Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

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

145791018

Comments

  • hpulley4hpulley4 Member 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 Member 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
  • someblondeguysomeblondeguy Member Posts: 45
    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 Member Posts: 32,889
    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.

    '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

  • rickroverrickrover Member Posts: 601
    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.
  • someblondeguysomeblondeguy Member Posts: 45
    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 Member Posts: 32,889
    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.

    '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

  • highanxietyhighanxiety Member Posts: 1
    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 Member Posts: 1,391
    Some you'll get used to real quick
  • markjennmarkjenn Member 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 Member Posts: 601
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 601
    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 Member Posts: 32,889
    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?

    '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

  • rickroverrickrover Member Posts: 601
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 356
    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 Member Posts: 32,889
    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.

    '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

  • huntzingerhuntzinger Member Posts: 356
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 356
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • tiredofmanualtiredofmanual Member Posts: 338
    ...is available here.


    Notice how well the passenger compartment stays intact.

  • muffin_manmuffin_man Member Posts: 865
    Did they hit it with an Excursion?
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    just a few things:

    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

  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    The RSX does have a new power train. Most of the components of the RSX are either borrowed or modified and tweaked components. The engine of course is totaly brand new. The Mini is brand new from the ground up. In terms of reliability, you can say both are brand new, but I would still say the RSX should be very reliable due to using a great deal of shared components.

    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?
  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    Vooch, you are right that none of the cars are sports cars, but for the budget minded, they are about as close as you are going to get this side of a 350Z. The only two cars that might qualify would be the Mustang and the WRX (since the Trans Am and the Camaro are no longer made), but these are much different cars.

    Hey, if we all had unlimited funds, we can talk about another couple of econoboxes like a Mclarin F1 vs. the new Ferarri F60.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    no, you didn't nulify it. First of all, steel still crumples. Its not indestructible, just sturdier. Second, the cardboard would not absorb enough of the impact to keep you from being splattered all over whatever it was that hit you. That's my point. Its all about design, not size. Smaller can be better if its designed better. Its pretty simple, really.

    '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

  • muffin_manmuffin_man Member Posts: 865
    I really hope that the Mini is as sturdy and crashworthy as you think. But it's very light, and crumple zones save lives. In accidents with bigger cars it is almost always going to lose.

    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.
  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    Take a shock sensor (sorry, the name for the device escapes me now). Put the sensor at the end of the 20 foot cardboard box and another at the end of the 5ft. steel box. Ram each box the same. See which sensor records more shock. I will bet you the one at the end of the steel box will record more shock. That is my point. A reinforced steel box does not have crumple zones, and may only absorb the shock slightly. If it did have crumple zones, this will help absorb some of the shock, but not a great deal of it. There is a chance that the object might not even hit the sensor at the end of the 20 feet of cardboard due to the length and the resistance of the cardboard. As a result, the sensor may feel much less shock.

    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.
  • huntzingerhuntzinger Member Posts: 356
    Sorry, you missed the point entirely. To explain it in a more simple fashion...

    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
  • huntzingerhuntzinger Member Posts: 356
    I say that due to "simple physics" the car is deadly in a crash due to the short length.


    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

  • tiredofmanualtiredofmanual Member Posts: 338
    Mean nothing when getting up the on-ramp onto the highway. 5-60, or more likely 10-75, are some measures that would mean something. And we all know that 0-60 times do not do a very good job of approximating acceleration from a rolling start.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    MM - I hope so too. BMW said it is. Time will tell the truth.

    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

  • kevin111kevin111 Member Posts: 991
    O.K., F=MA, the reason I do not like the Mini

    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.
  • hpulley4hpulley4 Member Posts: 591
    Go check the crash tests. While an SUV hitting a Geo Metro would obviously be a no-brainer as to which vehicle you'd rather be in, SUVs roll and kill their occupants many more times in single-vehicle (or vehicle to telephone pole, etc.) accidents.

    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.
  • hpulley4hpulley4 Member Posts: 591
    Kevin, show me how low to the ground the MINI is. Show me how it's height and ground clearance make it lower than other cars. It is taller than the RSX, higher off the ground than the GTI, and its mass is not much of a percentage lighter than these other vehicles. You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill as far as the mass is concerned and the "low to the ground" argument is 100% baseless!
  • huntzingerhuntzinger Member Posts: 356
    O.K., F=MA, the reason I do not like the Mini

    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
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    If you peruse the tests on that Automobile Association site, you may want to take a look at the results for the VW Lupo. A very small car. Even at 910 kg, the passenger compartment faired WAY better than in the 1800 kg Chrysler Voyager, 1500+ kg Mitsubishi Space Wagon, and 1315 kg Saab 900, just to name a few.

    '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

  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,696
    there will be a five door SVT focus available. Looks like a SVT-ized ZX5. Looks good, but of course I'm biased ;-)


    http://www.focaljet.com/

  • drivinisfundrivinisfun Member Posts: 372
    Interesting debate. Kudos to everyone here for keeping it civil and lively at the same time.

    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
  • drivinisfundrivinisfun Member Posts: 372
    Instead of criticizing the MINI based on hearsay and armchair reviews, go out and drive one....experience it for yourself.

    Afraid that you might like it too much? :)
This discussion has been closed.