JCW Clubman vs. Everything Else

dickdavid Dec 4th, 2008 Link

The only thing I don’t get is the Cobalt SS.

Reply

Diam Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Who on earth would have more fun driving a VW GTI than a MINI…..??????

Reply

Steve S Dec 4th, 2008 Link

The new Cobalt SS is a performance bargain, Ran the ring in 8:22. Looks like crap though.

I love the Mini and was excited when the Clubman was coming out because it would make the Mini brand accessible for my family.

Unfortunately when you compare performance for value it’s very far down on the list even in just S guise. An S optioned how I’d like is 33k and a JCW is 38k. At those prices there are many more options available that perform much better than the Mini. If the Mini was about $6-7k cheaper then I think it would be much more competitive.

Of course it’s selling like hotcakes due to fuel costs so what do I know…

Reply

Jay Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Ahh, good ol Car and Driver. Got to love those American based magazines where cup holder size and room for a case of beer has equal weight to the ability to perform perfect heal toe gear changes and keeping up to cars double its price.

Why would they choose a clubman? Seems like a no brainer to choose a regular S.

Reply

Sideways Dec 4th, 2008 Link

I think a Clubbie Cooper S would have been a better choice for this test. Why would they choose the most expensive most exclusive MINI right now to use as their test mule? Of course the JCW is going to excel in performance and lack in comfort. That’s not the point of the car. If you want comfort go with the Lounge Leather. I could vent about this article more but I know I’m preaching to the choir here. NEXT!

Reply

Mark Dec 4th, 2008 Link

I think the Mitsu should have been rated higher… no I don’t.

Reply

JonPD Dec 4th, 2008 Link

I am not to surprised by most of this ranking they did,and agree with more than a little of what they said. I adore the Clubman but still wonder about how it aligns on the market, still believe its much more of a original idea that anything else on the list by a long shot.

Using a Clubman S over the JCW Clubman would have not helped much at all other than at the price point. It however would have dropped the ranking of the car for performance, which is the only thing it did better than the rest. It already got the max score for fuel economy so the only place it could make up points would be on price. Between loosing points for performance and gaining for price I would still bet it would have stayed on the same place on their list, however not winning any catagory.

Reply

track-toy Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Well now I know why we used to call this magazine “Car and Drivel!” The article is mostly rubbish. I’ve driven all of these cars as part of my job as Motoring Advisor and none of them stack up when compared to the MINI product. But then I’m biased.

Reply

robble Dec 4th, 2008 Link

They gave the clubman a “1″ for back seat room. Did they even try i tor just using memory of the last time they sat in the back of a mini circa 2002?

Reply

Eliot R. Dec 4th, 2008 Link

I don’t read any of the American magazines any more. They all seem to reliant on point systems to determine winners and are way, way, way behind the likes of evo when it comes to the quality of the writing and the quality of the photography. In my opinion, Car and Driver is one small step above Consumer Reports when it comes to road tests.

Reply

JP Dec 4th, 2008 Link

the thing i never understood is why most american based car magazines hate the interior design… in my personal opinion, a mini, almost moreso than a BMW is the perfect driver’s car. you traditionally get a manual gearbox which means ur right hand is moving most, leaving ur left hand where it belongs on the wheel, not fiddling with windows on the door, so logically put the windows and other mechanisms where your right hand would be around casual cruising, next to the shifter. why move more than u have to?!? now granted i have Nav so i can’t complain about the radio and how it works on non-nav cars, but i never had a problem with it when i was driving… so the radio is a little different… big deal. it’s not like you need a doctorate in mechanical engineering to use it.

also i can’t imagine that the JCW Cooper S would do worse in performance compared to the JCW Clubman S… the Cooper is lighter, and all the same other hardware, so i would imagine that’d help performance all around… only hurting back seat and trunk space a lil bit. but completely agreed to the fact that there is no way a GTI is more fun to drive than a Mini…. otherwise i’d have one of those and not my R56 :) and i find it entertaining, i’m not even jokin that with an octane booster and a full tank of gas, nothing but highway driving and going 55MPH i got an average 62.4MPG on cruise control… later in the same magazine the prius and honda fit don’t do half as well for best fuel economy and such. granted that’s not a valid point, my driving is WAY different than the average person. my fuel economy after a track day in my mini is 25.3MPG hahah so i probably do something extremely different than most when driving.

