MINI anniversary gift

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/26/officially-official-happy-50th-its-the-mini-coupe-concept/ said: Rumors have been swirling for months about what BMW would do on August 26, 2009 for its Mini brand. After all, that is the fiftieth anniversary of the public debut of Alec Issigonis' original Mini. With most of the speculation revolving around either a coupe or some kind of cropped windshield speedster, it turns out the reality was somewhere in between. Unlike the original coupe of the Sixties that simply had a fastback replacement for the standard square-back roof, the new MINI Coupé Concept completely replaces everything from the beltline up. The upright windshield that has been part of the Mini look from day one is finally swept back and a truncated roof covers the remaining two seats. All pretenses of being a four seater has finally been dispensed with for the new coupe. The shape of the roof indicates that should Mini move ahead with production, and it could easily be replaced by a folding fabric unit to create the anticipated speedster model. What's more, dumping the rear seats means Mini could theoretically add a hefty brace back there restoring some of the structural integrity lost in the standard convertible, or perhaps restore some cargo room as compared to the Cabrio. At this point, it's unknown if those B-pillars are are tinted glass or just big solid blind spots, but visually, the lower half of the car remains pretty standard R56 John Cooper Works. Although we don't have images of the interior yet, it sounds like it's largely standard Mini, although there are two clocks hanging off the sides of the steering column mounted tachometer much like the so-called Openometer in the convertible. One tells time while the other is a stopwatch for recording laps. The MINI Coupé Concept will be shown publicly at the Frankfurt Motor Show next month alongside the production version of the new Crossover.

gets my approval

Interesting, but until they get rid of that godawful interior I'll be looking elsewhere.

Way better than the crossover abomination. Now if they could just make it RWD.

I approve of everything from the B-pillars forward, but I don't like that back end. It looks like they melted it.

AWD would be fine

TJ wrote: Way better than the crossover abomination. Now if they could just make it RWD.

Uh, then it wouldn't be a Mini.

Outside of the GT5 abominations, no Mini has ever been RWD. Ever.

(as an editorial, I think many of the auto boards needs to get over this FWD, RWD BS- most of who complain about it never drive the car to the limit so that they even can tell the difference. Unless you are a pouser who thinks that oversteering in snow or ice just makes the car that much better.... There have been enough FWD cars that are better than many RWD cars that you should all realize that it's about set up and development over layout.)

Eric

I think they should have looked at some past Mini-based coupes for inspiration, like the Mini Marcos or Mini Jem http://www.minimarcos.org.uk/memcars/minijem/terdle/index.html

That will for sure get put on the "in the future" list. Very nice.

alfadriver wrote:

TJ wrote: Way better than the crossover abomination. Now if they could just make it RWD.

Uh, then it wouldn't be a Mini.

It's not a Mini - it is a MINI. They are not the same thing.

how did the Marcos go from this:

to this:

??

Rabbit, I posted the Mini Marcos, which was a funny little Mini-based offshoot they did for awhile. Generally, when people think Marcos they're thinking of the Marcos GT, which is obviously much closer...

http://classicmotorsports.net/reader-rides/63/

I understand your editorial. First I know BMW is not going to make it RWD. Second, I think that if you are going to make a small front engined two wheel drive two seater you can choose to make a miata or a del sol. I would rather have a miata than a del sol (I guess that's why I have a miata and not a del sol).

Perceptions are important and I think if it were RWD then it could be marketed differently. Not saying RWD is better.

I'd keep the b/c-pillar white. Not sure why that little section is black.

As for FWD/RWD, I have to disagree. I now drive a mildly powerful FWD car, and it reminds you it's FWD everytime you press the throttle coming out of a turn. Inside wheelspin and the accompanying stability control handslap make it not as much fun as my lowly 165 hp E30 in those situations.

How did Marcos go from a kit car body for Mini mechanicals to a race car? Easy, 45 years of evolution. Check out a 1966 Audi and then compare it to the Le Mans dominators.

MINI isn't all that good at looking back at their past, witness the "Clubman" which is an Estate and not a Clubman. Besides, the Marcos was an aftermarket body.

And RWD vs FWD? There's a difference I'll have my Mini at the track in a couple of weeks, and I usually have a Miata there instead...

