The R56 is slightly longer (1.6 inches comes to mind?). I'm not sure about width..

 

I believe the R56 is about 3 inches longer.

 

Yes...around here we refer to the classic Mini as "Minis" (upper and lower case) as opposed to the all-cap spelling BMW adopted, "MINI." Seems a small difference but you'll see these references in threads all over the place and that may help decipher the meaning.

R56 is a few inches longer and the same height and width. That said, R56 is also lighter and has a lower center-of-gravity.

I have both R50 and R56 and, frankly, I try not to do side-by-side comparisons. To me they are meaningless. Both cars were designed very nicely to meet the demands and compromises unique to each model. That they look so much alike is miraculous.

Which do I like most? Overall, R56. I say overall because while I like R50 styling just as much (both are good) R56 is dialed in so many little ways it's hard not to say it's improved. However, I was driving my R50 yesterday and I would not feel cheated at all motoring in it every day. Funny though....after driving R56 for months, the R50 speedo seems so small!!!

 

This website has downloadable manuals with the dimensions in them.
http://www.motoringfile.com/2007/02/...the-2007-mini/

 

After you've seen a few R56's on the road, you start to recognize the differences immediately. As a R53 owner, I was originally neutral on which I liked better, but there is something about both front and rear ends on the new car which looks slightly jarring and mis-proportioned to me. And I don't like the larger speedo at all which seems just cartoonish. Of course, this might just be the "I like my car" gene kicking in.

Mechanically, I've driven the new car and it is like night/day better in most respects. The old car has loads of charisma and a great sound, but the new car just does almost everything better, except perhaps controlling torque steer. And I've always been put off by the relatively poor mileage on the R53 cars - mine gets low-20's around town, which is ridiculous for a car this small. But economically justifying a $25K new car to improve mileage from 22 mpg to 26 mpg, even with $3.50/gal gas, is just not possible.

I was going to get a R56 next year, but I'm wavering. I'm starting to think I might keep the R53 another few years.

- Mark

 

No harm in that....if circumstances didn't require acquisition of a new MINI, I'd be very happy to still be motoring about each day in my 2003 R50. As it is, my daughter now has that priviledge. Besides...who knows what 2009 might bring (50th anniversary)!!!

 

The original Mini was designated as a Mk I, MK II or Mk III.

 

Right...and those changes are equally hard to spot!!!

 

i would say that for the non mini enthusiast, one of the most glaring differences would be the side markers. The r56 features a bigger side marker whereas the gen 1 MINIs all featured the small one. everything else isnt as overt.

 

Well there is some serious false advertisement at 29 City 34 highway at the Mini/BMW dealership in Virgnia. Is there something i'm missing???

 

markjenn is talking about his R53. The R56 gets much better mileage. Tho, you'll see some advertised gas mileage differences among R56s too. Depends on S versus non-S and the type of transmission -- auto versus manual. Maybe some other things too that I'm not aware of.

EPA just recently put out new guidelines for gas mileage claims on new auto stickers too, but I think these don't apply until '08. They end up being reported as lower pretty much across the board.

 

disregard

 

My 2004 MCS is rated 25/34 under the old EPA system and I get about 22/29. The new turbo MCS's are rated 29/36 old EPA system and 25/32 new (more realistic) EPA system. From what I've heard, the new cars are getting somewhere between the old and new EPA ratings or about a 5 mpg improvement from the old cars. I'd love to be getting the mileage of a new R56, but as I said, you can't justify economically taking a $8K capital cost hit to save $250/year on gas.

- Mark

 

I'm 3,000 miles away from my window sticker right now, but I thought that my R52 cabrio 'S' was rated for 25/32 under the old system. That's about what I get, so I'm not complaining. My daily commute is a mix of in-city driving and two-lane rural highways with the occasional slowdown/stop sign, and over the course of a tank, I usually average 27-28 MPG.

 

ive heard reports from r56 s owners that get 40 mpg highway... i remember there was even an magazine article talking about the cooper s and they said they were able to get 40mpg on the highway as well... obviously YMMV

 

Some Coopers are getting way over 40 mpg on the highway now that the AC is off. That 6th gear really helps.