“It handles like a go-cart.” For the past five-years I’ve taken this description of the BMW’s born-again clown car’s dynamics at face value. Living in Los Angeles, I’ve seen more of these faux-Brits than Carnaby Streeters ever did. And I’ve often wondered if the MINI was small and extraordinarily nimble like its forbearer, or just plain small. Other than sipping cheap wine next to the trio of stunt cars used in the third Austin Powers movie, I’d never had a chance to get up close and personal with a MINI. More importantly, I’d never put the British-built roadster’s handling to the test– until this week, when RF charged me with the task of assessing the “old” new MINI before the “new” new MINI arrives stateside.
Deconstructing a design icon is tricky at best. At the risk of alienating the faithful, I’ll say this much: the new car is nearly twice as large as the original and violates designer Alec Issigonis’s basic tenet (80% of the vehicle is dedicated to passengers, the remaining 20% is for mechanicals and luggage). Other than that, I think the new MINI looks like a toddler’s high top sneaker. Oh, and I love the J Mays’ cribbed headlights and the fact that the rear is wider than the front. So, um, moving on.
Once inside, I felt an overwhelming urge to pop a Prozac. Call me a frumpy, but I could barely cope with the unrelenting designer-ness of the thing. The cabin is awash in chrome, plastic that looks like chrome, plastic that looks like plastic and twinkling glass. Our tester came with the Cockpit Chrono Pack, which is even more ADD-inducing than the default set-up. MINI’s speedometer moves to the top of the wheel (next to the tach) leaving the space for oil, fuel and temperature readouts (where's the boost gauge?). Although the MINI is billed as pint-sized luxury, I reckon the point of luxury (in any amount) is to relax. The Cooper’s innards almost induced seizures. Moving on.
The MINI Cooper S is loaded to the gills with go-faster bits: oxymoronic performance run-flat tires, 17” inch aluminum wheels, McPherson struts (front), a multi-link suspension (rear), equal-length drive shafts and a supercharger. The blower bangs out 168 horses for just 2678 pounds of, um, style. A ludicrously tall first gear (4.455) and the inherent FWD dragster drawbacks means it takes nearly seven seconds for the MINI to get from rest to 60mph. This stat wasn’t all that bad back in 2001. In 2006, the similarly priced Mazda Speed3 does the deed a full second faster. The MINI’s not slow, but it’s not a whole lot of fun to flog the transverse-mounted 1.6-liter four in a straight line.
I’ve never been a big fan of any BMW cog-swapping solution; in the MINI’s manual, the good people of Bavaria don’t disappoint my sense of disappointment. First of all, the MINI’s gearbox is a long-throw shifter. Such a device might have seemed appropriate back when the Sixties were swung, but today it just feels cheap and clumsy. The supercharger’s horsepower-sucking reality means that the second you lift your foot from the gas to shift, the engine loses 1500rpm. So even when you get the gear you think you wanted, it’s not the gear you actually need. Try as I might to whip this little whip, my plans were foiled first by the engine, and then by the gears.
I’ve been driving go-carts quite a bit lately, so I feel qualified to judge the MINI’s similarity to same. After caning the MINI through California hill and dale, I can proclaim here and now that the MINI Cooper S is indeed the world’s fattest go-cart. The initial turn-in is awesome: tight, accurate and eager. Right until the apex of a turn, the MINI lives up to the hype, steering and responding with the kind of rapid fire, laser-guided confidence that makes motorized dinner trays such a kick in the ass. From the turning point on, the go-cart analogy drives straight into the metaphorical tire wall.
Lest we forget, go-carts are rear wheel-driver machines. After you finish the turn, you plant your foot and power your way home. The MINI is front wheel-drive. Assuming you’re lucky enough to find 4000rpm and summon 162 foot-pounds of torque, flooring it out of a corner creates a nightmarish mix of understeer plowing and angry steering. I tried the same trick with the traction control off– and wondered if my insurance premiums were up to date. While cute, the MINI is not a track-day option.
Though not yet on our shores, BMW is embiggening the newish “MINI” and ditching the blower for a turbo. Let’s just hope the company’s chassismeisters have sorted the MINI’s on-the-limit handing. If so, the British go-cart will fully deserve the pistonhead plaudits it already receives.
85 Comments on “MINI Cooper S Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
What a perfectly cromulent review.
How do you and other people fit into the Mini? Compared to the new subcompacts, it's quite erm… short in terms of height.
