Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Best Hot Hatch - SVT, Civic Si, GTI, RSX, Mini, Beetle...

18911131429

Comments

  • hpulley4hpulley4 Posts: 591
    If you wait forever there will be something better. Of course things advance! That doesn't mean you won't enjoy one today. If you test drive one and you like it, don't worry about next year. Of course there will be new features out -- they hope you'll trade yours in for a new one.
  • shov6shov6 Posts: 177
    Truer words were never spoken... If you wait long enough, you may get a BMW hovercraft for crying out loud. Just get the car that you like and enjoy it. Then get something ELSE you enjoy after that, and so on and so on and so on.

    For those who don't like the Mini's speedo where it is, all you have to do is get the nav system, which sits in the dash center and forces the speedo to a more "conventional" location. Probably not cheap. :)

    -SHOV6
  • I believe gbrozen meant to say "CVT" - the automatic transmission offered in the Mini.

    SVT is Ford-only, as we all should know.

    Fact: Minis will go up in price by at least as much as $1200 (Cdn), as of September of this year. September is the start of the 2003 model year for Minis.

    Those that find it hard waiting for the Cooper 'S', may I suggest getting a Cooper to hold you over til it comes. It will help kill the wait, and I'm sure you won't lose too much $$$ on trade-in or resale when your S comes in.

    I waited exactly 5 months for my Cooper 'S'. I just got it last night. It's well worth the wait.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,599
    actually, rick mistyped SVT for CVT. :)

    What is your source for that price hike? Is that JUST Canada? And when you say "as much as", what excactly does that mean? That could mean that a fully loaded model would go up by $1200, but a base model with no options might only go up by $100.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • rickroverrickrover Posts: 602
    That's a big hike in price - I seriously doubt that will happen in the U.S., the MINI isn't hot enough over here to justify that kind of an increase.
  • My source is the guy who sold me my car.

    I said "as much as" because I forget the exact amount he told me, but remember it being above $1000.

    Fully-loaded or base, it doesn't matter. The BASE price will go up, and that would of course affect the price of a more-loaded model, no matter what extras you add.

    $1000 Canadian would be about $700 American, if it goes up in the U.S., as well.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,599
    we'll see what happens in the U.S. Also, I wouldn't put much stock in what a salesperson says. Many rumours are started that way and 99% of the time they just remain rumours and never become reality.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • New to this message board... been reading through posts. Interesting reading some of the incorrect info people post.

    Few things I've noticed:

    1. People post wrong data. Example: someone improperly quoted Car and Drivers 0-60 time for the MINI Cooper S. Car and Driver have it at 7.0 seconds. Someone quoted a worse time. How do you all quote wrong things? Is it on purpose?

    2. Reading posting by people who hate or diss the MINI Cooper S... they seem to know little of the car, and merely hate it cause they either A: can't get one B: think its too small or C: are just closed minded
  • 8u6hfd8u6hfd Posts: 1,391
    Some you'll get used to real quick
  • markjennmarkjenn Posts: 1,142
    Car salesman are the biggest source of dis-information in the entire car business. If you even make a hint that you might wait a year to buy, they'll tell you the price will go up 2x and the steering wheel will be optional. The bubble surrounding the Mini has burst in many markets already and BMW knows this - that's why the price will be holding steady and there may even be some increases in standard equipment.

    I have nothing against the Mini at all - I'd certainly consider it if I was in the market for this type of car. But I still think one would really need to be in a hurry not to wait a year to get the bugs out and for the hoopla to die down. The Minis available in a year are going to be a lot more reliable and probably cheaper, given the improving supply/demand situation which should provide buyers with negotiating room.

    - Mark
  • rickroverrickrover Posts: 602
    I have nothing against the MINI S - Other than I wasn't that impressed by it when I test drove it a couple of times - I was even less impressed by the ignorant dealer tactics. I was 14 on the S list at my local dealer - I put a $1k refundable deposit down a year and a half ago. After driving the S and putting up with the dealers attitude I got my deposit back - I could have bought an electric blue S a couple weeks after the first S arrived at this dealer - thier waiting lists have evaporated. The only people waiting are the ones that have to order their S and don't want a pre-spec'd car.

    The hoopla is dying down - I could walk right into my MINI dealer and buy a base MINI today. I could get a pre-spec'd S if I wasn't picky about equipment or color without much of a wait at all. They have a lot of base MINI's on hand.

    About the most amusing (and pathetic) thing about this Orlando MINI dealer is they put sold signs on cars that never go away. I saw several of the same cars with sold signs on them for the couple of weeks I was deciding on the purchase of an S before I got my deposit back. I know of 4 people that have gotten thier S deposits back for various reasons from this dealer.

    I seriously doubt BMW will raise the price on the MINI - they simply aren't that hot. It won't be long before you read about MINI sales tanking - you heard it here first.

    I may still get a MINI in a couple of years - a nice used S really cheap since I doubt their resale will hold up - it may be the used car deal of the century like a lot of other 2-3 year old BMW's - I've owned 4 BMW's. I know a little about depreciation on them, new one's, and slightly used ones. Nice used BMW's are a great value, I doubt the MINI will be any different.
  • markjennmarkjenn Posts: 1,142
    I know a local dealer that does the same "sold sign" tactic. They mark all their cars as sold and when you hit the lot, they'll tell you they went for $3K over MSRP. After a test drive with someone else's new car, the salesman will excuse himself for a minute and then breathlessly return to say that someone just backed out of a deal and they'll let you have it for the same $3K over if you act right now. If you balk, then they'll make an offer at MSRP with the usual, "I go to bat with the sales mgr. for you". This basically means they'll get you inside at MSRP to start working you over for add-on costs like paint protection and useless accessories and credit insurance.

    In reality, they've got a lot full of unsold cars and it is all just to get a sense of urgency going and to have people act impulsively relying on the bogus information.

    Car business as usual. You've just got to do your homework ahead of time and not get sucked in by anything they say.

    - Mark
  • rickroverrickrover Posts: 602
    That is so pathetic - I never expressed an interest in any of the "sold" MINI's at my dealer. I figured that is what was going on - I did ask a salesman why the same cars had been sitting there for 2 weeks with "sold" signs, he said the people that bought them were "out of town" yeah right.

    I ripped the sales manager a new one when I asked for my deposit back - I told him I didn't appreciate their tactics - he couldn't have cared less.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,599
    Just read the Edmund's update to their Mini review. If you haven't read it, they got hold of a CVT Mini. The review from a performance standpoint was far less than glowing. To paraphrase their summary: an automatic Hyundai will smoke a CVT Mini from a standstill.

    I was under the impression that a CVT offered some good acceleration potential. Am I wrong? Or is this just not a good execution?

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • rickroverrickrover Posts: 602
    I just read the Edmunds CVT test too - It has to be the MINI CVT execution. I've test driven the Audi A4 in all it's CVT guises (1.8t, 3.0) and with the conventional tiptronic automatic and manual transmissions and came away totally impressed with Audi's version of CVT. The A4 1.8t with CVT was significantly more responsive from a standstill than the 1.8t A4 with the tiptronic 5 speed automatic.

    Too bad BMW didn't get the CVT right in the MINI, Americans demand get up and go from a stop. I still want to take a CVT MINI for a spin just for grins someday.

    I agreed with the other comment about the responsiveness of the base and S MINI's - I thought they were both very sluggish from a standstill as well.

    My local MINI dealer is flooded with MINI's, the show room and parking lot are packed with them. I'm waiting for the first article that mentions the waiting lists have evaporated - they can't keep up this "waiting list" charade forever.
  • hpulley4hpulley4 Posts: 591
    You say the CVT is awful, based upon one review, but then say you will still try it out? I hope you'll come back with your own thoughts after you've tested it.

    Waiting lists seem to be funny. There isn't one here and no one at the MINI dealer is trying to make it look like there is. They say "come on down..." Other places are pulling "a guy just cancelled his order 5 minutes ago" tricks so it seems like it pays to shop around.
  • kevin111kevin111 Posts: 991
    1. too short. At 11 feet long, shortest vehicle sold to the U.S. general public (per Car and Driver). I am hessitant to drive it due to crash protection. I am curious to see how it rates when the NHSA tests it.

