunting thread derailing methods). These observations were mild (I've seen worse remarks about automatics then this) and, of course, nobody has to reply or read it if they don't want to.

But even if mbcoops falls into your definition of a 'troll', good job, you just fed him

 

Good points by both...


but when it comes down to it.....this thread is doing nothing but beating the proverbial dead horse.

 

I hear ya - but all in all a ton of dead horses get beat and topics reiterated constantly here and all car forums from what I can tell. In the end it is just current content and another person's opinion - more people get to the horse after it has been dead to others then those who get there when it was really fresh

 

Hadn't noticed and probably won't. Mine's in the lowered crowd, so it's not as obvious, I guess.

My opinion is that a few continue to point out the differences in order to justify their ownership decision and make themselves feel better about having a highly modded older cars that can't keep up with a bone stock R56S.

Hey, but I'm just expressing my opinion. It's not meant to offend. Lets be friends.

 

Not so much beating a dead horse as it is kicking around a pile of dust left by the dead horse.

I have really never understood these threads anyway. Seem rather pointless to me.