Yes many want an "inexpensive-to-buy, inexpensive-to-run" car. They also tend
to want modern sophisticated engineering and all the bells and whistles as well.
In my youth (ahhh), I built, rebuilt and rebuilt a number of minis, including a
quite well tuned Cooper S. One developed a love-hate relationship with them.
But they were fun, cheap to own and to modify. In their day, they were
very,very quick, but not for the faint of heart.
The new Minis are not bad (though the price is high) and much better built, and
- their one good point - do not run on 10 inch wheels! With modern
anti-pollution regulations, tuning as was done with the original minis is no
longer possible or practical.
In case, it isn't clear, I loved my final mini incarnation - a spiffy red and
white, well tuned Mk2 Cooper S equivalent.... Not exactly a works rally
replica, but close.
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: May 10, 2006 11:15
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: OT - energy efficient cars
I think BavMotWerk have missed the point completely with the new Mini.
the ideal of an inexpensive-to-buy, inexpensive-to-run (a penny a mile)
created by Sir Alec Issigonis (with help from a Mr. Jack Daniels,
although it is reported that Sir Alec's favourite drink was Gordon's
Gin...) has been lost in the heavily optioned and ugly device that
weighs 3 times as much as the original design. It also costs nearly
twice as much as a full size family sedan out here in the antipodes.
Admittedly, it's pretty hard to cram all the safety of modern cars into
the thin doors & tiny dash of the old design, but it's just not the same
<*sniffle*>...
Having driven different morris/leyland minis through my early twenties,
enjoyed going to the drive-in in the summertime & lifting the front
seats out to sit them on the ground next to the Esky (icebox, chillybox,
whatever) to watch the movies, it's _just_not_the_same_.
(btw I think these comments are equally applicable to the new beetle!!)
They have a LOT to answer for, destroying the names of motoring icons
like that :(
davidt
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:17:55AM -0400, NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> I have a physician friend who is a wonderfully creative photographer and is
> of a size that a Mini Cooper would accommodate. A year or so ago she traded
> her VW which got 40+ miles to the gallon in on a Mini Cooper and although
> she
> enjoys the Mini Cooper, it is a good bit less fuel efficient than the VW. I
> guess it is all relative, because although less fuel efficient than the VW,
> it is perhaps 2+ times more fuel efficient than my 4 wheel drive Chevrolet
> Suburban. The Suburban on the other hand will comfortably carry 3 times more
> passengers and several times more gear if used for hauling stuff. Price
> wise
> there is probably not much difference in initial cost between the Mini
> Cooper
> and the Suburban if both are fully equipped. The real savings for this
> slightly claustrophobic, 6 ft 4 in, 245 lb city dweller comes from a feeling
> of
> being secure in traffic and considerably lower chiropractor bills each year.
>
> Bill Barber
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|