    2. I am not a big fan of the styling. Some people love it, I do not, both inside and out.

    3. Reliability - new division, basically a new company. Yes it is under the BMW hierarchy, but it is being built by a new division in England. Basically, a new company with BMW looking over it. Because this is not only a new car, but basically a new company, I have a wait and see attitude on the quality.

    4. Ride (this is second hand). I have heard that it has a very harsh ride, even though it handles extremely well.

    Personally (IMHO), I would get an RSX. Would feel like I am getting more car for the same money.
  • gotenks243gotenks243 Posts: 116
    I test drove a Mini with the 16" performance run flat tires and the normal suspension, and I was very impressed at the quality of the ride. Just like other BMWs, it transmitted good road feel while still soaking up the bumps nicely.

    Immediately after test driving the Mini, I tested a base Acura RSX. The RSX suspension was actually harsher than the Mini, in my opinion, and it handled nowhere near as well.

    It was nowhere near as fun a car as the Mini, had poorer visibility, harsher ride, and cost more while comparably equipped (though I'm sure you could get it under sticker). Neither are really that great in the rear-seating department. The Mini has plenty of head room, but the leg-room is lacking and it's not that easy to get in. The Acura had plenty of leg-room, easy entry/exit, but my head was up against the hatch glass- very uncomfortable. If you're looking for an adult-size rear seat in this class, the SVT Focus and the GTI are what you should be looking at.

    I would take a Mini in a heartbeat over an RSX. I can't really think of any reason to get an RSX over a Mini. Honda reliability, maybe?

    Mike
  • kevin111kevin111 Posts: 991
    1. Reliability - Mini is an unknown, the RSX is not

    2. Safety - bigger crumple zones in the RSX

    3. Looks - like the interior and exterior better in RSX

    4. Performance - base RSX - 0-60 7.8 (manual), Type-S 0-60 6.7 (has been timed at 6.3 by C&D)

    base Mini - 0-60 8 (manual)
    Mini S 0-60 7.3 (C&D)

    5. Practicality

    Trunk Mini - 5 cubic feet
    Trunk RSX - 17 cubic feet

    Do not know the rear seats of the Mini.
    RSX is tight, but can fit someone back there for short trips.

    6. Repair costs
    RSX - similiar components of Honda - farely inexpensive
    Mini - New model, very few if any similiar components with father company - BMW, BMW has a reputation for being expensive to repair.
  • huntzingerhuntzinger Posts: 350
    5. Practicality

    Trunk Mini - 5 cubic feet
    Trunk RSX - 17 cubic feet

    Do not know the rear seats of the Mini.
    RSX is tight, but can fit someone back there for short trips.


    "Tight? Fit?" Only if you really, really don't like them as human beings. From Edmunds:

    Mini - Rear Leg Room: 31.3 in.
    RSX -- Rear Leg Room: 29.2 in. (-2")

    Mini - Rear Head Room: 37.6 in.
    RSX -- Rear Head Room: 30.1 in. (-7.5"!!!)

    Ouch!

    Granted, I do agree that the Mini's trunk is a bit small for our general preferences for utility without folding down the rear seats constantly, but its still fine as a commuter sled.

    And in this regards, is it not actually slightly more practical than the old Honda CRX's because you have the option of converting the hatchback storage into a rear seat? The CRX was {2 seats + cargo}, whereas the Mini gives you the option between {2 seats + cargo} or {4 seats + no cargo}.

    -hh
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,599
    HH - you must be slipping. You didn't jump all over him for stating the RSX outperforms the Mini based on published 0-60 times alone. ;)
    Also, Kevin, as anyone knows, performance is much more than acceleration.

    Aside from that, I have to point out that the RSX is indeed an unknown for reliability. Completely new car. Sure, you could say that its still Honda reliability, but without waiting to see how they hold up over time, its still just an assumption. The same way some folks would assume the Mini will be as good as BMW.

