DRIVING: that's what it's ALL ABOUT! A blog and website for automotive driving enthusiasts, featuring my interests as I see them: news and opinion about manufacturers of interest, significant enthusiast cars, and driving them hard and well.
The Mini *is* the defacto "2002" of our times. The BMW 1 series is what the 3-series should have remained: a reasonably sized 4-place family centered around a lithe enthusiasts coupe instead of the bloated heavyweight (although still desirable to a different demographic) it has gradually become (with brakes that fail after only a few fast laps. Ridiculous!). While I've always liked the Mini a lot (and have driven it at speed around a track), the latest one doesn't work for me. I've seen them, I've driven one, I don't like them anymore. The last car was cute, with features that were sometimes odd but were always endearing in a British way. The new car just goes too far... the over-exaggeration (particularly the speedometer) is a pantomime of the last car. The poor usability of the dashboard is past the point of quirky-but-acceptable. The radio is absurd. And I was absolutely aghast at the Works Mini at the LA show last week. The fake hood scoop of the Cooper is bad enough... it is counter to what I thought this car stood for. The wide assortment of additional fake scoops and vents on the Works package ruins it. That was the final straw for me. While I wouldn't have bought the last car without the Works package... I wouldn't buy this car with or without it. I'd like to see a total interior redesign. And I'd like Mini to keep in mind that while we appreciate the unique personality of the car, enthusiasts still want function over form.
And now my response to him: Fine Dutch, except that Volkswagen, Audi, Bugatti, Lamborghini, BMW, Rolls, Mini, and heck even Ferrari all amortize costs across multiple marques. That's the only way to compete in a global economy, the only way to compete technically, and the only way to drive down service and support costs. The problem is the way the sharing was done, not the fact that it was done. Jaguar and Lincoln touted the commonality of the DEW98 (premium) and CDW162 (lowly) platforms in all the initial press discussions. Even Jaguar outright denying it later on couldn't erase the negative impressions in the British owners mindset and press. They stuck. And technically they were much the same cars, despite creatively rounding 4.0 down to 3.9 or adding temporarily-exclusive variable cam timing. There needed to be much greater differentiation underneath. Another example: the new Audi TT is built off the lowly Golf chassis (with significant updates, but still the starting point) and you don't see Audi talking about that. A little more aluminum, different styling, and presto you can charge considerably more. That's how the business works.
