Old and new Mini next to each other

[stevec67]

Never owned one, but I know people who did, and they totally agree with you. On the other hand, it did revolutionise the small car market, and people making small cars copied the basic idea of a transverse engine, but without all the initial compromises (gears in the sump, radiator in the side, leaving the distributor exposed to the elements, problems with the primitive rubber universal joints). Then, of course, there was BMC's renowned quality control and dedicated workforce...

Add to that rusting rear subframes, radius arm bearings making the rear suspension crooked, back brakes with manual adjusters that always but always seized up, and front suspension swivel joints that needed stripping and reshimming every MoT without fail and usually at the 6000 mile (!) service interval. Add in engines that needed serious attention by 70-80k miles, and I really don't miss them.

Back in the early 90s I was into cars and fancied building a hot Mini. I priced up what I'd have to do and a donor car, and fairly quickly got to £4-5k, plus DIY time. That was enough at the tie to buy a decent 205 GTi that left any Mini for dead. So instead of having an outbreak of common sense I bought a Triumph Spitfire that was slow, thirsty and unreliable.

 

[Rug Doc]

^ wow. Mini or a Pug, both guaranteed smile inducers and you got a Spitfire… eek.

 

[stevec67]

^ wow. Mini or a Pug, both guaranteed smile inducers and you got a Spitfire… eek.

Yes, it was good fun at first. Could have been worse, the other contender was an Alfa Spider, that would have been hard work indeed. I drove one and decided that it wasn't enough orders of magnitude better than a Spitfire to justify the extra cost. Likewise a Fiat 124 Spider, which was available ex California for modest money but with some abuse evident.

 

[richardg]

And over 1200kg. And four wheel drive…

Now you are just being picky!

 

[richardg]

My first car was a Spitfire 1500 and I loved it and kept it for a few years. Then in 1999 I got an X19 which, jumping from the Spitfire, felt like a spaceship. Bigger inside, more storage, quieter, faster, decent handling, smoother, drier carpets, far less rattles, everything worked. It never broke down in the year I had it and it took me all over the place. Not sure I would feel that way if I jumped in one now, though.

 

[Tony Lockhart]

Now you are just being picky!

Well, when we bought a Mk4 Golf 1.8T in 2001, a common criticism was its 1270kg. We didn’t care, we didn’t want a raw hot hatch at that time. So a supermini weighing almost that seems daft.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Cupra Formentor (face lift version - when it shows itself)

Will be looking at Cupra myself when the time comes, current car is going to tick over to 60K today. Boot size is always a deal breaker for me, I usually have an estate car.

Cheers BB

 

[awkwardbydesign]

Is it just me, or do so many new cars look like they share a designer with these?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

It's not just you. So many cars these days seem to be over-styled. Form Follows Fashion, perhaps.

 

[Darren L]

I think alot of modern car styling comes from aerodynamics and safety features, crumple zones, etc,they do seem to be getting bulkier and bigger all the time and mostly losing their recognised shape or style.
Tracy had a Fiesta previously which was an impressive solid little motor and quite peppy for a 3 cylinder 1.0 litre engine, the Kuga she currently has is OK, good space when the seats are down (for carrying stuff) but a bit sore on fuel.
I just used whatever my boss provided, normally a Transit as everything else was a bit 'soft' .
For recreational use I'll stick to my bike.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I think there are rather too many creases, folds, grooves, channels, vanes, vents, wings, swoopy bits and chunky bits for them all to be explained away by aerodynamics and safety. Some of them seem designed to emphasize the bulk, in fact. They are perhaps designed to make their car look distinctive, but in fact as they're all at it, they're looking less and less distinguishable, rather as the blobby phase did around the turn of the century.

 

[stevec67]

I think there are rather too many creases, folds, grooves, channels, vanes, vents, wings, swoopy bits and chunky bits for them all to be explained away by aerodynamics and safety.

So do I. There's a time and a place for a crease in a body panel, they stiffen the structure. For proof, try bending a piece of paper. Easy. Then put a sharp crease in it and open it out until it's almost straight (say bent by 10-20 degrees). Now try again to bend across the fold. It's how corrugated cardboard works.

Some of them seem designed to emphasize the bulk, in fact. They are perhaps designed to make their car look distinctive, but in fact as they're all at it, they're looking less and less distinguishable, rather as the blobby phase did around the turn of the century.

It's funny how there is a convergent evolution in product design and people all end up buying the same stuff at any point in time. We all ooh and ah at the 60s designs and while they can't be reproduced because of current safety regs we could, if we wanted to, get pretty close. For proof, look at the circa 2000 Minis and (then) New Beetles, and some of the Alpina/Alfa/New Fiat Spider/various Lotus Elans, sorry, Mazda MX5s available. But they aren't bought. The latest Fiat Spider, which was an MX5 in a party frock, looked absolutely bloody fantastic but it's no longer sold. A shame, but that's the market.
I suspect it's like clothes fashion. We all want to be different, we say, but we don't. Witness the ridiculous trend for skinny jeans, during which time I couldn't buy trousers to fit my legs. It has fortunately (mostly) ended, but for a while it was the only game in town. Just like SUVs currently are.

 

[The Captain]

Wanted:

General

Moan

Thread.

Asap.

 

[martin clark]

I think there are rather too many creases, folds, grooves, channels, vanes, vents, wings, swoopy bits and chunky bits for them all to be explained away by aerodynamics and safety. Some of them seem designed to emphasize the bulk, in fact. They are perhaps designed to make their car look distinctive, but in fact as they're all at it, they're looking less and less distinguishable, rather as the blobby phase did around the turn of the century.

It's an outcome of the take-over of the SUV 'two-blob , but high stance' approach. Also why the wheels have become so pointlessly-large.

Draw the outline of any such car, and the wheels, and you'll see what I am getting-at; anything less would result in a horrific slab-sided horror.

Now re-draw with even just 18" wheel ('large' 20yrs ago) - and start giggling. Just look at the the average present difference in height from the top of the tyre, to the top of the bonnet line / waisline /base of windscreen. (and the curious means many present designs use to misdirect that around the wheelarch, from inset plastic spats in black plastic to make the wheel look even larger, to a firm circular crease c 3-4" on the wheels radius, to do the same; sometimes both!

Summary - if you don't slightly oversculpt all the surfaces to lead the eye away from the basic massing problem - the result is horrid; rear quarter view of present JLR discovery, for example. Else the SUV format could actually look like a wide-angle shot of a Sherpa van in perspective.

This too will pass; it's ...fashion ultimately. But a long, long way from 'elegant.'

 

[Darren L]

I think there are rather too many creases, folds, grooves, channels, vanes, vents, wings, swoopy bits and chunky bits for them all to be explained away by aerodynamics and safety. Some of them seem designed to emphasize the bulk, in fact. They are perhaps designed to make their car look distinctive, but in fact as they're all at it, they're looking less and less distinguishable, rather as the blobby phase did around the turn of the century.

Quite possibly, I'll stick to my 50's and 60's style bikes, fashions come and go but real 'style' will outlast fashion.

So do I. There's a time and a place for a crease in a body panel, they stiffen the structure. For proof, try bending a piece of paper. Easy. Then put a sharp crease in it and open it out until it's almost straight (say bent by 10-20 degrees). Now try again to bend across the fold. It's how corrugated cardboard works.

It's funny how there is a convergent evolution in product design and people all end up buying the same stuff at any point in time. We all ooh and ah at the 60s designs and while they can't be reproduced because of current safety regs we could, if we wanted to, get pretty close. For proof, look at the circa 2000 Minis and (then) New Beetles, and some of the Alpina/Alfa/New Fiat Spider/various Lotus Elans, sorry, Mazda MX5s available. But they aren't bought. The latest Fiat Spider, which was an MX5 in a party frock, looked absolutely bloody fantastic but it's no longer sold. A shame, but that's the market.
I suspect it's like clothes fashion. We all want to be different, we say, but we don't. Witness the ridiculous trend for skinny jeans, during which time I couldn't buy trousers to fit my legs. It has fortunately (mostly) ended, but for a while it was the only game in town. Just like SUVs currently are.

If you're looking for good jeans check out HebtroCo, quality denim and made in the UK (as is all their clothing, etc)

 

[gez]

Maybe it's time to change the name to Maxi

 

[gez]

Wanted:

General

Moan

Thread.

Asap.

Do you realise the irony of your post?

 

[gez]

No no no, not THAT old Mini, an old new next to a new new…



Doesn’t even look like a Mini now, just a generic ugly modern car.

I'm more concerned by the fact you're in such close proximity to a Next

 

[Tony Lockhart]

I'm more concerned by the fact you're in such close proximity to a Next

I wasn’t. Pic nicked.
I’ve not been Nexted since the 80s.

 

[ff1d1l]

Not much love for Minis on this thread, but let's not forget they showed those Eye-talians a thing or two in that Michael Cain film.