    Safety is also an X-factor until we see reports. The Mini was designed with safety as a chief concern, so it may surprise you.

    Looks, of course, is completely subjective. Personally, I find the RSX to be completely boring and oddly tall.

    I should also point out that, regardless of overall room, I found that I could not fit in the RSX. Not enough headroom. I did, however, fit in the Mini. Go figure.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • huntzingerhuntzinger Posts: 350
    HH - you must be slipping.

    Sorry; blame it on too many miles driven this week. I also didn't comment on crumple zones, as he used a "bigger is better" logic which would make a 1957 Caddy the safest vehicle on the planet, fins and all :-)

    In overgeneralized terms, I personally give my trust to German safety engineering over USA & Japanese safety engineering, because the latter two have both been known to give preference to "pass the DOT test" over real world crash data design priorities. This is really more a comment on the respective corporate cultures for what business descisions they choose to make, and not a comment on the respective technical skills of their staff. And it all applies double for SUV's :-)

    -hh
  • kevin111kevin111 Posts: 991
    Good point of 0-60, but merging on a freeway, this is a very valid point. To me, top speed is a mute point since most passenger cars built today can go over 100 mph. I suspect the RSX has a higher top speed due to its superior HP, but again this is a mute point in my book.

    Handling - I will give to the Mini S. It posts a 0.86 on the skid pad

    The RSX posts an .83, but 0.88 has been reported on the -S by some sources (referenced on this board).

    In terms of build quality, we are talking about Apples and Oranges. While both are new cars, Isn't the RSX being built in the same factory as other Acuras? Aren't many of the parts of the RSX the same as in the Hondas and the Acuras?

    With the Mini, are there any parts that it shares with its BMW cousin? -probably not. Is it designed from the same group that designs BMWs? - No. Is it built in the same factories? - No. Same immediate management looking over the product (not upper level VPs) that look over the BMWs? -No. The answer is yes to these questions for the RSX.

    I do not care how much safety features is put into the Mini, with that short of a distance to the driver, it could be deadly. Physics needs to come into play here in a real-world crash.

    Huntzinger, please do not make generalizations about who does what in terms of safety. Unless you have proof of this generalization on safety of German vs. American vs. Japaneese, I will take it as just an opinion.

    In both NHSTA and I believe the Insurance institute of Highway safety both give Hondas an outstanding grade on virtually all their cars. Is there some other category that states how the structure is better able to take an accident than another besides these two groups, weight, height, and travel distance to the occupant?

    I think I have stated my case. What else?
  • huntzingerhuntzinger Posts: 350
    Good point of 0-60, but merging on a freeway, this is a very valid point.

    I disagree: the posted differences were on the order of a half second, which is effectively negligible in the real world. Its generally more important for the driver to know exactly what his car can do than what that actually is.

    Huntzinger, please do not make generalizations about who does what in terms of safety. Unless you have proof of this generalization on safety of German vs. American vs. Japanese, I will take it as just an opinion.

    It is most definitely my personal opinion, based on my personal experiences, readings and observations over the years; please take it with as much salt as you wish to imbibe.

    However, in a similar fashion, while I agree with your simplistic statement of physics in regards to deacceleration stroke distances, I would request that you retract your implicit assumption of equal Engineering Quality being applied within dramatically different vehicles from different corporations and cultural mindsets, and recognize that differences are inevitable, even if you do not agree with who specifically may be first or last.

    I do not care how much safety features is put into the Mini, with that short of a distance to the driver, it could be deadly.

    Could be. But consider that back in 1998, Mercedes announced that the even-shorter-overhang of the A-Class had proven in their safety testing to be the performance equal of the then-current generation E-Class sedan for crash safety. Perhaps this provides some insight into why I've been favorable to German engineering :-)

    We can't violate the laws of physics (yet!), but does this not go to show us that we shouldn't be fooled into just looking at a vehicle's hood length to make assumptions about its safety, and keep an eye at the quality of the Engineering that's underneath said hood?

    In both NHTSA and I believe the Insurance institute of Highway safety both give Hondas an outstanding grade on virtually all their cars.

