Classic Mini

>>17748473
Depends entirely on what year you're talking about. Is it one of the original sixties/seventies model or a 1990-2001?

>>17748499
1990-2001

This particular Cooper S is from 2000, and the regular Cooper I'm looking at is from 1995.

This is in bongland btw.

File: mini paint stripping.jpg (179KB, 1296x728px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1296x728px

>>17748507
Nah, I sort of guessed. Good news is you're looking at the more reliable fuel injected models. Your S would be a multipoint model while your regular would be Single (Basically a stripped out carb)

Honestly the SPIs are pretty tempting because they're seen as being easier to work with or tune, almost to the point of the earlier HIF carb ones. But the MPI would certainly produce more power stock.

There isn't that much difference though really. I guess some variations have different suspension trumpets and even larger brakes. But desu other than the power you're not seeing much difference. Coopers from the 90s are nothing like they were in the 60s (Even if I own pic related) so they have much more in common with the regular trims.

Anyway, if you're looking at particular models minis tend to actually get more prone to rust as they get NEWER since as BL died out and Rover Group took over and resorted to shittier metal. Along with that I actually think the 1996 onward models may be slightly different bodies too... Which may make fitting a problem. Especially if you've got rot (Which mine had. Failed the MOT in January) But it's a mini, so those are about standard. Just make sure you can check beneath.

I mean, is there anything specific you're even looking for with them? Minis are badge-taxed to fuck to begin with, and Coopers even more so because it's the only name normies really recognise

File: rallye monte carlo.jpg (327KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1800x1200px

>>17748538
Not particularly mate, this is gonna be a first car so I wanted something enjoyable. The S I'm looking at is 6k, the regular is 4k so I was just wondering if it was worth the extra. The S really does look immaculate though.

I'm guessing an extra 20hp makes a big difference to a car that light, yeah? Or not particularly?

>>17748583

Power's power. It's always going to make a difference. Even stock you'll embarrass any neds in lowered 1.2l corsas.

So with mine at least I went on Minisport and bought a Stage One kit for it. Pretty much with those you're going to get roughly a 20% increase in power. That's been enough honestly. You'll want to keep in mind insurance though and that with the later A+ models (Basically the engine from a Metro) that you have a choice between the lighter 998 and the larger 1275 which the coopers have. My classic insurance was just under 900 because I live in Glasgow. Keeping in mind that's agreed value with all the mods declared (And I pretty much tried to say it was as valuable as possible)

Worth keeping in mind that the smaller engines are just as tuneable and still a hell of a lot of fun while being considerably easier on the insurance front.

And if you're looking around too, make sure both of them are legit coopers. The V5 should confirm that. A Cooper S in particular should have a conversion from the first time it was registered, so if someone just says it's an S because tey fitted a kit you'll have to declare it as a mod.

Incidently, if you're willing to sink some money in, you could make most into a decent 'S' copy in terms of performance, with the benefit of personalisation too. So if that doesn't work out keep it in mind.

If it's a first car, I'd recommend the regular cooper because the tyres on the s are way too thicc to be practical and the 4 speed works better in the cooper
And like what >>17748538 said the regular cooper is older and will be slightly more rust proof

>>17748647
Good point actually. I've got 12s on mine and after trying a mate's 13s I'm pretty sure I never want to go through that again at all.

>>17748618
Alright cheers mate, massive help.

What years in particular are a bit better as regards to rust? Or was it just a gradual onset of Rover Group using worse and worse metal as the years went by?

I mean, I can see some Rover Minis from the late 80s but all of the ones I've found under 6k have a fair bit of surface rust. And none of them are coopers. People rave about the older ones but are they better than the 90s era minis?

>>17748696
Don't want to be a boomer shitposter, but pretty much anything from the late sixties and after is where they start getting worse. Really, you have to face that you're looking at old, used cars and that the conditions going to vary. Again, coopers only really existed in Rover form (And are actually affordable) from 1990 to 2001. 1990's a really marked up year because they were a limited edition, while 1991 (mine) are quite cheap because they're the 'regular' cooper model, but still with pesky HIF44 carbs.

Personally, I'd go for the Cooper you can see, but since it's your first car you may want to have something as a backup. Most Minis names are really just trim variations - And there's a page on wikipedia that details that - with exceptions of Clubmans, Coopers, or the Luxury and utility ones. Make sure you're accepting how many names minis have had. Since you're looking for a 'normal' one you may also want to try Austin, Rover, Austin-Rover and Mini... Since people tend to hide the ages a wee bit.

And I really can't put enough into making sure you can see underneath it. If someone stops you, back the fuck off and look elsewhere, if you see holes, don't do what I did and just get out. Minis are great classics but a problem car can screw you for a while.

Last thing really is that stock... yeah, a 'proper' cooper will beat those, but the A+ is pretty tough and modifiable so if you're that bothered by it, you should be able to work with it. The early ones are a lot lighter but are consequently a LOT less refined. Even the difference between my '91, that '95 and the '00 model would be stark honestly. So long as you're okay with lazy midlander build quality.

>>17748745
Ha, yeah all the models almost overwhelmed me at first. I think I'll go with the regular cooper over the S because of what >>17748647 said.

One final thing though, but in terms of driving experience, are the 80s models better than the 90s ones? Early 90s better than the final models? The power is great but coming from someone who has barely 20 hours driving experience, I can't really gauge what the cars are like to drive.

If they're all identical I can plod on and get whatever is in the best condition, but I'm not sure if this is the case. I get the 60s ones were the best, but is there a big difference between the 80s and 90s ones in terms of the driving?

>>17748825
Because it's your first car, get the cheaper 90s ones, because you're bound to break one or two internal components while learning to drive as (no offense) you've not experienced driving for the longest time so you're most likely not going to treat it very well

File: 1503076654306.png (44KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 657x527px

>>17748852
Alright sounds fair. Thanks.

>>17748860
Send us pictures when you've got it