The 2009 RAV4 is 3.4″ taller than the crossover concept, 1″ wider and 21.5″ longer. The Honda CRV is 3.2″ taller, 0.4″ narrower and 17.5″ The Subaru Forrester is 3″ taller, 1.9″ narrower and 19.1″ longer.

AFAIK nearly every manufacturer is guilty of this. In MINI’s defense, the change in size was due to changing safety regulations. Specifically pedestrian safety. In addition to the change in powertrain. The Clubman and the new Crossover are additional models and not replacements so the new model year bloat does not apply.

-What happened to BMW’s 7 year model life cycle?

The first new MINI was introduced in 2001 and production ended in 2006. This is 6 years. I’m sure there were compelling reasons to make the change early. Tooling is expensive and BMW management seems to think that the 7 year cycle with mid-term refresh is the best compromise. I doubt that they would break with this strategy lightly.

I just think that changing the business model that is one of the success stories of the automotive industry is quite a gamble. I tend to think in these days of big uncertainty that overhauling a successful business model is quite a choice by Mini.

There is no doubt that the R60 is going to be in direct competition with the likes of the Rav4 and could come away without being nearly unique hit the current cars are.Add onto this the increasing numbers of micro SUVs being announced and really for the first time Mini could find itself in the middle of heavy competition by other manufactures that Mini hasn’t had to deal with really yet.

Matt

Anyone read the BMW stuff in Automobile about a new FWD sub 1-sieries car for the BMW brand? Maybe based on the same platform as the next Mini? Also had a “son of” the C1 scooter thinggy with a windshield and roof that they sold in the late 80s…. It’s clear that BMW is looking to make lots that is smaller… I was surprised by the sub-1 series with FWD as it’s really going at the same market that Mini is going after. Either it’s a GM like mistake where they made cars that stole buyers from other divisions, or the marketing people have found that the Mini and BMW crowds don’t cross polinate much.

Also, Mini’s own marketing spin is (lately) about premium featurs in cost effective packages and efficient use of space… That could be for any sized vehicle…

I hear what you’re all saying, I’m just of the opinion you’re letting your wishes for what you think Mini ought to be cloud your judgment. Times change, goals change, pretty much everything changes. It’s up the the brand management and marketing departments to spin the common thread that link the products into a brand.

Matt

Mini has clearly based its new generations on the concept of being a, efficient luxury minimal car. As a proof to that hasn’t every last owner in a Mini been asked at least a dozen times “boy I bet you get good mileage in that”. With the R60 coming in to a size so similar to the Rave4 and larger than the Outback I feel that Mini has picked a new direction that could counter many years of hard work of establishing their brand and what it stands for. Even the media on the R60 concept has been all over the map, with many questions presented about the concept of a Mini SUV.

To top this off they are already talking about yet a larger version after the R60. If that part of the story has any truth would mix the message of what a Mini is. I guess your fine with a Mini 7 seater as long as is smaller than the direct competition, maybe they should make a super duty truck as long as its smaller.

Believe it or not their is a ton of room at the bottom of the size scale for unique offerings. I still think a city car that would sell like mad would be a classic body on a BMW updated platform.

So OK, they do the proverbial roadster, and get the Isetta concept under the Mini name… That still leaves the space between the Coupe and the X1 to fill, and fill it they will.

In the US the Smart is a niche car, in Europe it isn’t. Neither is the 500.

What I find somewhat unfathomable is choosing to locate manufacturing outside of the largest market for the larger Minis. That’s some currency exposure for sure!

But I still stand with the thought that most who critisize aren’t thinking like a corporate owner or manager. Fact is they already sell the coupe at a relatively unchanged size (and slight weight loss) for those who like the size/proportions of the first gen MINI. The clubman has exceeded orignally projected sales volume. And the current factory is tapped out. MINI gets the Crossman from a group that’s good at 4x4s, and gets factory capacity from them. (That was the natural synergy that made this close to a no brainer). To get that capacity elsewhere, they either have to build a factory ($$$$$), or partner with someone else who has expertise at smaller cars ( and we’ve been reading about potential collaberation with FIAT) and no four wheel drive!

And this BS about what Mini stands for.. Are we forgetting the Moke, the panel vans and the pickup? And before, the Mini was more of a model line for car companies that, god forbid, made LARGER CARS!!!!!! It was the smaller end of a full spectrum of products. So now Mini is a quasi-stand-alone company. Does that mean that it can’t offer a full spectrum of vehicles?

I guess I just don’t get it.

Matt

I for one have never said this will destroy Mini, rather I do believe however that this trend is a major toss of the dice on how the Mini brand is going to be perceived in the future. With the announcement of the R60 Mini has largely gone against the first many years of what they have said their cars stand for.

“the SUV backlash has begun”

I am no marketing guru, I am only a owner who the message really hit home with. This message was near perfect evolution of the classic Mini and what it stood for. I however believe a roadster would sell well, and could see Mini making a smaller city car. Both of these would fit well and be good sellers. As for your comment about small niche cars not justifying the cost I would point out the very questionable Smart, and Fiat 500 that both have taken a good bite out of potential Mini sales. Guess at the end of the day what Ford stands for (other than junk bonds) is very different that what Mini stands for.

Let’s think about it another way… If smaller is the only way to go, what’s next? A Miata fighter? Then what… A motorcycle?

For those that don’t want this, the coupe is still available. What Mini is thinking about is making a brand that’s large enough to work economically.

BMW has announced they’ll do a City car, though what brand it wears is unclear… That’s the lower limit of what Mini will be…. And they’ve announced the X1 and have the 1 series, that’s the upper bound of what Mini will be. So all you marketing experts, what should Mini do to increase thier customer base? I’d love to hear some answers that would be anything other than small niche cars that would never justify dev costs…..

Matt

Just like I have an old Mustang, and like some of the Ford product, I will never buy a Flex, but won’t hate Ford for making it.

“”The four-seat Mini Crossover Concept at the Paris Auto Show, how shall we put it – sucked. Memo to High-Flying Mini Executives: Stop reading your press clippings and get a grip. Everything you come up with is not brilliant and/or great. Shut the lights off on the room where that Mini Crossover Concept came from, turn, and then walk slowly away. Please.”

Basically the line BMW passes on year after year is bigger is better. Holding to this thought process I guess the classic Mini is crap, the R53 is a little better, the R56 even better, the R55 nod in the right direction, the R60 boy we make good cars, the possible future bigger version we have hit one out of the park…..

This basically has lead many BMW owners to riot as year after year as their cars become more bloated.