I've recently come across an early 60's Mini Cooper S and an early 90's Austin Cooper and I'm trying to decide which one would make for a better fit for me.

The 'S' has been fitted with a 1275 but still has the original hydroelastic suspension, paint, seats and steering wheel, all of which are serviceable but show the kind of wear you'd expect from a 40 year old car that has actually been driven. Mechanically the car is solid and drives very well.

The Austin, which also has a 1275 (and front disc brakes) is solid all around.

My short term goal with whatever Mini I end up buying is to enjoy the car and learn more about how to service them. Longer term I'd like to start taking it to the track to compete in various racing events which means l I'd want to install various go-fast bits such as racing seats, roll-cage, adjustable suspension, etc. (I realize that at some point if I get real serious about racing that I might have to get two Minis, one for buzzing around town and another one that is dedicated to racing. )

So, with all that said, should I be concerned with making all those changes to what some people might consider a "true" classic Mini, especially an 'S'?

Thanks in advance for any input you all might have.

 

I'd get both Minis. If it's a true 60's I'd rather keep it close to original. There are somes things you can change to make it more realiable and it shouldn't hurt the value of the car. For example, you can replace the hydrolastic suspension to dry as it is very hard to maintain the older hydrolastic setup.

You may need to ask more about the 90's car you mentioned because the Austin name was dropped in 1969 (EDIT). If it is a true 90's car then it should be badged as Rover.

 

Hey rtg54,

Welcome to the craze. I'm a newbie here too, but for what it's worth, I'd suggest that you drive both to see which car you like better. When I was searching (recently) I was torn between older models that have been modified and restored twice to three times over versus later models with little to no restoration. Personally, I like the simplicity and interior design of the MK1's. I also like the 10" wheels. I don't think you would want the wet suspension, though. Again, that depends on what level of historic spirit you wish to engage. If, however, you have guilt and think the Mk1 should go to someone whose plan is to make it a proper car, take it to shows, etc., then go for the newer one. Is the newer one a "generic" Mini? Or is it one of the many special editions that might have some extra collectors or historic value?

You say the "S" has original paint... I'd guess that it's pretty rusty unless it's been tucked away in a dry environment for at least three decades. It's possible/likely that the later model has a substantially fresher, stronger base to start with. There are 90's models that are totally trashed and rusted out, too...

Make friends with a local classic mini veteran who really knows the cars. An experienced classic enthusiast could help you greatly as you compare the two cars.

Let us know how it goes.

 

My 79 shell (ignore the pic' as the front clip is FRG/MK1) has a builders plate that says it was built by "Austin Morris Group. British Leyland UK LTD" ... but yes in 69 they removed 'Austin' from the badges .. or so they say here:
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado15ado50f.htm

They go on to say:

In the early 80's it was Austin-Rover as BMC scrambled to survive but as late as 84 new models were being introduced under the Austin marque

In 1986 the company became Rover Group and in 87 Rover committed to keeping the Mini alive while the Austin badge was removed from all models

 

Since your intent is to modify the car in possible manners that will alter the car substantially and permanently, I would use the later model car which is of no significance. Also, the later car has dry suspension and is more easily adaptable for your purposes. The hydro system is rare and harder to maintain & find parts for, so I would think would not lend itself well to your intent. Also, early some body panels are different and more costly.

IMHO, early 60's S' are very rare and should be preserved not butchered.

Should you get the S and wish to rid it of original parts, let me know...I'm restoring a 64 S and always on the lookout.

 

I still kick myself...I had a 64 1071cc "S" that I sold instead of restoring it. I've got a '66 S that I need to part out. It's beyond my skills, and I really need the money at the moment (plus we bought another Mini this past weekend).

Hey Minimad - shoot me an e-mail (andy dot kauffman at gmail dot com) and let me know what you're looking for. My car is on a '59 shell (complete with 59 glass that's still in good shape) but it's got all S bits on it. I believe it's got a stock 1275cc "S" motor - feels stock to me. I've also got a "long block" assembly of a 1275cc S that's bored out +.040" with a 731 cam, some head work, etc. That one is in pieces. Plus brakes, twin tanks, etc, etc.

 

i also say buy a later model if your gonna do a bunch of stuff to it.......the one im working on is a mid 80's, that is why im doing what im doing to it........good luck with it......

 

buy both.