What a soap opera. My R53 looks like a silly clown car. It is an over-engineered German design, and the car was built by disenfranchised Turks in England--a recipe for disaster. I quietly think Allahu akbar every time it starts. It has bad paint and a crappy engine with no power but is incredibly fun to drive. My STi friends, with their great drivetrains but merely stiffened anycar rides, are always amazed at the gocart handling of the MINI.

The R56 is a bloated abortion with an Americanized ride--a half-masticated R53 vomited out of the nostrils indifference of into a mold of conformity. But I'm guessing that the ride is reparable, and the turbo engine would seem to have tremendous potential--which is what really matters (insomuch as cars really matter at all).

People need to get over themselves. These are cars, not people's mommas. Anyone who finds himself/herself getting emotional about someone vociferously insulting an R53, R56, or any other car would be better served by forgetting about cars for a while and hanging out on http://www.eharmony.com/ .

 

Yes, in spite of the assorted misgivings that have been articulated about R56 I believe a long overdo "credit where credit's due" should go out to the MINI designers who didn't "make things bigger" but "dialed the proportions in" specifically for the new car. They've stated that this was their goal and, after all is said and done, I'd have to say this is exactly what they did. The changes are soundly motivated, I feel...not just for show...and that's what good design is all about. I also applaud that they didn't allow themselves to be too hampered by R50/53, although they kept the basic design vocabulary. No, they designed a good looking R56...a MINI that would stand on it's own merit. I a way we/I have done a disservice (although a perfectly understandable one) by doing so many side-by-side comparos with the old and new models. Each stands on their own, imo, and neither have any apologies to make. R56 design group...I salute you!!!!!

 

You know, from photos I had thought, as so many many reviewers have stated, that the new Minis looked similar enough so that most normal non-enthusiasts would not notice the changes - however I saw my first R56 on the road yesterday evening and I no longer think thay may be the case; just in seeing it drive by the headlights looked really large, and primarily due to them and how they are placed the car really did look different then the R53s that came before and after it spinkled in the flow of traffic (yes SF is a Mini city, they are everywhere ). It did give the impression of being bigger too.

I didn't have the chance to stare at it, but from seeing it out and about it struck me the same as from the pictures...

 

I will give the R56 design team this kudo... they have made the R53 design a modern classic and secured its high resale value for years to come

 

I had the chance to see both the 53 and the 56 side by side at the Phily auto show...and as an industrial design major planning on an automotive design career I truely appreciate some changes that have been made, while others seem to take the "attitude" away from the car. With the new regulations that drove many of the design changes, as well as the cost fators, I think the designers of the 56 did a fabulous job tweaking the lines of the car to hold onto as much of its "mininess" as possible. While it has slightly larger demensions...which are pretty obvious to someone familiar with the design of these car...it held onto the bulldog stance pretty well...and still has lines that clearly distinguish it from the GTI or any other car in it's class. Its the small detail changes that are purely design features that dissapoint me throughout the car. These are the points that i feel were the major changes, whether good or bad:

1. Headlights: gap between the chrome and light unit (from detaching them from the hood) adds visual space, making the headlights, which are pretty much the same size, seem bigger. The lights being angled outwards slightly takes away a bit of the alert appearance of the front end. The more verticle and straight forward lights of the 53 remind me of the perked up ears of a dog when it's called...kind of an "ok lets do this" look.

2. Side view mirrors: slightly angled down on 56. It's clear that the designers went over every part of this car carefully...because i feel this change balances very well with the change in the headlights...but once again takes away a bit of that alert feeling I love so much.

3. Interior: I think the design is wild and moving, but slightly overdone for this style car. The 53's interior set a base for the mini having a unique and exciting interior. The 56's had to keep this feeling goin, but i feel like some parts were overdone, even a bit gaudy...if thats how its spelled.

The bottom line...the 56 is just as kick a$$ as the first gen mini. It's a much different car, but over all has held true to what a mini is. While personally I prefer the sportier, trimmer design of the 53, I have to give the bulldog stance award to the 56...I'm waiting to drive one before I make any judgements beyond the appearance of the car...

IF THE MARQUE SAYS MINI, MOTOR ON!!!

