Let me just say that I am one of those early adopters that predicted that the R56 would be better than the R53 in almost every aspect. I openly made this prediction several times on this forum.

This past Saturday and today, I got to test drive a brand spanking new red/black R56 MCS.

I have to say that I was a bit taken aback by the exterior. This has been mentioned several times before, most recently by C4, but the fit and finish on the front portion of the car is ghastly. Additionally, the side repeaters and the new front end are, to me, a disappointment. A lot of the proportion and visual appeal of the old car is gone. The new car looks quite a bit like a carciature of the R53.

The interior has some nice new elements - the leather seems to be of a better quality and there is an overall better quality to the materials - with the exception of the center stack.

The speedo/climate control/radio combo is gimmicky and again, seems like a cartoony caricature of the R53. I hate to beat it into the ground but alot of the design elements of the new car look as if someone drove an R53 to the Boardwalk and had one of those hack cartoonists draw a cartoon of it. There's something insectile about the new headlights, the car seems out of proportion with the wheels and the interior has some exaggerated elements that are - to but it bluntly - goofy.

Anyway, on to driving impressions. As I currently own an Evo, I am comfortable in admitting that I don't put too much of an emphasis on the looks of a car - for me it's 90% in the driving experience.

The new TC engine has a better torque delivery and stays in the sweet spot a bit longer, but I did detect a bit of lag. Additionally, some of the directness of the old car is gone. The steering and handling feels better than 90% of the cars on the road, but again I really preferred my long-gone 03 MCS - to me the R56 has not improved on this aspect of the R53.

I remember my first test drive of an 02 MCS - I remember the noises, the feel of the whole package. The car came off as a throwback to cars that made a lot of noise, handled like a waterbug and smelled a bit of gasoline and oil. For me, the R53 captured those fall afternoons in my dad's old 911 or TR4A.

The R56 is more refined, probably a tad faster, but it feels like it's lost a bit of the R53's soul. I'm not trying to start a war here, but regardless of the rattles and little bugs, the R53 had *****. It wasn't the fastest car at the track, but it had character and it won it's admirers with its blatting, whining and bulldog grip.

The new car has sanded off these rough edges but this, at least to me, has detracted from the character of the first generations MCSs.

It's really about the intangibles. To me, it feels like BMW forgot what the first car was about.

Don't get me wrong, the R56 is a fine car, and will compete well with the GTIs of the world. Tons of people will buy them and BMW will make alot of money. It was not, however, what I expected. I guess I expected for BMW to improve on those things that made the R53 so much of a hoot. Instead, it seems like they purposely got rid of some of the things I thought were special in an effort to make the car more mainstream.

The whole scene kinda gelled for me when during the test drive I saw a tech from the dealership road testing Sad Arthur (Jerry's 05 JCW MCS) replete with his orange track shoes. I followed Arthur around for a few blocks with the window down, listening to him fart and whine, admiring the clamshell hood and the more integrated look of the old car. At that point it hit me that no matter how many horsepower the new JCW has, if I buy a Mini again, it will be a used 05 or 06 JCW.

Again, just my opinion. No need to agree or disagree. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion of the new R56. Just thought I'd post my take on the new car.

 

Nice review Skiploder.

Put on the flame suit, you'll need it.

 

I'd be curious of your impressions of sport-mode on and off.

 

Did you push it to the limit?

 

 

Moderately, I got a bit more of a drive today. Took it on some backroads and pushed the handling, revved it a bit higher.

 

Sport mode on: Steering a tad heavier, slightly touchier throttle response. Look - alot of cars have the sport mode function - this one's no better or worse.

 

Frank, you've seen the car in person. Is it me or do the proportions look weird? The body panel gaps are one thing, but the car looks like it's a lot bigger than its wheels.

The rear end is essentially like to R53 but the rear bumper down looks like a bed sham and the front looks strangely flat and bulbous at the same time.........

 

Thanks for the review I appreciate your opinion.

 

No you are not crazy

The problem is compounded by the higher beltline and the thicker wheel arches. 15" or 16" wheels that in the prior car looked OK and proportionate now look ridiculous and small. What killed the re-design was the stupid EU pedestrian laws. This put the BMW designers in a conundrum of epic proportions. The bonnet is flatter and not as curvy as before. The headlights are swept back creating the "insect" bug appearance plus they are big. The rear bumper I actually find OK and better integrated with the body but the front is exarcebated by the nearly vertical black grille.

