i think its just the evolution of the Brand.

that being said i would have liked to seen the S have a sportier ride with less roll. the radio is wierd for me since i love to put in aftermarket headunits (my background is in Audio/Video both home and mobile).

the car is a lot more streetable and much more bearable for the wife. so in the long run i see myself in a clubamn S if those kids ever come along.

Until that happens i'm going to be an r53 enthusiast.

 

I think the February issue of Automobile magazine summarizes the R56 quite nicely... and really shows how much the driving enthusiast has lost with the market shift towards a broader audience.

Comments from their long term R56 tester:

"The combination of torque steer and poor throttle calibration saps a large portion of the driving joy... Plus the nature of this car, look-at-me stripes, giant speedometer, and audio controls spread about - is entertaining for a short spell but would be tiring during real ownership..."


BMW... are you listening?

 

Hmmm, a set of H&R springs completely eliminated my torque steer. The throttle calibration on my R56 is just fine, maybe they got a test vehicle that had been totally horse beaten? And "audio controls spread about"? It's called the MFSW guys, look into it!

 

Automobile Magazine's on line review was pretty positive of the car, although I couldn't find the long term tester review cited.

 

Automobile / February 2008 / Page 96...

The R56 has not been anywhere as well received as the R53 was... as to be expected. It's not just the R53 enthusiasts that lament the passing of a great drivers car that was the R53...

 

Do you have a link to that article? Thanks.

 

Can't believe I read through all this!!!!!!!!!!!

One things for SURE. We are all different and so are the cars. In fact we strive to make our cars different, better, and unique based solely on what we like.

Thank God-------Would be pretty boring any other way.

By the way, I own and enjoy an R56 and like the R50/R52/R53.

 

Ok, I can understand all the arguments for and against. Personally, since my Mini is my daily driver, I'm kinda glad they 'refined' it; it's still the most fun car I've ever owned, but comfy enough that I could drive it for days on end. I knew it from the first test drive. (Granted, I've never driven a R53.)

So let me throw another question out there ... Any prior R53 owners now own a R56 with sport and JCW suspension packages? How does THAT set up compare to the 'connectedness' of the 1st gens?

BTW, great info all around from both sides of the argument. In my opinion, nobody here is wrong ... they ain't made a car yet that pleases everybody's pallet. The important thing is that yer lovin' what yer drivin'!!

 

I never did figure out who was complaining so loudly about the ride quality of R53 with runflats. I mean there's threads all over NAM about this and "ditch the runflats" became almost a battle cry, but somehow MINI itself must have gotten some substantial comment on this.

Since one of the objectives of R56 was apparently to dial in the suspension for runflat use, it is no wonder that many R50/53 MINI owners comment that R56 is "easier to live with." If we are commenting on pros and cons, this should be mentioned as step forward, at least for those who felt the ride in the earlier model was inadequate without buying all new tires, which when you think about it was a pretty crazy thing to have to do.

 

A suspension change was made way before the 2nd Generation. There were enough complaints about ride quality to warrant a change to the oil viscosity and valve structure of shock absorbers effective with May 2003 builds.

 

Dampers weren't just changed for the '03's, they were softened considerably in 2005 too. Drive an '05 or '06 R53 and it's a squish-fest compared to the original '02. MINI hasn't dropped us in a boiling pot, we've been slowly warmed up to a nice simmer, lol.

 

My MCS is a May 2002 build

 

My MCS is a November 2005 build.

Squishtastic

 

I thought this change was only for US market cars, no?

 

I'm one of the exceptions. I love my runflats. I love the "instant turn-in" response they give when you change direction, due to their very stiff sidewalls. Sure, the harder rubber & less flex may mean they have lower limits of grip at the max, compared to good non-runflats... but for street driving, I prefer their more prevalent "go-kart" feel... not to mention the peace of mind in case I get a flat.

I don't give a damn about the harsher ride they give - if I wanted a Cadillac, I'd have bought one!...which is all the more reason why I opted for the JCW suspension. Perfect for a street setup, IMO.

 

One thing to remember, the runflats were a last minute edition for the early (2002) MINI; the suspension was initially setup for runflats, and at the last second BMW opted for runflats without changing the suspension. The suspension refreshment reflects that, and the battle cry "ditch the runflats", applicable to the early R53's, reflects what BMW originally had in mind with the original suspension.