Anyway, i personally don’t believe that they did the Mini any justice at all in this test (even though price IS a wallet burner for a JCW Clubman)

Reply

Shamus Dec 4th, 2008 Link

I’ve always hated these overly subjective points-based reviews. Case in point: if you’re comparing 7 cars, then the points should be ranked 1-7, regardless of category. It’s too easy to grade something higher because you value that specific characteristic more than another. Ultimately, they should be comparing cars to each other, not to someone’s personal “ideal”.

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

The second gen MINI is not reviewing quite well when pinned against competition in its immediate class and price bracket.

Opinions will be opinions. But there is a disturbing trend in these comparisons…The R56 and R55 are getting spanked by the likes of the Mazda 3 (A car with terrible side crash scores, BTW), the VW GTI, and even the boy racer inspired Chevy Cobalt SS (Another car with lousy side crash scores, like the Mazda 3).

It seems to me that MINI is losing the race to the competition in a couple of fronts: Value for the dollar, interior design and to a much lesser degree, the overall driving experience.

When MINI came out 7 years ago, there was nothing in the market at the time that could touch it. Whether it was performance, looks, features, value for the dollar, design, you name it, nothing, nada came even close.

Fast forward 7 years and the MINI finds itself facing not only a tough market (In despite of robust sales) and increased competition. Obviously there is much to like and love about a MINI. But when you ask your customers to pluck down north of $30K grand for your top of the line performing model (JCW) and still be saddled with the same controversial dashboard as the cheaper variants and have only “modest” power increases over an S model, you got to step back for a minute and wonder if MINI’s success has gone a little to far up in management’s heads.

Most likely anyone shopping for a MINI will cross shop it with the Mazda 3, Subaru, Mits, VW, etc. A Mazda Speed3 gives you equal or better JCW like acceleration. The VW GTI can be had in 2 and 5 door variants. If the GTI doesn’t cut your need for speed, you can always get the R32 version which will likely smoke the factory JCW in every possible way.

The interior of the second gen MINI is a weak link. And as an owner of a Clubman, I can tell you that I still much prefer the dashboard of my R53 from a visual and functional perspective. What I like about the new MINIs are the digital computer prompts that allow you to obtain more vital info and also permit customization in ways you could never had done in the previous car. But the center console, the radio, the dash vents…They need work. We’ll see how the 2010 refresh addresses these criticisms on the interior.

I think MINI is pricing themselves out of their market and flankly, that can’t be a good long strategy. The MINI is at the end of the day a terrific car, but starts to quickly lose luster once it reaches the $30K grand price barrier. At that price there are many fantastic sets of wheels to be had. Plain and simple.

Reply

lavardera Dec 4th, 2008 Link

The mini is a B size car, the clubman at best a stretched B, and since there is little else offered in this size in the US it gets compared to a C sized cars. Frankly I don’t know anybody who cross shops these two sizes. Most buyers rule out the Mini for its smaller size from the start of the search. Its only a very small segment that will be preoccupied with performance over size, and out these an even smaller segment that will prefer the Mini’s strengths over the others. Its like a sports car vs muscle car state of mind.

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

I think the point of the review is well taken. They are basically saying… “Look, the JCW Clubman is a terrific, well engineered car. It drives, handles and brakes great. But guess what? It is compromised in different fronts…. No 4 full door option, small cargo area, compromised interior design with so-so materials and fit/finish (Go and look at the VW GTI interior to see how an interior is done, regardless of whether you like or despise VWs), a dashboard that doesn’t do the car justice and most important of all…. You can get any of these other cars,Yes they lack the charm and pedigree of the MINI, but for thousands less you can get similar or better thrills behind the wheel as the MINI..”

If the JCW Clubman had been a $25K car, I am sure the rankings would have a lot different.

Value for the dollar is being missed in the “Cheaper to build” second gen MINI. That is the subliminal message given by this review.

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Lav, we are in the USA. Most people here do not know or understand what B or C cars means. For the masses, a compact is a compact and a subcompact is a subcompact (Regardless of brand, performance, pedigree, etc).

This is one of the reasons why some folks can’t warapr their heads around the idea about paying top dollar for a car that only measures 12 feet long.