The bigger side mirrors don't help and if you pay close attention, the rear quarter glass has shrunk in size creating this tall body vs short roof pillars effect.

The hump in the hatchback is a little bothersome. I can actually live better with the rear of the car than the front.

Did you see the big ugly black piece of plastic running under the front chin of the car? Major scraping point.

The fit and shutlines of the bonnet are horrendous. I have seen 3 demo cars with ill fitting bonnets.

Over at mini2.com I saw pics of an aftermarket lowered version of the R56 MCS and the car looks worse

The wheels look tiny, the wheel arches huge and the front end more bulbous than ever before. You can almost see a huge overhang of the front end with the car lowered. After seeing those pics, I now understand why MINI decided to raise the ground clearance of the car: To counter effect the huge wheel arches and higher beltline.

There was a new '06 R53 MCS right next to my tester R56 MCS and the R53 rides so much lower stock in comparison to the new car.

 

As requested I won't agree or disagree, just state an opinion. I like the R56 and its looks (at least the MC, wasn't interested in MCS). Given the regulation problem I think the engineers did a good job of retaining the look, but here again, just an opinion.

I can appreciate the nostalgia of past memories and why you feel the way you do. I may appreciate the more refined R56 (and have one on order), having opted out of a MC purchase a few years ago because of 'lack of refinement', but I am sympathetic as my Dad had a TR3 when I was a kid in the 60s. Now the TR3 was fun!!! About 15 years ago I almost bought a fully restored TR3, was only 8 grand, could kick myself for not....

Keep your memories alive!! I think I'll go call my Dad....

 

Thank you and enjoy your R56

 

I think they had to give it more suspension travel because here in the States, at least where I live in the Northeast, the roads were causing so much damage to the front strut towers that it was costing BMW a fortune in warranty claims. This along with the Euro front pedestrian safety standards have compromised the styling just enough that it looks a little odd to those of us used to the look of the R53. I'm sure it's a better car, but it's styling no longer stirs my soul. Still looks much better than the current VW GTI.

 

I thought I was crazy, too!!! One runs the risk (including me) of nit-picking every thing and over-analyzing just the parts and pieces and how they may be larger/higher/lower. I've seen R56s every day since they hit the showroom and you are absolutely right...some of the pieces look weird up close. But you back away and take in the whole car...it all looks right somehow. I've stopped by the lot time and time again and there are R56s and R53s side by side, all in a row. Yes, upon inspection one can find differences to pick out......but back away and they read the same. I still look at the profile of the boot up close and wonder....but then I step back and it's perfect. Very weird...but I like it!!!

 

My old man had sold his TR3A when he had to go to Vietnam (money to help my mom out while he was gone). I wasn't born until after he came back - so I never got a ride in it - as a kid.

My dad has a picture of himself at about 20 years of age driving down the street with my older brother (who was probably one at the time) stuffed and swaddled in the passenger seat.

Last year at an event at Laguna Seca, I ran into a gentleman who had a pristine white 1961 TR3A. We got to talking and he told me he was from Monterey and he was the second owner who bought the car in 1966 from a guy who was shipping off to Vietnam!

So I call my old man on the phone and to make a long story short - they confirmed the connection. My dad came down that afternoon and the two of them ended up going to dinner and talking club racing, etc, etc.

Anyway, enjoy your R56!

 

Thats a great story

 

+1! Great story!

 

Very cool story--you should tell somebody at Speed or Motorweek about the story.

 

I actually thought about writing in to C&D for one of their 10 best issues and see if would get printed - I'm not sure if the old man would want the story shared like that - he's kinda funny that way.

When they were talking, my dad was explaining to Miles (the new owner) that when my brother was an infant, they could never get him to fall asleep in his crib. So at his bedtime, they would feed him, change him and bundle him up for a ride in the TR3A. My dad would cruise around until he fell asleep and then they'd put him in the crib. The noises and smells of the car seemed to comfort him. He struggled hard with selling the car because he felt that he was not only selling something important to him, but a connection that he intimately shared with his infant son.