Actually, the Marcos GT predates the Mini Marcos by several years: http://www.rory.uk.com/history_of_marcos_cars.htm

ah... once again, i learn something new everyday...

speedblind wrote: I'd keep the b/c-pillar white. Not sure why that little section is black. As for FWD/RWD, I have to disagree. I now drive a mildly powerful FWD car, and it reminds you it's FWD everytime you press the throttle coming out of a turn. Inside wheelspin and the accompanying stability control handslap make it not as much fun as my lowly 165 hp E30 in those situations.

If you drove a pooly set up Fox Mustang, that would not be much better. It would remind you that it's a poor RWD set up.

It's just that the whole FWD/RWD debate gets old. Note that the most recent Challenge winner was FWD. And see whoes fastest in STS2? I'll give you a hint- it's NOT a Miata.

Set up. That's what is more important than layout. IMHO, you have a poorly set up FWD car.

And, Kieth, I'm not talking track here, just street (ignoring my Solo II reference). People have this obsession, that borders on quixotic.

Eric

TJ wrote: I understand your editorial. First I know BMW is not going to make it RWD. Second, I think that if you are going to make a small front engined two wheel drive two seater you can choose to make a miata or a del sol. I would rather have a miata than a del sol (I guess that's why I have a miata and not a del sol). Perceptions are important and I think if it were RWD then it could be marketed differently. Not saying RWD is better.

For this case, one could not market a MINI as an updated Mini. And I'm pretty sure that it would not have sold as well, too. For sure, it would not have looked the same, since the nose of the car would need to be longer to accomidate the interior space....

Funny how you point out the RWD when your avatar is a Mini.... ironic.

E

I prefer RWD, but it's a wholly subjective thing. I just like the feel better. By most any objective measure, it's pretty meaningless.

Note to self: MUST post the FWD/RWD/AWD shootout article.

alfadriver wrote: And, Kieth, I'm not talking track here, just street (ignoring my Solo II reference). People have this obsession, that borders on quixotic.

You mentioned that people who had strong opinions on the subject never drove their cars to the limit. Driving cars to their limits = track use in my mind. Sorry

I do like the purity of a RWD setup. Rear wheels drive, front wheels steer. In a FWD setup, the rear wheels are basically there to keep the back of the car from dragging and the fronts are asked to do EVERYTHING. There are a lot of reasons to go FWD, but the driving dynamics do suffer.

STS2 might have been won by a FWD car this year (I'm assuming it's a Honda of some sort, I don't follow SCCA) but of course that's going to be an artifact of the rules. Remove those artificial constraints and it's pretty tough to find a FWD purpose-built racer.

Keith wrote: STS2 might have been won by a FWD car this year (I'm assuming it's a Honda of some sort, I don't follow SCCA) but of course that's going to be an artifact of the rules. Remove those artificial constraints and it's pretty tough to find a FWD purpose-built racer.

Check the Alfa 156's in the ETCC series. They are FWD. Just to show that FWD can be a dedicated race car.

Still, for everyday use....

E-

I'm not saying they can't be dedicated race cars. Heck, look at what the original Mini did, to keep on topic! I said "purpose-built". A 156 is a production car, and the rules say it has to retain the same drivetrain configuration as stock. In many series, there's handicapping to make the cars more equal on track. But remove these artificial constraints (that's a fancy way of saying "rules" ) and you'll see AWD and RWD, but not FWD.

But yes, for everyday use there are a lot of other aspects to be considered. Packaging and drivetrain loss are two big ones. I personally prefer RWD to FWD in the snow but I'm not everybody.

Aside from the FWD Vs. RWD pissing match, I kinda like it. That being said, IF we do get it, it will be some time before any used models depriciate enough for it to be in my price range.

Keith wrote: I'm not saying they can't be dedicated race cars. Heck, look at what the original Mini did, to keep on topic! I said "purpose-built". A 156 is a production car, and the rules say it has to retain the same drivetrain configuration as stock. In many series, there's handicapping to make the cars more equal on track. But remove these artificial constraints (that's a fancy way of saying "rules" ) and you'll see AWD and RWD, but not FWD. But yes, for everyday use there are a lot of other aspects to be considered. Packaging and drivetrain loss are two big ones. I personally prefer RWD to FWD in the snow but I'm not everybody.

The reason that most purpose built race cars are RWD is because it is easier to package as most race cars are mid-engine (and no NASCAR doesn't count in this discussion). Oh and I love the MINI coupe concept. MINI should build it.