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Areas where the JCW Clubman got spanked:

Ergonomics Rear seat comfort Rear seat room Trunk Space Fit and finish (Was below the MazdaSpeed3 and VW GTI) Exterior Styling (Even below the Cobalt SS) As tested price (At the bottom of the heap) 1/4 mile acceleration (Middle of the pack)

It did excel in:

Flexibility Fuel economy Performance (Highest score of all) Steering Brakes Handling

Reply

nickminir56 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Bottom line: C&D always gonna put GTI and MS3 somewhere close to top.

As for fun to drive. I respect GTI’s all around ability and polish image but IT IS NO WHERE AS MUCH AS FUN TO DRIVE AS MY MCS. I just drive another one two weeks ago, it is not even close to Mini in term of driving excitement. If FUN TO DRIVE IS ABOUT VALUE/RIDE QUALITY/QUIETER ENGINE, TOYOTA CAMRY V6 should WIN THIS TEST with ease.

Reply

Mk1 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

C4 – your “value for dollar” comment – dead-on. Many of us Miniacs have been singing that song for a while. But staying true to the Mini heritage and idea of small/affordable/fun, is not the “BMW” way.

Reply

JonPD Dec 4th, 2008 Link

I agree with you C4, in some ways I think Mini could have developed the R56 R55 cars a bit better. They are both good so don’t get me wrong but I think there isn’t many people out there that don’t think the interior needs some help, especially the center stack as pointed out in the article.

The issue isn’t that the R55/R56 aren’t good cars, they just didn’t make much ground on the R53 design. While the new Prince engine is a good development (and its mileage) I tend to think that Mini placed itself as a fixed target for its competition. The biggest issue of all though is that instead of making a clear class leader with its core product Mini is developing a SAV to go into direct competition with many other brands with well established bussiness.

Reply

Blainestang Dec 4th, 2008 Link

When I ordered my MINI a few months ago, I considered several of these vehicles.

Ultimately, I ended up spending almost as much money on my Cooper (Non-S) as I would to buy a stripped version of any of the other cars in this comparison… and a base Cooper is notably slower than any of the above cars.

The MINI won our hearts (and money) with the intangibles:

1. Character: We plan to keep our cars for a long time, and 8 years from now, I believe the MINI will still put a smile our faces when we see it parked in the garage. On the other hand, in 8 years, we would otherwise own an 8-year-old Mazda3/Cobalt/Civic/Subaru that happens to be fast. There’s just nothing “special” about the other cars on this list except that they are fast. Really, even from the time of purchase, cars like the Cobalt SS are just fast econoboxes. It’s offers GREAT bang-for-the-buck, and it’s probably a great car, but it just lacks character, along with several of these cars, IMO.

2. Uniqueness: This goes hand-in-hand with the character of the MINI. The chances of me seeing ANY MINI that’s even SIMILAR to mine is pretty slim. The chances of me seeing a similar-looking Cobalt/Mazda3/Civic/etc driving down the road… pretty high… like, you-might-see-10-in-one-day-that-are-very-similar high. Certainly, there are things that can be done to change this, or for some people, the uniqueness is of little value, but I know of only ONE other MINI on NAM that is Oxygen Blue with white Bridge Spokes. One… and that’s ignoring every other possible difference other than exterior paint and wheels.

Fun: I realize that C&D has a different definition of fun than I do… obviously. I drove the WRX and the GTI, and they were fun, but they both seemed… I don’t know… relatively sterile. Personally, I’d rather drive a “slow” car and really feel like I am in control, that I know what is going on between the car and the road, and that the car does exactly what I tell it to.

These are the intangibles that set a MINI apart from the other cars in this test, IMO.

Honestly, the GTI came in a close second because it offers better performance numbers, good gas mileage, better cargo volume, and an awesome interior for similar money to my base Cooper. However, in the end, the Cooper won out because it is incredibly fun to drive despite being “slow”, and because it has character and uniqueness that the others can only hope to or pretend to have.

All that being said, I can’t really fault C&D for not being able to quantify such intangibles into the comparison. I can fault them for using a “point” system that makes it impossible, but you really can’t put personal preferences for driving dynamics and character into numbers. Also, the Cooper S would offer most of the performance of the JCW Clubman and still compete with the others for features and amenities at as little as $23k. Of course, it would get poor marks for cargo volume, but the Clubman got poor scores for that anyway.