Miles tells my old man his history with the car and how when was going through his midlife crisis, working and driving the car kept him focused and sane. Anyway, they were able to reminisce about the car without getting too sappy. All my dad said later was "I'm glad she found a good home - I was worried about that guy when I sold her - he seemed like a beatnik - shows what I know."

All this history and emotion from a car that brand new did 0-60 in something like 12 seconds.

 

Yea, but when I was about 6-7 years old that was an awful fun 12 seconds!!! Wonderful story. I called my Dad after my post and we talked about his old TR3 for a while.

 

Skip ...

I've inverted you post and highlighted some key points you've made...

I understand there is some siblling rivarly here between the generations but setting that aside, consider what you have said ...

It feels like BMW has forgot what the car is about ...

To who? The performance enthusiasts? OK, I'll buy that. But what about the other 80% of the buying population, the silent majority, who haven't a clue the difference between a supercharger or turbocharger. This is not a judgement on your opinion, just an observation that for enthusiasts this might be true, but not necessarily true for the masses.

Now the rest of the key points ...

directness gone, gimmicky radio and gauges, more refined, sanded off the rough edges ...

Those are EXACTLY the things the masses want and expect. The masses, the consumer public like gimmicky radios with lots of buttons. They want refinement. They do NOT like rough edges and weekly visits to the dealership. The masses EXPECT Aux-ins for Ipod, satellite radio, Bluetooth, all the current technology gimmicks.

So lets go back to your first point ...

It feels like BMW has forgot what the car is about ...

With all due respect, and again, not passing any judgement on your observations, I believe 100% your correct and most enthusiasts might and will feel the same way.

But ... HAS BMW really forgot what the car is about?

BMW has a fine balance to maintain. They need to sell cars to the masses. The masses EXPECT quality, refinement, gimmicks, etc. The masses is where the money is. They need to sell 35,000 of these cars per year to the masses and maybe 5,000 to the "enthusiasts". So the balancing act is hard. I would bet way more than half of all MINI owners have NEVER read a single post on ANY MINI forum or even know they exist ... or care.

Bottom line. I believe 100% your observations are correct. But I'm not sure BMW has forgotten what the car was about ...

Maybe they have refined their target horizons and future projections of how to sell the car in the future.

Its all about the money. Follow the money.

 

I would add that many of those masses will become enthusiasts....and probably already are on some level. Minis appealed to a broad and diverse demographic...BMW is broadening the appeal of it's car to reflect that. I say good for them.

Either way, I appreciate that the R56 MINI...with "sport mode" standard...still retains a lot (if not all) of the qualities of R50/53. I admit that I, as an MINI enthusiast, will still likely only use sport mode 30-40% of the time.

I do hope those who are going out for test drives explore "sport mode". It's a great feature, especially on a MINI that serves as a daily driver.

 

Chows:

I understand what you are saying and I agree - the ultimate intention of the Mothership is to sell more cars.

They will sell alot of R56s - the car is more mainstream. Time will tell if it's more reliable.

The balancing act is difficult, and I have no idea on how I would have improved on the R53 to make it more profitable and give it a broader appeal.

Art, one time you mentioned that the Mini did things that made it feel like it was going faster than it was - the tactile feedback from the steering, the burble and popping were all calculated to project an image of the Mini as an enthusiasts car in a hatchback guise. That observation was spot on and for $25K, the R53 did that as well as any car in it's price point.

The R56 is a different beast. It gives the appearance of going fast, but without the aural or tactile feedback that the R53 gave. I think that (speaking of me personally) this would have been more acceptable if the exterior hadn't been altered. The design elements clash a bit and the car has lost it's exterior harmony to a degree.

On my initial test drive, the visual impact affected me to the point where I remember very little of the drive itself as I was so focused on the freakishly large speedo and the intial shock of seeing those faultlines between the body panels.

On my second test drive I focused on the driving aspect. The new engine is quite torquey and very quiet. My only real disappointment with the performance is the steering. On retrospect, my 03 has a modified suspension and R-compound tires on it so I really don't recall what the stock R53 felt like. Thus any comparisons to the R56 in sport mode are probably invalid.

Anyway, your points are well taken.

 

Excellent observations ...