Ok, I’ll be the one to nit-pick: there’s no boost gauge in the chrono pack; it has gauges for oil pressure and temperature, fuel, and coolant temperature.
I’ll admit to being an MCS owner and fanatic, but, having tracked my car several times, I take umbrage with this statement:
Maybe it’s because you’re used to driving performance rear-wheel drive cars, but the MINI rocks on the track. Then again, you’ve been spending a lot of time in trucks, lately. In my rungroup at a BMWCCA school, I had no problem getting around the car-shaped obstacles like E46 M3s, Porsches, and the occasional Gallardo. Let the car settle into the corner and then bury your foot into the carpet and it’ll haul out of the turn hard enough to give you whiplash. Get it drifting a bit, and you can induce under- or over-steer with a nudge of the throttle. It’s supremely controllable, and a helluva lot of fun. Especially with the optional limited-slip diff.
Perhaps the interior is a bit brash, but that’s one of the things I like about it, and something I feel is being lost a bit in the ‘07 redesign. The brashness sets it apart from all of the other cars that make you think about nappytime instead of having a big grin on your face when you settle behind the wheel. But this car’s really about driving, and if you know what you’re doing, the understeer’s not as bad as you intimate.
Thanks for spelling MINI properly, by the way. ;-)
Jonny,
Great review — I’m glad to see you back on the job.
Finally, a review that calls BMW/Mini on their lousy gearboxes and long clutches. It’s funny, on the one hand, BMW is the only luxury carmaker that actually offers a stick on most models, but then you drive it and realize it’s just a way for them to keep the sticker price looking low, and then charge 2 grand for the geartronic. Lame.
I’ve never been a MINI fan, but I have seen one do incredibly well at a track, beating out several Evos, a couple Corvettes, and a GTO. It was extensively modded though…
The “new” Mini is only a go kart b/c of its dimunitive proportinos compared to the size of today’s SUVs. I’ve driven both the standard and the “S” model. Both are nicely appointed small cars but the Brazilian built Chrysler engines just don’t have any soul (even when the air is forced into it). And it’s not like Chrysler is known for sewing machine sized engine prowess (hey – the Mini has a DCX engine in it!). The Handling is nothing short of understeer (sure it handles better than most other 3k pound plus fwd family sedans). But put it up against competition in weight and price and the Mini falters greatly. Or add rwd to the mix and the Mini is just that Mini fun.
The current Civic Si is the car to beat in the Go Kart handling analogy as we know Honda makes some of the best Hamsters (on steriods – without the need for iron lungs to force air in) in the business and the company is a suspension tuning whiz. Thank Sorichiro Honda for the passion and focus that stays with the company today. In fact the only cars in recent memory that can truly be considered to have go kart like reflexes in a fwd chassis has to be the CRX (mainly the 88 model Si that had brilliantly so passive rear steering – this was later put on the Integra Type R) – my other vote goes for the original Miata (it is a blast to drive and handles like a go kart…but it is rwd).
I’ve heard that Alec Issigonis also meant for his design to be uncomfortable for the driver so that people would pay attention to their driving. Maybe the interior is meant to mirror this, but to me it just looks like a nice, clean design. Is the MINI supposed to be luxurious or is it supposed to be fun? (Yes, yes, no reason why it can’t be both)
To you it looks like a high top baby bootie; at least it doesn’t look like a blandmobile like so many other reasonably aerodynamic cars on the road. And yes, I would love to have a MCS, though your issues with the trans do make me question how much fun it would be to drive it.
Great pun on the first picture, BTW.
If anyone is confused by the “embiggening” and “cromulent” references, here’s your link—>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologisms_in_The_Simpsons
how can a car site use the words “cromulent” and “embiggens” without mentioning the velocitator and the deceleratrix?
As another MCS owner, I have to agree with blalor’s comments above.
Now repeat after me: This car IS a track day option.
FWD or not, this Cooper S has to be the King of point & shoot racing. It is extremely difficult to fluster it at the limit, and she stays controllable all the while.
And to your point about the “ADD-inducing” interior setup: My advice to any prospective buyer would be to pass on the Chrono-Pack. It is needlessly busy, so I opted for the standard setup which is more functional, more stylish, and highlights the tons of personality this car exudes.
Hmm… Tons of Personality. How many cars offer that?
My bad on the supercharger display reference. I’ve fixed the text.
