I'm sure that's what a lot of people said about the Pontiac Aztec.

I hope, if they still are intent on making the MINI more main-stream, they do so without sacrificing all of its originality. Either way, its looks like I'll be holding on to my '05 for a long time. I much prefer SC, even despite gas mileage concerns vs. Turbo, I think its a better means of aspiration.

Oh well, perfection from a big company can only last so long.

 

I'm with you on that SoCalSam

 

I don't understand why everyone would be so quick to assume the worst. After all - this is the same company who designed, engineered, and built the cars we all love. Am I missing something here? If BMW and Rover engineers created our cars in little time with less than adequate drivetrain engineering input, don't you think they're going to create something even better with much more money, better engineering, and more time to develop a truly modern engine?

 

What he said....
Car design must move on or the MINI badge will die like Rover has. I think the new one will be just fine thankyou. Likely my next car (that or an M2... or a Elise... or C6 Vette... or or or or well we will just have to see). I hope that the S this time will be more about sport, and less about touring. That is to say light weight and a sports package instead of an up line package - in keeping with the original S. But that will not happen.

I am wondering about the MCS vs MC. Both use a turbo.
1....Where does the power difference come from?
2....In the S there is a lot of talk about the small difference in power. What does the rest of the power curve look like? Will the new motor have more power down in the lower RPM range?
3... Should I get an 07 MC and just chip and retune the turbo?

Tic Tock, I guess I'll have to wait a while.
John

my edits.. I numbered my questions. In question 2 I want to know the power curve in 05-06 MCS vs Next Gen MCS. Power curve comparison between MC for 05-06 vs Next Gen MC would be nice as would Power curve pics for next Gen MC vs MCS. Not asking for much am I?

 

I also wonder if they can offer a 140HP Mini Cooper at the same price as the current model. I think I'm going to order an '05 or ''06 if I can ...

 

Because its not about "better." Its about mass-marketing, which is the way the MINI is starting to go. This mean less enthuasist nuances, as the car buying public does not care about them. It also means more vanilla everything. To me that's worse.

First sign is they're going with a turbo-charged engine. I'm not a fan of turbos in general, though they can produce slightly better gas mileage. Not a huge fan of making it larger for a silly third door. The changes I've heard about seem geared towards a large market. They represent a dumbing-down of the car.

Really it comes down to this: the MINI started as a niche car with nuances and superb styling. It will become something closer to a Focus, or so it seems. I hope I'm wrong.

 

MINI was always going to be line, not just a model with a variation here and there. Some of the options that have floated here and in the general press are consistent with the history of the original Minis. Clubman, small van, 2 seater variants; they all sound interesting.

Dumbing down the car is making a SUV, eliminating performance and handling, making the rear seat DVD more important than LSD -- that's dumbing down. But BMW and its dealers have invested a lot of money and they fully expect to get it back with (lots of) interest. As long as they continue to make something like the MCS or JCW MCS for folks who like to really drive, eh excuse me, motor then I don't see the problem.
I personally prefer the supercharger to a turbo. Had 'em, didn't like 'em. Besides, I've gotten attached to the SC whine. Still, the weakest link in the MINI is the Chrysler powerplant. And there is no manufacturer that does better powerplants across the board than BMW. So if they can keep the performance up, improve gas mileage, longivity, and still deliver a fun driving experience I don't care if it's racoon powered.

 

Well,
The thing that got me worried is when the MotorTrend article said "IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE COST". Is that a bad thing. No. Though it is a bad thing when the rumors already say that the inherent stiffness of the car will not be anywhere near the current versions torsion ratings. Another words, the car is gonna’ flex people…Seems you WILL need strut bars front and rear like in many other cars to improve the overall stiffness.

When they say that the complicated rear suspension will be removed, (i.e. the BMW 3 series suspension) to further reduce cost...Thats not a good thing IMHO, that suspension (makes) the 3 a great handling auto.

I really hope that they can "cut cost" and still provide the same auto.
Sometimes a division can, most of the time when it’s the "bean counters" telling engineering/design how to build a car, it turns out to be not what you would call a “drivers car”. It’s a (lets hit the majority of the market) type of car.

Look at BMW's record. The e30, first official 3 series auto up till ~1990-91. The M3 set records all over the world. BMW Engineering I read at that time did all their hand calcs then ((doubled them)). Which is why you can improve an e30’s suspension almost 200% w/o worry of a structural failure... Which is why you can practically race these cars as is.
(Great car for SCCA)…

--Ahhhh, then came the e36(~1992-1999). CAD with FEA and the "bean counters" took the lead in design. What do you get? You have record amount of cars that- sure, get better gas mileage/ more power/ aero dynamic have the latest looks and gadgets...But to anyone that wants to (improve their auto (upgrades)) you have to now worry about the rear end of the car RIPPING OUT!!! This is true in all 3s. The sedans, coupes, convrts, the Z3s even the famed M3...All have an inherent structural weakness due to.....You guessed it...."In an effort to reduce costs"....Is it a bad car…Nope, I had one. Loved it. But was always in fear of the “rear floor failure” happening to me while tooling down a back road… And on top if that, there are documented cases of this condition happening in some E46 models (2000-2004) 3 series autos!!!

All in all, just be careful when the main thrust of “improvement” is “money” or hitting the largest demographic for your product.

Sound familure?

 

This article, from the current AutoWeek, says that the stretched versions are in addition to the normal-length versions. No real new news here aside from apparently confirming the stretch MINIs, but better pictures of cars apparently closer to production than I've seen before.

Mark

 

Any new news on the engine?