You know, one thing I'd really like to see are side by side photos of the 2002-2006 models next to the 2007's. I mean same color, same angle, distance, perspective, etc. That would give us all a much better idea how much the new 2007's differ in appearance. I suspect that the changes are in effect fairly subltle.

For example, here is a crude composite (not sure the scaling is perfect by any means) of a side view of a 2007 superimposed over the diagram in our 2002-2006 owner's manual of the Mini's (the MC not the MCS) dimensions (from the .pdf version of the owner's manual).

If anybody has better pictures (ie. MC vs new MC, MCS vs new MCS, JCW vs new JCW) and is better at this overlay/compositing thing you could probably do much better than my crude 5 min attempt in Photoshop.

Here is the crude composite image and the 2 pictures I scaled/merged together to arrive at the composite.

I can definitely see the difference in the hood up front, but the tail of the new car actually looks shorter (maybe it is not an accurate diagram that I'm superimposing or the side photo isn't squre on) and I don't see much of a change in the beltline/greenhouse and roof line. The fuel cap has moved back a couple of inches though.

Food for thought.

Dave

 

check out this thread
https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ad.php?t=80786

 

Dave, that's the best objective comparison I've seen yet. Would be really good if we could find the line drawing for the R56 and overlay the old in red and the new in blue.

 

Here's a "not so accurate, but slightly revealing look" at the differences using an R53 rendition and an R56 rendition. I think that it clearly shows the bumper height differences as well as the rear corner hump on the R56, the headlamp position, the beltline, etc...



...again, no claims of accuracy here.

 

Pick up the new issue of Automobile magazine!

 

Wow, the front end really is a bit higher. It would seem that a custom air dam would be necessary to make up the difference.

 

The combo drawing keeps making me thing I should be wearing 3D glasses. I like the side by side

 

Dang cool comparisons.

The red/black line drawings line drawings are a bit off, though... the roofline (overall height) of the R56 is LOWER than the current car. So I think it's a tad off and over accentuating the rise in the front bumper/grille of the car.

Also, something struck me while looking at the 1st profile pic with the line drawing overlay: The leangth increase up front combined with the more bulbouse hood is reflected by a DECREASE in the glass space at the rear end. Despite what some have assumed: the rear didn't get more booty... it actually TRIMMED DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY at the beltline! Do you think MINI was trying to somewhat mask the (minimal) increase in the cars overall size by shifting the visual line foreward a bit on the chassis?

Still a darn fine job, though. As a photoshop noob, I like 'em both.

 

Here is a photgraphic comparison. I superimposed two images and lined up the wheels. The areas where the car has grown are easy to see. There is also a slight change in the shape of the door.

 

I think that picture says it all, or pretty close to all, anyway.

 

I may have quoted the wrong post here, but the red R56 drawing is unfinished. The area under the grill is missing. That's why it looks so high.

 

Unfortunately it says two different things to two different people:

1. The car has balooned entirely out of proportion and it might as well be a mini van now. The dream is over.
2. It's a little taller on the front and a wee bit bigger in the back, but it really hasn't changed all that much.

 

True about differing viewpoints. However, I submit that reviewers and experienced MINI enthusiasts aren't gagging when they see R56. If anything, the reaction is "a little here, a little there...but it's a MINI." In fact, the guy from Fifth Gear joked that they sent the wrong car....and one of their early reviews even dinged R56 for changing so little!!!

These comparisons are valid in that we want to know more about R56 and, short of driving one, we naturally obsess. I'm one of the worst (maybe). But in the end, direct overlapped comparisons have their minute flaws and we don't actually know what those are, do we? What's a dimension change...what's perspective...what's a different camera angle? In the end, one will always look larger....because it is.

However, when I watch the Cooper promo videos (I admit...over and over), I love the car on it's own merit. It's lines and profiles are very nice and very Mini. A lot of other folks seem to think so, too. That says more, imo, than comparisons only because that's the level at which these cars will be actually seen (however, I will say that sexy Scottish...or even Spanish...landscape would make any car look good).

Don't get me wrong...I welcome more efforts at comparison. Ya gotta try. It's only a part of what we have, though. Let's consider it all before we go saying "there, see, I knew it...it's oversized and bloated....the car is ruined!!!" That's not the info coming down to us from reviewers or from enthusiasts who have poked around R56.

 

The problem is your scale. Your pic that "says it all" is misrepresenting the true dimentions of the new car:

Your suggesting that the R56 has grown by 2-3 inches in the front AND 5-6 inches in the rear. Again, the roofline R56 is actually LOWER than the current model... the rear overhang hasn't changed... and the front has increased by 2.4 inches and the hood is raised for the larger engine/new crash standards. That's it.

The wheel arches are bigger and the belt line has risen with the hood line, but the other dimentions have stayed the same. Visually the new MINI feels bigger, and gives the impression of a bigger car, but the actual measurements don't support that. Again, only the taller hood and longer nose.

The first post represents this perfectly. Look at it again. The black & red line drawing is pretty darn good (especially considering the scale and complex angle of the two drawings). Your photo, well...

 

Fixed...



...thanks!

 

I find it kind of funny that in all these R53/R56 discussions, so many people say the R56 is awful, or is no longer a MINI, or is cheap-looking, etc, and/or keep trying to persuade others that their view is best. Personally, I just don't care for the new one, is all. Anyone can think anything they want, AFAIC. Whatever anyone else thinks is their own business.

 

COOPERation....that is interesting!!!

 

These are the two images I used to create the composite photo. It certainly looks like there is an increased overhang at the back...

 

Do the old and new have the same wheelbase?

 

Oh my...you're so cute...but...you're older brother is...mmm...less...no...more...oh, never mind...you're both cute even though you're cute in a chunkier way...bigger is better...but don't tell your brother I said that

 

The R56 is not square to the camera, so the front appears slightly smaler than it really is, and the rear appears slightly larger than it is. (you can see the b pillar through the car on the R56. on the R53, you can't)

 

Yes - according to this the wheelbase is unchanged: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=117072

Looking at the two pictures again, the first generation seems to have the camera lined up with the middle of the car while the second gen has the camera nearer to being lined up with the back wheels. This would make a slight change to the perspective but it still looks like the extra three inches is at the back rather than the front. However, the Edmunds review says there is an extra 1.5 inches at the front.

The fifth gear review mentioned that the back window was chopped due to the higher waist line. These photos suggest that the back window is the same height as the old car but is longer which makes it look chopped.

BTW: I think they have done a great job with the new car. Of course it has changed but I am amazed at how little.

 

You are so impressive Nice job

 

According to MINI... yes, wheelbase and track are the same. Makes sence since the floor pan of the previous car was the only thing carried over to the R56.

As far as body measurments provided by www.MINIUSA.com and www.MINI.com:
Leangth (bumper to bumper): R53 - 143.1 inches... R56 - 3714mm (146.2 inches)
Width (wheel arch to wheel arch): R53 - 66.5 inches... R56 - 1683mm (66.25 inches)
Height (ground to top of roof): R 53 - 55.9 inches... R56 - 1407mm (55.39 inches)

Working in the design field, maybe MSFITOY is the most qualified to speak to this... but I think some of the bulbus design cues (raised hood, belt line, bigger wheel arches) are giving the "visual feel" of a larger car. Seems that on paper at least, that's just not the case. That's all I was trying to say.

 

Then I would think that as long as the two pictures are taken from the same height and angle, as in having the B pillars in line, the pictures could be resized so that the wheels overlay each other. We would then get an accurate overlay comparsion.