Evolution isn't a good thing for everyone. When a performance/sports/fun car is made more mainstream the performance/sport aspect is almost always diminished - whether it be the automatic transmissions, the extra weight of a NAV system/rear glass/10-speaker stereo/etc, or the gradual size/weight increase we so often see.

Just depends on your individual perspective.

 

the 65 was the raw-est, most racing oriented. They just got heavier, some quicker in the 1/4 mile, but none as fun on a road course.

Did you see the latest RAV4? It's bulking up.
The latest 3 series Bimmer is about the size of a couple models previous 5 series....

The cars keep pace with the belt line of the young, first time buyers...

Kinda sucks.

Matt

 

Yea, my wife owns the last gen RAV4 and loves it. She was considering trading for a new one but was turned off when they made it bigger. They're following the US makers example of just throwing a bigger engine in to make up for the added bulk.

Funny though, that the new RAV4 is the fastest vehicle Toyota sells in the US. I guess they've given up on the performance market.

 

And at some point (generally around the 6 year metric), it is time to release a new edition/version of the product that (ideally) offers improved functionality (otherwise known as bang for the buck). Would you not want the turbo-charged engine in the 2007 MCS? Every review that I have read of the E90 has been positive about the technical aspects of the new model. Styling is where you have the Bangle-haters squaring off against the ones that want to move on. For that matter, contrast the original Mini with the current (2002 - 2006) MINI. There certainly are differences between the two. I think the general consensus is that the current MINI is a dramatic improvement over the original Mini.

 

It might suck, but that is how a market economy works. A competitor comes up with something that the market wants and voila - the rest of the manufacturers have to follow. Otherwise, they disappear. Remember American Motors? The only thing left of them is Jeep and it is now owned by Daimler-Chrysler....

 

Oh, so that's how a market economy works. Always wondered about that. Get off da pipe, yo.

 

Well, I have managed to prolong the interest and extend my decision cycle. The dealer that I have been talking to about the 2006 MX-5 has given me a call option on a 2006 MX-5 configured exactly as I want. They are going to order one to my specification. When it arrives around mid-June, I will have until the end of the month to decide whether I want the one that was ordered for me. I will say one thing, they definitely want my business. Try putting together a similar arrangement with any MINI dealer - fugeddaboudit....

 

And how would you propose that things work? To each according to their need????

 

Yo, I'm juss sayin is all... Even in the capital-intensive automotive industry, there is always room for vision and innovation. It is not imperative that all other manufacturers follow a successful innovator or "disappear". Some can innovate themselves in a different direction and, inevitably, some will.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you. It is just that with billion dollar bets involved (and in an extreme case, corporate viability), there is a tendancy to get conservative. Look at BMW's experience with Chris Bangle - after a serious case of indigestion on the 7 and 5 series, his attempt on the E90 was toned down. Yes, there are some cues, but nothing like the anthropomorphic s**t (my personal opinion) of the 5 series. His effort at transforming the 2007 MINI seems to have been limited to tweaks and manufacturing cost reductions, not bold new strokes. Did Ford take a bold new direction with the new Mustang???? Conservatism, conservatism, conservatism.

 

Great. I don't necessarily disagree with you either. I think we're good.

 

that most evolution of a particular car is to make it more "mainstream".

1) Mustangs got bigger and heavier.
2) Thunderbirds got bigger and heavier and DIED!
3) Honda Civics are now the size of early accords.
4) BMW 3 series are getting bigger.
4) New RAV4 is larger.

There are a few that stay true to their theme, like the Corvette (While it's size and shape have changed, it's still a 2 door 2 seater).

It seems that once a marque has established a niche, increased expectations have it's theme diluted more to the mean. So small gets bigger etc. While this may increase sales numbers (the NSX never really hit high numbers, and never really changed either!), it sure is a dissapointment to most that were drawn to and bought the first versions!

So the Miata will probably do a bit of the same. It will make the early ones all the more appealing due to their more pure form and function.

Matt

 

Well put! That is why the 1st generation Miata appealed to me when I bought my 95 a few years ago. I never should have sold it. Pure sports car form and function. I'm going to pick up another early Miata in a year or so (not to replace the Mini) to use for Spec Miata racing.

 

One might also remember when Mazda did go the other way. The last RX-7 much more of a pure sports car than the model that preceeded it. And while it was applauded by the press for being so focused, it was also criticized for being cramped and harsh... and it also never sold very well...

 

Never compramized it's mission, and kept selling at low, but consistant numbers.

One of the problem with the expectation of never ending growth (in sales and many other things) is that it's not something that is sustainable.

It's also sad that a lot of product evolution to capture a larger market sacrafices the market that the early adopters found so appealing. I guess it's just the nature of the beast.... Boo hoo!

Matt

 

I would blame that on sales price, not necessarily the car. That was a time period when cars like the 300ZX, Supra and RX7 were released with pretty high sales prices, and all languished on the lots as a result.

Unfortunately, this period is still sticking in the minds of those manufacturers, as evidenced by no Supra (or sportscars period), a bloated Z, and a watered down RX-8 (which was admittedly not supposed to be a replacement 7).

 

The Corvette is a great example of evolution. By the 1995-96 timeframe, the 4th generation was tired and the production concept that had pretty much been in place since the origin of the Corvette in 1953 (separate frame that the body bolted to) had been beaten to death. If something revolutionary was not done, the Corvette was destined to be a footnote in automotive history. There was even discussion at very high levels of GM about killing the model....

Fortunately, a stealth project was initiated within Chevrolet to release the 5th generation of the Corvette. What resulted completely re-invigorated the brand and arguably, Chevrolet. The 5th generation Corvette is radically improved (in every measure) over the 4th generation. In the process, the 5th generation Corvette became more mainstream than previous generations. The benefit was increased sales of the Corvette and higher showroom traffic for Chevrolet.

