Find Reviews by Make:
Nowadays, the only way to make cars profitably is to take advantage of economies of scale; and nobody is better at maximizing the “one sausage, many lengths” method of automobile production than Mini. Forget talk of “brand values” and “heritage” – we’re in a different era now.
The Paceman, a two-door version of the Countryman crossover/four-door Mini, is intended to maximize volume for the brand, and capitalize on the two-door crossover niche currently monopolized by the Range Rover Evoque. Hopefully it drives better than the Countryman.
28 Comments on “Mini Paceman; A Lesson In Economies Of Scale...”
Read all comments
From the pictures, I’m guessing that this is targeted towards the people who read Heat magazine and who can’t afford an Evoque.
The background looks like a mews (lane, alleyway) in London
So, when will they offer a two-seater, punked version of this? And when will they offer a drop top version of that car?
You mean a Coupe version? If there is, burning it will fire won’t work. Only nuclear weapons will.
Looks nice. I don’t see the point, but it does look nice.
Mini is starting to remind me of the old Fedex commercial where there is a meeting going on. One guy says something and gestures with his hands one way. No one bites. Another guy says the same thing, but gestures another way, and the group applauds. I guess Mini is too subtle for me.
The Murano CrossCabriolet Law states that because the Murano CrossCabriolet exists, pretty much anything else potentially can.
Forgot about that one.
Good God, I actually SAW one of those hideous things on the road here in Ft. Worth (where I am suffering in a Chevy Craptiva for work). With the top down, and two raisin-tanned fogeys driving it in 100F+ temps. I guess the only way that Mutant Murano looks good is if your head is baked by the TX sun.
The Not-so-Mini 2dr is at least cute.
No doubt you need economies of scale in the auto industry, but economies of scope is the correct term to describe the Mini Paceman launch.
Another design from the “The back glass must be as high as the top of the seats, or even better, as high as the headrests” school of design. Never mind about visibility, it looks so cool!
If you can figure this out by looking at it, then you’re not the target market for the Evoque or the Paceman.
I’m not interested until Mini makes a special 3.5-door model with the third door being on the roof.
I’d like to know why coupe-crossovers are popular, they’ve already stripped out off road-ability from SUVs so I guess people want practicality stripped out too?
There’s still room for Mini pickup trucks, std cab, extended cab, crew cab. Also a Suburban size Mini.
Also, we haven’t seen their take on the GMC Envoy XUV, with the sliding back roof. For those days when you need to transport a grandfather clock after a hard day of antiquing. It would also be good for transporting baby giraffes.
+1 LOL
Make mine a crew cab with 6 inch bed, camper shell, lift kit, and chrome rims.
“Make mine a crew cab with 6 inch bed, camper shell, lift kit, and chrome rims.”
How about a 6 inch trunk
http://bringatrailer.com/2012/09/06/1966-riley-elf/
Ford already builds the Suburban size Mini. They call it a Flex.
So… this is a crossover… but is roughly the size of a wider Honda Fit? Color me confused! It towers a whole 2 inches over a Golf!
I like it, but (not having sat in a Countryman) am afraid that the low, stretched out Mini seating may have been replaced by the tall front seats that are spreading like a cancer through small cars.
Crossover: A regular production car thats been raised 2 inches.
I always thought crossovers were just repackaged station wagons for people too young to remember the pre-minivan days.
Crossovers are station wagons for those who just absolutely NEED the fine driving dynamics of an SUV.
It is a Mini crossover after all!
I’d expect the seating position is higher.
“Hopefully it drives better than the Countryman.” I thought the Countryman had great driving dynamics. Reviews have noted other flaws (price, ergonomics), but driving dynamics are never among them.
The Countryman is simply “All grip, no composure”. Especially in ALL4 Cooper S trim. The ride is harsh, jiggly and poorly controlled. The stiff ride and poor damping mean that oversteer is a possibility, but not quite when you expect it. (Wait for the next bump). The bodyshell also feels quite… creaky.
I like the Countryman in basic FWD trim, but the Cooper S is a dynamic mess, with torque steer and traction control battling it out for supremacy even in a straight line, and the ALL4 is just a heavy, jiggly mess.
The Clubman drives worlds better, but unfortunately, product overlap with the Paceman will probably spell the end of the unloved and ungainly Clubman.
I kind of like it. Right now, the PT Cruiser has too much people space and two too many portals for me. The PT’s cargo space is ideal for a potter, and it is a little more car than something like a 500 or Fit. Maybe it needs to have panel coupe sides welded on instead.
It is, apparently, wasteful to want a 2-door anything that isn’t a supermegaultracoupe deluxe.
Who knows, there maybe some PT Cruisers left on dealer lots.
No no. I drive a PT. It’s half-way too much car. Something in the same format, but with 2 less doors would be ideal– and that’s about what this car provides.
Think of it as a shooting brake for dorks that are tired of damaging their bumpers on possum skulls, refuse and badly-maintained roads.
There’s no reason to be all “My car x is fantastic. Nothing could be better!” all the time. You’ve not got to take ownership of a car to discuss it. Some of our commentariat should learn this.
“Think of it as a shooting brake for dorks that are tired of damaging their bumpers on possum skulls, refuse and badly-maintained roads.”
Where the hell are you driving that those are concerns?
Clearly the target demographic picks up male prostitutes, according to the stock photos…