MF Review: The MINI Paceman Cooper S All4
The Paceman lies in a space between expectations. Too large to be a proper MINI and too small to be a truly utility-focused vehicle. That's what I heard time and time again from friends and bystanders during my week with the R61 MINI. It's got two doors in the space of four and it's got mass in places that MINI's historically haven't had it. Yet why do I like it so much?

<p>Someone should write a 3rd-grade-style Compare/Contrast essay on this review and the one Jalopnik published yesterday.</p>
<p>Jalopnik decided they hated the Paceman before they ever even drove it. Look through their archives.</p>
<p>He just tested the car and still didn’t like it. $45,000 for a JCW Paceman???</p>
<p>Haters gonna hate ;-)</p>
<p>Hating? Why? I think he brought up very valid points about his experience with the car. Just because he does not agree with you, it doesn’t make them “haters”.</p>
<p>“Haters gonna hate” is a pretty common internet joke. Sorry if that’s too obscure.</p>
<p>You just can’t rely on a winky emoticon like you used to. ;-)</p>
<p>Don’t care much for either, but at least the Evoque gives you fairly good/sleek looks and a top quality interior, both gone amiss in the Paceman.
For me? Give me a CPO E90 335d for $10K less and call it a day.</p>
<p>I think the Evoque is gorgeous, personally. I think that may go down as a timeless design in the long run. We has an M-Sport X1 in the MF/BF garage the other day. Much better value proposition in the end. It’s a shame really. There’s a lot of potential with the Paceman, it’s just stuck in a no-man’s land of pricing and a lack of performance. I’m very curious to see what MINI does with the next generation of these cars. I have a feeling they’ll be much, much better.</p>
<p>If the Paceman proves to be a sales flop, it may not survive for long. I would probably go as far as to say that the car is answer to a question nobody asked. Its pricing will definitely hurt it in the long wrong. There are many nice cars competing in its price bracket and even entries from BMW (1 series, F30 320i, 328i) which now days I prefer to pretty much any current new MINI.
Here in South Florida I have seen many 2 and 4 door Evoques and the cars seem to be moving out briskly. But after all, this market is obsessed with anything with a Land/Range Rover badge on it.
I rather see MINI seriously improving the core MINI models than churning out all these variants that in the end don’t seem to help the perception of the brand (or the bottom line) as much as first thought.
I long for the days when all the choices in the MINI lineup were the MC and MCS hardtops. Those were fun days indeed. The vision and focus BMW had back then has been lost in this desire to be all things to all people and to put a new MINI on every US driveway. That mission is probably best left to BMW.</p>
<p>It doesn’t help that there’s been basically zero marketing push behind this car outside the auto show circuit. People wander into MINI dealerships not even knowing this car exists. That can’t help sales much either.</p>
<p>Agreed, though I will say there’s nothing offered in today’s BMW line that I prefer to the MINI hardtop.</p>
<p>And I’m clearly in the minority but don’t understand the infatuation with the looks of the Evoque. From the front quarter, the large wheels and high ground clearance shout “crop sprayer.” The skid plate design looks positively amphibious, and from the rear the darn thing looks like it’s wearing a big diaper.</p>
<p>“crop sprayer” = literal laugh out loud.</p>
<p>Yes, I know. I wasn’t defending them. Sensitive much?</p>
<p>I am SO sensitive. Please pass out these egg shells for your walking convenience. Ha!</p>
<p>I didn’t even write this review. This one’s Gabe. I do, however, hate the internet-common thing where people always give more credence to the more negative outlook of something.</p>
<p>Mostly, I agree with Gabe. I like the Paceman, but I also think the price is un-defendable. In real trim (JCW) you’re into Land Rover Evoque money, and of the two, that’s the car I’d rather have if I’m shopping for a posh two-door crossover.</p>
<p>Yeah, I know it’s Gabe’s review, but you’re the one taking issue with the comments, both here and on Twitter. And since you seem to be assuming that I am somehow siding with Travis Whatshisname at Jalopnik when all I did was mention the difference between his viewpoint and Gabe’s…then yeah, you seem a little sensitive.</p>
<p>Well take it however you like, but my comments here and elsewhere aren’t about you specifically. Tone is tough to convey in comments and twitter. I think it’s coming across differently than intended.</p>
<p>I didn’t think they were about me, specifically, other than the one telling me that Jalopnik had pre-judged the Paceman. But when you say “Looks like it’s going to be a day of “it’s not really a review unless you hate it” comments” it sounds as though you feel that ALL, or at least a majority, of the comments reflect that viewpoint.</p>
<p>But other than you, there are only two people with comments on this post: me and Frank G. I can’t speak for him, but that’s definitely not my take on things.</p>
<p>I really don’t want to get into a “what I said on Twitter” argument here, but here’s what I meant.
