Edmunds Inside line has their chance with the Clubman.
>The real changes are concentrated out back, where that additional wheelbase is used to extend rear-seat legroom, making the rear of the Clubman a more enjoyable place to be than any standard Mini. The rear seat remains reasonably snug, but you no longer need the flexibility of an Olympic gymnast to remain there for any length of time.
>The longer rear overhang also sees cargo capacity increase by 3.5 cubic feet to 9.1 cubic feet. With the split-fold rear seats tucked away, overall cargo capacity grows to 33.0 cubic feet.
[ First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S Clubman ] Edmunds Inside Line
A fine review. They also did MINI a favor by not showing the view of the wide rear door seam through the rear-view mirror, which was posted in the MINI2 review. It’s about the most obstructed view I think I’ve seen. Nice to see the press has been positive.
It’s funny how some people still don’t get “MINI” vs “Mini”. I mean it’s BMW not Bmw. 🙂
MM, part of the reason is that BMW is an ancronym vs. MINI which is just a capitalized name.
These reviews have cooled my interest a bit due the the rear view quality, although I am hopeful the pictures make it seem worse than it is. One of the best attributes of the MINI Cooper and BMW 2002 is the visibility out of the car. I like to see the police far enough back that I can run before they see my plate. 😉
The problem is media and public have not taken to the MINI name as a brand. That is the difference – Mini is a model, MINI is a brand.
People do not call the new Rolls-Royce a BMW RR.
However, Mini has had many masters – Austin, Morris, Leyland, Austin Rover, Rover, BMW. All these manufacturers were the in the same BMC factory.
So to identify old vs new, people may say BMC Mini vs BMW MINI. Old habits die hard.