Cooper S - R52 compared to R56???

Cooper S - R52 compared to R56???

Author
Discussion

okgo

30,480 posts

162 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
Anyone saying that you can;t fit in the back is either much bigger than me (unlikely) or lying.

It works like this. If the drive is under 5.9 then people can fit behind them, the passenger seat goes forward more so there is no issue there, it all depends on the drivers height, if they are 6ft plus then nobody can sit behind.

I am about 6.1/2 and 15 stone and can fit in the back fine if the above factors are met. Seeing as the average height is not over 6ft I don't see that this shoudl be a problem to THAT many people.

Re fuel consumption, new cooper-s should easily average 35-40. It really is not much worse than the cooper.

btdk5

1,646 posts

154 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
btdk5 said:
Have you test driven one??

The convertible is a pretty shabby car for its price.
Anymore info?? confused
Its heavier and therefore slower and the extra weight buggers up the handling which is one of the best features of the hatchback.

But then i'm comparing it to the hatchback...which is a different matter as you'll be comparing it to other convertibles.

My sole opinion (as this is what i've done) is get a r53 hatchback & the money you save use to take it to hartge to give it a tune up. (or 1320 autos if you want it done a bit cheaper)

But then i dont always know best...

Edited by btdk5 on Monday 11th May 13:54

antihero3000

213 posts

146 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
The new shape cars definately give better fuel economy but i'm really not sure why everyone slates the R52/53's thirst.

My 06 Cooper S manages 43mpg on the motorway, 38mpg on my daily commute and 27mpg thrashing it according to the onboard.

Sure it'll drop if you stay flat out but even foot to the floor it never hits single figures.

Its a matter of opinion which you prefer the look of. My experience is that the R56 is better built and feels like it has more torque across the rev range while the R53 looks better, has more involving handling, is more tuneable, makes a better noise and holds its value better.

300bhp/ton

Original Poster:

39,671 posts

154 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
okgo said:
Anyone saying that you can;t fit in the back is either much bigger than me (unlikely) or lying.

It works like this. If the drive is under 5.9 then people can fit behind them, the passenger seat goes forward more so there is no issue there, it all depends on the drivers height, if they are 6ft plus then nobody can sit behind.

I am about 6.1/2 and 15 stone and can fit in the back fine if the above factors are met. Seeing as the average height is not over 6ft I don't see that this shoudl be a problem to THAT many people.

Re fuel consumption, new cooper-s should easily average 35-40. It really is not much worse than the cooper.
Thanks.

300bhp/ton

Original Poster:

39,671 posts

154 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
btdk5 said:
300bhp/ton said:
btdk5 said:
Have you test driven one??

The convertible is a pretty shabby car for its price.
Anymore info?? confused
Its heavier and therefore slower and the extra weight buggers up the handling which is one of the best features of the hatchback.

But then i'm comparing it to the hatchback...which is a different matter as you'll be comparing it to other convertibles.

My sole opinion (as this is what i've done) is get a r53 hatchback & the money you save use to take it to hartge to give it a tune up. (or 1320 autos if you want it done a bit cheaper)

But then i dont always know best...

Edited by btdk5 on Monday 11th May 13:54
All the reviews says the convertible goes almost as well as the hatch? I understand the physics in losing the roof, but I'm not out to get a dedicated track car, just something fun. And a convertible would be nice.

Hopefully going for a test drive in one on Sat, so might be able to answer a few of these questions myself then. Cheers.

AstonV12

5,223 posts

172 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
Can only speak for the R56 as my Mrs has one and I drive it regular.

Its a fine car. Averages 34.4 MPG and goes as well as performance figures suggest, maybe a little better with 192lb/ft @ 1600rpm. Does feel really meaty low down, although I find it slightly breathless at the top. It's performance is easily accessible through it's short gearing.

Inside, I'm 6'4 and the back seats are a cruel joke although it must be said people under 5'5 people can fit as the seats are slighty bucketed smile

All in all a good motor, and a fair bit better than the nay sayers would have you believe.

And no 300bhp/ton a V8 won't fit biggrin

Edited by AstonV12 on Monday 11th May 15:37


Edited by AstonV12 on Monday 11th May 15:40

300bhp/ton

Original Poster:

39,671 posts

154 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
AstonV12 said:
Can only speak for the R56 as my Mrs has one and I drive it regular.

Its a fine car. Averages 34.4 MPG and goes as well as performance figures suggest, maybe a little better with 192lb/ft @ 1600rpm. Does feel really meaty low down, although I find it slightly breathless at the top. It's performance is easily accessible through it's short gearing.

Inside, I'm 6'4 and the back seats are a cruel joke although it must be said people under 5'5 people can fit as the seats are slighty bucketed smile

All in all a good motor, and a fair bit better than the nay sayers would have you believe.

And no 300bhp/ton a V8 won't fit biggrin

Edited by AstonV12 on Monday 11th May 15:37


Edited by AstonV12 on Monday 11th May 15:40
Thanks.

I'm only 5'3" so think that might solve the rear passenger space, lol

Think I'll have to drive one and see.

okgo

30,480 posts

162 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
You'll be fine then.