I totally agree with you that the MINI is not a track day car and can also get floaty over even minor rough patches at speed but that is not really the point of the MINI. What attracted my wife to it was that it is a fun car. It has personality rather than the generic design of a lot of todays cars. It handles great in off-track driving and has so many customization options that you won’t see two alike. In that way its design goal is more in line with a tricked out Scion xB than a sports car. And it seems those goals judging by the sales figures.
I love TTAC but I have to admit that the focus of your reviews is getting narrow. There is more to cars than just track performance. Maybe you should rename it to the Truth About Track Cars and then it would be more in line with its current content
Sorry Jonny I’m sure you’re a great driver in your cars of preference, but from your cornering description it’s quite obvious you don’t know how to drive a fwd. you would never try to power out of a corner like in a rwd. you want to swing the car so it’s situated in a way that the front wheels are going close to a straight line out of the turn. it’s quite a different technique than rwd cornering. take a srt4 or mini-s back to the track and practice for a few days and you might see that you are able to get through those corners quite a bit faster.
I don’t think the Aveo review would fit well if we used that url. Then again…
Chanman:
I fit quite well in the MINI — plenty of headroom, legroom, hiproom, etc. My only gripe was that there was not much room to my left. You ever been in a Land Rover Defender? Sort of like that, left-wise.
Steve-O and Blalor:
You are both right, I mistpoke. The MINI IS a track-day option. So is a Dodge Stratus. Anything is an option. It’s just not a very good option.
I’m also of the opinion that E46 M3s aren’t great track-day options, as I’ve been beaten round courses by Dodge Neons — meaning that I’m not a very good track-day driver.
I stand by my comments that A) the engine, while cute in theory, is too pint-sized to handle the supercharger B) the gearbox is bad, especially for such a pricey car C) the handling is greatly exaggerated.
As for the car’s “personality…” I knew a guy once who bought the first generation RAV4 — the tiny two-door model — because he liked the commercial where it was trying to park and the little dog barked at it, and the RAV4 backed up and drove away. I say it’s an overcooked mess, but if you like, you like it.
NeonCat93:
Absolutely right — Issigonis felt an uncomfortable driver was an alert driver.
carguy and dolo54:
I say right in the lead of the review that I was mostly concerned with, “Handles like a go-cart.”
It doesn’t.
I opted for the John Cooper Works package on my S. The extra HP would no doubt change your mind about the performance. It is a shame you did not have a car so equipped. I love the Chrono Pack because I would rather have the gauges than the big speedo; but that is all personal choice which is one of its strong points. There are so many different ways one can order their car, which cannot be said of the Japanese makes.
Joeypilot:
I would be very curious to get behind the wheel of a JCW.
You won’t be dissapointed. I hope you get to drive one soon!
The only club event where I’ve seen a MCS’ weakness come to any disadvantage was a winter driving school. Who knew a mini with snow tires wouldnt climb like an Audi quattro? Shy of that I’ve seen the few that show up at ACNA events perform pretty well. Perhaps the MCS is better suited to autocross circuit mania than road course antics.
I own an ‘06 MINI Cooper S with the LSD and even most of the weightier options (panoramic glass sunroof, heated seats, so forth) and as I read this review, I can’t help but wonder how much time you got to spend with the car. At initial drive, I can understand some of your comments, but spend a longer season with the car and its character for both speed and precision become more apparent than its inaugural drive. With the optional limited-slip differential especially, the car’s propensity to understeer is all but eliminated – even more so with the traction control turned off. The car pulls through the corner from the outside front wheel in a manner that’s as consistent as it is thrilling.
Furthermore, you of all people should know that there’s more to life than 0-60 times. What the MINI lacks in drag car aptitude it more than makes up for in handling talent, positive road feedback, and predictably precise “chuck-ability.”
Though the MINI is built by BMW, it makes no claim (nor do any who drive them) at being a “luxury small car.” The understood class descriptor – at least within the drivers’ community – has been “premium small car” and there’s an important distinction there. Having driven the 330i, the X4, and the 525i, I for one am thankful for the MINI’s lack of BMW-bred civility. In my estimation, the car is only about 85% BMW and the remainder a delightful, old-style british sensibility. And though it has economy car stats and dimensions, the MINI lacks any sense of cheapness in my opinion – something even the new Civic Si hasn’t yet fully shaken.