Yes, MINI does a VERY good job at marketing. Take a tiny car, give it GREAT steering ... the steering "feel" in my MINI was just about the best I have ever encountered. Add a bit of "whine" on purpose ... make it sound "cool". Add a dash of burble and it makes you think your going fast ... when in reality, its about an average car.

Now take the R56 and I have NOT driven one but according to your observations, the rough edges are gone. Make the turbo quiet, no burble, and you got a much more refined ride.

Here is DIRECT comparison ...

We had a supercharged MR2. It "Felt" like a sportscar was supposed to feel 18 years ago. Manual steering. It ran on rails. The transmission was slick as hell. 0-60? about 7 seconds, slightly slower than a MCS. Then Toyota "upgraded" ... MR2 Turbo so we had both. No more SC whine right behind your right ear. Softer ride, power everything, transmission not as slick but a MUCH faster car ... 0-60 about 6 secs. Easily hit 150.

But when it came time to get rid of one of the 2 seaters, we got rid of the Turbo and kept the older car. Why? Because Toyota was changing. Catering more to the masses. The turbo just didn't "feel" like a sportscar should. With the supercharged car, you "knew" when you were going fast. In the Turbo, it felt more like a GT.

This "might" be the path MINI is taking in catering to the masses.

I firmly believe BMW has to cater to the masses to survive. They have to provide their target audience with what they expect in a car in this price range.

 

I just test drove the R56 for the first time this afternoon.

Hmmm... I like it, as a car. It's a nice car. However, I am glad I have my R53, and I hope to God I never total it.

I see the R53 as more "enthusiast-targeted" and the R56 as more "fun mainstream-targeted". That doesn't make the R56 worse, it just means the design goals changed.

The R56 is not only bigger, it feels bigger too. And yes, it feels more refined... refinement is nice, but it comes at a loss of "connectedness" to the car and the road. To the average MINI buyer, that's not a big deal. The vast majority of R56 buyers (i.e. those that we will never see here on NAM) will just want a fun, cute car that is reliable and feels solid. The R56 meets all of those demands.

I think the difference is brought home with how the engines feel. The R56 Turbo has very nice low-end torque. There's an eager surge on the low end that gives the car some kick... kick that the R53 didn't have as much, unless you invested in some go-faster aftermarket parts (e.g. pulley) or the JCW kit. However, as you rev the engine up, it looses gusto. The power pull fades away (yes, even with the Sport mode turned on). In contrast, the supercharged engine in the R53 may not start up as strong, but it pulls and pulls, all the way to the redline, with a gusto (and beautiful whine cresendo) that makes running through the gears a symphony all to its own.

However, look back at my comparison. What kind of driver is going to want to run the gears all the way through? An enthusiast. Most daily-drivers don't have any interest in that. However, the daily drivers will appreciate the extra low-end torque to get the car moving, especially during overtaking maneuvers or merging onto the highway. More often than not, I'll bet these drivers don't plan on shifting any later than 4,500 or 5,000 rpm most of the time anyway.

The turbo is definitely a better-suited engine for a daily-driver car than the super is.

And that, my fellow MINI-loving friends, is what I feel epitomizes the difference in design philosophy between the two cars.

Am I saying that an R56-owner can't be an enthusiast? No, of course not. I'm simply saying that the original design intent of the R56 is different than the R53. In time, the aftermarket is likely to do all kinds of interesting things with the R56, and likely turn it into a faster and more "sporty" car than the R53...

But stock vs. stock, the cars are very different, no doubt about it. Anyone who doesn't think so clearly hasn't spent much time with the R50/R53.

I welcome the R56 owners to the MINI community with open arms, and I am not trying to pass judgements on you or the reasons for choosing an R56. I still think it's a great car, and I look forward to seeing what happens with it as time moves on... especially the JCW (when they figure out the heat issues or whatever is causing problems). But I'll keep my R53, thank you very much.

Neither car is "better" in every respect. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses. They are just different, which one you prefer is entirely based upon your own personal preferences. My personal preferences tell me that the R53 is the better car for me. And I'm happy with that!I entirely disagree. Cars DO have character, very much so. Owners may change the character further, but different car designs are absolutely different in character. Remember, just as human owners can affect their personal vehicle's character... who designed all the different cars out there? Different humans! Presto - different character as handed down by the different designers.