Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Best Hot Hatch - SVT, Civic Si, GTI, RSX, Mini, Beetle...
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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
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.
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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
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
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.
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
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.
I was under the impression that a CVT offered some good acceleration potential. Am I wrong? Or is this just not a good execution?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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
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?
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
- 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.
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.
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
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.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/features/2001/August/200108_preview_minicooper.xml
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?
>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.
Notice how well the passenger compartment stays intact.
I like 0-60 just as much as the next guy. We actually talked about it quite a bit on this board already. I even used that onramp argument myself. But, HH is right, we're not talking about a huge difference here. Also, if that onramp has a curve in it, you're going to want handling to keep that speed up.
The RSX has a whole new powertrain. The most important and expensive part of the car. So reliability is still an X-factor no matter how you slice it.
Safety is a far more complex subject than us as non-safety-engineers can discuss here. But, just to throw an analogy to your "bigger is better" theory: In an accident, would you rather be in a 20 cubic-foot cardboard box or a 5 cubic-foot specially designed reinforced steel box? In other words, size is not everything.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
The you might feel the difference between 7.0 (Mini S) and 6.3 (Acura RSX Type S) - both times taken by Car and Driver. I would agree it would be very slight to discern between the two. Also, the RSX is no slouch in the handling department either.
If I was to take your analogy about the cardboard box vs. the steel box, if I am being hit by something at 60 miles an hour, I am going to get no padding in the steel box. As a result, I will feel the full brunt of the force even if the box is still intact. At least with the cardboard box, it will take some of the impact.
This my friend is called crumple zones. This is why they went to crumple zones and unibody construction in the 80s. Cars in the 70s (minus MB if they did incorporated Crumple zones then), were dammaged much less in accidents, but their passengers were dammaged much more. As a result, the energy and force from an impact was absorbed significantly by the car's occupants instead of being absorbed by the car. Did I just nulify your analogy, qbrozen, of the cardboard box vs. the reinforced steel box?
Hey, if we all had unlimited funds, we can talk about another couple of econoboxes like a Mclarin F1 vs. the new Ferarri F60.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
And to take this to the absurd extreme, in a high speed, head on collision between an RSX and a Mini, I would rather be driving the RSX.
In terms of smaller and better, you are right. I might take a mini over a VW bus from the 60s, where your knees were right up against the front.
Sorry, nothing needs to be more simple: your disagreement with with my statement that I personally consider German safety engineering to be superior to Japanese safety engineering.
Do you have something from Mercedes stating they have a better method for testing cars than IIRC and NHTSA?
Try reading your Engineering history books on the subject: you'll find that MB invented the field and remains its leader. FWIW, how many more years will pass until IIRC and NHTSA *begin* to consider using the pedestrian impact safety tests that are already in use in Europe?
-hh
Yet the A-Class does better in the Euro NCAP front impact testing than does the comparatively "very long hooded" Saab 9-3: 69% vs 50% (BTW, the Saab 900 was even worse).
Here's the reference URL's, as well as the URL's for a some Honda's & Toyota's (all larger than the A) that are all incapable of using the physics advantage that they should have, to actually provide better overall safety:
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/safety/mercaclass/
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/safety/civic/index.html
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/safety/accord/index.html
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/safety/beetle/index.html
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/safety/golf/index.html
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/safety/saab93/index.html
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/safety/saab900/index.html
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/safety/corolla/index.html
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/safety/camry/index.html
Yes, that last one's actually a Toyota Camry.
Insofar as safety engineering history, various manufacturers make various claims, but Béla Barényi (of Mercedes) patented the occupant safety cell in 1951. The crumple zone premiered in 1953 with the Mercedes-Benz 180, and the world's first production vehicle with rigid passenger cage and integrated crumple zone are the 1959 Mercedes 220's. By 1970, less than 10% of the world's new cars had rigid safety cages integrated with crumple zones.
(source: http://www.whnet.com/4x4/crashes.html)
-hh
I never said the MINI is indeed safer than the RSX. Only that it could be. Size doesn't matter as much as engineering. Kevin even supports that with his comparison of the MINI to a VW bus.