Motoring Trend (just read it yesterday at the barbershop) had a less than flattering review of the R56 in comparison to the R53 with regards to the things that have been brought up earlier--namely, its a less visceral, less connected driving experience. Again, I think if BMW does this proplerly, they can have their cake and eat it too, provided they put some edginess back into the Stage II RCW--which is what I think most people who are considering the Stage II want anyway. The bone stock R56 is still a great car, fun to drive, faster, and more comfortable (especially the seats)/practical than the R53 ever was (oh yeah, the gearbox is definitely better too), but sacrifices on looks (subjective), and on steering (not quite as connected to the road as the R53; some of the "go kartiness" has been sacrificed). I've always felt that most people will prefer the R56, and I totally understand/respect that. Again, BMW has the opportunity to take a step back and make the stage II R56 a bit more R53ish, if you will, while at the same time throwing in the improvements of the R56. Its the best of both worlds, IF they do it. Personally, I think they will--if they know their market--because I believe this is what the majority of people shopping for the Stage II are going to be looking for.

 

So how are they (MINI) dialing in that Challenge car. That has got to be a beast and I doubt anyone will dare complain about the handling. Yes, it's a race car, but that's apparently what some folks are going for. It is an R56...and the handling is optimized....any tricks in there??? Apparently R56 can be dialed in just like the Rs that preceeded it.

 

This reminds me of a funny and in no way meant to be offensive to you or your post quote: You can't turn chicken shi* into chicken salad.

You can make a race car out of anything. To compare the challenge R56 to the actual R56 is like comparing a NASCAR to a freakin' ford taurus.

mb

 

Well, no. A NASCAR is a tube frame car that shares no parts with a production car.

The challenge car is a production car modified (extensively) for race use.

Now, how much modification was done? Are the suspension pick-up points altered?

I find it pretty amusing how many people slag the R56 becuase it doesn't steer/handle/feel as good as the R53 (which I don't agree with) yet have extensively modified R53's! If it was THAT great, why did it need to be modified so much?

 

My 05 isn't extensively modded unless you consider a 15% pulley to be "extensive"

 

I'm not so sure. The Challenge uses all the John Cooper Works bits and then perhaps there's some additional refinement. The point is that all the cars in the series are alike...and they're coming from the factory that way. Seems obvious the R56 is one thing for the daily driver....super....but is just as capable of high levels of development.

 

Yes, it is capable of high levels of development, and here's to hoping that many of the things found on the non-street legal Challenge series JCW make it into the stage II street legal version. This is the R56, if done proplerly (and I believe that it will be), that will get me out of my R53 eventually. I don't think anyone would argue that the R56 is capable of high levels of development--I think thats a given. But the flip side is you CAN make a car faster, more refined--and less fun. In fact, look at why many of us buy MINIs in the first place--if its strictly HP and 0-60 times you're after, there are better choices. What I want is a car with the engine performance of the (stage II) JCW, combined with the edginess of the R53.

BSUCardinal fan: the issue with the steering feel between the R53/R56 doesn't have anything to do with the suspension--its in the mechanics (or assisted mechanics) of the steering itself. The R56 just isn't as precise as the R53; its the one consistent gripe I've heard from R56 owners including those who prefer the R56 over the R53 (I believe Gabe over at Motoringfile, who overall prefers the R56 over the R53, has said this exact same thing). The R56 is easier to turn at low speeds--i.e. parking, but it loses something at high speeds; its not as close as the R53 to "point and shoot", which is one of the R53's best (and most fun) characteristics. It was one of things that really bothered me the most when I spent some quality time with an R56.

Again, I see a tremendous amount of potential for the Stage II JCW--I've got my fingers crossed, and can't wait to see it!

 

The R56 has been almost universally panned by the enthusiast magazines. Both look and feel of the R56 has strayed... and the brand is suffering as a result (production cutbacks and layoffs at MINI). The dealer lots still have 2007 R56 models languishing, with 2008 models backing up. Think about it... across the entire 5 year run of the R53 series, supply was always short and demand always high. In a Car & Driver 4 car comparison, the R56 finished 3rd... right ahead of the Nissan Sentra!... that speaks volumes...

 

i decided to stay out of this arguement

 

Well there you go getting spot "on-topic" with the whole thing. The original blog entry stated (in effect) that they had an R53 and just "did not love" the R56. I love mine...but if I didn't that'd be a whole different story. Same with fun-factor.

I was just tooling around in my mid-January build '03 Cooper.....fun, yes, but (and I won't go into the details) I have more fun in my R56. So.....fun? Love? You're right, it doesn't matter if one car is better or not. And if we could be objective at all, we'd have to (and already did) note that both cars are better (in one way or another). We should be so lucky to have choices here!!

An owner of a MINI should, of course, love their car, be engaged in motoring in it, and wring every bit of enjoyment out of it they can. After all...it is a Mini/MINI!!! That's what it's all about!! That's the solution to the whole discussion right there (although I believe this has been stated previously in other terms).