but for some reason, there are people here who assume that every Mini owner is an SUV hater! Why, I have no clue, as there are many SUV owners who also have Minis..... I've just given up as it seems impossible to get people to think, instead of chanting the mantra "SUV = EVIL"..... Maybe when they're older, or have a family, or do something that involves moving bulky stuff.... Other than that, I seriously doubt reasoned thought will make any difference at all....

Matt a Mini (and SUV) owner.....

 

LynnEl... do you go offroading with it? Do you tow a heavy trailer? No?

The truth is that from a practicality standpoint, minivans are WAY better than SUVs for urban driving. For the most part, they handle better, they brake better, they can carry more cargo and more people... and on average they get much better gas mileage too.

But "oh no" they are "uncool". In many cases, people just don't want to be caught driving one. So an SUV is purchased instead.

SUVs do have their place, but the fact of the matter is, they are often not the best vehicle for the purpose they are usually bought, which is a grocery getter or family vehicle.

 

Matt ... well said

Its hopeless because they ain't going to get it.

Edge might know this because I don't ... Edge? If you turn of DSC does ASC go off as well? In other words, no electronic nanny at all?

Worry about this for MINIs is also moot since DSC is, as found it, the same thing they are talking about in the new regulations. It already exists.

 

Using that criteria, we should all sell our cars and buy used Geo Metros! Absolute efficiency and applicibility is a standard on cars that non of us adhere to.

Matt

 

Well, Edge, it would have been nice to let me answer. First of all, not that it matters, but my wife bought the SUV before we were married. That aside, while we do not "off road" we do take it off road to remote campsite, river banks, and other dirt road forays in West Virginia. A minvan, and i have owned several, would rattle apart. And, no, I do not like the styling of minivans and do not feel that is a crime. No MINI owner can seriously say styling doesn't matter.

 

In first generation MINIs, yes. It's the same switch, and it turns off both DSC & ASC. There is no way to turn them off individually... except for not ordering DSC, in which case you only get ASC... but that is the opposite of what some people (like me) would like. I want the DSC-specific functions without the ASC-only ones!

 

Similar situation - I have a minivan and will soon have a Mini, and take my kid to guitar lessons. I'll be taking him to his lesson in the Mini, which will definitely carry his guitar. Not clear yet whether it'll actually carry him at the same time, but at least the guitar will get to the lesson on time

 

Matt, you're taking the argument to an extreme. Clearly a Geo Metro will not be sufficient as a family vehicle. I was merely making an observation that I believe to be true.Nobody was stopping you from answering... I posed 2 questions, and I made a general statement. Whether the statement applied to you specifically was not the point, necessarily.Well clearly, you're one of the 5 or 10% of SUV owners that does use the vehicle the way it was intended, so my statement does not apply to you. I never said it was a crime, I was merely pointing out my viewpoint on what actually happens out there in society. If you're going to defend SUVs, you have to accept there will be observations such as the one I made. Surely you can agree that when it comes down to the SUV vs. minivan decision, the vast majority of people who end up buying the SUV chose style over practicality? I do recognize that style matters to people. Of course it does... but that doesn't change the facts either.

 

Ok.. everyone step back from the coffee pot.... :-)

 

Thread moved to Off-Topic: Autos... because this definitely isn't R56-specific... nor is it really a MINI topic!

 

You're right edge. But, I have also heard a lot of arguments about how impractical the MINI is, too. You did quote me and did ask and answer, so I kind of felt you were directing your response to me. Anyway, no biggie.

 

Looking back, I probably shouldn't have put "No?" at the end of the questions... I can see how it appeared that I was answering for you.

 

SUV's get a bad rap for a couple of reasons. Most SUV drivers/owners have no idea how to safely drive the vehicle. Of course, the same could be said of most Americans and the vehicles they own.

I would easily surmise, 99% of the dangerous/hazardous encounters I have had on the road involved an SUV. Of those, 99% of them were occupied by one person.

I know many SUV owners who proudly proclaim, "the reason I like driving it, is when I get on someone's bumper, they move out of the way".

SUV's have no business being less than 200 feet behind any vehicle on the freeway, when at freeway speeds. Of course, when something like that is said to most SUV owners, they just laugh.

Anyway, it's not that I dislike SUV's. I just see them as very dangerous vehicles when they are operated in the manner most SUV drivers operate them.