The links provided by HH are good ones. Check out the Civic vs. the Beetle. That Honda engineering doesn't seem to be standing up to its reputation in this case.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
Force = Mass x Acceleration
Thus, when you greatly increase the mass and acceleration (an impact with another car), the force that a smaller car is designed to take will disproportionately increase compared to an average sized car. This is the reason so many people like driving SUVs in America.
Unfortunately, the tests you sighted do not take this into account.
One other interesting item of note. The MB A class sits fairly high. While this may hamper handling, it helps with impacts from the side (per your link) and will help against submarining and going under another car's or truck's bumper in the the event of rear-ending or hitting straight on in an accident.
Unfortunately, the Mini is low to the ground, and the passanger sits very low. As a result, the Mini driver is in significantly more danger in a side impact and of possibly going under another vehicle in front of it.
None of the tests show an impact with another moving object, just stationary objects.
You also, mention that Japanese cars are designed to specifically and only to do well in for passenger safety in general, yet the Civic did medocre and the MB did well. Wouldn't these tests contradict your point?
In terms of Engineering history books, please expand on this. There are many out there, with very few if any being required reading for college engineering students. I am sure the MB history in automotive safety has plenty on the subjects you mentioned, in great detail. BTW, wasn't this book also financially backed by DalmerChrysler? Just curious.
In winter the majority of vehicles you find in the ditch are 4x4 owners who think they can drive at any speed without flying off the road in their high centre of gravity vehicles. Many of them find out they are wrong in having such overconfidence.
How many cars with tire blowouts end up rolling the vehicles? Few cars do but look at the Explorer/Firestone fiasco and you'll see what lots of mass up high can do to create an unstable vehicle.
In a demolision derby I'd rather be in an old '70s boat car than a new MINI but on real roads, mass can work for you OR against you.
If you want to mention heavier cars as being safer than lighter cars then I agree with you but don't tell my a high COG vehicle is safer.
F=mA is merely a starting point. Crash protection is predominantly energy management through the use of low/moderate strain rate Elasto-plastic deformations of materials, and load spreading.
... This is the reason so many people like driving SUVs in America.
People assume that all of that SUV mass is doing all sorts of wonderful and magical things for them, but that's an assumption that's been made without a solid Engineering foundation to back it up. For example, having more mass rolling also means that you have more KE/momentum to absorb/manage in an accident for equal protection to the vehicle's passengers - - it takes more mass, distance and engineering to stop a heavier object with equal effectiveness.
The only time that an SUV's mass really does itself any good is, as you stated, when they striking a significantly smaller vehicle. However, this is nothing more than risk transfer which IMO is unethical to purposefully pursue.
None of the tests show an impact with another moving object, just stationary objects.
Apply superposition principles, change your frame of reference and ask yourself again if that's technically necessary or not.
You also, mention that Japanese cars are designed to specifically and only to do well in for passenger safety in general, yet the Civic did mediocre and the MB did well. Wouldn't these tests contradict your point?
If someone who "sandbagged" their design to perform as best as possible on a particular test and they still did poorly, what does that mean?
FWIW, I recall a quite old (circa 1975) VW Beetle advertisement where they showed a modified Beetle that they had gotten something like 84 miles/gallon out of it. They then said how impractical this Beetle version was and closed the ad by showing a standard Beetle with a tagline of: "An Honest [~30] miles/gallon".
In terms of Engineering history books, please expand on this. There are many out there, with very few if any being required reading for college engineering students.
Its probably nothing that you'll be assigned to read in school, but stuff that you'll just absorb and pick up out of sources like professional Engineering journals, because of your background and personal interests. Most of the time, its little more than useless trivia that only other Engineers at ASME conventions find interesting. Such as the ancient TV advertisement mentioned above (or perhaps a heart-shaped meatloaf, anyone? :-)
-hh
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
http://www.focaljet.com/
Here is a snapshot of the MINI Cooper and Acura RSX in terms of basic specs, STD safety equipment, dimension and passenger/cargo measuraments and base pricing:
2002 Base MINI Cooper:
Base Price: $16,850 (ZF 5 Speed manual transmission)
Engine: 1.6L (OHC) "Pentagon" engine, 16 valve In line 4cyl, 115HP with Equal Length drive shafts.