 

I'm not so sure...if R53 resale values remain high it won't be because of appearance or even pure performance, it'll be because of the supercharger whine and relative ease of tuning.

 

It is, drive a 2006 Cooper S then the 2007 Cooper S, big diff between the supercharger and turbocharger, the gearing changes help a bit too. The increase in fuel economy is substantial, if you can keep your foot out of it. BTW, I for one like the new styling and features of the 2007. For a classic Mini owner, that says a little I think.

Oh, I might be a little bias since I bought a 2007 Cooper S last night, its plain looking now but won't be for long.

 

I bought my Dec 2006 Cooper because I didn't like what I saw for 2007:

-- Nearly everyone seems to agree the 56 (2007) is the same or worse aesthetically...
-- Many of the nice curves have been flattened (esp in the hood), probably because it is cheaper to produce...
-- The proportions on the 56 (2007) are odd... the rear-end especially...

And I find it sad, because I really love MINI and want to see MINI release awesome, great looking cars that do well!! The 56 (2007) might still be a joy to drive, but in my humble opinion, it just doesn't have the same great looks as the previous 53 model...

I know they probably aren't, but I hope someone over at BMW/MINI reads this thread and takes MINI design back up a notch!!!

 

I'd say that is a very big stretch, but you are right in that many of us have our preferences, one model over the other, and have learned to live with that. I think for most of us who like R56, it took some time to grow accustomed to the revisions. Now I have no problem w/ it. For me it's all about one's perspective on the whole thing.

It's like that with many things...some things I tolerate, some things I love. Pluses and minuses. For me the pluses outweigh any possible weaknesses by a long shot.

I could go through a very long list of criticisms of R53 but I won't/don't out of respect for my fellow MINI enthusiasts and for their personal aesthetic preferences. I would hope the same can be afforded owners of R56. To each their own MINI, I say.

 

True. I didn't mean any disrespect. We could have this same discussion around classic Coopers vs BMW Coopers...

I was trying to summarize what seemed to be a common first reaction that the R56 takes a little getting used to. Thinking back, the R53 also took some getting used to -- it's easy to forget that... I always wanted to compare it to the Classic Cooper -- the R53 seemed so big and sloped in comparison with its raked back headlights contrasting with the old-school upright headlights of the classic...

I also own a classic Jaguar and have come to like how the R53 has a more pronounced retro-60's flare -- although that said, it the R53 looks decidedly futuristic sitting next to my Jag...

I think the new R56 pushes the design even farther away from the 60's and more toward a contemporary edge, which is admittedly not my personal aesthetic. But the R56 has some interesting new options like the interior wood and lights which I think are really cool...

 

It is amazing how many first-generation (or early) cars designs come to be known as "the best" or "the definitive example." Those glass headlights on XKEs will always look amazing. And how many of us picture exposed door hinges when we think of a classic Mini, not to mention flip-up headlights on Miatas!!!

I do think by the time the Clubman comes out most of us will have developed a healthy regard for R56 styling, but I also think R50 and R53 will maintain a strong following for many years to come...and that is a good thing. There's something about my R50 that I will always love and cherish.

 

[quote=hillwalker;1493342]True. I didn't mean any disrespect. We could have this same discussion around classic Coopers vs BMW Coopers...

i wish everyone could just say what they want, tempered only by common courtesy and site guidelines, so that this discussion, and nam.com itself, could be what it was intended to be. c4 has a point of view which is not entirely unjustified, that this is all becoming too self-censored. i'd like to hear what anyone has to say, and i certainly wouldn't get bent about criticizm of the particular model that i have...

 

Even though this thread is about the styling of the two models, I began to wonder what the reaction to the R56 would have been if the S had remained supercharged, Because I think the change to turbo had more effect on opinions than the body styling. I was initially a bit turned off when i found out the R56 would be turbocharged, even before i saw the first spy pics. I think that many 53 owners would agree that the feel, sound, andperformance of the S/C were immediately linked to the driving characteristics, handling, and the completely awesome experience anyone has when they go motoring. Since the rebirth of the car the whine of the supercharger has defined the way this car sounds, and has been the part of the mini that has said, "yea, its faster than you think!".
I will be test driving a 56 in the next 2 weeks or so, and I want to make sure that when I get behind the wheel I try not to expect that all too familiar sound. While i'll be the first one to say that the sound of the S/C is one of my favorite parts of the mini, no sound, styling change, or functional hood scoop (had to take one little punch) will ever top the feeling you get when you hit the happy pedal in a MCS. I pretty much expect the 56 to give me the same ear-to-ear grin I got the first time i drove my 53, and as long as it does, I think I'll start to see the similarities between the models instead of all the differences and changes. I think many R53 owners feel like the heart's been ripped out of the mini, but the turbo really just does the same thing a different way, and does it more efficiently.
I'll admit, and i bet a lot of others could probably agree, when i heard of the S/C to turbo change, I immediately saw the R56 as a different car, instead of the next generation of my beloved R53, and just like any different car, assumed it couldn't compare. The styling has grown on me, although i still prefer the old style, the new one is a great lookin little car and I bet that once i drive one, when I see a mini fly by with turbo whistling and spitting air through the blowoff it will be just as good as the fine wine of the late and great supercharger.

I still like my supercharger more!

 

You won't be disappointed, minizeeg. I had a 2004 MCS and just picked up my 2007 MCS Saturday. The performance is awesome! But, I do believe a great deal of the "issues" expressed in NAM have, in fact, been about styling. I like the styling of both. Originally, I liked the R53 more. Now, I like the R56 more. Personally, whether its the R50, R53, or R56 anyone may prefer, I cannot take as credible anyone who claims styling was not a factor in their decision to own a MINI.

 

oh I can definitely agree with you on that. The styling of all these cars is almost magnetic to people sometimes, no matter what gen mini it is. If that was in regards to my comment above, I was sayin that i think a lot of the criticism of the 56 from 53 OWNERS is influenced in part because the supercharger is gone. no complaints could be made about the turbo's performance, and even for me, i kinda looked for other things to have a problem with cause i was bummed to see the end of the eaton. I know it swayed my opinion at first...but as i get more and more info on the 56 and get used to the styling changes, its like a proud younger brother to the 53...haha. I actually got the pleasure of having a new MCS pull behind and follow me on the drive to work today. I have a decent amount of work on mine so i didn't expect it to keep up completely, but when i got a little frisky he really jumped right in and we had ourselves a little motoring session...it was fun...and it got me even more excited to get behind the wheel of one...best of luck with ur new gocart!

 

One of the members of our local club just took delivery of an '07 MCS, and we met "her" for the first time at a meet last weekend. I test drove one several weeks back and at the time wasn't paying much attention to aesthetics but rather performance. It feels much different than my '03 for sure but even the '06s feel different since the early builds came with SS+ standard. That's one of the things I alternately like or don't like about my car depending on road conditions, lol, is the amount of feedback. My first car was a '63 VW Beetle which I loved, but no car until the MINI has made me feel as much a part of the road, though I obviously can rip it up a whole lot more and a whole lot faster in the MINI.

Aesthetically speaking, despite the tilted up headlights, I didn't notice as much of a marked difference from the front as I did the rear, especially while driving. There were about 12 cars in our meet, I took up the rear, and the 56 was maybe 2-3 cars from the front. Wow, those rear fog lights really ARE visible, even from that far away on a bright sunny day. Even if you take the rear fog lights out of the equation though it still does not look at all like the R50/53 from the rear. "Subaru" kept jumping in my head but I don't really know why, so I can't really say it looks like one, but it doesn't look like the R50/53 either. (I'm originally from the cold snowy northeast and have a deep appreciation for Subarus btw.) And I kept zoning in on the rear fog lights, even from that far away.

All this to say... it is a different car. I prefer the R53 styling myself but can see why the R56 is the way it is. It makes me feel good to know I own a modern classic and even if I eventually get a newer model I hope to keep my current vehicle a good long time.

But then again the R50/53 is a vastly different car from the Classic--even more so than between the R50/53 and R56.

One thing about the turbo... even though the s/c supposedly is maintenance free, it has an expected lifespan of 100K miles. I'm sorry, but in this day and age 100K is not the expected lifespan of most cars... so it is good to know that if you keep up with regular oil changes the turbo is also good for the life of the engine...