I think SUV owner's should have to go through most testing to get a driver's license. Of course, I think most Americans, driving at all, should have to go through more testing.

The practice of handing a driver's license to anyone who can watch a movie is the root cause of most vehicle hazards in this country.

 

That's what the boot is for. As long as the seat belt wraps around the guitar, it should be safe in the front passenger seat.

 

Well, since my MINI is still on the boat, we are off to Virginia in our big, dangerous, MINI-eating suv. See ya guys later!

 

Edge, I have a really nice Prius for sale. Maybe you'd like to buy it. By comparison my MCS spews out much more pollution, it gets considerably poorer gas mileage, the back seats are much more cramped, area for storage is minisicule by comparison, and in a crash the mid-size Prius will more than likely fare better than my little MCS even though their passive and active safety apparatus is not much different.

My point being: If you're like the rest of us you drive the MINI because you love driving the MINI, not because it's smaller than an SUV. Those I know who drive SUVs love their SUVs. They bought them because that's what they wanted .. We bought our MINIs for the same reason. I say leave them be. They won't be around much longer. Let them fade away in peace.

 

Sigh ... now this has turned into SUV bashing ... again.

You made good points about people buy what they want or love. To each their own.

However, I seriously doubt they are going away. More and more companies are starting to make them. BMW has their new version of the X5. The larger ones might migrate to softroaders or the new buzzword ... crossovers ... but 4 x 4s or AWD is not going away. They are also getting better and better mileage.

If the real issue is gas guzzling or handling. Not everyone cares about "handling" for family haulers.:impatient

It seems many of the complaints are about poor drivers ... using the cellphone ... putting on makeup ... ALL of this stuff happens in EVERY vehicle. You can't tell me there are MINI drivers who use a cellphone that is NOT handsfree or cranking up there stereos so loud they can't hear the road.

Just yesterday a young lady in a parking lot nearly didn't stop in time doing 10 mph because she was busy on her cellphone and I WATCHED as she took her eyes from the road to attend to using the phone

And you know what? Its OK to hate SUVs. Just like some People HATE small cars and want Luxo boats.

Its OK to not like sporty cars or sports car ... some people could care less about them.

Its OK ... You don't have to like them ... but don't hold your breath hoping the automotive industry isn't going to follow the money, because in the end, its all about the money.

 

Actually, the Prius is classed as a "Small car" not a mid-size. The MINI is classified as a "Minicar" (source: IIHS). The 2004-2007 Prius and the 2002-2006 Cooper both had very similar frontal offset crash test results. They both received a "Good" rating overall. The Prius fared slightly better in the "Restraints/dummy kinematics" rating, although there was head contact with the B-pillar, roof rail and head restraint. The Cooper only showed contact between the left forearm and the head. (Prius report. Cooper report.) On side impact tests, the Prius scored "Good" if it had the side airbags, and "Poor" if it didn't. The Cooper scored "Acceptable".

Need I remind you of the stark contrast between those reports and the previous generation 1997-2003 Ford F-150 pickup. Ouch. Good thing Ford woke up and paid attention to the issue with the current generation.

Engineering is more important than size!Of course - people are going to buy the cars they want, based upon the criteria they determine to be important to them. That's a consumer's right, here in the USA.

However, I reserve my right to point out basic facts about the state of the situation, just as you do. My #1 beef on this entire topic is the gross misinformation that is out there. Many people have had their opinions skewed so far off-course from reality by marketing and by their peers.

Ask the average person if they were run off the road in a car accident and hit a tree, if they would rather be in:

• 2003 Ford F-150
• 2003 MINI Cooper

And the vast majority of the uninformed masses would pick the F-150 in a heartbeat, under the basic assumption that "bigger is safer". That same mentality follows through to so many people who buy SUVs, thinking of them as their own personal tanks. Read above to Skuzzy's "bumper" comment (post #63). This mentality is one of the factors driving the skewed popularity of the SUV vehicle.

The same gross misinformation applies to the wildly inaccurate MPG claims made for hybrid vehicles as well, such as your Prius. The tests need to be updated to accomodate this new technology. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike hybrids... in fact, I am excited to where the technology will lead, and not only for fuel efficiency, but performance as well. They DO get fantastic gas mileage, but as I understand it, the real-world numbers aren't anywhere near as high as the MPG ratings on the sticker... again, due to outdated testing methodologies.

