Quality of early BMW MINI
Discussion
I think you need to split out general build quality vs mechanical reliability. In general build quality terms each new generation is an improvement on the last, e.g. R56 better than R53, and F56 an even bigger jump from R56.
Reliability wise some models of R56 (e.g. 1.6 turbo Cooper S, N14 engine in particular) are a step down from the supercharged R53 due to a few engine related issues.
And for context even an R53 is still way better built and more "premium" than any of its early 2000s small car competitors.
Reliability wise some models of R56 (e.g. 1.6 turbo Cooper S, N14 engine in particular) are a step down from the supercharged R53 due to a few engine related issues.
And for context even an R53 is still way better built and more "premium" than any of its early 2000s small car competitors.
It is an urban/ pub bore myth.
Production standard and fit and finish improved throughout the life of the MINI, especially the first generation. I remember back in the early days brand new cars having dire interior rattles, and finding excess screws / nuts / washers / trim clips in behind door cards and the like.
The 2004 Facelift improved things again, the three piece dashboard, the later style scuttle trims, better headlights, better engine mounts...
Production standard and fit and finish improved throughout the life of the MINI, especially the first generation. I remember back in the early days brand new cars having dire interior rattles, and finding excess screws / nuts / washers / trim clips in behind door cards and the like.
The 2004 Facelift improved things again, the three piece dashboard, the later style scuttle trims, better headlights, better engine mounts...
The best one unless buying new with a warranty is as late and low mileage an R50 as you can find, so an 06 plate. They're old cars now but one that's been garaged and looked after is a great car. The Tritec engine is very good, the Getrag gearbox excellent and BMW sorted most of the issues that could plague older ones.
The R56 seemed better at the time but the engine is absolutely woeful. Head gaskets, bore wear, timing chain - typical 2000's four cylinder BMW junk with a dash of French input to seal the deal.
The R56 seemed better at the time but the engine is absolutely woeful. Head gaskets, bore wear, timing chain - typical 2000's four cylinder BMW junk with a dash of French input to seal the deal.
I had one of the first BMW Mini's.... it lasted 6 months, 3 of which were with BMW/Mini who didn't know what to do with it.
It would pull violently to near side....Mini's response... "It's a characteristic of the car sir!" In the end they replaced whole of front suspension to fix
Boot lid rattle they never manged to fix
Other rattles they couldn't fix. Got fed up in the end and sold it back to them. Said I'd never buy another...................
Then a few years ago after talking to others who said they were pleased with theirs, bought a 2012 baker street diesel as a learner car second hand with 7k on the clock in 2013, still smelt new. Now has 176k on the clock, and as I have not been able to work for the last year it would have over 200k on the clock. It is still on it's first clutch, and has only had replacement disc's, tyres/pads. Been a great car. Only had to replace air con condenser and that wasn't a fault, a stone took it out causing a leak. It gets serviced as required every 20k, or when service light comes on by BMW and never let me down. It is sounding a little rough on the few miles it has done this lock down, but next week will start "working" again earning me some money
It would pull violently to near side....Mini's response... "It's a characteristic of the car sir!" In the end they replaced whole of front suspension to fix
Boot lid rattle they never manged to fix
Other rattles they couldn't fix. Got fed up in the end and sold it back to them. Said I'd never buy another...................
Then a few years ago after talking to others who said they were pleased with theirs, bought a 2012 baker street diesel as a learner car second hand with 7k on the clock in 2013, still smelt new. Now has 176k on the clock, and as I have not been able to work for the last year it would have over 200k on the clock. It is still on it's first clutch, and has only had replacement disc's, tyres/pads. Been a great car. Only had to replace air con condenser and that wasn't a fault, a stone took it out causing a leak. It gets serviced as required every 20k, or when service light comes on by BMW and never let me down. It is sounding a little rough on the few miles it has done this lock down, but next week will start "working" again earning me some money
Touring442 said:
The R56 seemed better at the time but the engine is absolutely woeful.
The R56 was nothing other than a cost cutting exercise. The R50/R53 was fantastic, but it was over-engineered and took approx. 24 hours to manufacture from start to finish. The R56 took manufacturing time down to around 16 hours as whole parts of it arrived pre-assembled like the front clip with headlights, and dashboard. It also meant engine production was in-house at Hams Hall, rather than having to 'buy in' the Tritec engine.
Little touches on the R53 were lovely, but expensive to make. The little lights in the end of the fog lights toggle switches, the wrap around glass on the back windows, and the clamshell bonnet.
Dr Interceptor said:
The R56 was nothing other than a cost cutting exercise. The R50/R53 was fantastic, but it was over-engineered and took approx. 24 hours to manufacture from start to finish. The R56 took manufacturing time down to around 16 hours as whole parts of it arrived pre-assembled like the front clip with headlights, and dashboard.
It also meant engine production was in-house at Hams Hall, rather than having to 'buy in' the Tritec engine.
Little touches on the R53 were lovely, but expensive to make. The little lights in the end of the fog lights toggle switches, the wrap around glass on the back windows, and the clamshell bonnet.
THIS is why I love PH - a really interesting and informative answer. I’ve owned an R53 and R56 and never noticed the different approaches to the rear side glass until this post. Any more interesting nuggets? You sound very well informed! It also meant engine production was in-house at Hams Hall, rather than having to 'buy in' the Tritec engine.
Little touches on the R53 were lovely, but expensive to make. The little lights in the end of the fog lights toggle switches, the wrap around glass on the back windows, and the clamshell bonnet.
Touring442 said:
The Tritec engine was built by Chrysler
The Tritec engine was built by Tritec Motors, which was a joint venture established between Rover and Chrysler. BMW retained Rover's share in Tritec when it broke the Rover Group up. The rights to produce it (and the factory) were later sold to Fiat Powertrains, and it became the E.torQ engine.I remember when the break up and sale of Rover was announced... Big lorries tag-teaming up and down the M40 moving Rover 75 production and tooling from Cowley up to Longbridge, and MINI tooling, which was already in place at Longbridge and ready to go, down to Cowley.
MDifficult said:
THIS is why I love PH - a really interesting and informative answer. I’ve owned an R53 and R56 and never noticed the different approaches to the rear side glass until this post. Any more interesting nuggets? You sound very well informed!
Cheers... I've been involved with MINIs for a long time, and I've had a fair few of them over the years in R52, R53, and F57 guises. I've still got an early R53 JCW (Number 4), and two classic Minis, among lots of other things. I could talk about them all day Two top MINI geek facts... When the Clubman was launched (2007 IIRC), the roof on it was the single longest pressed panel of any car in the BMW family, including 5-Series tourers and Rolls-Royces. In 2009, MINI launched a special edition R56 called the Camden, it was painted in 'White Silver' and that's the only MINI colour that's never been available with a body colour roof, you could only specify it with a contrast (either white or black) roof.
Problem is I have a mind full of this kind of totally useless knowledge
Dr Interceptor said:
The Tritec engine was built by Tritec Motors, which was a joint venture established between Rover and Chrysler. BMW retained Rover's share in Tritec when it broke the Rover Group up. The rights to produce it (and the factory) were later sold to Fiat Powertrains, and it became the E.torQ engine.
The Wiki page isn't entirely accurate. The Tritec was a derivative of the 1993 Chrysler Neon engine - in the good old days, some Minis were modified using Neon short engines or just the crank/rods/pistons. Touring442 said:
The Wiki page isn't entirely accurate. The Tritec was a derivative of the 1993 Chrysler Neon engine - in the good old days, some Minis were modified using Neon short engines or just the crank/rods/pistons.
It is actually pretty accurate... The Neon that was launched in 1994 had the Chrysler two litre four pot, it was later available as a 1.8l under-bored version. It looks similar, but quite a few key differences. 
I know some did the 2.0 and even the 2.4 swap into the MINI, it was cheaper than building a 2.0 stroker based on the Tritec, but a few did that as well... Jan at Revolution Mini Works in the US springs to mind. I remember following his posts on NAM.
They look quite different but the top plug leads might make you think they are the same sort of thing. The most obvious difference is that the Tritec has a timing chain and the 2.0/1.8 Neon a belt. Whilst based on the Neon engine design, the Tritec is narrower.
From memory, later Neons used a chain engine very similar to the Tritec.
Not a bad engine and certainly better than the Prince garbage.
From memory, later Neons used a chain engine very similar to the Tritec.
Not a bad engine and certainly better than the Prince garbage.
I'm not sure what engine my diesel 1.6 2012 model has in it. But, I think the engine so far is ticking all the boxes.
I have not had to put in any oil between services
It has done 176k miles, and had a hard life as a learner car (although over the last year it has hardly done any miles owing to not been able to work)
It has a decent enough bit of poke when I make learners floor the "go" pedal coming off roundabouts onto D/C's
Returns about 52-55 MPG teaching and when I drive it up to about 70-75 MPG
Build quality is far better than the first model I bought when they first came out, and still on it's first clutch means if you drive them properly (and mine has had many many people doing their best to destroy it) should last some time.
