Twin-lamp Shock For New MINI

john Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Wow! That looks pretty bad.

Reply

Dave Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Yikes – can you spell residual value!! I'm sure this will have appeal to a whole new group of customers – but I'm glad I have an “original” new MINI!!! (if that's not an oximoron). I do like the sound of a 200bhp stock engine tho'

Reply

James Irmiger Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Boy, someone's really stretching it with this bad photoshop job! I'm begining to wonder if AutoExpress is owned by the Weekly World News. What's next…furry alien babies choose new 2006 Mini colors?

Reply

Jim G Nov 24th, 2004 Link

The only way I would buy a MINI with that face? One that has the 200hp stock motor and Getrag's AWD system…

Reply

SuperCharged Nov 24th, 2004 Link

To be totally honest,I still think that the end result of the R56 will look a lot better and different to all the photoshop jobs and sketches we've seen in the past few months. I think that they may represent the idea but not the look. I don't think BMW will release the R56 if it's anything less than stunning. That's just my opinion. – SuperCharged

Reply

ChrisW Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Remember the meaning of the word “Munsoned” from the movie Kingpin (i.e. “I got Munsoned!”)?

Here's a new one:

“Bangled” – to have catastrophically ruined a new car design.

For example: “Who would buy a Pontiac Aztek? That thing is seriously Bangled.” Or “Wow, they're really Bangling up the next MINI.”

Side note: the similarity between “Bangle” and “bungle” is no coincidence

(Sorry Gabe, I know you happen to like the new 5…)

Reply

Shawn Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Actually, does anybody know who's in charge of the MINI Design Group nowadays? Is it still Gert Hildebrand?

Reply

Nick Nov 24th, 2004 Link

What do you think the “old timers” thought of the new MINI when they saw it? I know that this won't come as too big a surprise to most of you–one thing you can count on is CHANGE. Take a peek at a photo of yourself 10-15 yrs ago. Relax.

Reply

Bill Lawrence Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Noooooooo!!!!!!!

It looks like they are going to trade the Diamler-Chrysler motor for the Diamler-Chrysler Mercedes headlights.

Those are downright hideous!!!

Reply

vadr Nov 24th, 2004 Link

I'm not a designer, so forgive the cross-professional comments…but surely the essence of evolutionary design is that one keeps the elements that make the product distinctive while developing other elements in ways that improve product viability. The VW Bug is a classic example — the bug-eyes and the humpback stayed the same, while the car got stronger and bigger and more agile.

Fine. Play with the bonnet; enlarge the grill; stretch the passager space…but kill the round headlamps???? Porsche destroyed the 911 in the same way with melting icecube lights. Yuck.

Reply

Gordon Nov 24th, 2004 Link

I echo Chris' comment, I am glad I have my MINI now instead of a Banglized MINI. I am very disappointed that BMW failed to respond to buyer feedbacks and disBangle the firm. I think they are so confident in their reputation that they begin to ignore the buyers. It is a sure sign for long term failure if they don't act soon. I had a new 5 loaner for four days, it is nice but it is not my kind of car. It is not as driver-oriented as the older BMW with the wrapped around dashboard. Then there's the i-Drive, one has no idea of how bad it is until you have to put up with it for a few days. The Fed should make it illegal like a front seat TV. Everything is unnecessarily complicated and distracting. While it is a cool living room gadget, I will never want it in my car.

Reply

Nicholasp27 Nov 24th, 2004 Link

I can't believe they'd go to a 2-headlamp design!

Actually, I can, as BMW DID ruin the classic bmw front with the new bangle designs…

I guess these models will be classics then…the new ones won't look near as good…

Why does BMW keep ruining great designs?

Reply

KevinR Nov 24th, 2004 Link

The first thing I thought when I saw the picture was, “What a MINI would look like if Mercedes Benz built MINIs.” Here's hoping the actual production version will be more appealing.

Reply

Ron Nov 24th, 2004 Link

To me the most worrisome part of the article isn't the twin-lamps, but the statement that the car is going to be “slightly larger”. This is not the direction to go, as history has shown lots of great cars that have been ruined by continually enlarging them. Do we really want a bigger Mini?

Reply

Jon Nov 24th, 2004 Link

I agree that the two-headlamp design is uncharacteristic for the Mini, and shouldn't be implemented. It is way too far off the original mark. I am not, however, against overall design evolution for the Mini.

That is something I think that Volkswagen has been very poor about with regard to the Beetle. Since it came out in 1998, it has not gone through any major changes. The design is over six years old now! (No, I don't count adding a cabriolet, or the turbo S version as major changes).

VW is “resting on its' laurels”. In the long run, this is a mistake. They're always slow to release new marques. That is good news for Mini though, because just as the Beetle's popularity started fading fast a few years ago, Mini arrived just in time to grab the “cool retro hot hatch” customers looking for something unique and new. Mini will now keep those customers by making major changes every few years, versus the elongated cycle of 6+ years that VW subscribes to for marque changes.

Reply

Nathan Nov 24th, 2004 Link

O.k., I stand corrected, initially, in an earlier post, I said I saw no problem with the new MINI. Pardon my French, but the new headlights suck! Are reading this BMW? Translation; ich bin krank! I will not buy a new MINI when the time comes, if these are really going to be the new headlights. Other than that, it still looks like a MINI to me.

Reply

john Nov 24th, 2004 Link

While I think the sketch is ugly Im sure the final product will look better.

A 200+HP AWD version with wide wheel arches and 18 inch wheels would sure make it look better though ;)

Reply

Frank Nov 24th, 2004 Link

I can't believe how much worked up you people get over a bunch of worthless and botched photoshop pictures.

I seriously doubt BMW would “leak” any significant drawings 2 years before market launch so hey if you want to believe Autoexpress which seems to be a sensasionalistic, low rent car mag, be my guest.

Reply

ChrisW Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Perhaps when I order my new MCSC next month I'd better order two; one to keep in cold storage as later designs get uglier and uglier.

I agree with Jon in some ways about the New Beetle; VW has let that car grow stale. But personally I wouldn't mess much with the design. I would keep it fresh with radical new flavors. Where's the all-out performance Beetle that actually “looks” all-out performance? How about that rally concept we saw a few years ago? Some designs are just so good they should be left alone for a long, long time.

My '94 Miata looks better than the '05 Miatas, in my opinion, from a pure design standpoint (though my interior is quite primitive compared to the new models). The 911 looked great forever with very few changes. The Mustang went nowhere but down after '66 (all personal opinion, of course). The MINI has a lot of life left in the current design. If it's working (i.e. 7-month waiting lines still!), leave it alone!

Reply

ChrisW Nov 24th, 2004 Link

P.S. I do agree with Frank that this is just some lame Photoshop job or red herring, but I still fear BMW will somehow ruin this car…

Reply

Bill Nov 24th, 2004 Link

I've been drooling over the rumours of a high-performance AWD version; something to eventually replace my S4. If it looks like that, however, I'll be looking elsewhere.

Reply

Gabe Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Some how I had feeling this would be the response. Strike up another for bad photoshop jobs based on sketchy information.

Reply

Vic Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Well, I hate to be the only one who sees something that I like….but is that some form of side ding protection on the MINI?

If so, it does look a little low to offer real ding protection, but my '04 has absolutly none. So it gets to park way, way, way out in public parking lots.

I do enjoy the walking exercise but worry about parking lot dings.

Reply

Vanwall Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Regardless of whether or not this four-eyed look becomes a reality, I wonder – does this kind of styling change affect MINI's design trademark? The MINI shape is very distinctive, particularly the hallmark single, round headlamps. This wasn't the case when the original design was new, of course, but this is so distinctive nowadays I would hesitate to mess with it too much, lest the copycats get a wedge into the legal aspects of the MINI's provenance.

Ferrari and Ford, among others, are quite aggressive protecting their distinctive design rights, even at the Hot Wheels level, and MINI would be well advised not to water down the look of the car, just for that reason alone. Hope the MINI stays with the original “look”.

         BCNU,
       Rob in Dago

Reply

john Nov 24th, 2004 Link

If the next-gen mini does indeed have 4-eyes I would expect those additional lights will be very small and be tastefully done.

They can be done to look like the optional rally lights on the current Mini but be integrated into the design.

Maybe those new saftey laws will prohibit those optional rally lights so Mini is coming up with their own OEM solution.

Reply

ANTSMINI Nov 24th, 2004 Link

BMW….PLEASE, PLEASE NIX THOSE HEADLAMPS! Ugh, if it aint broke dont fix it. The fact they are getting rid of the clamshell hood is bad enough.

Reply

Steven Nov 24th, 2004 Link

I can only hope that the four-eyed look will not come as standard and will be an option for those who want to make their Mini a bit meaner…

As posted in January 2004: http://www.motoringfile.com/2004/01/04/TheMINIGetsAPrince a 140hp R50 (current-model) Cooper is planned for 2006, if this would be the case I see no reason to wait for the R56…but can anyone confirm this information???