Am I a subject expert? No. However I try to be an informed consumer, and I try to share what I have learned too. If I'm proven wrong on something, I'll admit it and correct my knowledge accordingly.

But I refuse to "leave them be" when the gross misinformation continues.

(Note: I do recognize that correcting misinformation requires a willing audience! )

 

And that's a tremendous shame. It goes back to the whole "passive" vs "active" safety.

Passive safety thinking already assumes you are going to be in an accident... and focuses on what can best be done to protect the occupants when it happens.

Active safety thinking focuses on avoiding the accident in the first place.

While both are important, it does seem that a large majority of the car-buying public here in the USA is much more concerned about passive than active... and many assume that a big giant steel cage (such as a large SUV) is their safest option. Then they find themselves unable to avoid the accident... and the top-heavy physics cause more dangerous conditions like rollovers.

I'd rather avoid the accident completely, if at all possible... yet still drive a vehicle with decent passive safety at the same time. The MINI is fantastic in that regard. Best of both worlds!

This is also why I believe that ESC technologies (such as DSC) are long overdue as being required technology... just as long as manufacturers continue to give the option of disabling them when conditions are favorable - at least on "sporty" vehicles.

 

Comparing a minicar with a large pickup is nor correct. Such a comparison provides misinformation Both those tests are front impact. No matter how loyal you may be to MINI, you can't change physics. From the IIHS where you linked.

Test results can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight. Like full-width crash test results, the results of offset tests cannot be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes. ... Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes. [the last boldface is mine] http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html

You can compare the MINI against other minicars but not a heavier car.

On the other hand, you can compare side impacts.

NOTE: Side impact crash test ratings can be compared across vehicle type and weight categories, while frontal crash test ratings cannot. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the side impact test depends on the weight and speed of the moving barrier, which are the same in every test. In contrast, the kinetic energy involved in the frontal crash test depends on the speed and weight of the test vehicle. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/side_test_info.html

This sure reads like the F150 comparison is meaningless unless you compared against other pickups. Same for frontal with the Prius. A "good" for a heavier car is always better than a "good" for a lighter car on front impact ... at least according to the IIHS as noted above. the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes.

Engineering is more important than size!

That does not reflect what the IIHS has appeared to state since you can't compare frontal impacts. Now you might argue that a better engineered crash impact zone or whatever its called might protect the occupants better ... but where is the emperical data to back that up? To be fair, the IIHS does say "typically", so if you got data to show that the MINI is, in fact, safer than a heavier car ... I would like to read it. Otherwise, you cant make these comparisons according to your source.

On MPG, I agree and so does the EPA. Real world driving does not reflect the EPA ratings and hence the new 2008 regulations ...

For the first time, the EPA fuel economy estimates will reflect vehicle-specific data from tests designed to replicate three real-world conditions that can significantly affect fuel economy: high speed/rapid acceleration driving, use of air conditioning, and cold temperature operation. Previously, these conditions were accounted for by across-the-board adjustments, rather than by vehicle-specific testing. ...

In the 2008 model year, the new methods would be used to determine the estimates. In 2011, a provision would take effect that would require manufacturers to perform additional cold temperature, air conditioning and/or high speed/rapid acceleration driving tests for some vehicles that may be more sensitive to these conditions.

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06009.htm#labtests

SUVs, for the most part, all have ESC systems. Cars lag behind and pickups way behind.

2007 ESC availability by vehicle type:

Cars
Standards 58%
Optional 17%
Not available 25%

SUVs
Standard 87%
Optional 2%
Not available 11%

Pickups
Standard 8%
Optional 19%
Not available 73%
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/esc/esc.aspx

As to turning them "off", I asked because I figured you had the info on the MINI at your fingertips. Looks like you can turn it completely off. This is just my opinion but I believe you will see more and more that you cannot ... ever ... truely turn it off. Maybe not today but its coming. I know for a fact that the ESC in a Porsche "can" be turned off but its really not off. Only the threshold where it kicks in is turned down ... just a sensitivy issue on the electronic sensors. I figure they must do that for a reason.

 

In a car vs. car scenario, I agree. But in a single-car accident (which, as I understand, most of them are), I disagree. An immovable object is an immovable object... whether that be a concrete barrier or a tree. If the object you hit isn't going anywhere, it all comes down to how well the vehicle is designed to protect the occupant when all of the inertia it has will be spread through the frame.