In the end, hopefully people just take the time to test drive all of the cars to see which one suits them. Personally, I feel that the MINI is in a class of it’s own.

If you want incredible numbers-based performance bang-for-the-buck… that’s not the MINI’s forte. If you, however, want an Spunky little unique car with a lot of character that’s incredibly fun to drive, the MINI is at the top of a very short list of options.

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

JonPD, the last full paragraph of your post should be printed and hung on every MINI’s executive office wall and conference room.

The SAV is a huge distraction! Bravo for saying it like it is.

Reply

dc11r Dec 4th, 2008 Link

as a prospective JCW buyer, i must say, the interior and price are the 2 biggest hurdles i have to overcome.

i love the way the car drives, its the only car under $150K that has put a big grin on my face. i just cant justify paying that much money on a car that has an interior worse than most sub $20K cars

Reply

Mk1 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

The biggest issue of all though is that instead of making a clear class leader with its core product Mini is developing a SAV to go into direct competition with many other brands with well established bussiness

Except that is where the market growth is for the next few years – all those SUV owners downsizing. Soccer moms won’t go from an Expedition to a MINI Cooper, or even a Clubman – but give them the MINI SAV…. Has nothing to do with “Class Leader” and everything to do with what sells. And all the market research is pointing to the small Crossover as poised to replace the SUV big-time.

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Add four doors to the Clubman and problem solved. There is nothing wrong with stations wagons or estates in my book.

Reply

Johnny K Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Having driven an MS3, I can see why C&D was impressed. Comfortable,well appointed, inexpensive and high performance.

I still prefer the Mini, because of the retro vibe and the extensive options – it’s pretty cool to get a car exactly the way you want it. Mazda doesn’t come close on the customization factor, either OEM or aftermarket.

But I gotta decide if that’s worth all the extra $$$

Reply

goat Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Are you listening BMW? R56 interior = embarrassing at any price point. ‘Puffed up’ R56 front clip, cheapened alloy wheel designs/fuel filler cap/etc, 4×4 ride height = caricature of the R53. Yet, all this can be sorted at the mid-cycle refresh (which can’t come soon enough). It’s obviously too late to pull back development $’s from the SAV, but at least going forward please focus on your brand-defining product.

Reply

hank chinaski Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Right-on, goat!

And it’s good the car zines don’t put MINI on top. If they did, MINI wouldn’t enjoy the resale & residual values nearly as much.

Reply

Ryephile Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Wow, C&D really dropped the ball here. Their subjective impressions really showed their bias. They wrote they thought the Cobalt interior was awful, yet gave it higher scores than the MINI. The Cobalt is hella quick around the track, but they gave it low performance scores to defend their MS3 decision. An MS3 will never have “5 of 5″ fuel economy compared to a smaller displacement engine in a lighter car…ever. Lastly, why are their redundant scoring columns for Driver Comfort and Ergonomics? Is there really a difference? Ditto rear seat space and comfort. Passenger comfort is the real metric, not bulk space, yet they feel obligated to add that column just to knock the MINI for having a 2+2 vs. the 5-passengers its compared against. That rebates/extras column is also redundant and should be combined with as-tested price. Add in highly subjective columns regarding styling [with no professional input to boot] and the whole “Vehicle” category is a sham…and not just because the MINI scored poor. To a non-married enthusiast, the MINI automatically gets high marks for its lack of pudge and wastefulness.

What a poor review; they simply didn’t think out their format. I agree with Shamus in that scoring should be relative to each other, not an undefined ideal.

Reply

lavardera Dec 4th, 2008 Link

You are all wrong – what we have here is just a comparison with one car out of class. Where is the volvo C30 in this review? How would it have faired? If this was a comparison of a Mazda, a VW, a Mitsu, a Suburu, and a BMW the high value as a knock would make perfect sense. Well the truth is that’s exactly what we are looking at. The Mini is an anomaly in this group, its design and quality are head and shoulders above these other cars, and its just not something that comes through in their judging criteria.

