The 2020s are seriously good. The pre 2020s lose a lot of what makes a mini so much fun IMO. Yes they would still be fun vehicles but unless you must have the space smaller is better.
Soviet EV and taco chronicles + future ponderings about Fendie
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42434
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42434
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
in a golf you lose nothing by going 4 door, you get better doors as they don’t swing out as much. And utility of 4 doors and no added weight. In the mini, you add 10” of length, uglier looks, 250lbs. Also they don’t have a jcw engine in the 4 door poopers
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40489
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
I hate the barn doors and bumper lights on that car hard pass.
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40489
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
Maybe a current gen. Problem is more weight larger car and same 189 HP. Just get the X1. Which is the exact same but more hp.Detroit wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:59 amWhat about a Countryman or Paceman? They seem to have depreciated very nicely.Johnny_P wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:30 pm I do love these things. Wish the cheez one worked out with Z. It was more than I wanted to spend but I knew I was getting a solid price and went with Z's recommendations. When it fell through I was legit And that was just a cheez yellow school bus 2 door Pooper S with sport pack and MT and HK audio. Would have been an awesome car.
Glad you're liking it man. I should look into these, maybe a 4 door would be a good car for me. Good engines, good transmissions, good size, easy to park, fun and quirky.
- ChrisoftheNorth
- Moderator
- Posts: 47112
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
- Drives: 4R
Yea, but you get the uniqueness of MINI in a vehicle that's better designed for garbage roads. about power as long as it's not dangerously slow.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42434
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
What’s our official DFD definition of that ?
deemed a CX5 with the 2.5 and 200hp dangerously slow ... and that was around 8.x 0-60
- ChrisoftheNorth
- Moderator
- Posts: 47112
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
- Drives: 4R
I'd say it's slower than that. is a moran.
Crosstranny is the threshold for dangerously slow IMO.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40489
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
185? Hp I think. The cx5 is more like 9 sec to 60. With the AC on and another passenger it’s closer to 10. I find it annoying but not quite dangerous.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42434
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a1 ... st-review/
Such danger much wowStill, although our test vehicle’s 7.7-second zero-to-60 time shows that the 2016 CX-5 doesn’t have the beans to dust off a
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40489
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
That’s interesting. The old one is a half second faster.max225 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:04 amhttps://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a1 ... st-review/
Such danger much wowStill, although our test vehicle’s 7.7-second zero-to-60 time shows that the 2016 CX-5 doesn’t have the beans to dust off a
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42434
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
That's the one he had... and either way it is well below 9 seconds no matter how you slice and dice it. hence the hypocrisy of his statement.Johnny_P wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:09 amThat’s interesting. The old one is a half second faster.max225 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:04 am
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a1 ... st-review/
Such danger much wow
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40489
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
I dunno. I think it would be better with another gear or two. The 1-2 shift is a downer. Old one was lighter. New one clocks 0-60 in 8.4 ish in a perfect scenario so more like 9 sec or worse if AC is running.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42434
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
yea but you're in a beige box that looks like every other vehicle being sold at the moment. I'd say about that.
I think it would be a better car for you , "just a MINIs" ride pretty darn hard. I like the suspension/chassis but I doubt it rides even as well as an STi, certainly not better. They're set up to be sporty, fun cars, even in base form. I think Clubman/CUNTrymen are for someone who truly needs something larger/Baghdad capable but still not as boring as most CUV offerings.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42434
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
They do ride pretty stiff but it also depends on the model as well. I personally wouldn't take them through baghdad, but they are small and nimble so its much easier avoiding potholes than just ramming through them. I didn't think the STI rode particularly hard, I think it was closeish to my JCW.D Griff wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:16 pmI think it would be a better car for you , "just a MINIs" ride pretty darn hard. I like the suspension/chassis but I doubt it rides even as well as an STi, certainly not better. They're set up to be sporty, fun cars, even in base form. I think Clubman/CUNTrymen are for someone who truly needs something larger/Baghdad capable but still not as boring as most CUV offerings.
- troyguitar
- Command Chief Master Sirloin
- Posts: 20088
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
- Drives: Trek Domane
- Location: Swamp
Modern cars automatically disengage the AC at WOT and have done so for years now.Johnny_P wrote:I dunno. I think it would be better with another gear or two. The 1-2 shift is a downer. Old one was lighter. New one clocks 0-60 in 8.4 ish in a perfect scenario so more like 9 sec or worse if AC is running.
- Irish
- Senior Chief Patty Officer
- Posts: 3648
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:37 am
- Drives: '12 GIT (190K!)- 2011 Outie A5
- Location: Carlisle PA
I did not know thistroyguitar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:31 pmModern cars automatically disengage the AC at WOT and have done so for years now.Johnny_P wrote:
I dunno. I think it would be better with another gear or two. The 1-2 shift is a downer. Old one was lighter. New one clocks 0-60 in 8.4 ish in a perfect scenario so more like 9 sec or worse if AC is running.
- max225
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 42434
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
- Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon
My 1996 lincoln did this...troyguitar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:31 pmModern cars automatically disengage the AC at WOT and have done so for years now.Johnny_P wrote:
I dunno. I think it would be better with another gear or two. The 1-2 shift is a downer. Old one was lighter. New one clocks 0-60 in 8.4 ish in a perfect scenario so more like 9 sec or worse if AC is running.