TURBO OR SUPERCHARGER
Discussion
Greetings
Just about to buy a Cooper S from a main dealer but it has a supercharger not Turbo.
Apart from more expensive road tax and less efficient fuel economoy what's the main difference.?
I am sure power delivery will be slightly different (characteristics) but am
I going to end up with something that no one wants when it comes to selling it..?
If you are in the know would appreciate your help.
Thanks
Just about to buy a Cooper S from a main dealer but it has a supercharger not Turbo.
Apart from more expensive road tax and less efficient fuel economoy what's the main difference.?
I am sure power delivery will be slightly different (characteristics) but am
I going to end up with something that no one wants when it comes to selling it..?
If you are in the know would appreciate your help.
Thanks
JOHNDALY said:
Apart from more expensive road tax and less efficient fuel economoy what's the main difference.?
Superchargers were fitted to older cooperS's and Turbo chargers were fitted to newer ones. Older coopers are getting retrofitted with turbos for people looking for major BHP gains in the tuning fraternity.Gristie said:
Supercharger sounds 100 times better....
..for the first hundred times. Then it's just an annoying whine.Most Cooper S owners I know seem to spend a lot of time filling up with fuel because the supercharged cars drink fuel at an alarming rate. This assumes you drive it like you stole it (is there any other way).
Don't know anyone with a new (turbocharged) Cooper S but it would be interesting to hear from someone who has owned both for a decent comparison.
My wife has had both and whilst I detested the old model with its bouncy ride, whining supercharger and other quality related issues the newer version knocks spots off it.
I was determined to dislike it when I road tested it but the engine is incredible given that its turbocharged (no lag) and it returns a vastly superior mpg than the old car which was horrendous, especially as it wasn't that powerful or large a vehicle.
Go with the turbo.
I was determined to dislike it when I road tested it but the engine is incredible given that its turbocharged (no lag) and it returns a vastly superior mpg than the old car which was horrendous, especially as it wasn't that powerful or large a vehicle.
Go with the turbo.
Of course the thing is if your buying a CoopS with a turbo it is going to cost a lot more to buy in the first place than the CooperS Supercharged and in your ownership you may never get close to recovering the difference.
The official combined for the Mini Cooper S Supercharger is 33mpg and the Mini Cooper S Turbo Turbo charged is 45.6mpg.
So lets say you drive the average 12k a year then at £1/lre the Supercharged version will cost you £1,650 while the Turbo will cost you £1,200 so a huge £450 a year...
Now you can buy CooperS for £7k+ but the turbo ones will cost you upwards of £15/16k.
So lets say you keep the car for 3 years then the extra fuel cost is going to be £1,350 so given that you buy a CooperS Supercharged which costs less than £1350 than the equivalent turbo your better off in the Supercharged version.
Aside from that then you have reliability of each model and th fact that there wil be much more choice of the supercharged version.
Let us know which one you go for.
The official combined for the Mini Cooper S Supercharger is 33mpg and the Mini Cooper S Turbo Turbo charged is 45.6mpg.
So lets say you drive the average 12k a year then at £1/lre the Supercharged version will cost you £1,650 while the Turbo will cost you £1,200 so a huge £450 a year...
Now you can buy CooperS for £7k+ but the turbo ones will cost you upwards of £15/16k.
So lets say you keep the car for 3 years then the extra fuel cost is going to be £1,350 so given that you buy a CooperS Supercharged which costs less than £1350 than the equivalent turbo your better off in the Supercharged version.
Aside from that then you have reliability of each model and th fact that there wil be much more choice of the supercharged version.
Let us know which one you go for.
it's like everything..
the newer car is 'better' the older car has more 'character'.
the steering isn't as good on the new car imo, and i like the 'supercharger whine' (clearly marmite). the ride is worse on the old car.. but then again it feels more 'tied down'.
my wife drove her colleagues co.car turbo yesterday and she said she preferred it because it had lighter steering. i think that's illustrative of the difference..the new car is more sopisticated it's 'lighter'... it's more 'normal'. (i was trying to get away without saying it...but feck it - i think the in std spec turbo (whilst quicker) is what the old car was always acused of being..i.e. 'a bit of a girls car').
the reason i chose my r53 was it's characterfulness. if i had wanted a good grown up car i'd have waited a bit and got a golf gti. i am not meaning to be down on the r56..as i say (having tested one) they're a 'better' car..does that it more 'desirable' to me? not necessarily. (and i much prefer the looks of the old car!). the wife however would have the new car i think. interestingly one of the few old people (!) on here who bought an r56 with the sports suspension thought it to had crap ride quality but less roll etc.. i guess that's the cruz of it..the car has (possibly rightly) been made even mainstream but it can be made into something nearer to the old car. you can weight the steering up a bit but it still feels too 'modern' to me.
the real plus point of the r56 is the fuel consumption/tax. especially as the post september build cars come with the (thankfully) switchoffable stop-start nonsense which 'lowers emmissions' and therefore lowers tax further...
i actually think the r56 has a slightly bigger tank anyway so the improved range would be a bonus.
the newer car is 'better' the older car has more 'character'.
the steering isn't as good on the new car imo, and i like the 'supercharger whine' (clearly marmite). the ride is worse on the old car.. but then again it feels more 'tied down'.
my wife drove her colleagues co.car turbo yesterday and she said she preferred it because it had lighter steering. i think that's illustrative of the difference..the new car is more sopisticated it's 'lighter'... it's more 'normal'. (i was trying to get away without saying it...but feck it - i think the in std spec turbo (whilst quicker) is what the old car was always acused of being..i.e. 'a bit of a girls car').
the reason i chose my r53 was it's characterfulness. if i had wanted a good grown up car i'd have waited a bit and got a golf gti. i am not meaning to be down on the r56..as i say (having tested one) they're a 'better' car..does that it more 'desirable' to me? not necessarily. (and i much prefer the looks of the old car!). the wife however would have the new car i think. interestingly one of the few old people (!) on here who bought an r56 with the sports suspension thought it to had crap ride quality but less roll etc.. i guess that's the cruz of it..the car has (possibly rightly) been made even mainstream but it can be made into something nearer to the old car. you can weight the steering up a bit but it still feels too 'modern' to me.
the real plus point of the r56 is the fuel consumption/tax. especially as the post september build cars come with the (thankfully) switchoffable stop-start nonsense which 'lowers emmissions' and therefore lowers tax further...
i actually think the r56 has a slightly bigger tank anyway so the improved range would be a bonus.
^^^
Agree with what he says. The Turbo car has been made more normal, useable and almost slightly softer, to attract/appeal to a larger range of buyers. The Turbo is the quicker everyday car due to more talk being made lower down the revs. Something interesting I have found out whilst comparing the turbo and suprecharged is that the turbo is a lot cheaper to insure-even though its quicker. I spoke to the dealer about this and he said it was because the supercharged cost a lot more to be fixed, whereas the turbo has been designed so that front ends etc can be rebuilt more easily. A Turbo would cost me cerca 2 grand whereas the supercharged was giving me quotes in the 3500+ range.
Agree with what he says. The Turbo car has been made more normal, useable and almost slightly softer, to attract/appeal to a larger range of buyers. The Turbo is the quicker everyday car due to more talk being made lower down the revs. Something interesting I have found out whilst comparing the turbo and suprecharged is that the turbo is a lot cheaper to insure-even though its quicker. I spoke to the dealer about this and he said it was because the supercharged cost a lot more to be fixed, whereas the turbo has been designed so that front ends etc can be rebuilt more easily. A Turbo would cost me cerca 2 grand whereas the supercharged was giving me quotes in the 3500+ range.
minimanAC said:
^^^
Something interesting I have found out whilst comparing the turbo and suprecharged is that the turbo is a lot cheaper to insure-even though its quicker. I spoke to the dealer about this and he said it was because the supercharged cost a lot more to be fixed, whereas the turbo has been designed so that front ends etc can be rebuilt more easily. A Turbo would cost me cerca 2 grand whereas the supercharged was giving me quotes in the 3500+ range.
i don't think it's just that either.. part of the reason for the mk2 car was to make a cheaper car to produce..possibly if it's cheaper to produce it's cheaper to repair too.. rear side windows flat not curved, firmly mounted headlamps not bonnet mounted with all the attached paraphenalia...Something interesting I have found out whilst comparing the turbo and suprecharged is that the turbo is a lot cheaper to insure-even though its quicker. I spoke to the dealer about this and he said it was because the supercharged cost a lot more to be fixed, whereas the turbo has been designed so that front ends etc can be rebuilt more easily. A Turbo would cost me cerca 2 grand whereas the supercharged was giving me quotes in the 3500+ range.
briSk said:
minimanAC said:
^^^
Something interesting I have found out whilst comparing the turbo and suprecharged is that the turbo is a lot cheaper to insure-even though its quicker. I spoke to the dealer about this and he said it was because the supercharged cost a lot more to be fixed, whereas the turbo has been designed so that front ends etc can be rebuilt more easily. A Turbo would cost me cerca 2 grand whereas the supercharged was giving me quotes in the 3500+ range.
i don't think it's just that either.. part of the reason for the mk2 car was to make a cheaper car to produce..possibly if it's cheaper to produce it's cheaper to repair too.. rear side windows flat not curved, firmly mounted headlamps not bonnet mounted with all the attached paraphenalia...Something interesting I have found out whilst comparing the turbo and suprecharged is that the turbo is a lot cheaper to insure-even though its quicker. I spoke to the dealer about this and he said it was because the supercharged cost a lot more to be fixed, whereas the turbo has been designed so that front ends etc can be rebuilt more easily. A Turbo would cost me cerca 2 grand whereas the supercharged was giving me quotes in the 3500+ range.
The ans so far have been pretty off topic - his question is should he choose to buy the Cooper S super charged of Turbo charged
Well first and foremost it has to come down to £, what is th budget - Ive illustrated above the relative fuel cost saving of the Turbo over the supercharger and as you could see from that perspective over 3 years there is no way youd choose the Turbo due to its higher efficiency due to the fact the supercharged version is much cheaper to buy 2nd hand.
Driving t ise like nearly all modern cars unless you aim to drive it nearly to the limit of cornering grip (which in most situations would be very dangerous and most likely well over NSL) thus it wouldnt really make that much of a difference.
All you have to decide is how much do you value a new car feeling/smells etc £2k-3k? If its not that much then you have to choose the supercharged version.
Well first and foremost it has to come down to £, what is th budget - Ive illustrated above the relative fuel cost saving of the Turbo over the supercharger and as you could see from that perspective over 3 years there is no way youd choose the Turbo due to its higher efficiency due to the fact the supercharged version is much cheaper to buy 2nd hand.
Driving t ise like nearly all modern cars unless you aim to drive it nearly to the limit of cornering grip (which in most situations would be very dangerous and most likely well over NSL) thus it wouldnt really make that much of a difference.
All you have to decide is how much do you value a new car feeling/smells etc £2k-3k? If its not that much then you have to choose the supercharged version.
Well he says he is about to buy either a supercharged or Turbocharged Mini Cooper S from a Main Dealer.
Clearly (unless money is no object) budget is vital to any car purchase. I guess the OP is assessing if the difference in price between the two is worth the premium of the new car over ther old.
Clearly (unless money is no object) budget is vital to any car purchase. I guess the OP is assessing if the difference in price between the two is worth the premium of the new car over ther old.
briSk said:
it's like everything..
the newer car is 'better' the older car has more 'character'.
the steering isn't as good on the new car imo, and i like the 'supercharger whine' (clearly marmite). the ride is worse on the old car.. but then again it feels more 'tied down'.
my wife drove her colleagues co.car turbo yesterday and she said she preferred it because it had lighter steering. i think that's illustrative of the difference..the new car is more sopisticated it's 'lighter'... it's more 'normal'. (i was trying to get away without saying it...but feck it - i think the in std spec turbo (whilst quicker) is what the old car was always acused of being..i.e. 'a bit of a girls car').
the reason i chose my r53 was it's characterfulness. if i had wanted a good grown up car i'd have waited a bit and got a golf gti. i am not meaning to be down on the r56..as i say (having tested one) they're a 'better' car..does that it more 'desirable' to me? not necessarily. (and i much prefer the looks of the old car!). the wife however would have the new car i think. interestingly one of the few old people (!) on here who bought an r56 with the sports suspension thought it to had crap ride quality but less roll etc.. i guess that's the cruz of it..the car has (possibly rightly) been made even mainstream but it can be made into something nearer to the old car. you can weight the steering up a bit but it still feels too 'modern' to me.
the real plus point of the r56 is the fuel consumption/tax. especially as the post september build cars come with the (thankfully) switchoffable stop-start nonsense which 'lowers emmissions' and therefore lowers tax further...
i actually think the r56 has a slightly bigger tank anyway so the improved range would be a bonus.
well said that man.the newer car is 'better' the older car has more 'character'.
the steering isn't as good on the new car imo, and i like the 'supercharger whine' (clearly marmite). the ride is worse on the old car.. but then again it feels more 'tied down'.
my wife drove her colleagues co.car turbo yesterday and she said she preferred it because it had lighter steering. i think that's illustrative of the difference..the new car is more sopisticated it's 'lighter'... it's more 'normal'. (i was trying to get away without saying it...but feck it - i think the in std spec turbo (whilst quicker) is what the old car was always acused of being..i.e. 'a bit of a girls car').
the reason i chose my r53 was it's characterfulness. if i had wanted a good grown up car i'd have waited a bit and got a golf gti. i am not meaning to be down on the r56..as i say (having tested one) they're a 'better' car..does that it more 'desirable' to me? not necessarily. (and i much prefer the looks of the old car!). the wife however would have the new car i think. interestingly one of the few old people (!) on here who bought an r56 with the sports suspension thought it to had crap ride quality but less roll etc.. i guess that's the cruz of it..the car has (possibly rightly) been made even mainstream but it can be made into something nearer to the old car. you can weight the steering up a bit but it still feels too 'modern' to me.
the real plus point of the r56 is the fuel consumption/tax. especially as the post september build cars come with the (thankfully) switchoffable stop-start nonsense which 'lowers emmissions' and therefore lowers tax further...
i actually think the r56 has a slightly bigger tank anyway so the improved range would be a bonus.
i have a R53 Cooper S and whilst slower and more thirsty than the R56 it is a laugh every minute
i dont think economy is that appauling. my friend has a Suzuki Swift Sport that does the same MPG. I sometimes get 40mpg on a steady cruise to work, not at all bad I think. Even driven hard I rarely get below 28mpg.
on a recent continental trip with a friend in his R56 i averaged 30mpg he did 33.2mpg driven same roads, same speeds. he doesnt have stop start so expect another couple i guess.
the steering is better on mine imo and i dont like the cost cutting on the new one such as half leather is no longer half leather - these little things add up!
overall the R56 is a better car, but then again it should be. you can pick up a warrented R53 for not much over £10k and is fairly reliable. imo supercharger sounds wonderful (indeed marmite), old chrysler engine is bulletproof and a real sense of fun with the car. you will need £15k+ for a good spec new R56.
i can guarantee there WILL still be a market for the R53 supercharged mini in a few years
Gassing Station | New MINIs | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff