need I quote more?

 

MM -

That's his opinion. I hardly think that constitutes fighting.

 

I believe another thread needs locking...

 

Why?

 

This thread was one of the most level headed forums on the R56 test drive I had read. People who knew their R50/53's and had driven or at least been following the R56. No names were called everything taken as an opinion that could be discussed but not attacked. I partly agree that the R53 was done to rekindle an enthusiast crowd, but that it became so much more. I believe that people, myself included, will be enthused (sp) about the R56 for our own reasons. Personally the possibilities of a turbo are something I am very interested in. Do I want to hear my engine go? Yes. Ill put an exhaust on to give me some noise and I hope to watch the aftermarket explode like the R53 market did. BMW had many things to deal with for the evolution. I believe they did a wonderful job. Skip you asked yourself the question, "How could BMW have improved on the beloved aspects of the R53, met the new pedestrian laws, and made a better car for the R56?" I would love to hear answers. I am hearing from many people that while close up shots of certain aspects of the new car might seem odd that overall the car looks just like a MINI should. So no I hope this thread does not get locked and I hope people can just read the forum and realize that NAM is a place to exchange ideas, and yea there is a lot of sarcasm and joking that i think alot of specifically new members, myself included till I read old threads, dont realize this and take it personally. Thank you for listening. I hope we can continue to discuss.
Bryan

 

I hope so too, Bryan.

I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again - the R56 is not a bad car - in fact it's a fine car.

My wants in a car are different from yours or Dstock's or C4's. I have a work vehicle and my wife has her car. My personal car is for recreation - I don't care about the commute or the ride. My focus is narrow - I want a part time track toy and a car to take on twisty back roads. BMW would not make alot of money selling my vision of the car.

Eval said it best - the R53 was a niche car. The R56 was built to appeal to a broader audience and address the complaints from the R53. I like the burble - but Mini got a lot of complaints - alot of buyers thought something was wrong with their car or that the noise was juvenile. I liked the rough ride - but that doesn't work for someone who has to commute in the car everyday. My disappointment with the car is based on what I wanted from the new model - period.

I have already stated in this thread the the R56 is a fine car and will compete better with a wider range of buyers. Some visual elements aren't to my taste but the car handles, rides and accelerates with the best of its class.

 

As I am of BMW's. Just helped a buddy put an engine back into an old R50/2 Sunday.

I'm a motorcycle freak, really. The reason I gravitated towards the MINI was that it's the closest thing on 4-wheels that comes close to mimicing the exhileration of 2... plus I can "ride" with the wife and two young kids all at the same time. Family fun!

If the R50/53 was such a hard-core, enthusiast oriented, niche car... how do explain features like the automatic tranny, CVT tranny, convertable, sunroof Nav, MP3 adaptor, heated seats, cup holders and all the other things that were geared towards a WIDE VARIETY of MINI owners and drivers? (Not gashing any of these features - I ordered a few myself - just illustrating a point, so please keep reading ).

MINI has offered the same options and made the same attempts to be a user-friendly "everyman" car since the beginning. The bonnet on the previous generation was just a little cuter.

I believe (based on recent posts from Alta and Webb Motorsports) that you will start seeing R56s that have been geared up as hard core track-day weapons, too. Some may even rise to be be better attacking the twisties than those that came before.

Either way... ALL MINIS (and Minis) MOTOR!!!

 

Quote more? Taking an individuals original post and splicing one sentence into another is not a quote. You are taking my post as a whole, splicing it to your liking, then claiming I said something different. For the record:

What you claim I posted (Your "revision"):
That about sums it up for a lot of us R53 owners... another classic forever lost.

What I actually posted:
For those of us that remember, the same thing happened with the BMW 2002... another classic forever lost.

I have no problem if you shorten a quoted post to conserve board space, but the behavior of quote splicing to change the context of an original post is immature and inflammatory.

As one can see in my original post, I'm discussing my opinion on the loss of the classic BMW 2002, not the MINI. The BMW 2002 took multiple revisions before this classic was lost. MINI may be on this same path, or they may not be. The R56 has taken a single step in a different direction, if MINI contiunes to take these steps in future revisions, the essence of what was the R53 will be lost. It remains to be seen if this will be the case.

 

No one is claiming it was a hard core car and no one is criticizing cupholders, MP3 players etc. The basic character of the car was different. It came out of the box with some rougher edges that gave it a more edgy character.

Sharing of opinions works well only if people are able to discuss their view points without being taken out of context or having to defend themselves from statements that were never made.

It's simple, BMW is trying to sell more Minis. The car needs to be palatable to a wider audience. The R53 (note I have never mentioned the R50 in any of my posts) had some character traits that kept it having a wider appeal. The R56 has addressed these traits. Some of us lament this loss. That's it - no bashing of the R56 (except for the panel fitment), no questioning of cupholders, no bitching about NAV or the MP3 player - none of those arguments have been made - so why do I need to explain them?

Or is this the essence of the argument - that a car's suitability for the track is based on the number of cupholders it has? If so, you're completely missing the points that have been raised here.

Again, I'll make reference to the Road and Track article that compared the stock GTI, Civic Si and JCW MCS. A lot of people around here were proud that the MCS took third because it was noted by the Editors that it was the enthusiasts choice and that it was penalized for not having the commuter comfort levels of the other two cars.


From the Intro:
another quote:

Quote:

....This hyper-reactive personality can be a double-edged sword. While a blast to throw around at anything above about seven-tenths, for more pedestrian everyday use, the Mini's short wheelbase and quick steering can make it a bit darty as a daily driver. Add to that its less-than-supple ride (especially with our test car's optional 18-in. wheels/tires) and the Cooper S loses Points to the more refined Honda and Volkswagen. Also hurting it are quirky ergonomics and seats that aren't nearly as supportive or comfortable as those of the other two.

Quote:

That it ended up third (The Mini) in our test shows that despite its enormous appeal, being cute and quick doesn't necessarily guarantee a win. To finish on top in this group also requires refinement, versatility and everyday livability to go with that sparkling personality.

From the Wrap-Up:

Quote:

Despite its rough ride and twitchy in-town manners, the Mini Cooper S is a hoot that many hard-core enthusiasts would still give the nod over the other two. Its excellent power and light weight make it the purist performer of the bunch, but too many little quirks hurt its overall appeal.

Quote:

If you plan to do an occasional track day, or some serious back-road bombing, the Mini Cooper S is the best choice. Though slightly twitchy, it's the most responsive of the three and therefore the most fun; the harder you drive it the better it works. It would be my choice, despite its "too-cute" looks and ergonomically disastrous interior

 

my "revision" and your full quote had the same meaning.

Ask yourself, "Why are so many people getting angry at me?" Be honest.

 

Am I missing parts of this thread?

Who's angry with you? What are you talking about?

 

Back to a bit on topic...

In my test drive of a GTI and an R56 MCS Monday it's still very clear the R56 has more roughness around the edges out of the box than the GTI. Maybe BMW moved it just a bit to win all the categories of the next comparison test?

Going back to what Dave and others said about targeting the enthusiast.... I think the real performance enthusiast ultimately wants a great base for a performance car (any MINI, WRX, etc.) or something all out like an M3, GP or STi. I don't think the R56 is any more or less a great base than the R53 is.

 

I am all the way with Skiploder. I test drove the R56 Cooper and MCS back to back and for the most part liked the cars. I recognize the improvements BMW has made to the machine..It is smoother, more emphasis in comfort, etc.

I think that most people (including myself) have a problem with the overall looks of the car, or shall we say, some of the design details that made the previous car such a feast for the eyes. But that horse has been beaten to death too many times already.

In my view, MINI is clearly persuing the VW GTI market audience. The R56 is a better looking and better handling and more appealing rendition of the MK5 VW GTI. When Autoweek first tested the R56 in the Netherlands last November they ended their commentary by saying that while the R56 was a more refined MINI, they were not sure if MINI needed to put another "GTI" in the market. I think that sentence (I 'll look it up later for the exact quote) pretty much sums it up.

The R56 is BMW's ideology of what the 21st century MINI should really be... a fun, comfortable, good handling, highly customizable baby Bimmer.

The previous car was more in tune with the rawness of the original and more "British"in its demeanor.

Again nothing wrong with both approaches, but in essence, the new car has been watered down so more masses and more $$$ come under the BMW fold, simple as that.

 

Thanks Skiploder, I did not say anything about the first car being hardcore anything, but that it was designed at a different time with different intentions and goals, and yes to appeal to the 'enthusiast' (I'm not going to restate everything, so for full intent and context you can go back to my first posts).

In any case, someone posting a review and their opinions is not bashing, and this thread was going well towards the end of reasonably discussing these opinions until it was redirected by people, which is really the sad part.

Every Mini model, every option, every color has people who like it and people who do not, expressing this POV in a review is not bashing or sad or some bad mark on NAM, its what its all about, aside from exchanging information forums are, well, a forum for opinions and reviews and even rants. I don't see the problem of someone posting their .02 in their own thread revewing something, and this thread was not about bashing.

Let me show you bashing: you post a thread saying "Wow, Should I buy/I just ordered/I love my new _________ (insert anything, regular Cooper/Hyper Blue/Convertible/Automatic)" and the response is "MCs suck and have no power/Hyper Blue is an abomination Indi Blue was the only way/the Convertibles are hideous/ all "slushboxes" are wretched" etc etc, with the only way to go their way. See the difference in context? The first (this thread) a rational review posting opinions in his own thread, and the second an attack and put down in someone elses?

Anyway, all of my examples have happened here, some as reasonable opinions and others as bashing, its just the way forums, and people are - some nice and respectful, others brash and rude, it doesn't reflect anything bad on this forum or detract from what it offers, and the ruffling of some people's feathers should not deny others the right to state their opinion.

It would be fab to see low-brow ignorant type bashing go away, but that ain't gonna happen, so the choices are to ignore it, call if out and get caught up and defend your choices, or get fed up and leave, the last choice only hurting you. But please try to make the distinction between reasonable opinions and bashing before getting offended and diverting a perfectly good thread.

 

I prefer to think of it simply as changed, different, or evolved. Saying "watered down" puts us on that slippery slope again. I know what you meant, but the way tempers flare around here you've got to be careful about phrasing.

dean.

 

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting about the exploding egos

The R56 is "stirred" the R53 is "shaken".

 

I like that.

dean.

 

LoL.. I can agree with that!

 

[quote=msh441;1385240]As I am of BMW's. Just helped a buddy put an engine back into an old R50/2 Sunday.

I'm a motorcycle freak, really. The reason I gravitated towards the MINI was that it's the closest thing on 4-wheels that comes close to mimicing the exhileration of 2... plus I can "ride" with the wife and two young kids all at the same time. Family fun!



YOU need to check out a Grinnall Scorpion. YOU will LOVE IT. From my seven years of driving one, I assure you that it will give you all the exhilaration you can handle and more...on three wheels rather than two. But remember, what's exhilarating to some folks is terrifying to others. What's not to like about 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and scorching curve cutting in a flyweight machine?? I get the same big GRIN on my face every time I drive it. I'm looking forward to my 07 MCS, but already regret selling the original 62 Cooper to finance the buy. THAT is the original raw car, not this modern job, nice as it is, that's been around since 02. I like ALL the Minis, but the newer generations have nothing on the old school ten foot box for stripped down basic road ripping fun. And then there's the Grinnall Scorpion...860 lbs of two seater low slung minimalist driving machine, running anywhere from 110 to 135 hp K series BMW drivetrain. Like I said, what's not to like?
www.grinnallcars.com Tell Mark that the owner of #151 sent you.

 

And in the end, still a great Martini, er.. MINI

 

Hmmm, BMW did not win over this female. I like that the R56 is not as loud but other than that I like the R53 a lot better... and the ride to me is actually harsher...

 

That's exactly the same reason I chose a Mini as well . Really looking forward to that aspect.

 

How did you find the clutch in the R56 vs R53?

Curious about your female perspective...

 

Skiploader,

I've re-read the posts at your suggestion, and maybe we are all being too sensitive to the R56 negativity. However, maybe it was just the straw here after seeing so many posts that are not constructive against the R56. The Mini is many different things to many people and there are things I admire about both generations as well as dislike. I am like several others on this list who wanted to order a Mini the way we want it and this is what is available now and so that is what I will get.
Also, one of my previous responses to you was based on a post you later edited where your response to someone else was "sack up" which I found inappropriate and apparently you did too.
Anyway, moving on...

From the sounds of things I will have my Mini "stirred" not "shaken"!

 

You know guys, I was really impressed with the automatic Cooper I test drove...