    Yup, yet these tests can be rigged. This was an item of controversy in the professional journals several years ago. IIRC, the "tested excellent, but flunks on the highway" example was the Miata, due to the low rigidity of its nose, which was what helped it post good numbers on the DOT fixed barrier crash test, but did very poorly in real-world offset impacts. Gosh, that's another little tidbit of insight :-)

    Is there some other category that states how the structure is better able to take an accident than another besides these two groups, weight, height, and travel distance to the occupant?

    Probably. I'd look to see what Mercedes has to say on the subject, as they have been the industry leader in this field for 40+ years. Amongst other things, they invented the offset impact test which IIRC is still not being used by NHTSA.

    -hh
  • kevin111kevin111 Posts: 991
    "However, in a similar fashion, while I agree with your simplistic statement of physics in regards to deacceleration stroke distances, I would request that you retract your implicit assumption of equal Engineering Quality being applied within dramatically different vehicles from different corporations and cultural mindsets, and recognize that differences are inevitable, even if you do not agree with who specifically may be first or last."

    - Sorry, you missed the point entirely. To explain it in a more simple fashion - the RSX is an evolution from the Integra, but has a different name. The RSX uses some of the same parts found in Hondas and other Acuras. I believe the Mini is a completely new model, using completely new parts, from a completely new division. Is this not the case? If it is not, then I am sadly mistaken and appologise. I do not believe I am though.
    "Probably. I'd look to see what Mercedes has to say on the subject, as they have been the industry leader in this field for 40+ years. Amongst other things, they invented the offset impact test which IIRC is still not being used by NHTSA."

    The IIRC does use this test, and many Japanese cars consistantly do well, specifically Toyotas and Hondas.

    Do you have something from Mercedes stating they have a better method for testing cars than IIRC and NHTSA? If you do, then I will give your opinion on the tests done by these two organizations a great deal more weight. Otherwise, I will stick with what I read and what I have experienced with Japanese cars.

    One last thing - New models from BMW's lineup usually have a reputation of having lesser quality than the later model years. Case-in-point - the X5 - per Consumer Reports, had much worse reliability versus BMW's other vehicles this past year.
  • drivinisfundrivinisfun Posts: 372
    "With the Mini, are there any parts that it shares with its BMW cousin? -probably not. Is it designed from the same group that designs BMWs? - No. Is it built in the same factories? - No. Same immediate management looking over the product (not upper level VPs) that look over the BMWs? -No. The answer is yes to these questions for the RSX."

    The MINI is a 100% BMW product developed and manufactured using the same exact engineering, safety and quality control standards that apply to all other upmarket BMW products. get your facts straight. The Oxford, England plant where the new MINI is produced is one of the most efficient and advanced vehicle factories in Europe. Obviously the only thing the new MINI shares with the old model is the name and the heritage. The rest of the car is pure Bavarian teutonic engineering down to the Nurbruring circuit (One of the most demanding and difficult circuits in the world) where its handling dynamics were fined tuned during development. (Where was the RSX's handling fined tuned....oh yeah in Honda's Tochigi proving grounds, LOL)

    The MINI shares its high performance Multilink rear suspension hardware with the current generation BMW 3 series car. Think about it, the MINI is FWD yet has the rear suspension of a RWD vehicle....excessive right? That's why BMW did it! Show me similar hardware of this calibre in your RSX...where is the NSX/S2000 suspension hardware???? Your car is more closely related to a Honda Civic than a mid luxury sports sedan, while the MINI is a BMW 3 series in disguise...big difference.

    Also the MINI has a Electro-Hydraulic, engine speed sensitive power steering, long wheel base, wide track, short overhang and low center of gravity for excellent handling. Want me to keep going? All right here it goes... Standard on every MINI you also get:

    * 4-wheel ABS
    * Flat Tire Monitor
    * Drive by wire Throttle
    *Electronic Brake Force Distribution (EBD)
    *All Season Traction Control (ASC)
    *Corner Brake Control (CBC)
    *6 standard airbags with the AHPS II advanced head protection system
    *Exceptional body torsional rigidity. The MINI is 3 times more rigid than any other car (Including your RSX) in its immediate class size and it is 50% stronger than the body of the current BMW 3 series!

