⚠ Forum Archived — The THSCC forums were discontinued (last post: 2024-05-18). This read-only archive preserves club history. Visit thscc.com →  |  Search this archive with Google: site:forums.thscc.com your search terms

THSCC Forums

Tarheel Sports Car Club Forums
It is currently Tue Apr 07, 2026 10:12 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 861
I thought these were just concept cars, and not close to production. The AWD "crossman" is supposedly much closer to production, after having been shown in concept form before, and there's been video of the tests of production videos being shown all over the web.

I was actually looking for the 4-door AWD model to be shown at Frankfurt, but no such luck.

_________________
"Build a man a fire and he'll stay warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll stay warm the rest of his life."
'93 Subaru Legacy DIRTBOMB
'98 BMW M3
2013 Rallyx Co-VP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:02 pm 
Offline
Only YOU can prevent forest fires
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 9:58 pm
Posts: 2204
Location: Apex
The second of Mini’s new models will be this two-seat Roadster, unveiled at Frankfurt and due on sale in 2011.

The sister car to the Mini Coupe, the Mini Roadster will target the Mazda MX-5 and Audi TT Roadster. It will be built in the UK at Mini’s Oxford plant.

Based around the same re-engineered Mini Convertible bodyshell as the Coupe, the Roadster concept shares that car’s rakish A-pillars and lowered roofline.

The front pillars slope back an extra 16 degrees on the concept, an expensive feature to re-engineer but one that also gives the car a sportier look.

“The glasshouse is significantly lower, slimmer and more dynamic than the regular production models, providing a strikingly sleek silhouette,” Mini claims.

However, it is unclear if the production versions will feature this expensive change. One of the issues in sloping back the windscreen like this is the effect on the car’s performance in US crash tests. These have to cater for unbelted occupants because wearing a seatbelt is still not compulsory in many US states.

A source who has seen the production versions of both Coupé and Roadster suggests that the production models will not have the same degree of pillar rake.
The Roadster will also share its boot lid pressing with the Coupe, although clever body engineering means that they open in different ways.

_________________
Marty Howard
2011 NASA SE Factory Five Challenge Champion
Track Events Logistics Coordinator - TZC/THSCC
2007 Factory Five Challenge Car.
http://www.mh-motorsports.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:03 pm 
Offline
Only YOU can prevent forest fires
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 9:58 pm
Posts: 2204
Location: Apex
On the Coupe it forms part of a roof-hinged hatch, while on the Roadster it opens like a conventional boot lid (unlike that of the Convertible, which hinges from the bottom). Boot volume is the same as that of the Coupe at 250 litres. The Roadster’s boot size remains the same regardless of whether the roof is stowed or not.

Where the Roadster differs from the Coupe is the lightweight, manual canvas roof that folds down just proud of the rear deck lid to open the cabin to the elements.
There’s no cosmetic body-coloured cover for the roof, for engineering simplicity and to keep weight down, so the roof is visible when stowed.

There’s a significantly different paint finish for the Roadster concept too. The white-and-gold colour scheme echoes a haute couture fashion theme, just like the Chanel-style houndstooth seat material.

For the first time, a Mini gets body-coloured grille bars in place of the characteristic chrome finish.

Also different are the powerplants for its two new concepts, to reflect their different characters. This choice may well be reflected in production, too.

The harder-edged Coupe is powered by the 208bhp JCW version of the Mini’s 1.6-litre twin-scroll turbocharged engine, while the Roadster is matched to the more refined 175bhp Cooper S 1.6 turbo.

There are no details on performance yet, although it is reasonable to assume that acceleration and top speeds will be very close to those of the regular Mini hatchbacks with similar engines.

Despite the use of a less frantic version of the 1.6-litre turbo engine, Mini says its new open-top is intended as a rewarding drive.

That’s one of the reasons why the Roadster is equipped with a simple, unpowered roof to keep weight and complexity down.

Ease of use is also important, with a clever, through-bulkhead compartment offering access to the boot. Items stored in the boot for security can be accessed from the passenger seat through the bulkhead. And the hatch can be locked to deter opportunist thieves.

There’s no official guide to Roadster prices yet, but it seems reasonable to assume at least a £3k premium over equivalent-engined hatchback Minis. That would mean a price of around £17k for a Cooper Chili, rising to nearly £22k for a Cooper S Chili.

_________________
Marty Howard
2011 NASA SE Factory Five Challenge Champion
Track Events Logistics Coordinator - TZC/THSCC
2007 Factory Five Challenge Car.
http://www.mh-motorsports.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:27 pm 
Offline
Queen of the Guinea Hens
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 11:32 pm
Posts: 3122
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Marty Howard wrote:
However, it is unclear if the production versions will feature this expensive change. One of the issues in sloping back the windscreen like this is the effect on the car’s performance in US crash tests. These have to cater for unbelted occupants because wearing a seatbelt is still not compulsory in many US states.


I had a problem with the seat belt thing not being compulsory, so I looked it up. Turns out ONLY New Hampshire has no seat belt law for front seat passengers. That's all that would affect this car, right? (I'm not going back to check, but it didn't appear it could have rear seats.) If so, do you mean we might all have to pay the price because ONE state doesn't have a seat belt law?

I know NH is the "live free or die" state, but I thought the feds did a pretty good job with their road money withholding threats that all states had complied. Anyone know the real story there?


--Donnie

_________________
My Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group