Did anyone get a chance to read the long term test report for the Mini Cooper S, in their latest issue (October 2004)?

It is pretty interesting. For those of you who have not read it yet, here are the highlights:

• All performance aspects (except braking) improved over the 40,000 mile interval. With numbers such as 0-60 dropping from 7.4 seconds, to 6.9 seconds.
• It had no unscheduled maintenance items. Only two scheduled maintenance stops were required, and everything was covered under warranty. This was a tie for the fewest number of stops. They gave an example of the new Beetle as contrast, with 10 repair stops and a cost of $1100.
• They complained about the sunshade and the lack of an aftermarket or OEM unit that would block out the sun from the panoramic roof.
• They complained about the rough ride even with the 16" wheels. I don't think people still get the character of this car.
• One reviewer still didn't like the car at all. He said the ride was miserable, torpid in traffic, seats were uncomfortable, and a huge operation to get into the back seat.
• The final statement was "We had mixed opinions about whether the Mini's quick handling and nimble size offset its stiff ride, but we all agreed that for lookin' good and feelin' fine, it's tough to beat.

Overall, I think the article was positive, and it reflected a car that had minimal problems (even though it was ran hard), and it peformed well. But I still think that automotive editors just don't see the car for what it is.

First, I am always upset at calling this a retro car. For crying out loud the Mini was still being made one year before the new model. Sure it was sold and manufacturer to a new party, but you can't compare this to the PT Cruiser. That fact just bugs me to death. Secondly, where on earth can you buy a car like this for the price. I am sorry the quality, workmanship, and options available on this car far outweigh something you would find on something like the Beetle. Third, what is up with these people and the performance of this car. We need to strap them in the passenger seat and let them go around a track with Randy Webb and then see how they feel. Fourth, I can't fathom why people can't understand that this car was not made for rear seat passengers who were 6'4", or that the car was not meant to ride like a Buick. You need to buy another car if you are looking for those features. For the size of this car, you cannot squeeze out anymore passenger room. It does an excellent job for what it was designed for, and they need to stop comparing it to something it isn't.

 

I read the article last night and I agree with the points that you make. I can't imagine anyone buying such a small car and then being surprised that the ride is a little rough. If the car as marketed as a street-legal go cart, what does that tell you? Did anyone have a go cart with suspension like an Oldsmobile? I know I didn't...

 

i came out with this tread over a week ago.

 

A lot of the writers/testers at these car magazines seem to have lost touch with a lot of the spirit they had for cars. It seems it's written more to be like a review that will satisfy all of their consumers and say plain-jane statements to not disturb the people who won't "get it." Rather than explaining why some cars have different suspension feels and rides than others, they simply state an observation as a pro/con relative to anything that they wish.