    Hmmmmmm, the more we dig into the nuts and bolts of the MINI the more it resembles a BMW than a cheap based econobox car, doesn't it?
    DSC (Dynamic Stability Control) is also available on the MINI as an option. Also you have a choice of a normal aspirated or supercharged engine mated to a 5-speed (ZF), 6-speed (Getrag) or CVT automatic transmission with normal, sport and 6-speed forward gears Steptronic mode.

    See the more we look into the MINI the worse the RSX looks.....welll it looks like a Japanese ripoff of the first kind. A warmed over Civic coupe sold as a "Premium" sports coupe sedan. Look, I had a '95 Integra...nice car but nothing to rave home about...thin paint, sheetmetal, hard seats, questionnable interior plastics, thin sounding stereo and all for $20K! in 1995! How times have changed!

    Oh by the way, aside from the Acura's 4 year/50,000 mile warranty, do you also get paid in full 3 years worth of basic maintenance?? Ding, ding...!!! Guess who gets it..the MINI another perk including in all BMW products sold in the US.

    Rest assured that the only British traits left on the new MINI are the point of assembly (Oxford, England) and the car's 40 year heritage...the rest of the car is pure BMW/Munich headquarters clean sheet design to the last nut and bolt.

    This is not Mr. Bean's British Layland made Austin Mini of yesterday..this is one serious sports car at econobox car prices.

    And let's not even go into the heritage, charisma, and cool factor of the MINI....the RSX loses badly against it there as well!!

    I think your RSX should watch out for the MINI Cooper 'S' and even the Ford Focus SVT which clearly outshines your overpriced Civic based excuse of a sports coupe.
  • voochvooch Posts: 92
    None of these cars are really performance cars. Its almost not even worth arguing about it. I must agree with drivinisfun and also expand on his statement that the RSX(and the rest of the cars) are more closely related to the Civic. All they are are just sporty Civics, Corollas, Golfs etc. Sporty meaning sporty looking, thats about it. Therefore, its all about cool factor and styling - which are both subjective.

    I'm sure they all handle pretty well - they're all tiny and supposedly sports tuned. If you want to crunch numbers you guys should be arguing in a different forum, like a sports car forum eh? None of these cars are sports cars :p

    About the reliability thing - how on earth is the RSX's reliability proven?? There's no such thing as reliability on a first model year car. There has been no other previous model cars to make a judgement call... If you do, its pure speculation. That point is pretty much void in my eyes. Same thing with the MINI.

    I'd choose the Celica purely on styling since the performance of all the cars is relatively the same. Unless the GTI or Tiburon is a V6. The rest are whiney 4's (which isn't a bad thing) with less or equal to 200hp. Heck the 6's are less than 200hp. Out of all of them the Celica is prolly the slowest with least torque too.

    Safety - people who buy these cars are primarily concerned with safety?? I doubt it, but please attempt to prove me wrong. BUT, I can say that the 84 Celica's could survive a whooping. I got into a head on collision (real world, who'd a thought) and I walked away. The car was driven onto the tow truck too. I was impressed. Can't say that safety was on my mind when I bought it though. But that was an '84, not a 2002.
  • kevin111kevin111 Posts: 991
    I talk about safety with crash protection, and the problem of short fronts and you give me the spec sheet. I say that due to "simple physics" the car is deadly in a crash due to the short length. You tell me that the car is extremely stiff. So let me get this straight, the car has no crumple zones, and the passenger has to rely on air bags to absorb the impact?????? So the passenger takes the brunt of the impact?

    You also contradict yourself about the build of the car.
    "The MINI is a 100% BMW product developed and manufactured using the same exact engineering"

    Then go on to say:
    "The Oxford, England plant where the new MINI is produced "

    So it is developed and manufactured by the same group that designs the other BMWs, yet is built in a plant that does not build the other BMWs, designed by a group that does not design the other BMWs, and you have the nerve to say:

    "The rest of the car is pure Bavarian teutonic engineering down to the Nurbruring circuit"

    Man, talk about your biasness getting the best of you!!!

