>The MINI is a 100% BMW product developed and manufactured using the same exact engineering, safety >and quality control standards that apply to all other upmarket BMW products. get your facts
Are you talking about the EXACT same engineering, safety and quality controls that applied to a nameless BMW SUV? In addition, your average BMW sees a lot more shop time than a Honda. They are not as reliable.
>handling dynamics were fined tuned during development. (Where was the RSX's handling fined >tuned....oh yeah in Honda's Tochigi proving grounds, LOL)
Would that be the same place that the ITR had its handling tuned?
>The MINI shares its high performance Multilink rear suspension hardware with the current generation >BMW 3 series car. Think about it, the MINI is FWD yet has the rear suspension of a RWD >vehicle....excessive right? That's why BMW did it! Show me similar hardware of this calibre in your >RSX...where is the NSX/S2000 suspension hardware???? Your car is more closely related to a Honda >Civic than a mid luxury sports sedan, while the MINI is a BMW 3 series in disguise...big difference.
The way you are gushing about this car is making me nauseous. Oh, and your car is more closely related to a Neon than a BMW, because it's got a Chrysler engine under the hood, woohoo!
>Also the MINI has a Electro-Hydraulic, engine speed sensitive power steering, long wheel base, wide >track, short overhang and low center of gravity for excellent handling. Want me to keep going? All >right here it goes... Standard on every MINI you also get:
Who says that electro-hydraulic, engine speed sensitive power steering is any better than any other kind of power steering? (nevertheless, the Civic Si has the same thing)
And the short overhand and low center of gravity just makes the Mini that much more dangerous in real world collisions.
>*Exceptional body torsional rigidity. The MINI is 3 times more rigid than any other car (Including >your RSX) in its immediate class size and it is 50% stronger than the body of the current BMW 3 >series!
Do you know why boxing has weight divisions?
>Hmmmmmm, the more we dig into the nuts and bolts of the MINI the more it resembles a BMW than a >cheap based econobox car, doesn't it?
The RSX _is_ a dressed up Civic, but it still outperforms the BMW. It will also probably last longer, and is almost certainly significantly safer.
>See the more we look into the MINI the worse the RSX looks.....welll it looks like a Japanese ripoff >of the first kind. A warmed over Civic coupe sold as a "Premium" sports coupe sedan. Look, I had a >'95 Integra...nice car but nothing to rave home about...thin paint, sheetmetal, hard seats, >questionnable interior plastics, thin sounding stereo and all for $20K! in 1995! How times have >changed!
7 years is a lifetime in the auto industry.
>I think your RSX should watch out for the MINI Cooper 'S' and even the Ford Focus SVT which clearly >outshines your overpriced Civic based excuse of a sports coupe.
You are right, the base RSX is not as good as those cars, but the type-S is better.
I like 0-60 just as much as the next guy. We actually talked about it quite a bit on this board already. I even used that onramp argument myself. But, HH is right, we're not talking about a huge difference here. Also, if that onramp has a curve in it, you're going to want handling to keep that speed up.
The RSX has a whole new powertrain. The most important and expensive part of the car. So reliability is still an X-factor no matter how you slice it.
Safety is a far more complex subject than us as non-safety-engineers can discuss here. But, just to throw an analogy to your "bigger is better" theory: In an accident, would you rather be in a 20 cubic-foot cardboard box or a 5 cubic-foot specially designed reinforced steel box? In other words, size is not everything.
#344 of 894 qbrozen - some good points, but bad analogy
Jul 13, 2002 (11:05 pm)
The RSX does have a new power train. Most of the components of the RSX are either borrowed or modified and tweaked components. The engine of course is totaly brand new. The Mini is brand new from the ground up. In terms of reliability, you can say both are brand new, but I would still say the RSX should be very reliable due to using a great deal of shared components.
The you might feel the difference between 7.0 (Mini S) and 6.3 (Acura RSX Type S) - both times taken by Car and Driver. I would agree it would be very slight to discern between the two. Also, the RSX is no slouch in the handling department either.
If I was to take your analogy about the cardboard box vs. the steel box, if I am being hit by something at 60 miles an hour, I am going to get no padding in the steel box. As a result, I will feel the full brunt of the force even if the box is still intact. At least with the cardboard box, it will take some of the impact.
This my friend is called crumple zones. This is why they went to crumple zones and unibody construction in the 80s. Cars in the 70s (minus MB if they did incorporated Crumple zones then), were dammaged much less in accidents, but their passengers were dammaged much more. As a result, the energy and force from an impact was absorbed significantly by the car's occupants instead of being absorbed by the car. Did I just nulify your analogy, qbrozen, of the cardboard box vs. the reinforced steel box?
#345 of 894 Vooch - we are looking at cars $25K and below!
Jul 13, 2002 (11:10 pm)
Vooch, you are right that none of the cars are sports cars, but for the budget minded, they are about as close as you are going to get this side of a 350Z. The only two cars that might qualify would be the Mustang and the WRX (since the Trans Am and the Camaro are no longer made), but these are much different cars.
Hey, if we all had unlimited funds, we can talk about another couple of econoboxes like a Mclarin F1 vs. the new Ferarri F60.
no, you didn't nulify it. First of all, steel still crumples. Its not indestructible, just sturdier. Second, the cardboard would not absorb enough of the impact to keep you from being splattered all over whatever it was that hit you. That's my point. Its all about design, not size. Smaller can be better if its designed better. Its pretty simple, really.
Take a shock sensor (sorry, the name for the device escapes me now). Put the sensor at the end of the 20 foot cardboard box and another at the end of the 5ft. steel box. Ram each box the same. See which sensor records more shock. I will bet you the one at the end of the steel box will record more shock. That is my point. A reinforced steel box does not have crumple zones, and may only absorb the shock slightly. If it did have crumple zones, this will help absorb some of the shock, but not a great deal of it. There is a chance that the object might not even hit the sensor at the end of the 20 feet of cardboard due to the length and the resistance of the cardboard. As a result, the sensor may feel much less shock.
In terms of smaller and better, you are right. I might take a mini over a VW bus from the 60s, where your knees were right up against the front.
Sorry, you missed the point entirely. To explain it in a more simple fashion...
Sorry, nothing needs to be more simple: your disagreement with with my statement that I personally consider German safety engineering to be superior to Japanese safety engineering.
Do you have something from Mercedes stating they have a better method for testing cars than IIRC and NHTSA?
Try reading your Engineering history books on the subject: you'll find that MB invented the field and remains its leader. FWIW, how many more years will pass until IIRC and NHTSA *begin* to consider using the pedestrian impact safety tests that are already in use in Europe?