Reply

Johnny Nov 24th, 2004 Link

I'm with you Steven. I think a 2006 6-speed 140hp Cooper, with shorter wait time and light 16″ wheels with the sport package, becomes a bargain over the pricier 163hp S with the heavy 17″ wheels in the sport package. But I can't wait that long…

Reply

Pete Foglia Nov 24th, 2004 Link

OMG, would SOMEONE please hire Chris Bangle away from BMW, like Hyundai or KIA! Make him an offer he can't refuse! I'm actually waiting for the Wolsely rear end to return to the lineup next!

Reply

Patrick Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Why are the Germans so busy bangling all their design work… Mercedes, Audi, VW, and BMW are all throwing everything right down the toilet for the sake of… of… what again?

The new Audi's all look they've been punched in the mug and given a swollen lower lip…

Reply

Gabe Nov 24th, 2004 Link

140hp engine will be part of the next MINI and will be introduced in late 2006 as a 2007 model. The 2006 MINI will be pretty much the same to the 2005.

Reply

Sparky Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Moving away from round headlights is a mistake – though a common one. 911: moved away – now back. Jeep CJ/Wrangler? Ditto. Volvo 240: very cool with 2 round headlights (1975), less cool with 4 round headlights (1978), BORING with rectangular lights (1981-on). Remember the cool-looking original Isuzu Trooper? Round headlights – very cool. How'd they kill the coolness of the Trooper? Yep: squared-off headlights. VW GTI: what model was better looking than the round-light second generation? Mercedes biggest design victory EVER: round headlights on the 300 a few years ago. It seems like the car designers would figure this out. The only reason to un-round the Mini lights is to round them again in a few years to bump sales.

Reply

Melanie Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Eeeek! I thought Halloween was over…

Although, I would like to see the MINI Moke revived, but with a more rigid roof frame and better looking softtop – something a bit more stylin' that would still be a head-turner (and elicit grins, not gasps).

Reply

flyboy2160 Nov 24th, 2004 Link

this stupid ugly mess is what happens when incompetents try to take over something brilliant. it's right out of the fountainhead:

-making the base car larger is a large mistake by non-car bean heads. they may sell a few more, but the weight must go up. WE DON”T WANT A GOLF, YOU BMW FOOLS.

-why should everybody now have to suffer a large tire to well gap because a few blingheads want larger wheels? let the blingheads shell out for custom wells, not us.

-the bumper strip ruins the line of the side of the car.

-the ugle twin headlights are a stupid excercise in change for change's sake.

-the autoexpress article is incorrect about the pedestrian nannymobile standards. you don't have to change the car UNLESS you are making a substantial change to the model. so they could have and should have left well enough alone

-at this rate, the miata nc is looking more and more attractive. reportedly, they have returned to their roots with a simple, small, lightweight, moderately powered car. at least there are still some car guys left….

Reply

SrBlanco Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Is anybody else upset about the loss of the supercharger on the S?

Reply

me Nov 24th, 2004 Link

Ya'll need some downers, take a deep breath and realise the source. AutoExpress. When was AutoExpress right about anything?

Reply

Rollin Nov 25th, 2004 Link

I’m with Ron, the item that concerns me most is the lengthening of the chase. Can someone with car design knowledge tell me if this will change the handling? And, has anyone heard if the “high-performance” multi-link rear suspension will be as good in light of the reported manufacturing cost cutting?

Reply

Tavis1 Nov 25th, 2004 Link

Pure fugly! period

Reply

SuperCharged Nov 25th, 2004 Link

I can't believe how many people are getting all stressed out because of a photoshop job and information which is nowhere near official. That picture was drawm from a description that someone told someone. Aside from that, sometimes they do a nasty job for testing purposes and then they change it completely for the final product. The truth is, no one can be sure what it's going to look like, that pic might be way off… just got to wait and see…

Reply

Gabe Nov 25th, 2004 Link

Much of what's in the article is indeed correct. However most of everyone's concerns are totally unfounded. I'd remind everyone that these exact comments were said when the current MINI was at this stage.

Things will be fine. The car will be faster. The car will handle well. The car will look much better than the photo above.

Don't take the above image too seriously. AutoExpress has a habit of poor PhotoShop jobs… this is certainly another.

I almost didn't even post the image since I know many people just comment on that without really reading the article.