It was a prediction, and not meant as a commentary on anything you specifically said. As soon as the Jalopnik article came up, I figured that the conversation was probably going to turn and be about THAT and not about Gabe’s review for the rest of the day (and it may yet). That would be the normal pattern of things. What tends to happen online is that people side with the more negative review no matter what. When you’ve read a bajillion comments, like I have, you see those patterns.
My tweet was a comment on the internet in general, not you specifically. Obviously you can take that however you like, but if I wanted to comment on you specifically, I would have commented on you specifically. I’m not shy.
Now let’s get back on topic. I hesitate to even take this tangent.</p>
<p>What would YOU spend $47,000 on?</p>
<p>And I repeat, “I didn’t think they were about me, specifically, other than the one telling me that Jalopnik had pre-judged the Paceman.”</p>
<p>I don’t know.</p>
<p>For $47K on something similar to the Paceman…maybe two GTIs?</p>
<p>For $47K on a MINI, almost certainly a JCW Roadster plus Koni FSDs and paying someone to wrap most of the interior with leather.</p>
<p>$47K on the open market, with no limitations? Well, as douchey as I would feel, I would almost certainly have to go take a look at used Porche Boxsters.</p>
<p>Two GTI’s? Have you Priced a GTI? They start at a close price point as a Paceman and the Autobahn model starts off at 32500. My Paceman S fully loaded with Nav was just under 32. Of the 4 mini’s I’ve owned they have ALL gone up in price along with EVERY other car made today. Heck A decently loaded Kia cost over 26K for that matter. The article by Travis might as well be in his own journal b/c it is purely his own opinion. Car and Driver, Fox news, Usa Today, Motor Trend and almost every review I personally have read has been positive. If anyone is paying 45 or even 47 for a JCW paceman either they have money to burn and are a HUGE MINI Enthusiast who needs a little more room but doesn’t want 4 doors. Personally if I had a JCW it would be a Coupe but the base 35,500 paceman would work just fine for me if I needed the extra Hp. Or you could get an S and put in about $1500 and get the same HP and keep it well under 30k.</p>
<p>Hey, I never said what YEAR the GTIs would be…but yeah, you’re right: I didn’t double check my pricing.</p>
<p>How the heck did you get a ‘fully loaded’ Paceman S for $32K? I built what I consider a ‘minimum option’ S on the configurator last night (heated seats and mirrors, auto-dimming interior mirror, auto climate control, $500 paint) and I was at $30K. No sunroof, no nav, no Xenons.The GTI starts at $24K, and never touches the $32,500 you mention. Not in the US, anyway. (Top trim, 4-door is right at $31K.) So, you ‘can’ get 2 GTIs at around $47K.</p>
<p>My R55 JCW stickered at $38K but I was able to get it for $6K off (MTTS coupon and dealer incentives). I thought that to be about as much as I’d be willing to spend on it, regardless of the fun factor.</p>
<p>BTW, who are you on Twitter?</p>
<p>It would be tough. There are so many misconceptions and flat-out assumptions based on not knowing the product that it’s a hard review to read if you know the car. There’s also a shocking lack of information in it which makes the opinions feel either ill-informed or something from the hip. It’s a review that…just…is.</p>
<p>I think the three big concerns I pointed out are the ones that make our test car (not a JCW mind you) less than perfect; a mediocre automatic transmission, mediocre power to weight ratio (not helped by the All4 system) and a price that’s tough to swallow for most consumers.</p>
<p>Granted we only had the car for a week. I think it would be really interesting to live with the Paceman and really get to know all aspects of it’s everyday performance and utility.</p>
<p>I think the falsest thing he said in his Paceman review was that he liked the Coupe and the Roadster. His past writing does NOT support that claim.</p>
<p>Some of his complaints are valid, I think, but a) are mostly cliched rehashes of the same things everyone seems to think they are supposed to dislike about MINIs and b) way oversold, as far as severity.</p>
<p>That’s a good point. I had trouble believing his “I wanted to like it” preamble as well.</p>
<p>MINI/BMW attempted to replicate the X5-X6 conversion. The X5 was a huge sales success (Countryman), they wanted to make a coupe version to reach greater economies of scale and to give the upper crust a car that was easily recognizable and different and the X6 proved to be a success.</p>
<p>The Paceman is not because it is not a vehicle that has a presence that defines itself as high price and in your face (what the X6 is and what the Evoque is). There is no real reason for most in the US to want the Pacemna- no real cache, lacks function and the form is what it is. The price is off as well, as much as MINI wants to be “luxury” it just isn’t playing on the same level as BMW/Audi/Rover etc. the materials, design and such as premium for sure but not at the price point they are playing in.</p>
<p>While this would be an emotional purchase, the truth is the more resounding emotional purchase is the Evoque, yes it is more money but most would stretch to that rather than this. or heck even an X1.</p>
<p>We love our clubman, and it has seen most of Europe now but truth is the F20 1 Series is better in every way and is priced comparably so is the MINI worth the extra coin for just some quirky styling? Nah, and that is why things are moving towards shared platforms and components.</p>
<p>Jalopnik, FTW. Can’t wait for the Truthaboutcars.com to get their hands on it.
Between this and the Countryman, I much prefer the Paceman sans the challenged Countryman sourced front end.
Still, these products have no bearing to anything remotely MINI, save badges and marketing.</p>
<p>Jalopnik review: <a href="http://jalopnik.com/2013-mini-john-cooper-works-paceman-the-jalopnik-revie-791183208" rel="nofollow ugc">http://jalopnik.com/2013-mini-john-cooper-works-paceman-the-jalopnik-revie-791183208</a></p>
<p>I’m not getting the comparison to this and the Countryman. Doesn’t this compete more with the clubman or cooper? I mean how does a two door compare to a 4 door? My thought is most people looking at a mini fall into the catagory of “I don’t care about people riding in the back seat” and choose the Cooper or “I want the Cooper but need more room.” That’s why the Paceman is struggling, people look at it and say “cool but I need 4 doors” or “cool but I want the smaller sportier Cooper”
I also don’t understand why people don’t like the countryman or why they even comapre it to other Mini’s. Listen, I would much rather have my old 2 door cooper s R56 but I had a baby. There are not many good choices out there for that. I dislike Audi/VW’s because I owned a VW Golf and it was always having something go wrong with it. A BMW 3 series wagon would be nice but it is a little out of my price range. I really want a BMW 1 series M hatchback, that would be my most ideal car but unfortunately BMW only gives that jewel to Europeans.
I think too often people compare current cars to cars that are no longer produced as well. What’s the point? You’re dooming yourself to always be unhappy.</p>
<p>I think a lot of comparison talk also neglects a major purchase decision factor: simply liking the car. If somebody really likes the Paceman, they’re going to buy one no matter how it compares to this car or that one. That’s a criterial that MINI depends on a lot, I think. People love MINIs, and not because of specs of paper, but because of an emotional connection either to the brand or to the experience of driving one.</p>
<p>That’s an excellent point. I don’t really care that I can get more HP per dollar (or better mpg, or more room, etc) if it’s on a car I don’t dig.</p>
<p>Right. If the Paceman isn’t your bag, keep on keepin’ on.</p>
<p>MINIs are all about the “Go-Kart” handling and the thrill of driving a “Slow” car “Fast”. The steering and handling makedth the car. Doesn’t seem to be the case for the Countryman/Paceman.</p>
<p>One aspect I love about the Clubman, is how it well retains all the driving and handling characteristics of a MINI on a slightly more useful package.</p>
<p>I’d argue that the steering feel in the R60/R61 is better than on the smaller MINIs. Obviously the handling is better on the smaller cars, but the feedback from the wheel is really engaging in the larger MINIs.</p>
<p>Nathaniel I agree! I’ve had one R-53 and 2 R-56’s over the past 10 years and I can say I was Very surprised at for one How well the Paceman handled after JUST getting out of a 2010 S hardtop and also the steering feel. The Clutch / shifting engagement is hands down better then the past 3 I have owned with the changes they have made vs how the Countryman felt 2 years ago.</p>
<p>I have 2 boys. They rode on the back of MINIs (R50 and R53) since leaving the hospital as newborns. We did roadtrips, went places and did everything with those cars and never it crossed our minds to trade them in for an SUV, CUV or Minivan. I am not encouraging it of course, but it can be done. Loved the look of people faces when we all crammed in our “Tiny” family cars. Great memories to be had by all.</p>
<p>Yes it can be done, and a friend of mine did that as well. I chose to do it with a mini that has 4 doors. Daily squeezing my daughter into the back seat in her carrier to take to day care did not appeal to me.
I do miss my cooper s but am glad I have my countryman s.</p>
<p>Re the S Paceman…I currently have a 2012 JCW Coupe since Oct 2011…which I specially ordered with misc goodies. Had a 2008 MCS hatch before then. Once I get the 2 seater out of my system (I’m 73), I’ll consider the S Paceman FWD as early as the 2015 model only 15 months from now.</p>
<p><pre><code>My hope is that the 2.0L, which will be in the upcoming F56 S, will make its way quickly to the Paceman & other S models with more power along with the 8 speed auto as an option. Just those 2 improvements (among others) could help brighten the future of the Paceman.
</code></pre></p>
<p>I am also very curious to see what the next generation “big” MINIs have to offer. More flexibility in the platform and engine choices will really open up what MINI is able to do with these cars. Both are their first attempt at vehicles like this, and like any first attempt, they have their good points and their bad. One generation of evolution could see significant improvements to both cars.</p>
<p>Very much agree.</p>
<p>This has probably been mentioned many times before, but wouldn’t make more sense to buy a BMW X1 with similar options? I love my second R56 hatch, but the Paceman is not something I would consider.</p>
<p>Yes. Look for the X1 review on BimmerFile soon.</p>
<p>Great read. But I must respond…</p>
<p>RE: Despite all of these plusses, initial sales are showing that the general
public either just doesn’t understand the point of this car, or they
don’t know it exists.</p>
<p>Kidding? It’s overpriced and underpowered. !!! Proof positive the modern Mini formula only goes so far, and so expensive; and Mini apparently forgot the majority of buyers are cheap! And the Paceman stretches everything too far.</p>
<p>That says, wake me up when this gets a boosted 2.0L nearing 240hp. Till then, the cost vs performance does not warrant my money. This coming from a guy who spent near $40K for his ’09 JCW.</p>
<p>That’s exactly what I said in the review?</p>
<p>? Seemed quite the contrary. The 2nd to last paragraph embraces the Mini ‘cache’ and ‘experience’ in a “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” sense. …ending with ” It’s a value that can’t be measured in horsepower-per-dollar.”</p>
<p>And tho there’s mention buyers may leave the showroom thinking it’s $5K too expensive, I didn’t get that you didn’t think it was worth the money once I read the 2nd to last paragraph.</p>
<p>If you like the Paceman and want a Paceman, it isn’t going to be about horsepower-per-dollar. It’s going to be a different kind of value. That’s not going to be a universal appeal, however. I don’t think the traditional “value” or rather, lack thereof, is in dispute here. It’s going to be worth it to somebody, but definitely not everybody, and apparently, not many if early sales are any indication.</p>
<p>I understand. I for one -luv- the Paceman, and I -want- the Paceman. “I just don’t luv it enough” is the party line…</p>
<p>To me it -is- hp-per-dollar (really, hp-per-lb) that keeps me from trading in my JCW for it, not the perhaps a $5k too high an asking price. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>The vehicle I want most to trade my JCW in for — as I’m tired of having to travel on the 300mile+ road trip I often do with a 13 cu.ft. Thule container on the roof rack and 2 or 3 bikes hanging off the back, destroying my hatch & bumper’s paint, and killing my mpg, handling dynamics, suspension, rims (two bent so far), etc — would be a Paceman JCW; if only the power-to-weight were stepped-up and held constant with the JCW hatch.</p>
<p>I’d agree I’m at the far-end of the bell shaped curve of buyers, if sales were stronger. I’ll be so bold to say however if the Paceman S or maybe just the JCW were to have BMW N20-like power and efficiency, while holding its current price-point, the story would be very different sales-wise. But Quandt’s & Klatten’s mansions and properties and yachts just aren’t large or numerous enough I guess.</p>
<p>Then you’re missing the point.</p>
<p>I agree. A X1 is a terrific valur IMHO and with an interior that beats anything from MINI in quality, materials and finish.</p>
<p>for the money i spent on my Coupe, i could have gotten a BMW 3 series or pimped ford focus or hell an Lancer Evo.. however, the reason why us mini owners get a mini is… its a car you can drive it up to 80% of its power on a street each day and man.. go kart handling and agility cannot be explained in words… only a curvy, windy road and pushing your mini to nearly its max can duplicate that feeling..</p>
<p>plus, the mini community is awesome and our love for our babies unparralled and we can make a V6 mustang back down in fear of getting smoked by our little go karts. 😉 however, if its not for you that is ok with me; we all have our preferences.</p>
<p>My main complaint about the Paceman is that it’s the first MINI that I have ever seen in the flesh that looked worse live than in press photos. Even the Countryman looks better in the flesh.</p>
<p>LOVE the photos above and others I have seen … but in the flesh this car looks odd.</p>
<p>I am with Nathaniel, handling and drive be damned … if I am in the market for this type of vehicle I would go for an Evoque or BMW as well at this price point.</p>
<p>This is a mini, you may not like it but someone else will. That is the same with all of their cars. Thankfully they make cars that don’t appeal to the masses.
This may be a miss for me or you, but this review seems spot on and I’m sure a group of people are going to find this to be the perfect car for them.</p>
<p>50+ comments, and no one has mentioned the last photo… parked by “Gabriel Enterprises” sign.</p>
<p>As someone who just placed an order for a JCW Paceman, i am glad to see a review that is pretty damn close to my personal feelings on the car. Ive owned minis for 8 years now (03 R53 with 201k miles and a 79 Leyland)…im of the group who dont understand why people are comparing this to the evoque…what just because of a sloping roof? Go ahead and spec out a Evoque coupe and i guarantee you end up with a price point far above a JCW Paceman. Mine spec’d out came to 43,500(however im getting a pretty substantial amount off as a hook up so the actual price will be well below msrp), but as counter argument, every MINI model i spec’d out to EXACTLY what i want were over 40+ grand. And to the people who cry about how this car isnt a MINI…you realize this is a argument that has been going on since the change from the MK1 to the MK2 classic mini? There are some who consider any mini with roll up windows to be a blasphemy.</p>
<p>hmm.. i def need to take one out for a test drive the next time i’m at my mini dealer, i was looking for a crossover that didn’t look like a tank and drive like a Corolla. i do like the look… then again, i’m a 2013 mini cooper s coupe owner so i kind of like the odd.. ;)</p>
<p>what’s with the spoiler?</p>
<p>Must be from the new Fast And Furious collection.</p>
<p>lolz.. i sadly did enjoy those movies even though they were pretty horrible. .hehe.. its from the John Cooper Works collection. wait.. i am asian so.. isn’t it mandatory for me to have a spoiler of some type? 😛 hehe..</p>
<p>its the JCW fixed spoiler; replaces the raisable spoiler that normally is in the Coupe. I wanted it mainly to avoid the possible noise/rattles from the hardware in the raisable spoiler.</p>
<p>and it finishes the back end of it ;)</p>
<p>It seems that many out there are putting down the Paceman due to price comparing the JCW with other models like the Evoke. But this article was presented as talking about the S model AWD…not the JCW. Since the S Paceman (FWD…which I would prefer living here in Fl) cost about 9K less than the JCW, despite the 27 or so less HP, I think it offers the best bang for the buck among the Pacemans.</p>
<p>And when the current 1.6L is replaced by the new 2.0L for the S line along with hopefully some decent added power, it should still be a better value than the JCW Paceman. Add the expected 8 speed auto as an option (if one goes that way instead of a manual), it has to be a positive direction…..</p>
<p>I think there is a blatant handling difference that really makes the paceman feel much more of a MINI than a countryman. It’s obvious even without the sport suspension. On several test drives, the countryman just felt like flab. The paceman was all smiles. And that’s what MINI’s all about.</p>
<p>I see arguments about lbs per hp and total storage and on and on. No matter what a different mini will be right for different preferences. This is one that checks all mine. The BMW spoiled me so that I can’t stand front wheel anymore. But I want a hatchback with a bit more storage than my R53 and they still refuse to bring over the 1 hatch. Plus, I think the paceman fixes a lot of the issues I have with the countryman’s looks.</p>
<p>That’s the reason there’s a paceman in the factory with my name on it as we speak. And I’m thrilled most people don’t get it.</p>
<p>:) btw, congrats on your new mini baby and hopefully the wait won’t kill ya. longest few months ever (as a coupe owner)</p>