    Also: "do you also get paid in full 3 years worth of basic maintenance?Ding, ding...!!! Guess who gets it..the MINI another perk including in all BMW products sold in the US.
    "

    Hope you are leasing the car, because once that warrenty expires, this car will definitely be a burden to your wallet every time you need a repair!

    The one advantage of the RSX sharing a platform with the civic is inexpensive maintenance and repair. Thus a low cost of ownership.

    Hey, if you are going to trade in your car after 3 years, more power to you. When I buy my cars, I regularly go over 100,000 miles, and go for as long as I can.

    BTW, if you read C&D, they question the benefit of the Mini S over the Mini, stating that it did not "feel much faster" than the base Mini.

    Also, Edmunds states, in regards to the CVT transmission Mini: "Cons: Hyundai Elantras (even when they have an automatic) will smoke it from a stoplight for two-thirds the price, manual mode shifting action is counter-intuitive"

    Then again, this car was meant for a manual, right drivinisfun?
  • muffin_manmuffin_man Posts: 865
    (disclaimer - I don't own a Honda of any kind)

    >The MINI is a 100% BMW product developed and manufactured using the same exact engineering, safety >and quality control standards that apply to all other upmarket BMW products. get your facts

    Are you talking about the EXACT same engineering, safety and quality controls that applied to a nameless BMW SUV? In addition, your average BMW sees a lot more shop time than a Honda. They are not as reliable.

    >handling dynamics were fined tuned during development. (Where was the RSX's handling fined >tuned....oh yeah in Honda's Tochigi proving grounds, LOL)

    Would that be the same place that the ITR had its handling tuned?

    >The MINI shares its high performance Multilink rear suspension hardware with the current generation >BMW 3 series car. Think about it, the MINI is FWD yet has the rear suspension of a RWD >vehicle....excessive right? That's why BMW did it! Show me similar hardware of this calibre in your >RSX...where is the NSX/S2000 suspension hardware???? Your car is more closely related to a Honda >Civic than a mid luxury sports sedan, while the MINI is a BMW 3 series in disguise...big difference.

    The way you are gushing about this car is making me nauseous. Oh, and your car is more closely related to a Neon than a BMW, because it's got a Chrysler engine under the hood, woohoo!

    >Also the MINI has a Electro-Hydraulic, engine speed sensitive power steering, long wheel base, wide >track, short overhang and low center of gravity for excellent handling. Want me to keep going? All >right here it goes... Standard on every MINI you also get:

    Who says that electro-hydraulic, engine speed sensitive power steering is any better than any other kind of power steering? (nevertheless, the Civic Si has the same thing)

    And the short overhand and low center of gravity just makes the Mini that much more dangerous in real world collisions.

    >*Exceptional body torsional rigidity. The MINI is 3 times more rigid than any other car (Including >your RSX) in its immediate class size and it is 50% stronger than the body of the current BMW 3 >series!

    Do you know why boxing has weight divisions?

    >Hmmmmmm, the more we dig into the nuts and bolts of the MINI the more it resembles a BMW than a >cheap based econobox car, doesn't it?

    The RSX _is_ a dressed up Civic, but it still outperforms the BMW. It will also probably last longer, and is almost certainly significantly safer.

    >See the more we look into the MINI the worse the RSX looks.....welll it looks like a Japanese ripoff >of the first kind. A warmed over Civic coupe sold as a "Premium" sports coupe sedan. Look, I had a >'95 Integra...nice car but nothing to rave home about...thin paint, sheetmetal, hard seats, >questionnable interior plastics, thin sounding stereo and all for $20K! in 1995! How times have >changed!

    7 years is a lifetime in the auto industry.

    >I think your RSX should watch out for the MINI Cooper 'S' and even the Ford Focus SVT which clearly >outshines your overpriced Civic based excuse of a sports coupe.

    You are right, the base RSX is not as good as those cars, but the type-S is better.
This discussion has been closed.