It is my aim to keep this car until the doors fall off, I suspect that if some t
t runs into the back of me it will be written off by the insurance company as uneconomical to repair, which would be a great shame (most learner vehicle accidents are where a full licence holder is a twit and runs into the back of us)
I have been running a "blog" on this car and it's history on the "Wessex car club" forum.
cheers
I have not had to put in any oil between services
It has done 176k miles, and had a hard life as a learner car (although over the last year it has hardly done any miles owing to not been able to work)
It has a decent enough bit of poke when I make learners floor the "go" pedal coming off roundabouts onto D/C's
Returns about 52-55 MPG teaching and when I drive it up to about 70-75 MPG
Build quality is far better than the first model I bought when they first came out, and still on it's first clutch means if you drive them properly (and mine has had many many people doing their best to destroy it) should last some time.
It is my aim to keep this car until the doors fall off, I suspect that if some t
t runs into the back of me it will be written off by the insurance company as uneconomical to repair, which would be a great shame (most learner vehicle accidents are where a full licence holder is a twit and runs into the back of us)I have been running a "blog" on this car and it's history on the "Wessex car club" forum.
cheers
Majorslow said:
I'm not sure what engine my diesel 1.6 2012 model has in it. But, I think the engine so far is ticking all the boxes.
A 2012 car will be a facelift Cooper D, with the BMW N47 engine in it.Back in 2011, I drove one from BMW HQ in Bracknell to John O'Groats on a single 40 litre tank of fuel as a charity challenge.
Left at around 7pm, drove all through the night and arrived there mid morning the next day. Averaged just under 80mpg.
The car was supplied by MINI Press Office, and when talking to them about it I requested the most basic car possible (15" wheels and the least spec possible), but what I had was a car on 17" wheels, runflats, and pretty much every box ticked including leather, nav, climate control etc. I honestly didn't think it would do it, but it did!
Dr Interceptor said:
Touring442 said:
The R56 seemed better at the time but the engine is absolutely woeful.
The R56 was nothing other than a cost cutting exercise. The R50/R53 was fantastic, but it was over-engineered and took approx. 24 hours to manufacture from start to finish. The R56 took manufacturing time down to around 16 hours as whole parts of it arrived pre-assembled like the front clip with headlights, and dashboard. It also meant engine production was in-house at Hams Hall, rather than having to 'buy in' the Tritec engine.
Little touches on the R53 were lovely, but expensive to make. The little lights in the end of the fog lights toggle switches, the wrap around glass on the back windows, and the clamshell bonnet.
I had the R53 and currently own a R55, and the R55 just feels like it has a better quality of materials especially inside the cabin.
Challo said:
When you say cost cutting are you speaking about just the assembly time or materials as well?
I had the R53 and currently own a R55, and the R55 just feels like it has a better quality of materials especially inside the cabin.
Both... As I said the clamshell bonnet on the R53 was much more expensive to make than the much simpler R56 bonnet, the engines were cheaper as they were built in-house, not bought in, the C-Pillar trim was cheaper than the glass on the R53, although that doesn't apply to your Clubman.I had the R53 and currently own a R55, and the R55 just feels like it has a better quality of materials especially inside the cabin.
The interior was generally better but not perfect... The bit that always annoyed me in the R56 interior was the mix of materials. The dash top looked/felt really nice, then you had hard shiny plastic around the air vents right next to it.
Dr Interceptor said:
Majorslow said:
I'm not sure what engine my diesel 1.6 2012 model has in it. But, I think the engine so far is ticking all the boxes.
A 2012 car will be a facelift Cooper D, with the BMW N47 engine in it.Back in 2011, I drove one from BMW HQ in Bracknell to John O'Groats on a single 40 litre tank of fuel as a charity challenge.
Left at around 7pm, drove all through the night and arrived there mid morning the next day. Averaged just under 80mpg.
The car was supplied by MINI Press Office, and when talking to them about it I requested the most basic car possible (15" wheels and the least spec possible), but what I had was a car on 17" wheels, runflats, and pretty much every box ticked including leather, nav, climate control etc. I honestly didn't think it would do it, but it did!
Majorslow said:
That's impressive, mines a "Baker Street" with 16" alloys, you must have had a feather light foot, ... but did they let you gas it back?
I remember drafting lorries up the M6! Turned round when we got there and drove back down to Burntisland, then Northampton the next day for a big celebration. Used three tanks getting back
Gassing Station | New MINIs | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff