R56 Automobile Magazine 2007 Mini First Drive
#76
Originally Posted by sequence
My point is that you stated that the Tritec was a BMW-Mercedes joint venture. It was not. Get your facts straight before posting.
p.s. I forwarded an email to Dr. Z telling him to get this damned inaccurate bit of the Daimler balance sheet off of his financial statement. Hope you approve.
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom...0-0-0-0-0.html
'Course once the PSA/BMW "Prince" engine becomes reality this month, maybe Dr. Z will unload this bit of his balance sheet to the Chinese.
#77
Originally Posted by atcql
I can remember when the Porsche 356 was replaced by the 911,almost the same arguments about the newer version.Is old always better? Just my two cents.Q
Look what happened to the Neon SRT-4's replacement...It's a frickn Neon raped by the Dodge Ram :impatient
#78
Originally Posted by MGCMAN
Muffy, lock up the good wine...Yes there will be some R56 owners coming to the meet. What to serve then?.. Oh, anything with a screw cap or from a plastic bladder.
MGC III
MGC III
Pigeonholed again! I actually HAVE had wine with a twist off cap that I thought was pretty good. Oh, well.
I'm now pretty much ready to concede.
#81
#82
Originally Posted by Ords
For me, reading other Automobile critics review is just that, Reading.
Personally, the only way I'll be able to tell if I like the R56 or not is to get in it and drive it. Something I would bet 99.9 % of us haven't been able to do yet.
Until then, I'm going to enjoy what I have now.
Personally, the only way I'll be able to tell if I like the R56 or not is to get in it and drive it. Something I would bet 99.9 % of us haven't been able to do yet.
Until then, I'm going to enjoy what I have now.
#83
#84
Historically speaking, you guys do know that the original Mini was built to be a CHEAP car, right? I owned a 62 Cooper. I loved it. And I realized it was a cheaply built box. And I loved it in all it's cheapness. Buy what you want and be happy! And all you guys who are so wrapped up and worked up with this bigger/bad thing...if you were TRULY SERIOUS, you'd all own an ORIGINAL TEN FOOT BOX. :-) Drive what you want, and be happy! I just looked at production line photos of the 07s and personally I LOVE that new blunt nose. Embrace change, boys...you can't stop it. The 07's are coming to get you...bahahahah!
Tom
Tom
#85
Originally Posted by AgBul8
They aren't the same people, you've identified at least two separate groups in your post. The avid owners, who don't complain about the harsh suspension and would complain about a soft one, and the "majority" owners, who would argue opposite points. Professional journalists fall into neither (well, except Brock Yates, et al.).
#86
Originally Posted by working4an07
No. I said that the professional journalists called the suspension "harsh" on the 2002-2006 MCS, and now a professional journalist is calling the suspension on the 2007 MCS soft.
(note: the example of liberal media is meant in now way to set off a political discussion, its just an applicable example IMO, PLEASE do not take any more than that from it... )
#87
Originally Posted by clarkdr81
But not all professional journalists are the same, so you are unfairly putting them all in the same category.
I was just saying that I read many reviews for the 2002-2006 MCS (by professional journalists) that said the suspension was too harsh. Many reviews, as in more than one professional journalist coming to the same conclusion. Now I think it's funny that one of the very first reviews of the 2007 MCS points out that the ride is too soft. It was just a comment. I think it's funny. No need to be too serious about it.
#88
Originally Posted by working4an07
So they aren't in the same category? Of course they are. They are professionals. They have much more knowledge of vehicles than the average person. They are critics. They make their living off of it. It isn't unfair, it's what they are. Yes, I understand that they have different opinions, but so do wine critics, or movie critics, or whatever. But the basis is that they are all suppose to be well educated about what they critique.
I was just saying that I read many reviews for the 2002-2006 MCS (by professional journalists) that said the suspension was too harsh. Many reviews, as in more than one professional journalist coming to the same conclusion. Now I think it's funny that one of the very first reviews of the 2007 MCS points out that the ride is too soft. It was just a comment. I think it's funny. No need to be too serious about it.
I was just saying that I read many reviews for the 2002-2006 MCS (by professional journalists) that said the suspension was too harsh. Many reviews, as in more than one professional journalist coming to the same conclusion. Now I think it's funny that one of the very first reviews of the 2007 MCS points out that the ride is too soft. It was just a comment. I think it's funny. No need to be too serious about it.
Its all cool...
#89
There will always be lightweights!
[quote=MSFITOY]One thing for sure...ten years from now, every sports car will weigh 5000lbs and die of it's own weight...
Your crystal ball may need dealer service.
5000 lbs? Not as long as there's people like Caterham and Grinnall. My Grinnall Scorpion weighs 860s with over 100 hp. www.grinnallcars.com
Your crystal ball may need dealer service.
5000 lbs? Not as long as there's people like Caterham and Grinnall. My Grinnall Scorpion weighs 860s with over 100 hp. www.grinnallcars.com
#90
[quote=surfblue]
Can you afford one?
Originally Posted by MSFITOY
One thing for sure...ten years from now, every sports car will weigh 5000lbs and die of it's own weight...
Your crystal ball may need dealer service.
5000 lbs? Not as long as there's people like Caterham and Grinnall. My Grinnall Scorpion weighs 860s with over 100 hp. www.grinnallcars.com
Your crystal ball may need dealer service.
5000 lbs? Not as long as there's people like Caterham and Grinnall. My Grinnall Scorpion weighs 860s with over 100 hp. www.grinnallcars.com
#91
surfblue does have a point about the original mini...and you know, that may be next on my wish list (i'd love to own one of those old "boxes")! Although I've got to admit...that forthcoming traveller looks pretty damn great...it may end up next on the wish list! If this new engine pans out (and we'll have all of next year to see if it does before the traveller arrives in '08) the traveller could be one hell of a vehicle!
Chuck
Chuck
#92
#93
Originally Posted by lurch70
I have been a subscriber to AUTOMOBILE magazine for a few years now ... and I have never heard them say many bad things about ANY BMW product in general ... sometimes making me feel that I am reading a BMW trade magazine.
So this little review leaves me a bit worried ...
So this little review leaves me a bit worried ...
#94
#95
Originally Posted by clarkdr81
Good point. In fact for the most part I get the impression that most of the car magazines are very biased toward supporting BMW. While I like BMWs, their praise for BMW has gone a little too overboard at times...
As for the softer suspension....less chance of expensive "mushrooming" of the strut towers, especially with the 22 inch wheels and rubber band tires some will have to get.
#98
mileage
[quote=resmini]
What kind of gas mileage does that thing get.
No matter how hard I thrash it it doesn't go below 35 mpg. Cruising the backroads I get 40-42. Remember, it wasn't built for economy. It's definitely a minimalist performance sports car. It gets sold only after I'm in the ground.
Originally Posted by surfblue
What kind of gas mileage does that thing get.
No matter how hard I thrash it it doesn't go below 35 mpg. Cruising the backroads I get 40-42. Remember, it wasn't built for economy. It's definitely a minimalist performance sports car. It gets sold only after I'm in the ground.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SosoMINI
MINI Parts for Sale
30
11-22-2015 03:17 PM
fm.illuminatus
R56 :: Hatch Talk (2007+)
0
08-10-2015 12:15 AM
jrezzo
MINIs & Minis for Sale
0
08-09-2015 10:32 PM