But dear god if the fanbois of the last gen have to trot out the R53 comparison again I’ll just have to puke. Different times, different cars, the R53 would score even lower in this comparison. The only lesson there is keeping going forward and follow your success which is just what Mini is doing despite lame comparisons like this one.

Reply

Ryephile Dec 4th, 2008 Link

lava; I have to agree. The MINI is the odd one out. Any other hatches/wagons in the comparo? umm, no. They might as well have put a Mustang GT Premium, Nissan 350Z Enthusiast, and Caliber SRT-4 in there. I also agree on the R53 comment. The current generation of “cars” are so insulated and disconnected that the R53 would be all too shocking in terms of how slow it is [in stock form], how un-plush it is, and how much NVH there is. It’s the last of a generation, just like the Evo IX.

Reply

Jon Dec 4th, 2008 Link

I have no issues with the article. Look, the MINI is a very unique vehicle, that just barely fits into this category, (it’s so unique and different, it almost merits its’ own category). If you’re reading this, you’ve already had a big gulp of the MINI Kool-Aid, so to speak. You’re biased! Of course you don’t understand why our beloved MINI didn’t score higher!!!

The fact of the matter is, that the audio and climate controls really are toy-like, and poor from an ergonomic standpoint. Let’s be realistic.

And the access to the rear seats, (even with the club door), is still tough.

And they were right on with regard to the you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me price. It is crazy expensive. They made a great point here.

Should they have chosen a standard Clubman S, instead of the factory JCW, yes; it would have made a difference, but also may have hurt the fun-to-drive, performance rating, being less powerful. Either way, there is some compromise…

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Talking about comparing the R53 against these “newer” cars to justify your obvious R56 bias is simply asinine.

Take out your rosy colored glasses for a minute and re-read the comparo.

The car did outstandingly well in all performance measures. Again you would expect that from the top dog factory JCW.

Second, aside from the rear seat discussion, the car faired poorly in the interior design, 1/4 mile acceleration and the value-per-dollar criteria. Again, for $30K grand in this class, you expect a car that will trounce anything else below it, but it simply didn’t.

The reviewers liked the JCW enough to gave it top scores in performance related metrics. But their message is clear: Other areas of the car need work to make it best in class. The second message is: You can have lost of fun behind the wheel of the JCW Clubman, but you can get similar thrills for thousands less in the Mazda, Chevy or VDub.

Unfortunately your paranoic obsession with R53 bias (and R56 bias I might add) doesn’t let you see the forest for the trees.

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

I meant “Lots of fun behind the wheel…”

Reply

Mark Dec 4th, 2008 Link

lavardera: I agree with your R53 comment 100%! Thank you!

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Ryan, a lot of press reviewers liked the visceral feel of the R53. When the R56 was introduced some of them lamented the loss of the traits that made the car rough, noisy and brutal in the eyes of 99.9% of the buying public.

And let’s not forget that you were an early R56 adopter and sold the car just after a few months of ownership. Citing the the car was too “refined” for your tastes.

And promptly you went back to R53 #3, right?

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

It is funny how defensive some in the R56 crowd are. As an owner of both generations I find this both funny and appalling.

I can’t wait for next summer when MINI releases the R56 v2.0 revision.

Cry me a river, please Lavardera and company.

Reply

Eliot R. Dec 4th, 2008 Link

It seems to me that MINI is losing the race to the competition in a couple of fronts: Value for the dollar, interior design and to a much lesser degree, the overall driving experience.

Clearly the market agres with you:

http://www.motoringfile.com/2008/12/04/mini-sales-up-everyone-else-down/

I have to laugh at some of these comments that start jumping to conclusions about the relative quality of a MINI based upon a meaningless magazine review.

Reply

Dave MacMini Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Having owned a first gen. Cooper, then an “S”, and now an R56, I can say that I did not cross shop VWs, Mazdas or anything else. I fell in love with the MINI, and I would not consider any of the others in this comparison. Value for the money? Since the MINI has constantly had the best resale value of ALL cars, the price is not all that matters. The cost of ownership is the difference between the price af the car when new less it’s value when you sell/trade it. I would bet that the difference between these cars is a lot less if you calculate the cost this way.

Reply

dc11r Dec 4th, 2008 Link

i just gave up buying a subaru STI for $8K incentive and 0% for 63 months. that car is easily MUCH more car than the mini will ever be, more functional, more practical, and balls out FAST. but ive always wanted a mini since the R53 came out, and i figure this is the only time i can buy one in my life.. being single and mid-20s.

with that said, when you have cars such as the STI out there cheaper than your performance models, and have cars like the GTI out there with VASTLY better interior, and civics with better interior quality/materials.. its really hard to say yes to a mini. Its a niche car. but im sure my reason to wait and purchase one isnt in line with most people, tehrefore mini might have a problem once people like me and the people like the ones who visit this site dry up. this economic downslide will affect them soon enough. plus reliability of the mini isnt as good as a japanese car any day of the week. but my heart loves the mini, and so i shall have one after the refresh (in hopes the interior will be better, and the hifi is better, and hopefully prices will go down)

Reply

JonPD Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Before trumpeting that everything is doing is great because they are up on deliveries is a little off. Mini is still a bit player on a huge field of cars. Its great they are continuing to have positive gains, but its not like the hundreds of thousands leaving the other brands are beating a path to Mini’s door.

I also have to say the bickering about the R53 versus the R56 is humorous, face if guys both cars have a lot of good points and both cars have a glaring holes. I would love the mileage in the R56 and actually like the stockier front end, but for me the comical design of the center stack is a sticking point. The missing howl from the supercharger very visceral notes , and the wrap around rear side glass along with the better feel of the steering are benefits of the R53 still.

But above everything else, I will say to each their own.

Reply

rkw Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Not a bad review of the Clubman, but they should have picked an S instead.

I disagree. When a MINI hatchback is included in the usual sporty car shootout comparisons, I always feel it is out of place because when it has so much lower passenger and cargo practicality than the others. Now that the Clubman is out, it is the more appropriate MINI to compare with other cars. Even a Clubman is still 9 inches shorter in length than a GTI.

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

When you read this or any other review about a MINI, the perennial areas of criticism are interior design/volume, price, fit finish, etc. Even in this review that some of you perceive it to be as yet another bashing manifesto, the reviewers have acknowledge that the car walks the walk when it comes to performance and handling. So as you can see, the areas of criticism in the second gen MINI are not so difficult to resolve.

If MINI does a good job next summer with giving the car the interior it deserves, fixes some details in the exterior, gives it a quality stereo and so on and so forth, they’ll have a golden opportunity to bring the car to a “class leading” status is so deserves.

It is comical when R56 fanbois dismiss any criticism levied towards their car (Only with the desire to make it better) but fire back with charges that “Those R53 soured grapes owners” are against moving forward and any sense of “progress”.

What an oxymoron.

Reply

C4 Dec 4th, 2008 Link

Oh Eliot, my friend. If Car and Driver had placed the JCW Clubman at the very top of the review, you would be singing a very different song now.

Absolutely comical. You can bring up all sales charts in the world. That doesn’t dismiss the fact that the car has areas that need immediate improvement in order to sustain that leadership in the market.

The day MINI becomes another “Status Quo” car company, that will be the day MINI is officially dead. So if all you guys chant to the tune of progress and moving forward, then why all opposition on pointing out the aspects of the car that need review?

Those “meaningless” rag reviews are read by thousands of prospect buyers that do not necessarily spend time looking up info on the internet. And I am afraid that this is not the only review where a second gen MINI product has either ended up at the middle or bottom of the pack.

And JonPD is right. MINI has become a fixed target. Not a good position to be if you want to be different, cool and charge more for the privilege.

Reply

mr.m8o Dec 4th, 2008 Link

I like Motive Mag’s results better… lol

Reply

cct1 Dec 5th, 2008 Link

When you look at the group of cars they selected, it’s really kind of a weird group; how many people cross shop a Honda Civic si with a JCW Clubman? Not many…

Probably better to seperate the Mazda 3, Clubman, and GTI in one group, and everything else that remains in another, then draw comparisons within those groups. Not that people don’t cross-shop cars between those two groups, but I’d wager that it’s not a huge percentage of people. But grouped like that, the Clubman loses on bang for the buck, but probably wins in overall quality–it’s aiming to be more “upscale” and “premium” than the other cars, and I think it succeeds here.

BTW, anyone notice that the person bringing the R53/R56 debate back into the limelight is the very same person that complains over and over how much he/she is sick of the whole R53/R56 arguement, and complains incessantly about R53 owners needlessly stirring the whole R53 vs. R56 pot? Speaking of pot, is this an instance of the “pot calling the kettle?” Just askin’…..

Reply

Ryephile Dec 5th, 2008 Link

—>C4: I bought another R56 to serve as daily driver while my R53 is the track-toy. =P If you had paid attention why I sold the first one, you wouldn’t be trying to use it to put words in my mouth. Both generations are world-beating offerings, yet for different purposes, regardless of them having the same model name. The R56 is still less “normal” than its’ “competition”, primarily due to its poor front end suspension geometry, carelessly tuned engine management, and garbage HVAC interface. And yet, the whole package is still too in-your-face for a magazine that caters to the boring-buying mainstream. There are so many people out there that simply want to be part of the mainstream that something outlandish like the MINI is simply too much for them to handle as an overall owning experience.

I have no problem with the MINI not winning this comparison. The premise was supposedly overall performance per dollar, and in that aspect most people are expecting straight-line speed. For that, the objective winners are the Cobalt SS, Mazdaspeed3, and WRX. If they were doing what Motor Trend did last month “best handling sports car” then lap times would be the main factor. That would mean the MINI, Cobalt SS, and MS3 would duke it out. The gripe with this comparison is they failed to clearly note their intention, and in their big chart it appears redundant impressions, subjective rear seat comfort, and rebates offered were most valued. If C&D is trying to be CR, then I’ll gladly ignore it for being based in abstract value and not relevant for enthusiasts. If you want the straight dope on any of these cars [barring the Cobalt SS], read Evo magazine.

Reply

Eliot R. Dec 5th, 2008 Link

Absolutely comical. You can bring up all sales charts in the world. That doesn’t dismiss the fact that the car has areas that need immediate improvement in order to sustain that leadership in the market.

I don’t care what magazine you bring up it always comes back to sales figures. Are you selling cars or not? And clearly despite these reviews that some seem to consider gospel, the MINI sells and the others don’t.

No doubt about it. A company always needs to be refining its products and subtly making improvements. But using magazine reviews as the basis for these improvements is giving far more credence to a rundown magazine.

Those “meaningless” rag reviews are read by thousands of prospect buyers that do not necessarily spend time looking up info on the internet. And I am afraid that this is not the only review where a second gen MINI product has either ended up at the middle or bottom of the pack.

Here’s the real point to all of this: I don’t give a flying rat’s you-know-what how “thousands of prospective buyers” think. I only care what I think. I love the car. So when a magazine comes out with a slightly negative review, I’m not jumping up and down begging for the changes to appease these reviewers. I’m not looking to justify my purchase. And it’s funny to read a few comments saying, essentially, “I guess this car isn’t as good as I thought it was.”

I don’t even know who wrote this review and who drove the thing. It’s nothing more than some anonymous person. Which makes it annoying to see a group of people living in rain clouds with their heads downturn purely because some anonymous people don’t like their car.

Reply

Dean Cory Dec 5th, 2008 Link

If they realy wanted to do it “DIRT CHEAP” They would have went with a MCS over the Clubman and ditched the JCW stuff. What they did was to take the most expensive MINI offered to date and put it against everything else. When I saw JCW Clubman I knew it would be at the bottom of the list!

Reply

dc11r Dec 5th, 2008 Link

Actually the sales figure argument doesnt really work on topic, because Mini’s sales are very small to begin with. They only have 2 lines of cars, mini and clubman. Clubman came out this year. Mini’s dealership network is VERY small compared to just about everyone else’s network.

So for mini to ever have a huge sales jump on a year where they finally introduced a 2nd model, kinda downplays everything. All these could be factors of just new car for the extra sales volume, or an additional 5 dealerships opening. Those alone would spike a huge increase in sales. People obviously want the car, but can’t buy it in a lot of markets.

If mini had 100 more dealerships U.S. nationwide as of last year, and assuming they didnt increase by any more in 12 months, the sales figures would not read 43% increase.

Reply

lavardera Dec 5th, 2008 Link

I’m with Elliot. The whole notion that “this review tells Mini where they need to work on improving the car” is just rubbish. I’ve seen the same arguments trotted out ever since the R56 was intro’d, in most cases to argue how and why it should be more like the R53. Get over it already. And I don’t mean to beat on all of you – there are only 3 or 4 diehards here that won’t let it go.

I’m not saying the car does not need improvement, or that it should not be improved. But its not going to be over the issues and the items that this crew is chasing after.

Nice to hear from Ryephile here – last I read at NAM you were grafting R56 rear control arms onto your R53? You should submit a profile article about your car to MF – that would be fun to read.

Reply

Dr Obnxs Dec 5th, 2008 Link

Wow! Step out to get some work done for a couple days and look what I miss!

The article wasn’t that bad. Yeah, the Mini is still unique, but there’s no arguing that the competition is getting closer to the mark.

I’ve got my 02S, and we have an 08 Clubbie. Can’t argue that the center stack is really, really poorly designed. There’s unique, and there’s screwed up. The R56/R55 falls into the latter category.

Life will go on…

Matt

Hay C4, I seems to remember some comment about taking the invictive elsewhere! ;)

Reply

JonPD Dec 6th, 2008 Link

Guys just had to say one of the better debates I’ve read on Motoringfile in a long while. Great to see a lot of people participate sharing a great variety of views. Hands down one of the best aspects of the Mini community in action.

Reply

greg Dec 6th, 2008 Link

Why did they use a clubbie for this comparison? And WHAT suspension lowering/upgrade included for $7100?

Reply

Dr Obnxs Dec 7th, 2008 Link

Hay Mr Attention to Detail… They’re pointing out that the base price of the JCW Clubbie is $7100 above the MCS Clubbie. $23,700 for the MCS Clubbie to the JCW version at $30,800. Check MiniUSA.com for more details….

Matt

Reply

rkw Dec 7th, 2008 Link

Why did they use a clubbie for this comparison?

See my earlier comment. Now that the clubbie is out, I feel it is the most appropriate MINI for most car comparisons.

Reply

Blainestang Dec 8th, 2008 Link

I disagree that the Clubman was the correct car for the comparison.

Think about the people that are SPECIFICALLY cross-shopping the cars in this comparison.

I honestly don’t think that cargo-volume is a deal-breaker for the vast majority of people that are cross-shopping these cars.

I still say that they should have used a Cooper S hardtop like they have in the past.

The Cooper S would have similar performance… less power, but less weight, but cost $23k instead. That would put it right in the mix as far as cost.

The Clubman already got 1’s and 2’s for rear seat and trunk numbers, so it can’t get much worse there, if any, and the Cooper would pick up 6-7 points in the Cost portion, and it might even pick up a point or two in the Exterior Styling, Fun to Drive, or Gotta-have-it sections.

Feel free to disagree, of course, this is just my opinion, but I think the JCW Clubman was the wrong choice for this comparo. I can’t see any way that a lightly-optioned MCS hardtop wouldn’t end up with more points.

Reply

greg Dec 8th, 2008 Link

Hay is for (enviro-friendly) horses doc. Where does the “suspension upgrade” come from in the $7100? In the reviewer’s imagination. The stock suspension as pathetically inadequate on the JCW coupe is even more glaring on the clubbie. I’ve driven both and I’m embarressed for Mini.

Where do this writer’s get their info?

Reply

cm Dec 10th, 2008 Link

I love the Mini S, I really do.

I have to admit though, when it came time to spend my own dollars I chose VW R32.

AWD, much more power, much nicer interior (though not as imaginitive), great performance and handling (the latter not as sharp as Mini) and much more interior space and cargo space.

Bottom line is as hard as it is to comprehend a $33k hotted up GTI, it still offers much more value than more expensive comparably equipped Mini…

And, in it’s own way, it is special in that it limited production/sales volume.

Still love the Mini though — I prefer last gen to new gen…

Reply

greg Dec 11th, 2008 Link

On paper, there are cars that are better value wise than an MCS. However, I doubt there are VW sites to check daily, or VW clubs, magazines, or 600 car five day parties at the dragon.

In short, the Mini mystique, fun factor and lifestyle can’t be replicated. Thats why I dumped a Cayman S and came back. It was awesome but no “fun”. And nobody to do cool stuff with. Porsche owners are stiffs.

Reply