Now I won’t disguise the fact that I’m an Art Director and couldn’t be more enamored with the aesthetics of the MINI. But beyond my appreciation for form, the MINI is bred for what is in my estimation one of the most specific purpose of any car on the road in this price range. The MINI isn’t trying in the slightest to be all things to all people. Instead it succeeds in being the absolute most fun you can possibly have on the race track of your daily commute. I drive 53 miles one-way everyday in mine and in every speed range from stoplight starts and 80 mph highway cruises, the MINI is positively the most fun I’ve ever had on 4 wheels. The near-perfect balance between handling capability, speed (and I can certainly testify that the MINI squarely crosses the line from “quick” to “fast”), economy in both price and fuel consumption, style, and driving character make the MINI a fantastic driver’s car option for people that value that combination. The car is designed with enough specificity of purpose to limit some of its universal appeal, and I couldn’t be more grateful for that distinction. Sure there are cars on the road with more horsepower, bigger trunks, more predictable interior appointments, and even a handful with a better cornering experience. But I have yet to experience a vehicle at any price with so much joyful character. It appeals to a specific kind of driving, and that appeals to me.
Jonny – point taken and I agree that it doesn’t handle like a go-cart. However, the item was presented as a review and also covered non performance aspects so I’ll reiterate that for the target audience the MINI was designed for, it does a great job which is reflected in its sales. Reviews need to take into consideration the purpose of the vehicle which is why we don’t judge a sports car by the same criteria than a minivan (”The Porsche 911 doesn’t offer seating for 7, disabled access options or stow and go seating and is thus inferior to the Chrysler Town and Country”)
I don’t mean to bug (but I am doing a good job of it right now) but I hold TTAC to a much higher standard than other car publications and I would hate to see corners being cut for the sake of making two daily postings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromulent
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cromulant
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cromulent
That said, FWD and Performance should never be used in the same sentence. I don’t care who you are. I don’t care if you reference the Acura Hype-R, a Celica GT-S, the MazdaSpeed 3, Civic SI, or VW GTI –
Front wheel drive is for housewives and people with heart problems.
carguy:
Fair enough. Part of the challenege when writing about cars in this format — at least for me — is that we are somewhat limited in terms of length.
So, if you have a point to get across (ie. handles like a go-cart?) AND need to review the full car, things get tricky.
I appreciate the fact that you hold TTAC in such high regard. Not cutting corners on this end.
Front-Wheel Drive is for housewives and people with heart problems.
>>Both are nicely appointed small cars but the Brazilian built Chrysler engines just don’t have any soul (even when the air is forced into it).
I’ll go further. The car feels as if the engine’s vibration is sucking power away from the drive wheels. Why BMW would shoot for a “premium small car” and then put such a POS engine in it is beyond me. I hear they’re switching to a Peugeot engine. I hope it’s an improvement (haven’t driven a Peugeot since my parents sold the ‘65 404 wagon more than several decades ago–a very nice car), but I have a feeling they should have gone for something from Toyota or Honda if they didn’t want to build it themselves.
David — I really think the key is the swift from super to turbo.
Remember, superchargers take horsepower to spin.
A 1.6L just ain’t going to stump up the power.
I believe the Chrysler lump was chosen before BMW bought Rover. The new engine was jointly developed with PSA. You can read more here. So they *are* building it themselves, mainly relying on PSA for production. Final assembly of the engine for MINIs will be done in the UK by BMW.
Despite the current engine being made by Chrysler (in Brazil), it’s a damn solid little motor. It might not be the most refined powerplant, but I think you’ll find few enthusiasts bashing it.
I didn’t know Mini’s were sports cars intended for canyon carving.
I thought they were for running about town.
Tommy
I think part of the MINI’s problem — or my problem with it — is exactly that.
It is trying to be too many things.
Anyhow, I’m very curious to drive the Mk. II
cretinx:
“Front-Wheel Drive is for housewives and people with heart problems.”
What does that mean?
The MINI is the only compact/subcompact I would ever think of owning. It has what 90% of cars do not, distinctive attractive style (over 200,000 people per year seem to agree as well as pay MSRP or more for). The cockpit is a tad busy but it is so unique. I’d love to have an MCS Vert as a daily driver. It does need a little more in the Go dept. which hopefully the new turbo mill will take care of. It also has a fairly broad appeal, even if it’s too small for some and they wouldn’t buy one they still enjoy looking at it.
Joeypilot….
I’d imagine it means he’s never driven a FWD that handles… or he has never learned how to drive a FWD at limit. The technique and line is not the same as an AWD or RWD car. A FWD car can be very fast if you the driver have the aptitude to feed the machine just the right inputs.
Send him out to ride shotgun in a BTCC or STW car, I’m sure his opinion would change about as quickly as the cleanliness status of his undergarmets.
The reality is that FWD is for packaging and production costs… not a particular type of person.
qfrog and joey pilot
what I mean is FWD is NOT the platform you want to use for performance.
Ive never driven a FWD car that can handle? You mean like my old street-prepped 200 hp-2450 lb Celica GT-S with its quaife helical limited slip differential or my STS prepped Civic DX?
You can only do so much before front wheel drive limits you – the problem is that the front wheels are doing all the steering, all the accelerating, most of the braking – not to mention the weight distribution of the car is incredibly wacked from all the weight being in front of the car (even worse if the majority of the weight is in front of the axle . . . hello longitudinally mounted audis). A car with the running gear in the back and the engine in the front, plus a transmission tunnel through the center is going to be more inherently balanced (though my Celica did transition like a glue-sniffing gazelle).
What I mean by FWD is for housewives and people with heart problems is that FWD is NOT for performance – it is for more cabin space, more efficient transfer of energy from the engine to the wheels (looking at 10% driveline loss compared to 15% from RWD) resulting in better fuel economy, and predictable understeer that many argue is safer in the hands of bad drivers and people who use their car as an appliance while zombieing to work (99% of the population, the people I refer to as housewives and people with heart problems)
Give me tail out shennanigans any day of the week, rain, snow, or shine (and dont argue FWD is better in the snow, anyone with snow tires and throttle restraint will fare just as well in a RWD car).
I own a FWD car right now (Granted, its an A3, not an MCS), and while I agree with the handful of folks here claiming that A diminutive FWD car can be a VERY competent track car if you know how to drive it, the fact is I don’t like the way the physics drive you in a FWD car. Miatas and Elises drive like go-karts because its fun to correct all that drift and oversteer that happens as a consequence of going fast. I always feel like achieving that kind of oversteer (purely for the sake of fun) takes too much work in a FWD car. In short, “go-kart handling” might not be taken to be “fastest car around the track”, but rather just “fun” and “toss-able,” and I’ve have yet to drive a FWD car that provides that as well as a light RWD car.
I’m not of any reputable track talent, so maybe my comment is only worth so much.
So then say what you mean… dont quip a cute little comment which holds water about as well as a pasta strainer.
qfrog
I’m assuming you are responding to my comment. I did say what I mean, which is that I think a lot of people’s idea of “handles like a go kart” doesn’t have anything to do with the true speed of the car around a track, but rather how easy it is to make it do fun things like getting sidewards. This whole review is written around that figure of speech, and I’m not sure that track folks and day-to-day driver’s see eye to eye on what it means.
FWD is made for all weather performance…if you’ve live in the snow belt and had to choose between a FWD and a RWD car you’ll choose the latter 9/10 times.
Having ~ 60% of the weight over the wheels that both drive and turn the car makes them much easier to control and drive in bad weather. I grew up in Chicago/Michigan and FWD (and now AWD) is an absolute necessity during the winter.
The engine in the Cooper is nothing short of Tractor-riffic (reminds me of the MB SLK compressor – loud trashy anti revving mill). I was ashamed and upset that BMW put in the Brazilian built Chrysler engine (they did their best to hide this fact). Couldn’t get something more with more soul or potential? That leads us to why BMW had to add forced induction b/c there was no other way to make the engine more powerful (besides replace it). Now, there are many nice engines out there that would easily fit, not upet the balance, and more importantly bring this car. These are engines such as the Yamaha 1.8 engine (rebadged as a Toyota for their discontinued Celica GT-S or the Elise) or several high output racing derived Honda engines.
Now if you want a true “go kart” for the road (if you can get it to pass) – it’s the Ariel Atom. From 220hp up to 300hp (s/c form).
jaje,
I grew up in Rochester, NY – that’s the snow belt.
Like I said, the myth that FWD is so much better is just wrong – a RWD car with snow tires is just as good. I drove through the snow in my parent’s 1994 VW Passat as a kid – my dad went from that to a BMW 5-series and my mom went from an Explorer to a Lincoln LS – both RWD cars – let me say, I felt more competent in the BMW and Lincoln than in the tipsy Explorer. The key is equipping the car with snow tires and having throttle restraint. I have even driven my old 517 hp single-turbo converted FD3S RX-7 and 360 hp custom turbocharged RX-8 through snow (I live in DC now – and yes I talk about driving a lot of cars, I have owned 11 so far) with minimal problems – TIRES TIRES TIRES.
I prefer RWD over FWD and even AWD. It just allows a skilled driver more consistency (RWD does not overpower the tires like FWD or AWD car does) and better overall laptimes.
However one thing I did notice is when you lower the hp of the car the RWD / FWD becomes less of an issue. In fact if you take a CRX (1.6) and race it against a stock Miata (1.6) you’ll be surprised with the outcome. FWD cars have lower drivetrain loss than RWD and AWD (most parasitic). The FWD has to transfer power over a shorter distance and in a more efficient manner. Engines are lighter so balance is better and more towards 50/50 rather than the typical 65/35 of most FWD cars today. As power is also lower traction / torque steer become less of an issue (main killers of FWD for momentum based racing out of corners). Materials used today make an even bigger difference as they are lighter (no more iron blocks in most modern 4 cylinders – transmissions are become more streamlined and smaller = lighter)
cretinx,
OK. I understand now. One of the reasons I bought the car is because that it is unique and fun while getting good mileage. The writers at TTAC seem to point out quite often how many cars want to/do look like another, (and I agree) which I certainly did not want. Thanks for the clarification.
Oh, you kids. Why must you be so mean to one another. Look: both FWD and RWD and 4WD and AWD have their place and their supporters. Does calling someone who prefers FWD a name make one more of a “pistonhead”? Well, maybe but it makes them a worse person.
Jonny: why do a review of a FWD car panning it for not handling like a go-cart. I don’t see this serving any purpose. Do some people think it DOES handle like a go-cart?
cretinx:
I’m sorry but that’s absolutely false. In fact for your premise to be even somewhat plausible you had to put on different tires on the RWD car (which only makes you think it handles better than a fwd. I have owned many a RWD car in the winter with snow tires (and even chains), but back to back driving with that car and a FWD car is still a night and day difference. You note TIRES – well put snow tires on the FWD car and it will still be superior to RWD.
Some newspaper (could have been Detroit Free Press) did a comparison of FWD versus RWD (with the common option of traction control) and noted that even RWD with traction control didn’t make the driver as confident as the FWD car.
Hoo-boy. Just saw the google ad on top. My apologies, Mr. Lieberman. Let ‘em have it.
I would like to point out also… fwd and rwd are appropriate for different vehicles. I can’t imagine this mini being better off as a rwd just like i can’t imagine a corvette being better off as a fwd. fwd makes sense in a tiny hatch, not a longer heavier car. when you are talking all out sports performance of course you want rwd or awd, but if you are talking hot hatch you want fwd. and fwds can be really fun to drive and handle great at speed in that configuration. also ‘go-cart’ handling can mean just a precise handling, small, light, low-center of gravity vehicle, not necessarily exactly like a go-cart (which btw-would only leave actual go-carts fit for that description).
middleNameIsEarl:…. I apologize for the confusion…. below is what I was bent over. I was typing a reply while you posted… all was lost out of sequence.
cretinx:
“Front-Wheel Drive is for housewives and people with heart problems.â€
I 100% agree with you jaje, with regards to the lower the horsepower, the less difference there is. Thats why economy cars can get away with FWD – better gas mileage due to the more efficient transfer of power and less driveline loss. My friend had a 1.6 ZC CRX and it was as fun to drive as my 1991 1.6L Miata.
Just read the first sentence of this review –
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=467
Sweeping generalizations are for small-minded people.
I do not believe I have enough experience with RWD vehicles to be able to speak to their strengths. The last RWD I drove on a regular basis, God help me, was a 1979 Lincoln Town Car sedan, aka The Big America Mobile. I have only driven nimble FWD vehicles, though I consider CV joints the creation of the devil since I drive beaters.
I don’t care about winning races. I want to have a fun car to drive. If I could afford one, I’d buy a MCS John Cooper Works. If someone gave me a brand new Corvette, I’d sell it and buy the afformentioned MINI or something else. (This is not an invitation for offended Vette owners to tell me How Wrong I Am. I am not speaking to the quality of them or how wonderful you find them. For me, personally, they are unattractive and unwanted.)
The thing is, for the money you spend on a MINI JCW, you could get… a WRX.
Which, front a handling perspective — rain, sun, snow, mud, track, muddy track, snowy track — is a better choice.
The reason then to choose a MINI is looks and the interior.