Cooper S - Turbo vs Supercharger
Discussion
New R56
- quicker
- softer
- bigger
- better mpg
Old R53
- better round corners
- better sound
- better drivers car
- rough and ready
- a fun car
Drove a R56 quite a lot and will always choose the older model over it, it just feels more fun every day. If I was doing lots of motorway and boring driving I would choose the new one, however for pure fun the R53 every time.
I love the raw sound of the R53 and the supercharger
- quicker
- softer
- bigger
- better mpg
Old R53
- better round corners
- better sound
- better drivers car
- rough and ready
- a fun car
Drove a R56 quite a lot and will always choose the older model over it, it just feels more fun every day. If I was doing lots of motorway and boring driving I would choose the new one, however for pure fun the R53 every time.
I love the raw sound of the R53 and the supercharger
They are both a little bit 'gay'. If I were you I would get an MX5!
Back on topic....
I have owned the supercharged version and a mate had the turbo version. I enjoyed the supercharged version except for the low fuel consumption. Did ratlle a bit (interior build quality??), but after my previous cars it felt pretty solid.... From a laymans point of view the supercharged version 'felt' more involved - I always compared my mates Mini to a VW Golf (ie a little less pointy and less feedback). My comment was maybe a little harsh - but it was to make a point! I thought the later cars were nicer to be inside than the first Minis. (If that matters to you??) The turbo did seem pretty lag free and it also had the stop-start system which always made me think it had stalled (reminded me of my first car (mk2 Golf) which used to cut out at every junction - although I believe this was a fault rather than an eco-design feature!)
I am sure that there are far more in-depth reviews between the two, rather than my mindless waffling. I think it gets a bit like the turbo versus NA debate within VX220 circles.....
You still got that VX220??
Mike
Back on topic....
I have owned the supercharged version and a mate had the turbo version. I enjoyed the supercharged version except for the low fuel consumption. Did ratlle a bit (interior build quality??), but after my previous cars it felt pretty solid.... From a laymans point of view the supercharged version 'felt' more involved - I always compared my mates Mini to a VW Golf (ie a little less pointy and less feedback). My comment was maybe a little harsh - but it was to make a point! I thought the later cars were nicer to be inside than the first Minis. (If that matters to you??) The turbo did seem pretty lag free and it also had the stop-start system which always made me think it had stalled (reminded me of my first car (mk2 Golf) which used to cut out at every junction - although I believe this was a fault rather than an eco-design feature!)
I am sure that there are far more in-depth reviews between the two, rather than my mindless waffling. I think it gets a bit like the turbo versus NA debate within VX220 circles.....
You still got that VX220??
Mike
mike9009 said:
They are both a little bit 'gay'. If I were you I would get an MX5!
Back on topic....
I have owned the supercharged version and a mate had the turbo version. I enjoyed the supercharged version except for the low fuel consumption. Did ratlle a bit (interior build quality??), but after my previous cars it felt pretty solid.... From a laymans point of view the supercharged version 'felt' more involved - I always compared my mates Mini to a VW Golf (ie a little less pointy and less feedback). My comment was maybe a little harsh - but it was to make a point! I thought the later cars were nicer to be inside than the first Minis. (If that matters to you??) The turbo did seem pretty lag free and it also had the stop-start system which always made me think it had stalled (reminded me of my first car (mk2 Golf) which used to cut out at every junction - although I believe this was a fault rather than an eco-design feature!)
I am sure that there are far more in-depth reviews between the two, rather than my mindless waffling. I think it gets a bit like the turbo versus NA debate within VX220 circles.....
You still got that VX220??
Mike
I am afraid the VX220 went a couple of years ago...been drumming around in a Polo which is about to die and so I need to update and quickly! I really like the solid feel of a Mini but havent driven the turbo one yet. I think I will go for the older one as it sounds more of a driver's car?Back on topic....
I have owned the supercharged version and a mate had the turbo version. I enjoyed the supercharged version except for the low fuel consumption. Did ratlle a bit (interior build quality??), but after my previous cars it felt pretty solid.... From a laymans point of view the supercharged version 'felt' more involved - I always compared my mates Mini to a VW Golf (ie a little less pointy and less feedback). My comment was maybe a little harsh - but it was to make a point! I thought the later cars were nicer to be inside than the first Minis. (If that matters to you??) The turbo did seem pretty lag free and it also had the stop-start system which always made me think it had stalled (reminded me of my first car (mk2 Golf) which used to cut out at every junction - although I believe this was a fault rather than an eco-design feature!)
I am sure that there are far more in-depth reviews between the two, rather than my mindless waffling. I think it gets a bit like the turbo versus NA debate within VX220 circles.....
You still got that VX220??
Mike
t in comparison.Had an early CooperS for two years as the wifes car and loved the handling and noise of the supercharger. The ride was appalling though and fuel economy lousy but never had any problems with it over 20k miles. I liked the car a lot.
Got the missus a 2007 Cooper S JCW in August 2010 and its really a different kettle of fish. More refined and maybe feels a bit more remote in the handling stakes, goes like stink though and does about 31MPG which is almost 30% up on the supercharged version. Again, no problems at all so far and it does feel better screwed together than the earlier car. Only issue Ive found is that its got terminal if predictable wet weather understeer in the cold. Part of the fun I suppose but doesnt make for rapid progress. I assume this will be down to the tyre and wheel size combo (17" and runflats). In the dry its fantastic cross country and would cover the ground quicker than most things.
If it was me I would take the turbo any day.
Got the missus a 2007 Cooper S JCW in August 2010 and its really a different kettle of fish. More refined and maybe feels a bit more remote in the handling stakes, goes like stink though and does about 31MPG which is almost 30% up on the supercharged version. Again, no problems at all so far and it does feel better screwed together than the earlier car. Only issue Ive found is that its got terminal if predictable wet weather understeer in the cold. Part of the fun I suppose but doesnt make for rapid progress. I assume this will be down to the tyre and wheel size combo (17" and runflats). In the dry its fantastic cross country and would cover the ground quicker than most things.
If it was me I would take the turbo any day.
huytonman said:
Had an early CooperS for two years as the wifes car and loved the handling and noise of the supercharger. The ride was appalling though and fuel economy lousy but never had any problems with it over 20k miles. I liked the car a lot.
Got the missus a 2007 Cooper S JCW in August 2010 and its really a different kettle of fish. More refined and maybe feels a bit more remote in the handling stakes, goes like stink though and does about 31MPG which is almost 30% up on the supercharged version. Again, no problems at all so far and it does feel better screwed together than the earlier car. Only issue Ive found is that its got terminal if predictable wet weather understeer in the cold. Part of the fun I suppose but doesnt make for rapid progress. I assume this will be down to the tyre and wheel size combo (17" and runflats). In the dry its fantastic cross country and would cover the ground quicker than most things.
If it was me I would take the turbo any day.
I'd get that car checked out, you should be seeing better MPG on that unless that is the mpg when your giving it stick. My last two R53 did 30mpg when driven hard. When I had an R56 I was seeing closer to 40mpg and it could do a lot betterGot the missus a 2007 Cooper S JCW in August 2010 and its really a different kettle of fish. More refined and maybe feels a bit more remote in the handling stakes, goes like stink though and does about 31MPG which is almost 30% up on the supercharged version. Again, no problems at all so far and it does feel better screwed together than the earlier car. Only issue Ive found is that its got terminal if predictable wet weather understeer in the cold. Part of the fun I suppose but doesnt make for rapid progress. I assume this will be down to the tyre and wheel size combo (17" and runflats). In the dry its fantastic cross country and would cover the ground quicker than most things.
If it was me I would take the turbo any day.
To be sure some of the R53 do excellent MPG (30-35) but a lot of them do seam to be around 28
I Think you nailed it, the R56 is remote and soft while the R53 is harsh and more involved drive.
I find the R56 tacky and full of cheap plastic which are lower quality than the R53. Though I think they are worlds apart, the drive is not the same but the name is...
You must drive like a total Granny
We have an R53, just sold an R56......
The R53 does around 26mpg incl town driving - handling is defo better, more accurate, turn in is sharper and it feels less twitchy on the limit. It is hardwork on the m-way above 70mph to be honest as its quite loud, but hey its fun on a b road!
The R56 did around 33mpg including town, but would do 38 on the m-way. As for driving, it wasnt as much fun, but it was far more comfortable and refined, and for me the exhaust note was ace where as the R53 sounds fairly pants IMO. The R56 overall i would say is the better all round car, but if its not driven on the motorway regularly the R53 is certainly more fun.
FYI - the R56 was unreliable - we had a new clutch, steering rack and the dredded tensioner problem too...
We have an R53, just sold an R56......
The R53 does around 26mpg incl town driving - handling is defo better, more accurate, turn in is sharper and it feels less twitchy on the limit. It is hardwork on the m-way above 70mph to be honest as its quite loud, but hey its fun on a b road!
The R56 did around 33mpg including town, but would do 38 on the m-way. As for driving, it wasnt as much fun, but it was far more comfortable and refined, and for me the exhaust note was ace where as the R53 sounds fairly pants IMO. The R56 overall i would say is the better all round car, but if its not driven on the motorway regularly the R53 is certainly more fun.
FYI - the R56 was unreliable - we had a new clutch, steering rack and the dredded tensioner problem too...
RKDE said:
The only difference between the R53 early box and R53 late box is a finial drive ratio and there is a nats dick between them
R50 and R52 get the facelift cars
If I remember correctly the 1st gear in a 03 Cooper S went on forever where as the 06 one we have is more "normal" & the car feels quicker for it (even talking into account the slight HP rise of the later ones)R50 and R52 get the facelift cars
Edited by CO2000 on Tuesday 18th January 17:26
nope 100% it was just a final drive, built a few gearboxes and the only difference is the final drive, but it is the final drive which changes every other gear which is why they feel longer. There is very little difference between the box, but as you say there is a difference. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, they are about neck and neck down the 1/4 mile.
Facelift has the teflon coated blower which is better and a few tweeks but for the R53 either pre facelift or facelift id good
Facelift has the teflon coated blower which is better and a few tweeks but for the R53 either pre facelift or facelift id good
RKDE said:
nope 100% it was just a final drive, built a few gearboxes and the only difference is the final drive, but it is the final drive which changes every other gear which is why they feel longer. There is very little difference between the box, but as you say there is a difference. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, they are about neck and neck down the 1/4 mile.
Facelift has the teflon coated blower which is better and a few tweeks but for the R53 either pre facelift or facelift id good
My thinking was go for a Supercharged one now while a low mileage one was quite easily available (bought a 14k miles one)& then move to a turbo'd one in time - vice versa would be harder. Facelift has the teflon coated blower which is better and a few tweeks but for the R53 either pre facelift or facelift id good
Gassing Station | New MINIs | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff