# cooper s



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

what's the turbo prices one starting at on the used market?

or will it be better to get a nicer supercharger one at similar budget?

seen early ones starting at £5k region and they look fun


----------



## T3RBO (Dec 9, 2003)

A lower mileage turbo version is about 9k but higher miles ones can be picked up for around 6k

Surprising how cheap the S is now, and the supercharger does seem the better buy to me


----------



## C.J (Mar 24, 2009)

I understand the turbo is the better car, but I love the sound of the 'charged ones.


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

I would imagine Autotrader and Pistonheads are the best places to head to do some research and see what prices they are advertised for.

I like the idea of a supercharger, but personally if you can afford to I would go for the newest one you can afford.

Charlie


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

T3RBO said:


> the supercharger does seem the better buy to me


I disagree strongly. With the R56, BMW took all the crap bits of the R53, such as painted plastic handles, thirsty engines etc etc and binned them in favour of a much better set of engines, and vastly superior interior quality. The R56 is streets ahead of the R53 in so many ways.

My money would definitely go on a Turbo (R56) if you can get one. Having owned one I can say that they are an amazing all round car capable in pretty much all day to day situations (although the boot is a bit small!).


----------



## Fictorious (Sep 15, 2009)

Turbo one has plenty of its own problems, the Tritec engine may have been a bit unrefined, but at least it was reliable.


----------



## phil3012 (Jul 25, 2008)

I have driven both.

Supercharged version is more of a fun weekend car, lots of early on power although the ride is very poor if you have even a minor wheel upgrade. Handling is superb though, but too harsh for a day to day car. Eats fuel to boot.

Turbo version is more refined and a better day to day car, although still be careful on wheel size.

I would only ever consider the turbo version.


----------



## T3RBO (Dec 9, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> T3RBO said:
> 
> 
> > the supercharger does seem the better buy to me
> ...


You can't disagree with my own personal opinion :lol:

I was simply referring to purchase cost, mpg and bhp via advertised figures :wink:


----------



## elrao (Apr 19, 2005)

He can disagree with it! People disagree with each others opinions all the time!


----------



## landwomble (Feb 9, 2011)

elrao said:


> He can disagree with it! People disagree with each others opinions all the time!


No they don't! Oh, hang on...


----------



## MP (Feb 22, 2008)

I drove a supercharged one, when you lifted off it popped, I liked that! Had a drive in a turbo one and it didn't pop  . But I would get the turbo due to fuel economy, the supercharged one did less than 30 mpg!


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

MP said:


> I drove a supercharged one, when you lifted off it popped, I liked that! Had a drive in a turbo one and it didn't pop  . But I would get the turbo due to fuel economy, the supercharged one did less than 30 mpg!


My Tubby R56 popped and banged like a good un! The more miles I put on the clock the louder it got!

BMW revised the engine slightly in 2010 to eliminate pops and bangs (economy reasons), so it may have been one of those you drove?


----------



## Big Tav (Dec 18, 2010)

I sold these for a long time and the R56 is the only one to buy. It is superior in every way.


----------



## ttjay (Apr 18, 2007)

Turbo all the way, here's my other halfs.

Its a hoot to drive


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

would love to change the wife ka for a cooper s.

head says the turbo version would be the better option, newer, better mpg etc. probably wait until the prices fall abit though

any signs of a replacement which might impact pricing


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

i've seen a few r56 around £7k with above average mileage, but then I see R53 with average mileage, older, therefore similar mileage but still around the same price!?


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2011)

They're for girls.


----------



## Big Tav (Dec 18, 2010)

A well specced JCW isn't. An extremely fast car in the real world (especially on B roads)


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

manphibian said:


> They're for girls.


aren't non tt owners saying that about tt too


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2011)

p1tse said:


> manphibian said:
> 
> 
> > They're for girls.
> ...


Yep, they're probably right too


----------



## Fictorious (Sep 15, 2009)

manphibian said:


> They're for girls.


Not compared to the TT lol, heavy clutch, stiff gear change, loud, noisy and very direct steering.


----------



## Dance171 (Feb 8, 2009)

just seen this thread i had a supercharged one afew years ago and my god that car is so much fun!

It was WORSE on the petrol than the TT by alot so if your worried about fuel do not buy this car. The supercharged one keeps the classic look about it and has alot more presence than the turbo (i think the turbo is too big looking for a mini)

i do think if i had to buy another mini i would buy the turbo and remap it but simply for the running costs


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

i heard a turbo version coming down the road, popping noise from the exhaust. Awesome.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2011)

p1tse said:


> i heard a turbo version coming down the road, popping noise from the exhaust. Awesome.


Was probably the sound of the gearbox disintegrating...


----------



## Chris**** (Aug 9, 2011)

I had the very latest supercharged S, so getrag gearbox, teflon coated charger etc etc. Lovelly cars, but just not great build quality. Loved driving it, well did quite a bit to mine, so was running 245-250 ish. But the torque steer was untrue, and cyl 4 problems, and engines going bang were quite common. Even on standard versions. Mine never popped as the mods increased, as i ran rich for obvious reasons.

Nice cars, but i would agree the R56 is probably a better bet. Well bar the dash, which i prefered the older one, and the charger whine. Which is why i got a SC version really.










Did look mean with a GRS red intercooler in the scoop though


----------



## Chris**** (Aug 9, 2011)

Latest photo


----------



## p1tse (Sep 20, 2004)

nice

i like the use of the bonnet scoop as these are usually blanked off, aren't they?


----------



## Chris**** (Aug 9, 2011)

p1tse said:


> nice
> 
> i like the use of the bonnet scoop as these are usually blanked off, aren't they?


No, they are always used, as they are top mounter intercoolers. Just the standard ones, well you cant see them


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

p1tse said:


> nice
> 
> i like the use of the bonnet scoop as these are usually blanked off, aren't they?


The later ones (on the turbo cars) are there as decoration only.


----------



## DPG (Dec 7, 2005)

Whats the leg room like in these? (R56)

I find my Swift Sport too cramped for long journeys.

Im 6 foot


----------



## Chris**** (Aug 9, 2011)

Leg room is fine, well i never had a prob and im over 6ft. Brilliant fun, but they aint cheap to run. The swift will probably never have gone wrong, 40-50mpg etc. These aint like that  and thats the R56 as well as the R53 etc.


----------



## DPG (Dec 7, 2005)

I could only dream of getting over 40 in my Swift Sport - average about 32mpg

It has never gone wrong though, are you saying the R56's have build quality issues?

I'd be looking at a 2008 Cooper S (20 - 30k miles)


----------



## Chris**** (Aug 9, 2011)

Mate dont take my word, search the forums lol.

R56 aintnas bad to be fair. Just the dash looks a tad poopy


----------

