The point being ??…..
Many people will read articles in books and national magazines and believe the information given in them is correct and true. Based on this they will build up a vast knowledge of minis in their heads and then pass this information on to the rest of the mini community.
But what if this information is not correct.??? well then we get the kind of situation that very often gets people like me really wound up. Things like “the mini Mayfair was a special edition” and “I own a 1989 Austin Mini city E”.
So the point is, the publishers of so called “facts” have a responsibility to ensure they are correct.
Now at this point, half of you are agreeing with me and the other half are thinking I'm being petty and anal. Those in the second group can close the topic now.
To prove this point I am going to use the recent Mainstream Cooper Buyers guide from the December issue. Now I'm not launching a personal attack on the Mini Mag staff as I happen to believe it is by far the better of our two magazines of choice, it just so happens that this is my specialist area and I can therefore make comments that are based on the true and correct spec of the car.
The point of the article in Question is to provide readers with a detailed “Buyers Guide” that they can use to help them purchase the particular model in complete confidence (it also has the other added benefit of recording the model for “the record“). imagine then if the article actually gave a very false and incorrect picture of the cars spec.
Lets look at it page by page…
Page one…
Nothing wrong with that!
Page Two…
Now most of this page is taken up with the story of how the mainstream came into production. In all fairness this is a good and accurate account of how things happened. Inevitably the limited edition RSP model is mentioned and this is where our first problem is found.
“the interior (of the RSP) is Identical to the mini 30 apart from the mini cooper tags sewn into the seats to cover the mini 30 logos”
Now I take this to mean that if I was to remove the mini cooper logos from my seats I would find mini 30 logos underneath them. This is actually a load of rubbish as the logos on these seats are sewn in “flaps” that are “sewn in” when the seat covers are made. Not a good start then.
The article then goes on the describe the spec of the mainstream cooper. It states that the fabric used on the seats is called “crayon fabric” when it is actually known as Racing Crayons fabric, (OK that ones a bit petty but wrong non the less) and it then goes on to state that the mainstream is fitted with “an oil cooler”. this is not true (more on this later)
Page three…
This page continues on to describe the overall spec of the car. One point to mention is the comment made about the “cooper laurel wreath insignia on each rear wing” OK, again this is not wrong but there is no mention that there is also a laurel wreath decal on the boot lid. So what?, you may ask. well this is actually one of the main ways to tell the difference between the Mainstream cooper and the later fuel injection cooper. The badge on the boot of the fuel injection coopers is visually identical to the bonnet badge. The carb coopers (RSP and Mainstream) are the only ones to have the decal. Worth a mention. don’t you think ??
Now onto the fact boxes… the one titled “interior and seats” starts with a very misleading statement.
“the cooper shares it’s crayon seat trim with the mini flame, racing and checkmate models”
This is actually the one of the most commonly made mistakes made when looking at the mainstream cooper.
To clear this up, the cooper does in-fact share its “Racing crayons” seat fabric with the flame, racing and checkmate, but the seat design is NOT the same. In the cooper the pattern runs vertically down the seats and in the flame, racing, checkmate cars the pattern runs horizontally across the seats.
Racing/flame seats....
This box also goes on to say…
“the main difference between the pre-injection cooper (mainstream) and the RSP is its interior”.
This is not actually true, the main difference between the two is ALL of the trim, inside and out. More on this later.
The second Box, titled “engine” states that the car should have “an oil cooler as standard” and goes on to say that “There should be an oil cooler on the right hand side”.
This is completely wrong. The mainstream cooper was not fitted with an oil cooler and this is actually the main mechanical difference between this model and the RSP. Oops!!
Page four…
This page actually gives us a clue as to why all the mistakes have been made. In the main text it says…
“many will look for the rarer and more flashy RSP version but the production cooper (mainstream) is virtually identical in all but a few minor details”
This is the biggest mistake made by the author of the article, let me explain. The RSP and the mainstream ARE virtually identical Mechanically with the lack of oil cooler on the mainstream, the different design of the air box trunk, and the different spec auxiliary fan being the few minor differences. The are however COMPLETELY different when it comes to trim and body fittings. The mainstream cooper actually has a trim spec that is much closer to the Flame, racing, check mate cars.
The RSP has tinted glass the mainstream has plain, the RSP has halogen headlights the mainstream has sealed beam headlights, the RSP has colour coded wheel arches the mainstream has plain black/dark grey ones, the RSP has body colour coded wing mirrors the mainstream has wing mirrors that match the roof colour, the RSP has almost the same interior as the mini 30 the mainstreams interior is based on the flame, racing models.
Most of the mistakes in the article can be explained by the idea that people think the mainstream and the RSP are “virtually identical”. THEY ARE NOT.
Now we move onto the box titled “wheels”. this states that the mainstream should be fitted with the early style of rover minilight alloys that were fitted to the mini 30, the RSP cooper and the second generation racing flame range, these had the stud holes in-line with the spokes. It states that the injection cooper has the later design with the stud holes between the spokes. This is made worse by the fact that to the left of this we can see that the car actually has the later style fitted.
It was actually the mainstream that was the first car to have the later wheels fitted, not the injection cars. The brochures of the time do show the mainstream cars to have the early type of wheel, but these are photos of pre-production mainstreams. By the time the car hit the showrooms, the spec was changed to the later type. OK, so we can actually excuse this one as an honest mistake if you believe that the author used the brochures as a guide to his research, but did they not question the wheels fitted to their studio model …. Oops.
brochure pic...
later production pic...
Page five…
No mistakes
Page six…
So this page has an “identifying features box”. Good, we can use this as a reliable guide when we go and look at a potential purchase. Well yes we can as long as we ignore the tinted glass and halogen headlights comments… oops
General points…
I’m very surprised that one of the key identifying features of the mainstream cooper does not get a mention in the article. The mainstream is in fact the only rover cooper that does not have a body coloured rear number plate light housing. Standard spec for the mainstream is satin black, The RSP and the fuel injection cars have body colour. Worth a mention ??
Also no mention of the blue/green instrument faces that are unique to all early cooper models.
Another thing I’m puzzled about is the lack of the word “Mainstream” in the article. This is the most commonly used term for the car and is even printed on the spine of the mag, but it seems the author has avoided the term as if it was cursed.
So what do we have?, we have an article that gives a very false picture of the true spec of the car. You may think that the points in question are trivial, but they are the kind of thing you will be looking for when trying to purchase a car of this type.
Go and view a true and genuine mainstream cooper with this article in your hand and you will quite rightly walk away from it under the impression that it is probably a fake.
The exact opposite of what the article set out to do.
You may find it petty and trivial, but wrong is wrong and it confuses people which in turn winds me up
I rest my case (and my fingers)
Questions please ???
Edited by THE ANORAK, 22 September 2008 - 04:45 PM.