Handling & Ride:
Front Suspension setup: McPherson Struts
Rear Suspension: Multi-link Rear Suspension
Stabilizer bars: Front and rear
Steering type: Electro-hydraulic, speed sensitive, variable assisted power steering.
Safety,Security & Braking:
ABS
Corner Brake Control (CBC)
Electronic Brakeforce Distribution (EBD)
Flat Tire Monitor
Driver and front passenger airbags with "Smart" dual-threshold, dual stage deployment, amd semsor to help prevent unnecessary airbag deployment.
Driver and front passenger seat mounted, side impact airbags
Advanced head protection system (AHPS II) airbags.
Side impact door beams with interlocking anchoring system.
Automatic fuel cut off, triggered by airbag deployment.
Height adjustable front safety belts with automatic pretensioners & Force limiters.
ISOFIX (LATCH) child restraint seat anchorages
Crash sensor - automatically turns on hazard lights, interior lights and unlocks doors.
Battery misconnection alarm.
Daytime running lights - Programmed by MINI dealer.
Dimensions:
Length: 142.8"
Wheelbase: 97.1"
Width: 66.5"
Front track: 57.4"
Rear track: 57.7"
Height: 55.9"
Unladen weight: 2,524 (2,557 with CVT automatic transmission)
Weight distribution (Manual/CVT)%: 63/37
Ramp Approach angle: 10 degrees
Brake dimensions (Diameter): Front Vented 10.9"
Rear Solid 10.2"
Interior dimensions:
Headroom Front: 38.8"
Headroom Back: 37.6"
Elbow Room Front: 53.9"
Elbow Room Back: 44.5"
Trunk Volume: 5.3 Cubic Feet
With both rear seats folded: 23.6 Cubic feet
Front Leg Room: 41.3"
Rear Leg Room: 31.3"
Maximum Seating: 4
2002 Acura RSX (Base model)
Base Price: $19,741 (5-speed Manual transmission)
Engine: 2.0L (DOHC)Alluminum Alloy engine, 16 valve, i-VTEC In line 4cyl, 160HP.
Handling & Ride:
Front Suspension setup: McPherson Struts
Rear Suspension: Double Wishbones
Stabilizer bars: Front (Tubular) and rear (Solid)
Steering type: Variable Assist, Rack and Pinion
Safety,Security & Braking:
ABS
Driver and front passenger airbags, dual stage.
Driver and passenger side airbags with front passenger height and position sensors.
3 Point seat belts with load limiters and pretensioners (Front).
3 point seat belts, rear.
LATCH child seat anchors in the rear seat
Side impact door beams
Side impact floor beam
Collapsible steering column
Impact absorbing interior surfaces
Dimensions:
Length: 172.2"
Wheelbase: 101.2"
Width: 67.9"
Front track: 58.5"
Rear track: 58.5"
Height: 55.1"
Unladen weight: 2,694 (2,771 with 5-speed automatic transmission)
Ground Clearance: 6.0 in
Weight distribution (Manual)%: 61/39
Weight Distribution (Automatic)%: 62/38
Ramp Approach angle: N/A
Brake dimensions (Diameter): N/A
Interior dimensions:
Headroom Front: 37.8"
Headroom Back: 30.1"
Elbow Room Front: 52.6"
Elbow Room Back: 51.3"
Trunk Volume: 17.8" (Does not specify with either seat backs up or down)
With both rear seats folded: N/A
Front Leg Room: 41.3"
Rear Leg Room: 29.2"
Maximum Seating: 4
The way I see it, the RSX 5-speed manual is only very marginally bigger in some exterior/interior dimensions and weighs exactly 170 pounds more than the MINI Cooper 5-speed car. Also the RSX has less standard safety equipment, is $2,891 more expensive to start than the base Cooper, comparably equipped.
The Cooper also wins in interior passenger room but loses in trunk cargo capacity with the seats up.
The only reasons to get the base RSX over the base Cooper are the bigger 2.0L 160HP engine, bigger trunk, 29.4 inches more overall length and that's about it. The MINI Cooper runs in circles around the RSX....
See the more we disect the Cooper, the better it holds its own against the RSX. There is no comparison folks.
Sources:
www.edmunds.com
www.miniusa.com
www.acura.com
Afraid that you might like it too much?