R50/53 R50 vs R53 (new member content)
R50 vs R53 (new member content)
Hey there, I am a new member and currently not a mini owner. I am however looking at picking up a 1st gen mini either this upcoming winter or spring for DD status.
My main question is the comparison of the R50 and R53, I have done my fair bit of research before posting this but my main questions are:
1. Does the R50 have enough power to move itself along? Obviously it only has a 1.6L N/A engine, but I already have a modified Saab for my fast niche. Just wondering if the little motor combined with the little car could make for a fun package.
2. Is the R53 a maintenance ***** (same goes for the R50, I guess)? Obviously cannot be as bad as an S4, but in theory the R50 should be more reliable with less parts to go wrong. Keep in mind my father has been a mechanic for 30+ years, and I myself do all the work on my two cars.
3. How do the suspensions compare between the two models?
4. What are the main differences in S and base body trims? Is it just front/rear bumper and side skirts?
I am aware that they are two completely different beasts, but just curious what the real differences are, I always like to get a good idea of what I am getting into and throughly research models before making any buys.
Thanks a lot everyone, I plan on introducing myself in the new member section shortly.
My main question is the comparison of the R50 and R53, I have done my fair bit of research before posting this but my main questions are:
1. Does the R50 have enough power to move itself along? Obviously it only has a 1.6L N/A engine, but I already have a modified Saab for my fast niche. Just wondering if the little motor combined with the little car could make for a fun package.
2. Is the R53 a maintenance ***** (same goes for the R50, I guess)? Obviously cannot be as bad as an S4, but in theory the R50 should be more reliable with less parts to go wrong. Keep in mind my father has been a mechanic for 30+ years, and I myself do all the work on my two cars.
3. How do the suspensions compare between the two models?
4. What are the main differences in S and base body trims? Is it just front/rear bumper and side skirts?
I am aware that they are two completely different beasts, but just curious what the real differences are, I always like to get a good idea of what I am getting into and throughly research models before making any buys.
Thanks a lot everyone, I plan on introducing myself in the new member section shortly.
Others will probably have more to add but check here http://www.motoringfile.com/mini-r50r53-buyers-guide/
I will say I have one of each and both have their personalities good and bad. Our 05 is justacopper with minimal extras and while not powerful like it's mate, it's light on it's feet and fine in commuting traffic. The S has more tire squealing potential but due to (heavy) sunroof and more gadgets does actually feel a little less sprightly from a handling perspective
Don't get me wrong, both are fun, handle well and like to be driven. And I like having the choice
I will say I have one of each and both have their personalities good and bad. Our 05 is justacopper with minimal extras and while not powerful like it's mate, it's light on it's feet and fine in commuting traffic. The S has more tire squealing potential but due to (heavy) sunroof and more gadgets does actually feel a little less sprightly from a handling perspective
Don't get me wrong, both are fun, handle well and like to be driven. And I like having the choice
Last edited by msjulie33; Sep 29, 2011 at 04:37 PM. Reason: typo
6th Gear
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,334
Likes: 4
From: Vancouver Island, Canada
I can speak to this a little bit as I have a gently modified (see sig) R50 and have driven a few R53 and R56 S models..
The R53 is definitely faster in the straights. It has more grunt and generally pulls harder. It feels "easier" to drive faster.
The R50 feels lighter on it's feet, more nimble, and blasting down the twisties feels more like an exercise in finesse, threading a needle, where the heavier R53/R56S feels more to me like a brute force domination of the road. Both are fun, for sure.
For what it's worth, I passed on several opportunities to trade in my R50 for an R53/R56S. My car feels like it has a punchier low end making it more practical for urban warfare commuting, lighter in the twisties, and I had no problem hitting 100MPH+ blasting past tractor trailers on near-empty Northern highways. It didn't feel this good stock though, so there's that. The trick to the R50 is keeping it above 4000rpm.
That said, you'll get 100 responses saying "I'd never be caught dead in a Non-S"
The R53 is definitely faster in the straights. It has more grunt and generally pulls harder. It feels "easier" to drive faster.
The R50 feels lighter on it's feet, more nimble, and blasting down the twisties feels more like an exercise in finesse, threading a needle, where the heavier R53/R56S feels more to me like a brute force domination of the road. Both are fun, for sure.
For what it's worth, I passed on several opportunities to trade in my R50 for an R53/R56S. My car feels like it has a punchier low end making it more practical for urban warfare commuting, lighter in the twisties, and I had no problem hitting 100MPH+ blasting past tractor trailers on near-empty Northern highways. It didn't feel this good stock though, so there's that. The trick to the R50 is keeping it above 4000rpm.
That said, you'll get 100 responses saying "I'd never be caught dead in a Non-S"
I can speak to this a little bit as I have a gently modified (see sig) R50 and have driven a few R53 and R56 S models..
The R53 is definitely faster in the straights. It has more grunt and generally pulls harder. It feels "easier" to drive faster.
The R50 feels lighter on it's feet, more nimble, and blasting down the twisties feels more like an exercise in finesse, threading a needle, where the heavier R53/R56S feels more to me like a brute force domination of the road. Both are fun, for sure.
For what it's worth, I passed on several opportunities to trade in my R50 for an R53/R56S. My car feels like it has a punchier low end making it more practical for urban warfare commuting, lighter in the twisties, and I had no problem hitting 100MPH+ blasting past tractor trailers on near-empty Northern highways. It didn't feel this good stock though, so there's that. The trick to the R50 is keeping it above 4000rpm.
That said, you'll get 100 responses saying "I'd never be caught dead in a Non-S"
The R53 is definitely faster in the straights. It has more grunt and generally pulls harder. It feels "easier" to drive faster.
The R50 feels lighter on it's feet, more nimble, and blasting down the twisties feels more like an exercise in finesse, threading a needle, where the heavier R53/R56S feels more to me like a brute force domination of the road. Both are fun, for sure.
For what it's worth, I passed on several opportunities to trade in my R50 for an R53/R56S. My car feels like it has a punchier low end making it more practical for urban warfare commuting, lighter in the twisties, and I had no problem hitting 100MPH+ blasting past tractor trailers on near-empty Northern highways. It didn't feel this good stock though, so there's that. The trick to the R50 is keeping it above 4000rpm.
That said, you'll get 100 responses saying "I'd never be caught dead in a Non-S"
I took a look at that buying guide, also a lot of good information and was exactly what I was looking for in terms of year differences and differences amongst the S and justa.
Leaning towards a cooper at the moment.
6th Gear
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,097
Likes: 8
From: Knoxville, TN
1. Does the R50 have enough power to move itself along? Obviously it only has a 1.6L N/A engine, but I already have a modified Saab for my fast niche. Just wondering if the little motor combined with the little car could make for a fun package.
R50, 0-80 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3s...elerating_auto
2. Is the R53 a maintenance ***** (same goes for the R50, I guess)? Obviously cannot be as bad as an S4, but in theory the R50 should be more reliable with less parts to go wrong. Keep in mind my father has been a mechanic for 30+ years, and I myself do all the work on my two cars.
I don't think either are maintenance ******, but the R50 is probably more reliable.
3. How do the suspensions compare between the two models?
Depends on how they were optioned. It is possible for both to have the same suspensions. The suspensions can be equally tuned.
4. What are the main differences in S and base body trims? Is it just front/rear bumper and side skirts?
Yes, and the rear spoiler, if the R50 has one, is a little less aggressive.
2nd Gear
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
I had an R50 for a DD and was getting amazing mileage @ 34-36 mpg. I loved driving that car, you don't have the same performance as an "S" but i would drive in the power-band (3000-5000 RPM) and downshift frequently.
I've driven a Cooper, Cooper S, Clubman, and the Countryman.
In an "s" I prefer the supercharger, over the Turbo. But by far I loved driving the Cooper, non-S.
However I got out of my 06 Cooper, and bought a Countryman S...
I've driven a Cooper, Cooper S, Clubman, and the Countryman.
In an "s" I prefer the supercharger, over the Turbo. But by far I loved driving the Cooper, non-S.
However I got out of my 06 Cooper, and bought a Countryman S...
It does fine.
My impression of the R50 was "Infinite grip", though I found you could make it understeer if you tried hard enough. The R53 was much more slidy.
3. How do the suspensions compare between the two models?
Trending Topics
I test drove a 06 R53 and my 06 R50 back to back before I bought it and chose the R50 because to me, the power delivery felt better. As Danny said, the off the line power feels a little more "punchy", most likely due to the higher compression. The R50 had a more of a pure natural british sports car feel.
The kick in the pants supercharger rush just didnt do it for me. But that's just me, because some people want that. My last two cars before my R50 was a pumped up Subaru WRX and a 400hp Pontiac GTO, so take in account I already got my "speed/power" fix.
My R50 has actually been the most fun car I've ever owned, especially after some minor suspension mods and sticky tires. It's very nimble and has plenty of power to throw it around.
The kick in the pants supercharger rush just didnt do it for me. But that's just me, because some people want that. My last two cars before my R50 was a pumped up Subaru WRX and a 400hp Pontiac GTO, so take in account I already got my "speed/power" fix.
My R50 has actually been the most fun car I've ever owned, especially after some minor suspension mods and sticky tires. It's very nimble and has plenty of power to throw it around.
For the most part the cars a very similar....both have strengths/weaknesses..
The 6 speed stick on the s is a better tranny than the 5 speed midlands on the base...both in feel and realilibility. As for an auto, RUN AWAY from the CVT on the base IMO...auto on the S (ONLY 2005+ availabl) is conventional.
How the car was previously driven/matained/modded will affect the answers to all your question so much that any statement made may/maynot be true/false.
Pay a few $ to have you car looked atbafore you buy it, by someone who knows MINI'S.
The 6 speed stick on the s is a better tranny than the 5 speed midlands on the base...both in feel and realilibility. As for an auto, RUN AWAY from the CVT on the base IMO...auto on the S (ONLY 2005+ availabl) is conventional.
How the car was previously driven/matained/modded will affect the answers to all your question so much that any statement made may/maynot be true/false.
Pay a few $ to have you car looked atbafore you buy it, by someone who knows MINI'S.
For the most part the cars a very similar....both have strengths/weaknesses..
The 6 speed stick on the s is a better tranny than the 5 speed midlands on the base...both in feel and realilibility. As for an auto, RUN AWAY from the CVT on the base IMO...auto on the S (ONLY 2005+ availabl) is conventional.
How the car was previously driven/matained/modded will affect the answers to all your question so much that any statement made may/maynot be true/false.
Pay a few $ to have you car looked atbafore you buy it, by someone who knows MINI'S.
The 6 speed stick on the s is a better tranny than the 5 speed midlands on the base...both in feel and realilibility. As for an auto, RUN AWAY from the CVT on the base IMO...auto on the S (ONLY 2005+ availabl) is conventional.
How the car was previously driven/matained/modded will affect the answers to all your question so much that any statement made may/maynot be true/false.
Pay a few $ to have you car looked atbafore you buy it, by someone who knows MINI'S.
The 05-06 base Coopers came with a 5 speed Getrag, not Midlands. Definitely look for a 05-06 if you plan to go with a base Cooper.
Haha, how can that be possible? Did somebody switch a Midlands in for some reason?
I thought the change happened (was not sure enough to post it) in 07 in the cabrio...the last of thr gen1 cars...was made as the cabrio on the same platform (still gen1) in 07 and 08.
Edit....i guess the tranny was changed in 2005....
like many things on thr mini, it was likely done by date....not model year production..
.
my car is a good example of this....2005, built late 2004, i still have the older airbags (no trouble prone weight sensor), bur revised sc and tranny....
Last edited by ZippyNH; Sep 30, 2011 at 02:23 PM.
The suspensions, rims, etc may be similar or different going from a s to a base...depends on how the car was optioned ...the mini was very flexible in optioing it....a hug varriery of suspension .stock, sport, sport+, sport++, and not all were the same or avalable in any given year....so go drive it....
Build quality on the later model midlandd seem to be better...but how agressivly the car was driven seems to be the biggest factor determining lifespen from what i have been hearing...
I thought the change happened (was not sure enough to post it) in 07 in the cabrio...the last of thr gen1 cars...was made as the cabrio on the same platform (still gen1) in 07 and 08.
I thought the change happened (was not sure enough to post it) in 07 in the cabrio...the last of thr gen1 cars...was made as the cabrio on the same platform (still gen1) in 07 and 08.
The 05-06 manual transmissions are made by Getrag, they are not a "beter built" Midlands. I'm sure the Getrag continued into the 07+ 1st Generation Cabrios.
2nd Gear
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
i had one of the first run of the 2006 models i guess.... it was built in 2005, must have had an old Midlands laying around and i got lucky...
but MINI USA worked with me and it only cost $1900USD..
With all due respect, I don't think you had a Midlands in an 2006 Model year. Mini started intalling the Getrag in the 2005 Model Year, one year before yours was made. Are you sure it wasn't the Getrag that broke down, that is possible.
However, I guess I could be wrong and you had a freak 06 Midlands...
2nd Gear
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
i could be wrong. . it was funny how quick MINI USA rolled over on the replacement... i got 50% off the dealer cost of the trans, and 50% off the warrany rate for labor.
i wish i could re-check, but the old tranny is long gone, and my 2006 is sleeping in a salvage yard since it was totalled in June...
i wish i could re-check, but the old tranny is long gone, and my 2006 is sleeping in a salvage yard since it was totalled in June...
Thanks for all the replies. I was looking at 03-04 coopers but I will search for 05-06 in my price range if the Getrag is that much better. The Midland is a shorter ratio though, right? As for all the optioning differences, what were the main packages available at the time? Sport/Winter/Tech package? And what did each entail?
Like I said I plan on looking more seriously for an S or non S this spring, as I need to make it through the semesters first.
Like I said I plan on looking more seriously for an S or non S this spring, as I need to make it through the semesters first.
2nd Gear
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
There's some excellent advice in this thread!
As a former Saab owner I'd say the R50 vs R53 comparison is similar to a lightweight EMS vs a 900SPG. Nimble handling, great mpg vs boosted power & more bling.
As far as R50 transmissions go, the 02-04 models are probably better suited for DIYers. Early 2002 Midlands had a run of bad axle seals which leaked & caused catastrophic transmission failures. Most of these have already self-destructed & the replacement Corteco seals work fine. MINI compounded the reliability problems by saying the gearbox oil was lifetime use & didn't need changing. Front input shaft bearings, second gear synchros & hubs fail when the oil gets low or contaminated.
The basic Midlands design is not bad, but it's less robust than the Getrag(s). For a DIYer, it's fairly easy to rebuild & it can be economically improved for better reliability. But,, it is not as easy to get the gearbox out as it is on a Saab 900
Road & Track featured the R50 & R53 MINI's in their July 2008 'Used Car Classic' article. If you can find this issue it's a great primer in addition to the Motoring File article. The R&T testers liked the R50 as much as the R53 but said the Midlands gearbox "doesn't suffer ham fisted drivers well".
The Midlands 5 speed was replaced with the Getrag 5 speed beginning with the 07/2004 models. Getrag acquired most of the European Ford transmission plants. What we call the Getrag 5 speed is based on the Ford IB5 gearbox that has been around since the 1980's. It was also recently used in the 2.0 Ford Focus CVH/SPI models & it has a pretty good reliability record. FWIW, the R53 shares the Getrag Ford MT285 used in the 6 speed Ford Focus.
Here are the actual 5 speed gear ratios:
Midlands 5spd:
First 3.42
second 1.95
Third 1.33
Fourth 1.05
Fifth .85
FDrive 3.94
Getrag 5 spd:
First 3.65
second 2.11
Third 1.39
Fourth 1.04
Fifth .89
FDrive 3.94
Good luck with your search, they are both great cars
As a former Saab owner I'd say the R50 vs R53 comparison is similar to a lightweight EMS vs a 900SPG. Nimble handling, great mpg vs boosted power & more bling.
As far as R50 transmissions go, the 02-04 models are probably better suited for DIYers. Early 2002 Midlands had a run of bad axle seals which leaked & caused catastrophic transmission failures. Most of these have already self-destructed & the replacement Corteco seals work fine. MINI compounded the reliability problems by saying the gearbox oil was lifetime use & didn't need changing. Front input shaft bearings, second gear synchros & hubs fail when the oil gets low or contaminated.
The basic Midlands design is not bad, but it's less robust than the Getrag(s). For a DIYer, it's fairly easy to rebuild & it can be economically improved for better reliability. But,, it is not as easy to get the gearbox out as it is on a Saab 900
Road & Track featured the R50 & R53 MINI's in their July 2008 'Used Car Classic' article. If you can find this issue it's a great primer in addition to the Motoring File article. The R&T testers liked the R50 as much as the R53 but said the Midlands gearbox "doesn't suffer ham fisted drivers well".
The Midlands 5 speed was replaced with the Getrag 5 speed beginning with the 07/2004 models. Getrag acquired most of the European Ford transmission plants. What we call the Getrag 5 speed is based on the Ford IB5 gearbox that has been around since the 1980's. It was also recently used in the 2.0 Ford Focus CVH/SPI models & it has a pretty good reliability record. FWIW, the R53 shares the Getrag Ford MT285 used in the 6 speed Ford Focus.
Here are the actual 5 speed gear ratios:
Midlands 5spd:
First 3.42
second 1.95
Third 1.33
Fourth 1.05
Fifth .85
FDrive 3.94
Getrag 5 spd:
First 3.65
second 2.11
Third 1.39
Fourth 1.04
Fifth .89
FDrive 3.94
Good luck with your search, they are both great cars
2nd Gear
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: Fort Wayne, IN, USA.
I can speak to this a little bit as I have a gently modified (see sig) R50 and have driven a few R53 and R56 S models..
The R53 is definitely faster in the straights. It has more grunt and generally pulls harder. It feels "easier" to drive faster.
The R50 feels lighter on it's feet, more nimble, and blasting down the twisties feels more like an exercise in finesse, threading a needle, where the heavier R53/R56S feels more to me like a brute force domination of the road. Both are fun, for sure.
For what it's worth, I passed on several opportunities to trade in my R50 for an R53/R56S. My car feels like it has a punchier low end making it more practical for urban warfare commuting, lighter in the twisties, and I had no problem hitting 100MPH+ blasting past tractor trailers on near-empty Northern highways. It didn't feel this good stock though, so there's that. The trick to the R50 is keeping it above 4000rpm.
That said, you'll get 100 responses saying "I'd never be caught dead in a Non-S"
The R53 is definitely faster in the straights. It has more grunt and generally pulls harder. It feels "easier" to drive faster.
The R50 feels lighter on it's feet, more nimble, and blasting down the twisties feels more like an exercise in finesse, threading a needle, where the heavier R53/R56S feels more to me like a brute force domination of the road. Both are fun, for sure.
For what it's worth, I passed on several opportunities to trade in my R50 for an R53/R56S. My car feels like it has a punchier low end making it more practical for urban warfare commuting, lighter in the twisties, and I had no problem hitting 100MPH+ blasting past tractor trailers on near-empty Northern highways. It didn't feel this good stock though, so there's that. The trick to the R50 is keeping it above 4000rpm.
That said, you'll get 100 responses saying "I'd never be caught dead in a Non-S"
I love my R50 too. In contrast, mine is not modded out at all, just had a really good tune up with new NGK Laser Platinums and matching wires. Runs great!
There's some excellent advice in this thread!
As a former Saab owner I'd say the R50 vs R53 comparison is similar to a lightweight EMS vs a 900SPG. Nimble handling, great mpg vs boosted power & more bling.
As far as R50 transmissions go, the 02-04 models are probably better suited for DIYers. Early 2002 Midlands had a run of bad axle seals which leaked & caused catastrophic transmission failures. Most of these have already self-destructed & the replacement Corteco seals work fine. MINI compounded the reliability problems by saying the gearbox oil was lifetime use & didn't need changing. Front input shaft bearings, second gear synchros & hubs fail when the oil gets low or contaminated.
The basic Midlands design is not bad, but it's less robust than the Getrag(s). For a DIYer, it's fairly easy to rebuild & it can be economically improved for better reliability. But,, it is not as easy to get the gearbox out as it is on a Saab 900
Road & Track featured the R50 & R53 MINI's in their July 2008 'Used Car Classic' article. If you can find this issue it's a great primer in addition to the Motoring File article. The R&T testers liked the R50 as much as the R53 but said the Midlands gearbox "doesn't suffer ham fisted drivers well".
The Midlands 5 speed was replaced with the Getrag 5 speed beginning with the 07/2004 models. Getrag acquired most of the European Ford transmission plants. What we call the Getrag 5 speed is based on the Ford IB5 gearbox that has been around since the 1980's. It was also recently used in the 2.0 Ford Focus CVH/SPI models & it has a pretty good reliability record. FWIW, the R53 shares the Getrag Ford MT285 used in the 6 speed Ford Focus.
Here are the actual 5 speed gear ratios:
Midlands 5spd:
First 3.42
second 1.95
Third 1.33
Fourth 1.05
Fifth .85
FDrive 3.94
Getrag 5 spd:
First 3.65
second 2.11
Third 1.39
Fourth 1.04
Fifth .89
FDrive 3.94
Good luck with your search, they are both great cars
As a former Saab owner I'd say the R50 vs R53 comparison is similar to a lightweight EMS vs a 900SPG. Nimble handling, great mpg vs boosted power & more bling.
As far as R50 transmissions go, the 02-04 models are probably better suited for DIYers. Early 2002 Midlands had a run of bad axle seals which leaked & caused catastrophic transmission failures. Most of these have already self-destructed & the replacement Corteco seals work fine. MINI compounded the reliability problems by saying the gearbox oil was lifetime use & didn't need changing. Front input shaft bearings, second gear synchros & hubs fail when the oil gets low or contaminated.
The basic Midlands design is not bad, but it's less robust than the Getrag(s). For a DIYer, it's fairly easy to rebuild & it can be economically improved for better reliability. But,, it is not as easy to get the gearbox out as it is on a Saab 900
Road & Track featured the R50 & R53 MINI's in their July 2008 'Used Car Classic' article. If you can find this issue it's a great primer in addition to the Motoring File article. The R&T testers liked the R50 as much as the R53 but said the Midlands gearbox "doesn't suffer ham fisted drivers well".
The Midlands 5 speed was replaced with the Getrag 5 speed beginning with the 07/2004 models. Getrag acquired most of the European Ford transmission plants. What we call the Getrag 5 speed is based on the Ford IB5 gearbox that has been around since the 1980's. It was also recently used in the 2.0 Ford Focus CVH/SPI models & it has a pretty good reliability record. FWIW, the R53 shares the Getrag Ford MT285 used in the 6 speed Ford Focus.
Here are the actual 5 speed gear ratios:
Midlands 5spd:
First 3.42
second 1.95
Third 1.33
Fourth 1.05
Fifth .85
FDrive 3.94
Getrag 5 spd:
First 3.65
second 2.11
Third 1.39
Fourth 1.04
Fifth .89
FDrive 3.94
Good luck with your search, they are both great cars
Hearing all this about the midland's makes me rethink getting a justa for now, cause I know I would end up modifying it and blow it. Not as easy as on a 900 huh? I dropped my trany this weekend on the 1997 to put a new clutch in, will be good to go by this weekend most likely. I will see what my money situation looks like come spring. Is it possible to pick up a nice R53 for around 8k? I don't mind doing a little work, but I am not looking for another project right now.