Its only really something to worry about if you are over 6ft IMO.

illmonkey

13,789 posts

162 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
oktapod said:
Well, we bought a new 53 plate Cooper S and I reckon we averaged around 25mpg, maybe 28mpg, for mixed driving, and perhaps 32mpg on a run.

In fact, to this day its lack of economy really surprises me. Not that that should necessarily put anyone off, but it's worth bearing in mind...

Fantastic car, though... I miss it sometimes...
umm, think that may have sealed the decision. Or at least eliminated the possibility of an older Cooper S.

25mpg is just a tad too low. frown
25mpg is too low, our average over best part of a year is 33.8MPG. Weekdays is fairly usual driving, weekends it gets a bit more stick.


300bhp/ton

Original Poster:

39,671 posts

154 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
illmonkey said:
300bhp/ton said:
oktapod said:
Well, we bought a new 53 plate Cooper S and I reckon we averaged around 25mpg, maybe 28mpg, for mixed driving, and perhaps 32mpg on a run.

In fact, to this day its lack of economy really surprises me. Not that that should necessarily put anyone off, but it's worth bearing in mind...

Fantastic car, though... I miss it sometimes...
umm, think that may have sealed the decision. Or at least eliminated the possibility of an older Cooper S.

25mpg is just a tad too low. frown
25mpg is too low, our average over best part of a year is 33.8MPG. Weekdays is fairly usual driving, weekends it gets a bit more stick.
Is that a supercharged or turbo one?

Maybe I'm being greedy, but I want something substantially better than my current car. 35-40mpg is really the min I want to look at.

fivesixseven8

6,142 posts

191 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
I bought the wife an R56 2007/56 Cooper S not too long ago after looking at 55 plate R53's. The build is much much better. The R53's I looked at were getting a bit old and rattly inside.

MPG wise, as already mentioned, it will see 43-45 on the motorway, if you try. General urban usage with the occasional foot down moment sees us getting around 37-38mpg.

Space wise, it's much the same as any small car. With a 6'er driving, no one is sitting behind you. But I'm 6'1 and a generous 16st and I can drive it with no problems. In fact the front is very spacious indeed.

The boot is comically small though.

Bullett

9,815 posts

148 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
I never got more than about 28 average from my 03 S. I might have cracked 30 on a run but it's a thirsty car. Bloody good fun though.

AstonV12

5,223 posts

172 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
AstonV12 said:
Can only speak for the R56 as my Mrs has one and I drive it regular.

Its a fine car. Averages 34.4 MPG and goes as well as performance figures suggest, maybe a little better with 192lb/ft @ 1600rpm. Does feel really meaty low down, although I find it slightly breathless at the top. It's performance is easily accessible through it's short gearing.

Inside, I'm 6'4 and the back seats are a cruel joke although it must be said people under 5'5 people can fit as the seats are slighty bucketed smile

All in all a good motor, and a fair bit better than the nay sayers would have you believe.

And no 300bhp/ton a V8 won't fit biggrin

Edited by AstonV12 on Monday 11th May 15:37


Edited by AstonV12 on Monday 11th May 15:40
Thanks.

I'm only 5'3" so think that might solve the rear passenger space, lol

Think I'll have to drive one and see.
Yeah, reckon you should. There is a reason why these cars are popular - they're good. Expensive mind.

Lastly, if you try and deploy that torque in 2nd gear on a less that smooth surface it can become pretty unruly and be prepared for a torque steer fight hehe. Blame the run flats for alot of that.

Steering is precise and quite weightly although it has a slightly artificial feel is pretty good. The brakes on my Mrs' car are quite phenomenal. For me that's it's best attitribute, you can go so late into corners too (on a private road of course) smile

illmonkey

13,789 posts

162 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
illmonkey said:
300bhp/ton said:
oktapod said:
Well, we bought a new 53 plate Cooper S and I reckon we averaged around 25mpg, maybe 28mpg, for mixed driving, and perhaps 32mpg on a run.

In fact, to this day its lack of economy really surprises me. Not that that should necessarily put anyone off, but it's worth bearing in mind...

Fantastic car, though... I miss it sometimes...
umm, think that may have sealed the decision. Or at least eliminated the possibility of an older Cooper S.

25mpg is just a tad too low. frown
25mpg is too low, our average over best part of a year is 33.8MPG. Weekdays is fairly usual driving, weekends it gets a bit more stick.
Is that a supercharged or turbo one?

Maybe I'm being greedy, but I want something substantially better than my current car. 35-40mpg is really the min I want to look at.
Sorry, 'tis a R53. We've got a Milltek exhaust too. Great fun to drive and will return good MPG for normal driving, but has the power for spirited driving as well as overtaking etc.

300bhp/ton

Original Poster:

39,671 posts

154 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
fivesixseven8 said:
I bought the wife an R56 2007/56 Cooper S not too long ago after looking at 55 plate R53's. The build is much much better. The R53's I looked at were getting a bit old and rattly inside.

MPG wise, as already mentioned, it will see 43-45 on the motorway, if you try. General urban usage with the occasional foot down moment sees us getting around 37-38mpg.

Space wise, it's much the same as any small car. With a 6'er driving, no one is sitting behind you. But I'm 6'1 and a generous 16st and I can drive it with no problems. In fact the front is very spacious indeed.

The boot is comically small though.
I think after having done some research (here and other places today) that I'm less liking the older models.

JJCW

2,449 posts

150 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
illmonkey said:
300bhp/ton said:
oktapod said:
Well, we bought a new 53 plate Cooper S and I reckon we averaged around 25mpg, maybe 28mpg, for mixed driving, and perhaps 32mpg on a run.

In fact, to this day its lack of economy really surprises me. Not that that should necessarily put anyone off, but it's worth bearing in mind...

Fantastic car, though... I miss it sometimes...
umm, think that may have sealed the decision. Or at least eliminated the possibility of an older Cooper S.

25mpg is just a tad too low. frown
25mpg is too low, our average over best part of a year is 33.8MPG. Weekdays is fairly usual driving, weekends it gets a bit more stick.
33.8 mpg average in an r53 cooper s?

How i wish i got that much frown

fivesixseven8

6,142 posts

191 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
fivesixseven8 said:
I bought the wife an R56 2007/56 Cooper S not too long ago after looking at 55 plate R53's. The build is much much better. The R53's I looked at were getting a bit old and rattly inside.

MPG wise, as already mentioned, it will see 43-45 on the motorway, if you try. General urban usage with the occasional foot down moment sees us getting around 37-38mpg.

Space wise, it's much the same as any small car. With a 6'er driving, no one is sitting behind you. But I'm 6'1 and a generous 16st and I can drive it with no problems. In fact the front is very spacious indeed.

The boot is comically small though.
I think after having done some research (here and other places today) that I'm less liking the older models.
Look at an R53 first and then an R56, you will notice the difference.

The one thing I will say is go and drive one. The ride is quite firm and the run flat tyres are simply awful and ruin the handling IMO. I've just had to pay for a holiday and a new helmet but next month they are going to get replaced with something else.

btdk5

1,646 posts

154 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
btdk5 said:
300bhp/ton said:
btdk5 said:
Have you test driven one??

The convertible is a pretty shabby car for its price.
Anymore info?? confused
Its heavier and therefore slower and the extra weight buggers up the handling which is one of the best features of the hatchback.

But then i'm comparing it to the hatchback...which is a different matter as you'll be comparing it to other convertibles.

My sole opinion (as this is what i've done) is get a r53 hatchback & the money you save use to take it to hartge to give it a tune up. (or 1320 autos if you want it done a bit cheaper)

But then i dont always know best...

Edited by btdk5 on Monday 11th May 13:54
All the reviews says the convertible goes almost as well as the hatch? I understand the physics in losing the roof, but I'm not out to get a dedicated track car, just something fun. And a convertible would be nice.

Hopefully going for a test drive in one on Sat, so might be able to answer a few of these questions myself then. Cheers.
Ok if you're set on the convertible then get the R56. They've ironed out some of the ride issues and as said before the interior is a lot nicer. I dont like the exterior unless it has the jcw bodykit but thats just personal preference.

Just make sure you get an S what ever you settle on.

killinginblack

250 posts

161 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
My R53 S returns around 30 to the gallon on 95ron, perhaps a touch more on the (more) expensive stuff.

Unlike a lot of people who have commented, i think the previous gen car has the much nicer interior.

I could probably argue the toss with myself all day long, but when it boils down to it, the only reason i would have a 56 over a 53 would be the fuel advantage. And if i was looking at it like that, i'd probably have a cooper/one/d instead.

I love my 53biggrin

300bhp/ton

Original Poster:

39,671 posts

154 months

Monday 11th May 2009
quotequote all
btdk5 said:
300bhp/ton said:
btdk5 said:
300bhp/ton said:
btdk5 said:
Have you test driven one??

The convertible is a pretty shabby car for its price.
Anymore info?? confused
Its heavier and therefore slower and the extra weight buggers up the handling which is one of the best features of the hatchback.

But then i'm comparing it to the hatchback...which is a different matter as you'll be comparing it to other convertibles.

My sole opinion (as this is what i've done) is get a r53 hatchback & the money you save use to take it to hartge to give it a tune up. (or 1320 autos if you want it done a bit cheaper)

But then i dont always know best...

Edited by btdk5 on Monday 11th May 13:54
All the reviews says the convertible goes almost as well as the hatch? I understand the physics in losing the roof, but I'm not out to get a dedicated track car, just something fun. And a convertible would be nice.

Hopefully going for a test drive in one on Sat, so might be able to answer a few of these questions myself then. Cheers.
Ok if you're set on the convertible then get the R56. They've ironed out some of the ride issues and as said before the interior is a lot nicer. I dont like the exterior unless it has the jcw bodykit but thats just personal preference.

Just make sure you get an S what ever you settle on.
Thanks.

Are they really that different looking externally?? I've not studied it, but can hardly tell the difference. Maybe I need a closer look, I know the front indicators are in a different place.