mk3 MR2 is the 'new' mk1 MX5 - discuss
Discussion
200Plus Club said:
I think if you get the later car with the 6 speed box and lsd it's just a case of sorting drive shafts and 5 wires in the loom, a manifold and exhaust and bobs your uncle
It's not that simple really as the 2 box is all the wrong ratios for the high revving 2ZZ. You need the 2zz box then swap out the LSD from the 2 box but if you are handy with spanners it is not really that difficult a job. Everything you need for the conversion is readily available and providing you can get a cheap 2 and a cheap corolla T-Sport plus a few hundred for the conversion parts you can have a 200BHP/tonne mid engined roadster for around 4k.1. MR2 interior is as cheap plastic & tacky as the MX-5 just a bit worse that's all.
2. It looks dreary & unimaginative.
3. So badly designed it has minimal storage space thus a stupid car.
4. The brand is too suburban.
5. Some buffoon designed an after-market spoiler that fits in the 'middle' of the car.
2. It looks dreary & unimaginative.
3. So badly designed it has minimal storage space thus a stupid car.
4. The brand is too suburban.
5. Some buffoon designed an after-market spoiler that fits in the 'middle' of the car.
The storage thing is based on the fact that the chassis is so finely balanced that if you put stuff in a boot it would upset the car's handling. Fitting a ducktail spoiler to the MK3 woudl seem to suggest that there is some truth as it does alter the high speed snap when pushing on. It is better without the spoiler.
However if you are a builder and need to carry the cement mixer about in the car, you will find taht by removing the behind-seats storage bin plastics you free up stacks of room. Same under the frunk. the plastics just stop you seeing the steering rack and the road underneath. if you were to fabricate some kind of liner (or just pack very carefully with bungee ropes) you have a very sizeable storage area.
As for it feeling slow- yes it does if you have just come out of a TDi. cos you have to use the POWER at high revs, not the TORQUE at low revs. You have to DRIVE the car, not just STEER it. If it's beyond you, you won't enjoy the car. But if you get it, then it is a sweet little thing. Just not a quarter-miler.
Compared with MX5? I found that MR2 rewards precision, MX5 rewards tail sliding. Both fun, but different kinds of fun.
However if you are a builder and need to carry the cement mixer about in the car, you will find taht by removing the behind-seats storage bin plastics you free up stacks of room. Same under the frunk. the plastics just stop you seeing the steering rack and the road underneath. if you were to fabricate some kind of liner (or just pack very carefully with bungee ropes) you have a very sizeable storage area.
As for it feeling slow- yes it does if you have just come out of a TDi. cos you have to use the POWER at high revs, not the TORQUE at low revs. You have to DRIVE the car, not just STEER it. If it's beyond you, you won't enjoy the car. But if you get it, then it is a sweet little thing. Just not a quarter-miler.
Compared with MX5? I found that MR2 rewards precision, MX5 rewards tail sliding. Both fun, but different kinds of fun.
Happy OP here; an interesting and possibly useful thread ( *almost* disappointed at the lack of interweb rows between MX5 and MR2 fans tho).
Having taken the time to properly read a whole thread for the first time in my life, I've concluded that the mk3 MR2 is not *yet* the new mk1 MX5 (at least as far as PHers are concerned; which is as accurate a barometer of the Zeitgeist that a car guy could ask for).
Is it the best alternative, and the most relevant/ appropriate/ meaningfully-comparable car at the price point? Yes, 100%. It doesn't even require all those caveats to be a (very) close no. 2 for the MX5s crown imho, but I don't want to come across as too presumptuous...
In (lengthy, rambling) summary;
-MR2 is dynamically the more 'technical' (and arguably 'rewarding') car, the MX5 is more fun/ chuckable and perhaps crucially 'safer' for most drivers. This is undoubtedly due to the MR2 being mid-engined. Could be a problem for any future claim the MR2 may have; the MX5 will always be more accessible/ less likely to 'bite'. The very USP of the car which appeals to (many) people like 'us' may be the thing that alienates/ deters Joe Public (if we assume that MR/ FR configuration is even a consideration for any significant % of 'normal people'). However we choose to look at this fundamental difference, 'can I trust myself to enjoy the car safely?' is a question unlikely to ever be asked of the MX5, regardless of the drivers' skill level. Just jump in and enjoy that MX5, take care in that MR2, tread carefully in the wet etc...
-Storage by most PHers accounts is limited in comparison to 90-odd% of cars, but you can do almost anything with it that you can with a mk1 MX5. Does the gear you carry need to fit into one reasonably-sized boot, or can it be spread over afew cubbyholes/ passenger footwell (suspect the latter in most cases, eg. grocery shopping)? Storage sucks, but it's not significant enough to be a deal-breaker for buyers torn between the two cars as far as I can discern. As mentioned by another PHer (and early 00s Richard Hammond IIRC), the storage space is limited deliberately rather than by poor design; Toyota didn't want you upsetting the cars poise by filling the boot with bags of gravel.
-Early 1ZZs still a thorny issue imho. Toyota acknowledged that the engine had bork potential and did many fixes under warranty. As mentioned, my own 1ZZ (Gen7 Celica) went pop due to this fault. I was lucky enough to have friends in the trade who sorted it out for what now seems like peanuts (but kinda stung at the time). Easily avoided for todays MR2 buyer by spending slightly more for a later car, but yet another flaw in its claim; there's no mk1 MX5 engine which is best avoided, each one being as bulletproof as the next. The subject of reliability/ maintenance does however lead on to...
-Rust. MX5s rust. Arches front and rear bubble and rot. Sills need replacement; not horrendously expensive, but you really want one that's been done if your after true vfm. Weirdly, I had a 1990 UK car that was less rusty than the similar age Jap import that followed. Neither cars rust ever presented a real problem, slight cosmetic bubbling wasn't ideal, but MOTs were passed every time with few advisories. Do we have to be as afraid of rust ontop of the front suspension on the mk1 as we do with the mk2? Don't see it mentioned as much so I'll assume we don't. MR2 is a younger car, but still no scary rust. I've heard rear subframes mentioned as a checkpoint- I'd be wary of this but I don't think it's an E46-M3-splitty-floor level issue (waits to be corrected).
-Engine noise/ 'character'/ performance. Choice of 1.6/ 1.8 in mk1 MX5. 1.6 regarded as 'sweeter' of the 2, but both are loved and thought of as more-than-adequate for the car. 1ZZ is far from poor, but having owned all the engines discussed here the 1ZZ would be bottom of my list in every regard. Little discussion around wishing for a bigger/ better engine in the MX5; certainly not the case with the MR2. Purely due to the fact that Toyota 'had' the 2ZZ and just never pulled the trigger on the MR2? I think so. Had the 2ZZ not been around, the 1ZZ would have been regarded as a perfectly-suited-to-the-car lump for the mk3. They did have the 2ZZ tho, so the MR2 has this millstone around its neck of being something of a 'missed opportunity'. 1ZZ sounds rather pained at high revs, and isn't really improved much with exhaust/ induction mods. MX5s sound pleasantly fruity with an aftermarket exhaust... I'm absolutely 'for' the MR2, but can't imagine a scenario where I'd be as satisfied with the 1ZZ when I had the option of that little Mazda 1.6 singing through a good quality exhaust system...
-Styling. I genuinely like the mk3 MR2s styling. The mk1 MX5 looks better overall, and I suspect it always will. Too subjective to be worth going into any more detail I feel.
I could go on, but if you've managed to get this far you deserve to be tormented no longer.
Tl;dr I started this thread as an owner of 2 mk1 MX5s previously, who respects/ desires the mk3 MR2 enough that I actually 'wanted' it to dethrone the MX5. Some great points have been put forward for both cars, but I think that a combination of the MR layout, the somehow-lacking 1ZZ engine, and the somewhat divisive styling of the MR2 mean that it is not (yet) the 'new mk1 MX5'.
Having taken the time to properly read a whole thread for the first time in my life, I've concluded that the mk3 MR2 is not *yet* the new mk1 MX5 (at least as far as PHers are concerned; which is as accurate a barometer of the Zeitgeist that a car guy could ask for).
Is it the best alternative, and the most relevant/ appropriate/ meaningfully-comparable car at the price point? Yes, 100%. It doesn't even require all those caveats to be a (very) close no. 2 for the MX5s crown imho, but I don't want to come across as too presumptuous...
In (lengthy, rambling) summary;
-MR2 is dynamically the more 'technical' (and arguably 'rewarding') car, the MX5 is more fun/ chuckable and perhaps crucially 'safer' for most drivers. This is undoubtedly due to the MR2 being mid-engined. Could be a problem for any future claim the MR2 may have; the MX5 will always be more accessible/ less likely to 'bite'. The very USP of the car which appeals to (many) people like 'us' may be the thing that alienates/ deters Joe Public (if we assume that MR/ FR configuration is even a consideration for any significant % of 'normal people'). However we choose to look at this fundamental difference, 'can I trust myself to enjoy the car safely?' is a question unlikely to ever be asked of the MX5, regardless of the drivers' skill level. Just jump in and enjoy that MX5, take care in that MR2, tread carefully in the wet etc...
-Storage by most PHers accounts is limited in comparison to 90-odd% of cars, but you can do almost anything with it that you can with a mk1 MX5. Does the gear you carry need to fit into one reasonably-sized boot, or can it be spread over afew cubbyholes/ passenger footwell (suspect the latter in most cases, eg. grocery shopping)? Storage sucks, but it's not significant enough to be a deal-breaker for buyers torn between the two cars as far as I can discern. As mentioned by another PHer (and early 00s Richard Hammond IIRC), the storage space is limited deliberately rather than by poor design; Toyota didn't want you upsetting the cars poise by filling the boot with bags of gravel.
-Early 1ZZs still a thorny issue imho. Toyota acknowledged that the engine had bork potential and did many fixes under warranty. As mentioned, my own 1ZZ (Gen7 Celica) went pop due to this fault. I was lucky enough to have friends in the trade who sorted it out for what now seems like peanuts (but kinda stung at the time). Easily avoided for todays MR2 buyer by spending slightly more for a later car, but yet another flaw in its claim; there's no mk1 MX5 engine which is best avoided, each one being as bulletproof as the next. The subject of reliability/ maintenance does however lead on to...
-Rust. MX5s rust. Arches front and rear bubble and rot. Sills need replacement; not horrendously expensive, but you really want one that's been done if your after true vfm. Weirdly, I had a 1990 UK car that was less rusty than the similar age Jap import that followed. Neither cars rust ever presented a real problem, slight cosmetic bubbling wasn't ideal, but MOTs were passed every time with few advisories. Do we have to be as afraid of rust ontop of the front suspension on the mk1 as we do with the mk2? Don't see it mentioned as much so I'll assume we don't. MR2 is a younger car, but still no scary rust. I've heard rear subframes mentioned as a checkpoint- I'd be wary of this but I don't think it's an E46-M3-splitty-floor level issue (waits to be corrected).
-Engine noise/ 'character'/ performance. Choice of 1.6/ 1.8 in mk1 MX5. 1.6 regarded as 'sweeter' of the 2, but both are loved and thought of as more-than-adequate for the car. 1ZZ is far from poor, but having owned all the engines discussed here the 1ZZ would be bottom of my list in every regard. Little discussion around wishing for a bigger/ better engine in the MX5; certainly not the case with the MR2. Purely due to the fact that Toyota 'had' the 2ZZ and just never pulled the trigger on the MR2? I think so. Had the 2ZZ not been around, the 1ZZ would have been regarded as a perfectly-suited-to-the-car lump for the mk3. They did have the 2ZZ tho, so the MR2 has this millstone around its neck of being something of a 'missed opportunity'. 1ZZ sounds rather pained at high revs, and isn't really improved much with exhaust/ induction mods. MX5s sound pleasantly fruity with an aftermarket exhaust... I'm absolutely 'for' the MR2, but can't imagine a scenario where I'd be as satisfied with the 1ZZ when I had the option of that little Mazda 1.6 singing through a good quality exhaust system...
-Styling. I genuinely like the mk3 MR2s styling. The mk1 MX5 looks better overall, and I suspect it always will. Too subjective to be worth going into any more detail I feel.
I could go on, but if you've managed to get this far you deserve to be tormented no longer.
Tl;dr I started this thread as an owner of 2 mk1 MX5s previously, who respects/ desires the mk3 MR2 enough that I actually 'wanted' it to dethrone the MX5. Some great points have been put forward for both cars, but I think that a combination of the MR layout, the somehow-lacking 1ZZ engine, and the somewhat divisive styling of the MR2 mean that it is not (yet) the 'new mk1 MX5'.
The mr2 roadster was a missed opportunity as such purely because the chassis and drive are so good it would lap up 200bhp.
It's certainly no slouch on fast lanes with a decent driver and "just" 138bhp, having had both a mk1 mx5 and an mr2 roadster I prefer the latter as storage worries aren't an issue and I don't do welding repairs :-)
The face-lift seem to be ok for engine issues. My next purchase may be one with a 2z swap
It's certainly no slouch on fast lanes with a decent driver and "just" 138bhp, having had both a mk1 mx5 and an mr2 roadster I prefer the latter as storage worries aren't an issue and I don't do welding repairs :-)
The face-lift seem to be ok for engine issues. My next purchase may be one with a 2z swap
Posting quickly to provide some input, and happy to post more if anyone's interested in another owner's view (I see a lot of people have posted already). I've owned mine for 2.5 years now. Unintentionally, it's now the car I've owned for the longest period of time.
Practicality
It's true to say, it's not the most practical car in the world. By practical, I am including both the amount of space available, and the ease of use of that space. There are a few things to consider here...
1. The bins behind the seats are reasonably-sized, but:
a) They are of course limited in their dimensions, so you need to consider what you're packing in there. Shopping bags fit fine (as long as they aren't packed full), but I had a recent experience where a friend's 'barrel' bag was a very tight squeeze!
b) Each time you want to use them, you have to flick the seat forward. I don't care what anyone says, this is annoying. On the flip side, it's quite fun when people see you do it and you catch them thinking "WTF?".
2. The storage in the 'froot' or 'frunk' (for Americans) is also limited. I've never had a 'lid' on mine, so you can actually fit a little more in there without it, but it will only reasonably fit my laptop backpack easily. As with the bins, it can hold more - it just takes planning. Similar to the bins as well, you need to consider the use of it. Each time you want to use it, it's not like popping the boot. You have to open it from inside the glovebox. Even more frustrating when you've been a bit safety conscious and locked the glovebox and forget this! Again, this encourages even more wonderful "WTF?" moments when people look over to the 'broken down' car, only to see you pop your bags in there.
3. Everyone loves cupholders, right? Well, it has two of them (sort of three, but I won't count the one in between the seats). Actually, they're pretty good (and hide away nicely when you don't want them, which is most of the time). The only issue is they sort of get in the way of:
a) The head unit, making it awkward to change station, and stops you being able to eject a CD.
b) The gear stick. When changing gears, you may hit your bottle of water or whatever you have in there.
Interior
What can I say about the interior? Well, I'll cover two points; size and quality.
The size of the interior is... snug. I'm 6'0", and I find it quite tight with my legs near the steering wheel. This may be my seating position though. Contrary to previous comments, I don't recall as much of a problem in my MX5s, but that was a while ago. Compared to my old Z4s, it's a lot tighter. Also, I have reasonably long legs. Compared to an Elise, it's practically luxury-sized inside, but if you're comparing it to your everyday car, you may find you need to get a little bit more comfortable with your passenger! (Elise owners will know how much closer to get to your passenger!)
Quality... In my opinion it is a fairly typical cheap Japanese interior. No 'soft-touch' plastics here, and it's a very basic setup. The clock appears to be taken from an 80s alarm clock. If you're comparing (as I was) the MR2 to a Mk3 MX5, the interior will be miles behind. Once you get over the fact it's not a particularly glamorous interior though however, you get to the drive of the car...
Driving
Well, like everyone else has said... It's a pretty good car to drive! There isn't much I can add here, but I'll pick out on a few random points:
1. The engine is great. Yes, is doesn't have a lot of power, but if you're driving it properly, you rarely get frustrated by that. You of course have to go into it knowing that it's not got shed loads of power, but if you're looking at one, you know that already, right?
2. It sounds alright for a 4 pot... but it's still a little boring. It's more interesting because the engine is behind you, and if you get one with a TTE exhaust, it'll at least sound 'interesting'.
3. Whenever I jump back in my car from driving some more 'normal' cars, I'm reminded just how a gearbox is supposed to feel! It's easily one of the favourite gearboxes I've used, albeit based on a limited history.
4. The handling is pretty good. Sometimes you forget how good until you enter a corner perhaps a little faster than expected, turn in, and it somehow still makes it round! I took a friend out in it the other day, and he thought we weren't going to make a corner... His comment afterwards was "I've never been in a car which would've got round a corner like that".
5. If you get one with a hardtop, personally I find the car handles a lot better. Whereas on other cars, I think this can often be a placebo, it genuinely drives better. I'm not the only one to think this, either. This is quite nice, because in the summer you enjoy the roof down, and in the winter you enjoy the better handling.
6. People have made comparisons to the MX5 being more fun, and the MR2 being more of a 'precision tool'. I'd agree with that... though it depends on your definition of 'fun', of course. For me, the MR2 has been the most rewarding car to learn to drive. It doesn't allow you the liberties the MX5 does.
7. Oh, LSD as standard (on UK models). Nice when you've perhaps looked at MX5s for a while and you have to make sure to get the right model.
Exterior
I think the car looks... OK. It looks good from some angles, and not so good from others. As others have said, it is a bit 'cartoony'. Compared with the various MX5s, I think in particular it looks less 'girly' than most of the MX5s - but I'd swap my MR2 happily for a Mk3.5 MX5!
You can improve the looks of the car dramatically by getting one with the TTE bodykit. It adds just enough to the car to 'beef' it up a bit, but not be too garish.
Oh, and the paintwork chips easily... But it's a sports car, so what do you expect?
Pretty sure I could add more, but hopefully this is a little helpful.
Practicality
It's true to say, it's not the most practical car in the world. By practical, I am including both the amount of space available, and the ease of use of that space. There are a few things to consider here...
1. The bins behind the seats are reasonably-sized, but:
a) They are of course limited in their dimensions, so you need to consider what you're packing in there. Shopping bags fit fine (as long as they aren't packed full), but I had a recent experience where a friend's 'barrel' bag was a very tight squeeze!
b) Each time you want to use them, you have to flick the seat forward. I don't care what anyone says, this is annoying. On the flip side, it's quite fun when people see you do it and you catch them thinking "WTF?".
2. The storage in the 'froot' or 'frunk' (for Americans) is also limited. I've never had a 'lid' on mine, so you can actually fit a little more in there without it, but it will only reasonably fit my laptop backpack easily. As with the bins, it can hold more - it just takes planning. Similar to the bins as well, you need to consider the use of it. Each time you want to use it, it's not like popping the boot. You have to open it from inside the glovebox. Even more frustrating when you've been a bit safety conscious and locked the glovebox and forget this! Again, this encourages even more wonderful "WTF?" moments when people look over to the 'broken down' car, only to see you pop your bags in there.
3. Everyone loves cupholders, right? Well, it has two of them (sort of three, but I won't count the one in between the seats). Actually, they're pretty good (and hide away nicely when you don't want them, which is most of the time). The only issue is they sort of get in the way of:
a) The head unit, making it awkward to change station, and stops you being able to eject a CD.
b) The gear stick. When changing gears, you may hit your bottle of water or whatever you have in there.
Interior
What can I say about the interior? Well, I'll cover two points; size and quality.
The size of the interior is... snug. I'm 6'0", and I find it quite tight with my legs near the steering wheel. This may be my seating position though. Contrary to previous comments, I don't recall as much of a problem in my MX5s, but that was a while ago. Compared to my old Z4s, it's a lot tighter. Also, I have reasonably long legs. Compared to an Elise, it's practically luxury-sized inside, but if you're comparing it to your everyday car, you may find you need to get a little bit more comfortable with your passenger! (Elise owners will know how much closer to get to your passenger!)
Quality... In my opinion it is a fairly typical cheap Japanese interior. No 'soft-touch' plastics here, and it's a very basic setup. The clock appears to be taken from an 80s alarm clock. If you're comparing (as I was) the MR2 to a Mk3 MX5, the interior will be miles behind. Once you get over the fact it's not a particularly glamorous interior though however, you get to the drive of the car...