So in those circumstances, the comparisons are valid. The comparison I gave specifically stated running off the road into a tree. It was not misinformation.Yes, you can. It just depends on the circumstances of the tests. In a car vs. car collision specifically (or in this case, car vs. pickup truck), I agree, the offset crash test is not valid.Again, Art... which vehicle would you rather be in when running off the road into a tree?

THAT was the question I posed. Not meaningless.And, I agree with them - when impacting with another vehicle. Their test is against a solid wall, which is not with another vehicle. It very much applies to the example I gave.I never said that ESC systems were behind in SUVs. I said that requiring them is long overdue (in all vehicles).In 1st Generation MINIs, yep... you can turn it completely off.

 

Small Car? - See Links:

http://www.automotive.com/new-cars/s...ize/index.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

You're right about the Ford F-150. I think it's been the worst of the worst when it comes to crash testing - See Link:

http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150

On the other hand .. To be fair .. On researching the 2007 F150 - See Link:

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/sa...rd&model=F-150

 

Sorry, I consider IIHS categorization to be more valid than Google. I am only too aware of that blog entry - I've read the entire thing... in fact, it is what brought the comparison to my attention several years ago. It confirms the point I was trying to show above. However, Ford put a lot of effort into the current generation F-150, as shown in this follow-up story, also on Gabe's blog:

bridger.us » Archive » The Ford F150 vs the Ford F150

Nice to see Ford finally did put some effort into it.

 

If you're going to postulate that there is a criteria where one type of vehicle better serves a buying community than the one most purchase what is wrong with pointing out that there are examples of the very same type of absurd armchair marketing that would indicate that the Mini is far from optimal in almost any category. For small family, look to the small 5 door hatches, much more practicle. Want economy? lots of better options as well. AutoX, well, there are other options there as well.

Sorry to dump on you on this one, but anyone who postulates to others what better servers a subjective need shouldn't be surprised when there's push back. This isn't an SUV vs Minivan thing. It's a your view of my needs thing.

Matt

 

No offense taken. This relates back to the "style as a factor" commentary earlier. As drivers out there, our observations on people's "needs" are based upon what we see in the strangers around us. In so many cases, we see people in SUVs, and they are driving by themselves (no passengers) on the paved roads, without towing anything, and with a very clean vehicle that probably never saw a puddle of mud. So it's easy for us to view their "needs" as being very much in contrast with their vehicle choice... and this passive observation has been backed up by the active observations of my SUV-owning friends, of whom I have a good number.

Style however, is in many cases a factor we cannot passively observe. And style is very likely the determining factor when a person chooses between an SUV and a minivan for their larger vehicle needs. Again, in discussions with the aforemention SUV-owning friends, the mere mention of the word "minivan" when discussing why they bought a large vehicle causes a disgusted look, frequently attached to the words "I'd never be caught dead...".

Matt - I am never surprised by the responses I get (push back, as you called it), in fact I expected it... and as Art (chows4us) will tell you, I'm never afraid to have this discussion.

I never claimed perfection myself, either. Besides the "less than ideal practicality, yet heaps of style" MINI that I own, I also own a very impractical gas-guzzling Mustang.

My general disdain for the state of the SUV market has to do with them being sold as rough-and-tough off-road vehicles, yet bought and driven as grocery-getters and people movers. The fact that the industry started appointing many of them with ridiculous luxuries only emphasised the difference! When Cadillac, Lexus, Acura, BMW and Mercedes started releasing SUVs, I couldn't do anything but shake my head.

The thing is, unlike most other "impractical" cars out there, the impact of all of these oversized vehicles is not just on the owners, but the other cars out there as well. They affect us in two very deliberate ways. First of all, in greatly reduced visibility for all those behind (and around) them - unless they too join the "size race" and buy a large SUV themselves (when does it end?). Secondly, in the higher risk of having an extra thousand or two pounds of weight bearing against you in a vehicle accident... especially one that they can't avoid due to their terrible active safety shortcomings (i.e. braking & handling).

(Note, again, before bringing it up - my earlier comparisons in offset crash tests very clearly had to do with those against immovable objects (i.e. single-car accidents), of which the majority of accidents are)

When a vehicle choice only affects the person who chose to buy it, it's their own business. When vehicle choice starts to affect OTHER drivers out there, it very much becomes a point that we have a valid right to comment upon.