Personally, I think that things such as an optional powered hardtop will help the viability of the MX-5 (and by extension, the MINIc). Don't be surprised if you see a powered hardtop as an option for the MINI in the not too distant future. It is going to be available within the BMW models starting with the E90 convertible in I believe, the 2008 timeframe. The market wants things like a powered hardtop for convertibles - there are only so many buyers that will put up with the downsides of a traditional soft convertible top. For BMW, it is all about growing the market for the respective model. After you have pretty much tapped the supply of buyers that are willing to put up with the soft top, if you want to continue to grow the market for a convertible car (MINI in this example), you have to offer what other buyers want - in this instance, a powered hardtop. And if in the process, you make the early models more desireable, then you have the best possible result - a win-win.

 

If you look at the sales numbers of many cars, some of the freshenings don't increase sales. Other things come into play, like cost cutting (65-66 Shelby Mustang, 428 motor instead of the 427 and 429 for Ford) or the desire to risk less (ie going Mainstream). I guess that if the design follows the market, all cars will become the Camry or an Explorer! (or whatever else vanilla product is the king of sales now).

Don't expect a power hardtop for a Mini. There's barely room for a softop, and NO room for a folding hardtop.

And I wonder how many people who went to look at the new corvette actually bough a Cobalt, or an SSR or an HHR or whatever. I'm not sure that a better Corvette does much for Chevrolet in terms of selling commuter cars. At least it does keep them in play in performace cars, after the death of the Camero, and must drive Porsche batty that you can get so much of the 911 performance for a fraction of the price. The new (old) chevy small block variations have done something to get more power into more chassis though...

I like the Ferarri philosophy, build one less than people want to buy! Instead of build too many, and then discount heavily! One thing Mini has done is NOT overproduced, so the dealers can still make good $ being in the Mini business, and we don't see "Mini Employee Pricing" just to move the 6 month back-log of unwanted cars off the lots so a new 6 month backlog of unwanted cars from the next model year can sit outside, unloved, in the rain!

Matt

 

Zzzzz.

 

Cost-cutting? Or, margin increasing (although, they can be the same net effect)?

But what about the new 2007 MINI? There may indeed be room for a power folding hardtop....

I don't know either, but the marketing types get all excited about building showroom traffic. So, whatever floats their boat, as long as I can get fun, exciting cars in the bargain.

I would imagine that Porsche is going bats**t right now with the C6 Z06 - 500 hp and ft/lbs and 24 mpg on 91 octane pisswater out of a 7.0 liter motor.... Where is the justification for the Turbo? And all for a MSRP of ~$70K....

The only thing that the old and new engines have in common is displacement, number of cylinders and normal (non-forced) aspiration. Internally, they are completely different beasts.

I would say that MINI/BMW has been masterful at executing the concept of build one less than people are willing to buy. In the S.F. Bay area, the dealers are still getting MSRP+ for the cars. You can find a car at MSRP, but it typically involves getting a loaded one. It is even more of an accomplishment when you look at the volumes involved.

 

Are you bored by the pedantic conversation? It is a sunny day out; you could get some rays right about now.... Better savor the sun while you can; we are supposed to get some more rain this evening.

 

I have not read this entire thread, but i am one of the people who have given up modded miata life for a MCS. I sold my 95 Turbo miata in the fall of 2005 in order to purchase my 06 MCS hardtop.

My 95 had my DIY intercooled, turbo kit using an AFPR and Greddy E-Manage to control fuel & timing. I was running 8-10 PSI, probably 180-190 at the wheels. Konis & coil overs, roll bar, race seat, FM BBK and more...

It really got past the point of being a daily driver, and a few years back i picked up a 97 subaru wagon for poor weather.

Don't think that you are going to put together a 270 HP miata and drive & care for it like a stock or lightly modded MCS. It takes a bit more care & feeding, and I would be concerned if anyone tells you different.

I have posted a few times on some of the reasons, but here are the highlights:

IMHO, a heavily modded car often exceeds the spec of the stock car in one way or another. In my (and many other) miatae, it was the transmission. you really could not beat on it. I broke one, and never really beat the gears again. Changing transmissions is a PITA.

It was not always reliable. Granted, I made my own kit, I am sure that some of the others out there are more reliable.

IT was dicey to drive in anything but perfect weather, and even that could be iffy. It's a lot of power to not a lot of rubber in a small wheel base car. I am sure for drivers who are more experienced than me that is fine, it was more car than i could handle.

more unpractical than the MINI. While I really loved the convertible, the hatch of my MINI just makes more sense for me in day to day living.

I can drive MINI almost every day of the year, while miata sat a few months out of the year.

bone stock MCS is about 80% as powerful as my turbo'ed miata.

THis is very ramble-y, but all in all the MINI just fits me better than the miata. Still love miatae, just not as good of a fit.

 

This is a good bit of information. Thank you for posting. Some follow-up questions:

1. Have you traded in your Subaru that you had for when the weather was too bad for the Miata? It sounds like the MCS is your only car. If the MCS is the only car, then I would completely agree the MCS is a better solution as an only car.

2. Flyin Miata seems like a reputable tuner in the Miata world. They didn't think that there would be problems for the NC (2006+) Miata's transmission to be able to handle the increased output from either their t/c or s/c kits. Do you think I should get more information (basically look for second and possibly third opinions) from other tuners?

3. What about the fun factor? If you didn't have to worry about the weather, which is more fun?

 

Zzzz.
Oh, wait... did someone say crap? No? Ok.
Zzzzzzz.

 

And this bit of wisdom is relevant how?

I happen to be enjoying this thread.