Reply

Rocketboy Nov 25th, 2004 Link

If this really is the way MINI is going, Um, um, well, um. Bigger? A few inches? Ok, bring it up to 150″ in length, no problem. Twin Lamps? Um, bug-eyes are one of the major design elements. Not to mention that it looks very parts bin-ish. Traditional Bonnet? I would rather it didn't, mainly because the current setup is such a nice design. Would it kill the looks of a MINI? Not at all. Would it make it look cheaper? Yes. Again, I do seriously doubt that many of the changes will make it into the final design. After spending all the money on the tooling for the current bonnet, I can't seem them getting rid of it. Yes, it's an expensive part to make, but it was an expensive part to design also. And why use all the expensive parts on a car which is nothing more than a test mule?

Reply

JoeDentist Nov 25th, 2004 Link

You guys sure can make a lot of stink about nothing. 96% of the people in the world probably could not tell the new model from the old. It looks like the current Mini, with a few changes, mostly caused by crazy laws from around the world. Some country outlaws toggle switches for windows, or makes exposed wipers illegal, or requires a dead chicken on the hood. Its tough to meet all the laws of every country.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with the new design. People who buy it will think of our cars like 1968 Beetle owners thought of 1965 Beetle owners, i.e. not at all.

This is not like when the MG's got rubber bumpers. No one is going to die. When car makers all over the world create “all new” versions of successful cars, we can rejoice that Mini has merely facelifted again.

Reply

John Nov 25th, 2004 Link

We should welcome some actual “evolution” but the cautions expressed here are properly big concerns.

An immediately recognized “Mini” shape (going back to the original '59) appears to be retained, even if LOA grows slightly for interior room.

I personally think two (2) distinctive round front lamps are an integral part of Mini recognition, but we must prepare for the advent of digital lighting (much smaller individual lamps). This will drive design; witness the [some goofy] Audi design exercises. Could the four lamp design be prep for LED? I think we'll see “two” front lamps in '06; one you recognize and perhaps another much smaller to carry a “pencil beam” driving light or some such idea. The existing lamp (with integrated washers) carries the look I'd bet on.

All the talk of big wheels (for looks, not performance) has me a bit worried about on-track acceleration and handling. Will the 18's be “standard” or options in those wheel wells?

But… I'm looking forward to the driving dynamics, the motors, the gearboxes, and the sheer joy of three machines in our garage: '67 MCS, '02 MC CVT, and '06 MC? Yeah!

Reply

Vanwall Nov 25th, 2004 Link

Evolution and revolution don't mix well in the styling game, and most radical changes seem to come from stylists attempting to make a statement that resonates with the buying public, kinda like throwing something out there that sticks to the old dartboard. No matter how well or ill intentioned, change happens because people buy the dang things enough to make it acceptable. Examples: Aztek = ugly, hence not as many sales as wished, by a long shot, and general condemnation by those with good eyesight; MINI = nirvana, hence its more than evident success and overwhelming kudos from the car-art world. In this case evolution wins over revolution, as the MINI is basically a refined classic Mini in overall look, whereas the Aztec and others of this kind of ilk are best left on the drawing room floor. Why mess with success? Because you are now in charge, and have the opportunity to make a statement.

As far as I can tell, the real heavyweight we must understand in all this brouhaha over the MINI styling cues is one Gerhard Volker Hildebrand, according to the October issue of Automobiles Classique, the new head of MINI design, within the BMW group. The mag has a nice series of profiles on the heads of design for just about every manufacturer. Bangle and Hooydonck are pretty much the Beemer guys, and Hildebrand is Stephenson's direct successor, it seems. Looks like a nice guy, and he's not some young buck, trying to run off the reservation and cause choas, so hopefully, he'll keep the basic look intact. Cross your fingers. And toes.

As an aside, the one Maker who refrained from identifying it's Design Chief was Honda – THE most evolutionary stylists of all. I bet if you set one model of every Honda car ever built in a row chronologically, it would raise the hair on the back of your head – this company has a looooooonnnng-distance time-scale plan for its cars. Scary. Bland, but scary none the less. (yeah, I know you could do that with Minis, but that's cause perfection doesn't need change. HeHe.) Let's hope old Gert is class act, and not a slash & burn kinda guy.

     BCNU,
    Rob in Dago

Reply

Aaron Nov 29th, 2004 Link

I don't worry about the headlights or the nasty, huge grill… I've got confidence that someone in the MINI community will have an “Original New MINI” mod out within a few months to change the design back to the current look…

Reply

michael Boice Nov 30th, 2004 Link

…trying way too hard.

Reply