Driving
Well, like everyone else has said... It's a pretty good car to drive! There isn't much I can add here, but I'll pick out on a few random points:
1. The engine is great. Yes, is doesn't have a lot of power, but if you're driving it properly, you rarely get frustrated by that. You of course have to go into it knowing that it's not got shed loads of power, but if you're looking at one, you know that already, right?
2. It sounds alright for a 4 pot... but it's still a little boring. It's more interesting because the engine is behind you, and if you get one with a TTE exhaust, it'll at least sound 'interesting'.
3. Whenever I jump back in my car from driving some more 'normal' cars, I'm reminded just how a gearbox is supposed to feel! It's easily one of the favourite gearboxes I've used, albeit based on a limited history.
4. The handling is pretty good. Sometimes you forget how good until you enter a corner perhaps a little faster than expected, turn in, and it somehow still makes it round! I took a friend out in it the other day, and he thought we weren't going to make a corner... His comment afterwards was "I've never been in a car which would've got round a corner like that".
5. If you get one with a hardtop, personally I find the car handles a lot better. Whereas on other cars, I think this can often be a placebo, it genuinely drives better. I'm not the only one to think this, either. This is quite nice, because in the summer you enjoy the roof down, and in the winter you enjoy the better handling.
6. People have made comparisons to the MX5 being more fun, and the MR2 being more of a 'precision tool'. I'd agree with that... though it depends on your definition of 'fun', of course. For me, the MR2 has been the most rewarding car to learn to drive. It doesn't allow you the liberties the MX5 does.
7. Oh, LSD as standard (on UK models). Nice when you've perhaps looked at MX5s for a while and you have to make sure to get the right model.
Exterior
I think the car looks... OK. It looks good from some angles, and not so good from others. As others have said, it is a bit 'cartoony'. Compared with the various MX5s, I think in particular it looks less 'girly' than most of the MX5s - but I'd swap my MR2 happily for a Mk3.5 MX5!
You can improve the looks of the car dramatically by getting one with the TTE bodykit. It adds just enough to the car to 'beef' it up a bit, but not be too garish.
Oh, and the paintwork chips easily... But it's a sports car, so what do you expect?
Pretty sure I could add more, but hopefully this is a little helpful.
Love my MR2 mk 3, its a future classic in my opinion, I've had (and still have) sports cars worth 50k plus but this great little car costing just 5k ticks many boxes, I fitted Yokohama rubber just to increase the fun factor,
I put a video review on you tube for anyone interested which I hope my mates dont find out about ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP86Zrbi3VY
I put a video review on you tube for anyone interested which I hope my mates dont find out about ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP86Zrbi3VY
Edited by roger1361 on Sunday 19th June 21:17
roger1361 said:
Love my MR2 mk 3, its a future classic in my opinion, I've had (and still have) sports cars worth 50k plus but this great little car costing just 5k ticks many boxes, I fitted Yokohama rubber just to increase the fun factor,
I put a video review on you tube for anyone interested which I hope my mates dont find out about ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP86Zrbi3VY
Enjoyed the video. Only comment I'd make is that 'MR2' doesn't quite stand for what you've said - it's actually Midship Runabout 2-Seater. Only a slight variation on what you've put though! I put a video review on you tube for anyone interested which I hope my mates dont find out about ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP86Zrbi3VY
Edited by roger1361 on Sunday 19th June 21:17
My daily driver is a (standard) 06 plate MR2. The 1ZZ engine is a bit of a dog in my opinion, unrefined and coarse. (i'm not impressed by the MX-5 engine's either). I never use the storage bins, i'm too lazy to move the seats to get access, everything gets dumped on the passenger seat.
I've done a couple of 2ZZ conversions in the past on MR2's i've previously owned. They are fantastic, definately how they should have been from the factory, plenty of character, sound fantastic and the chassis really comes to life. I highly recommend them. It's not a simple swap but it's not particularly hard either. If you are decent with the spanners it can be done for hardly any outlay providing you buy the right donor car and you're willing to break it for parts.
I've done a couple of 2ZZ conversions in the past on MR2's i've previously owned. They are fantastic, definately how they should have been from the factory, plenty of character, sound fantastic and the chassis really comes to life. I highly recommend them. It's not a simple swap but it's not particularly hard either. If you are decent with the spanners it can be done for hardly any outlay providing you buy the right donor car and you're willing to break it for parts.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff