>I made my comparison just to point out that a light, nimble,
> low powered car was such a great idea 10 years ago, I don't see why the
> idea can't work today when just about everything has 200hp.
i was actually referring to the fact that many of us saw the CRX as the
modern mini- as the original mini cooper was the prototype race winning car
through tiny size, weight, and power. :)
now the tables are turned!
-james c
OSP - Our Sliding Practice
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thana, Peter {High~Palo Alto}" <PETER.THANA@ROCHE.COM>
To: "'james creasy'" <Black94PGT@pacbell.net>; "'Carl Merritt'"
<CMerritt@luminous.com>; <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: Let's Talk Minis...
> Yes, it's true- the 2nd gen CRX and all Civics from then on had a great
> suspension with that double wishbone. The Mini has struts in front and a
> multilink "Z axle" in the rear derived from the E46 3 series BMW. The 1st
> gen CRX had struts.
>
> In theory the double wishbone design is an advantage over struts (better
> camber curve) but in practice we'll have to see. BMW does have crash bolt
> TSBs for all the 3 series that offers a modest gain in static negative
> camber. Perhaps if enough people make noise they may do the same for the
> MINI. Another thing the MINI has going for it is a really stiff
suspension.
> We tried to push down on the strut towers of the Cooper S with Sport
> Suspension Plus (also available on the Cooper) and it would not budge.
And
> the car did not have shipping spacers in the springs, we checked. If the
> car doesn't roll as much as a Civic, then it may not be a net disadvantage
> to have struts.
>
> The CRX was such a neat car, and it may well be far better for autox than
> the new MINI. I made my comparison just to point out that a light,
nimble,
> low powered car was such a great idea 10 years ago, I don't see why the
> idea can't work today when just about everything has 200hp. Except that
now
> we're spoiled:)
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: james creasy [mailto:Black94PGT@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 11:47 AM
> To: Thana, Peter {High~Palo Alto}; 'Carl Merritt';
> ba-autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Let's Talk Minis...
>
>
> whats the suspension on the mini?
>
> i seem to recall the CRX had double wishbone on all four corners... quite
a
> nice performance feature on an inexpensive car.
>
> -james c
> OSP - Onerous Suspension Performance
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thana, Peter {High~Palo Alto}" <PETER.THANA@ROCHE.COM>
> To: "'james creasy'" <Black94PGT@pacbell.net>; "'Carl Merritt'"
> <CMerritt@luminous.com>; <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 11:32 AM
> Subject: RE: Let's Talk Minis...
>
>
> > According to Mark Chiles, who just bought one, the owners manual quotes
> > weight for the base Cooper as 2480 with a full tank of gas and a driver
of
> > unspecified weight. That should equate to a full tank weight of ~2300
and
> a
> > fighting weight a good bit under that.
> >
> > For reference the second gen CRX Si had a curb weight of 2178 lbs and
108
> > hp. And that car is classed in GS. The light one was the first gen,
> which
> > weighed ~1900lbs but had only 91hp. All three cars are quoted as 8.5
> > seconds 0-60, and I bet you could take off a few tenths from that with
> those
> > rubber band Hoosiers.
> >
> > As long as Brake Assist or other funky BMW technology doesn't up screw
the
> > car up for autox, it actually matches up decently with some of the
proven
> > speed maintenance cars in GS like the CRX and the old Celica ST. Of
> course
> > it's too early to tell, but all indications look like it should be a
great
> > bet for HS, maybe too good!
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: james creasy [mailto:Black94PGT@pacbell.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:54 AM
> > To: Thana, Peter {High~Palo Alto}; 'Carl Merritt';
> > ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Let's Talk Minis...
> >
> >
> > >It's sort of like a modern day CRX, light and nimble but without a
> > > lot of power.
> >
> > the mini cooper as a modern day CRX? words i thought id never hear!!!
:)
> > its quite a bit heavier though.
> >
> > sounds like a super h-stock car.
> >
> > -james c
> > OSP - Overbearing Snake Presence
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Thana, Peter {High~Palo Alto}" <PETER.THANA@ROCHE.COM>
> > To: "'Carl Merritt'" <CMerritt@luminous.com>; <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:42 AM
> > Subject: RE: Let's Talk Minis...
> >
> >
> > > Hi Carl,
> > >
> > > Sean O'Boyle and I had a chance to drive a Cooper at Mini of Mt. View
> last
> > > week. They are neat little cars, and pretty much everything you've
> heard
> > > about the handling is true so far- very responsive steering and a
solid
> > > chassis. We felt the Cooper was a bit underpowered, especially in the
> low
> > > end. Granted we had 3 people in the car, but pulling away from normal
> > > right-turn-on-green speed in 2nd gear resulted in... bog. Our
> conclusion
> > > was that for the street you might be better off with the S, although
> they
> > > are not giving out test drives in them yet.
> > >
> > > Autox is a different story. I still believe after driving the car
that
> > the
> > > base Cooper will be the car to have for HS. I've heard weight figures
> > > closer to 23xx pounds for the base Cooper. With the optional Sport
> > > Suspension Plus, the car will have much stiffer springs than anything
in
> > its
> > > class. The Cooper is not available with 17" wheels as a factory
option,
> > but
> > > comes standard with 15s and has optional 16x6.5 rims. Shod those with
> the
> > > current 205 Kumhos or the new 215/40/16 Hoosiers and you have a wheel
> tire
> > > package superior to anything in GS, let alone HS. An additional bonus
> is
> > > that the rubber band Hoosiers will dramatically shorten the gearing,
> which
> > > is something the car desperately needs.
> > >
> > > The Cooper S will be a big unknown for DS until someone sets one up
and
> > > tries it. The chassis has great potential, but that class is already
> full
> > > of very strong cars like the Integra Type R and the IS300.
> > >
> > > I really wanted to love the base Cooper, because I've always had good
> luck
> > > with the lesser of two models (Z3 2.8 Coupe vs. the ///M and my
> non-turbo
> > > MR2). It's sort of like a modern day CRX, light and nimble but
without
> a
> > > lot of power. Also while the MSRP spread of the 2 models isn't that
> > large,
> > > it will be much harder/more expensive to buy a Cooper S for the next
> year
> > at
> > > least. Having driven just the Cooper, I'd have to say that the S has
> more
> > > fun potential for day to day driving though. The Cooper may be a
better
> > bet
> > > for stock class autox, but then again if it is too good I can see that
> car
> > > getting bumped to GS before year's end.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Carl Merritt [mailto:CMerritt@luminous.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:50 PM
> > > To: 'ba-autox@autox.team.net'
> > > Subject: Let's Talk Minis...
> > >
> > >
> > > So I'm seriously thinking about selling my Golf TDI for a new Mini.
> > Anybody
> > > have one yet or have one on order? Anybody seen any come out to play
> at
> > an
> > > Autocross yet? Any guesses on weather the NA or S version will be
more
> > > competitive in their respective classes?
> > >
> > > For reference, the normally aspirated Mini has a 115HP/110ft-lb motor
> and
> > > weighs 2500lbs, and according to MiniUSA does a 0-60 in 8.5 seconds.
> The
> > S
> > > is 163HP/155ft-lbs and 2700lbs, and goes to 60 in 6.9 seconds. They
> both
> > > have the same wheel options available (17x7 being the largest), same
> sport
> > > suspension and seat options, but the S has a 6-speed. The S is in
> > D-Stock,
> > > the NA is in H-Stock.
> > >
> > > More food for thought here: http://www.miniusa.com/
> > >
> > > Anybody?
> > >
> > > -Carl
|