>>>IMO the first new one was borderline, but the second new one is ridicolous to run as "Mini". Victor is correct in pointing out current security needs...
>>
>>If by "security" you mean crashworthiness, you don't necessarily need a large vehicle for that. From VW, their original 1-liter prototype: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car
>>
>>"The body and frame are designed with crush/crumple zones and roll-over protection, and the tandem seating means large side crush zones. Volkswagen claims protection comparable to a GT racing car. The car has anti-lock brakes, airbags with pressure sensors, and stability control." - in a car that weighed 290kg empty.
>
>Racing cars need less protection for pedestrians, which I at least read to be one of the reasons for size difference located at front between first and second new one ;-)

Protection for pedestrians is a curious thing - it's not at all obvious to me that a current Mini would be any better than the originals. I understand front-bumper airbags have been explored, I don't know how practical or cost-effective they would be. Probably the greatest advance in the near future would be to enhance various automatic braking systems to respond to pedestrians as well as fixed obstacles and other vehicles; I think some makers are already working on this.

Long ago automakers voluntarily stopped using prominent hood ornaments that were killing or seriously injuring pedestrians, likewise door handles with exposed forward-facing arms that would hook pedestrian clothing and drag them to serious injury or death.

It was previously known that suicide knobs on steering wheels were exactly that, punching holes in drivers' skulls in collisions. One surprising result with early crash test dummies was how other exposed knobs such as cigarette lighters were also punching holes in various body parts. There's a *vast* amount of design and engineering in modern vehicles that improves safety but which is basically invisible and no-one ever thinks about it.