mk3 MR2 is the 'new' mk1 MX5 - discuss
Discussion
Inspired by numerous replies to current threads, and noticing a general pattern of 'mk3 MR2' becoming the almost default answer in recent threads with titles like 'Most fun for your money'.
It's become something of a meme on PH and the real world that 'The answer is always Miata'. It still is imho; both of mine were ridiculously good, exceeding expectations in almost every area.
Its become impossible to ignore the surge in popularity of the little MR-S recently though. I'm wary of dodgy early 1ZZs (personal experience; my first Gen7 Celica VVTi suffered the common engine bork), but other than that I can't see what's not to love... Buy a 2003> (IIRC) and this bork isn't even a concern.
Every other aspect of the car is spot on as far as I can tell...
So, is it genuinely the 'new' mk1 MX5?
(Deliberately ignoring the widely loved/ suggested hot Clios, as they don't drive the rear wheels and therefore imho aren't as relevant a comparison)
It's become something of a meme on PH and the real world that 'The answer is always Miata'. It still is imho; both of mine were ridiculously good, exceeding expectations in almost every area.
Its become impossible to ignore the surge in popularity of the little MR-S recently though. I'm wary of dodgy early 1ZZs (personal experience; my first Gen7 Celica VVTi suffered the common engine bork), but other than that I can't see what's not to love... Buy a 2003> (IIRC) and this bork isn't even a concern.
Every other aspect of the car is spot on as far as I can tell...
So, is it genuinely the 'new' mk1 MX5?
(Deliberately ignoring the widely loved/ suggested hot Clios, as they don't drive the rear wheels and therefore imho aren't as relevant a comparison)
HustleRussell said:
The MX-5 is more forgiving being FR which is probably one of the reasons it is so widely recommended.
I get that FR will generally be more forgiving than MR, but then most PHers will be well aware of this.Joe Public perhaps not so much, but then if your not a 'car person' are you even all that likely to push to the point that the mid-enginedness will bite you? In most cases, probably not.
The majority of people looking for eg 'The most thrills for your money' will surely be well aware of the pros and cons of FR vs MR handling traits, and may even feel that having the engine in the middle is the superior configuration handling/ enjoyment wise.
I don't necessarily agree; I get why mid-engined cars are objectively 'better' in many ways, but rather enjoy having less weight over the driven rear wheels as in an FR car like the MX5.
I strongly suspect that the MR layout is a significant part of the appeal of the mk3; what are the alternatives at the price point? You could have an MGF I suppose...
Krikkit said:
I would suggest the MR2 is also a fair bit less practical. The MX5 has a genuinely usable boot, and some good cabin spaces too.
I once moved house in a mk1 MX5 (I know, 'cool story bro').White goods, TVs and furniture etc. required a van ofcourse, but virtually all the other useless junk that we humans accumulate was moved over the course of afew (roof down) jaunts across London, scraping speedbumps all the way.
Admittedly, I doubt I could've done that in an MR2...
I guess that's the second downside of the mk3 MR2 (early 1ZZ bork being the first) that I neglected to mention; it's widely known to be VERY impractical due to lack of storage/ boot space. Would be interested to hear from a more knowledgeable/ geeky PHer as to what the actual difference is in terms of sq. litres of storage (or whatever the appropriate unit of measurement is!).
Without having actually owned one, I'd hazard a guess that it could still perform most day-to-day tasks... Even the ridiculously tiny 'boot' must be able to take afew bags from Tesco? The passenger footwell could certainly swallow a couple of them. I'd imagine that the missus and I could fit enough gear in there for a weekend jaunt without too much discomfort (waits to be corrected by mk3 owners).
Realistically, is the storage space difference between the two cars enough to sway a potential buyer away from the MR2? In most cases I suspect not; particularly given that most will be very much a 'second' car.
Edit:
Maybe I should retract that comment about 'afew bags from Tesco';
Edited by daveofedinburgh on Sunday 5th June 01:04
BricktopST205 said:
I am quite tall and have always liked the idea of a small roadster for the missus but still practical enough for her day to day. We already have a big estate and something silly for the weekends so a small roadster makes an ideal choice for a third car. Problem is I can not fit in a MX5 as my legs are too long. MR2 is a lot better fit but the storage space is not great. Which ever one you choose there is always compromises.
Agree re the MX5/ long legs issue. I'm 6'3" and the biggest compromise I had to make was that (to avoid sitting bolt-upright and looking/ feeling totally daft) I had to accept that my knees would basically be touching the dash at all times. I learned to work around it, and forgot it was ever an 'issue' very quickly. I'm quite willing to accept compromise like this for a car I want, provided I can still drive the thing as I'd like to. I get that this is a personal thing for each driver; my old man had the same issue and refused to drive the car again...Most 2-seater roadsters are the same in my experience; my current Z3 presents me with a similar compromise, except in the Z3 I also have to move my left leg out the way if I want to indicate left! Bizarrely wasn't an issue with the MX5, which was a bit tighter in the cabin.
Interesting that you say the MR2 has more leg room; I'd happily drop some storage space for more room to move in the cabin. Perhaps something to think about for taller drivers torn between MX5/ MR2?
Feel a bit of a silly goose having started this thread without ever having seen the mk3s 'storage' area (especially given that it's arguably the most common/ valid criticism levelled at them);
Imagine many owners ditch the space-saver too;
Even as a sort-of 'main car'/ DD I could def live with it. Fully understand how others couldn't though.
The suggestion of a smaller steering wheel is spot on- a mod I really should have made to both my MX5s, and also my current Z3 (as well as a smaller rear-view mirror; the stock one is inexplicably huge). Probably the first mod any tall/ long-legged driver should make on a small roadster, not sure I'd fancy having a proper shunt sans airbag in such a car tho...
Re the 1ZZ, I'm more wary than most because I've been burned before. I was young, daft and far less inclined to regularly check oil than I am now. Would the engine have survived had I not run it with too little oil? Quite possibly... I'd simply pay a bit extra for a later car now, and greater peace of mind.
Shame the 2ZZ swap isn't as straight-forward as one would assume- to those thinking 'if the 1ZZ borks I'll stick in a 2ZZ' I'd suggest you look up what that involves. Looks pretty daunting to a mechanical retard like myself, and it would be a 'cheap roadster' no longer if you paid someone to do the swap for you...
This sucks even more for me, as I experienced a 1ZZ immediately followed by a 2ZZ and am therefore aware of the vast superiority of the latter lump, which in my lightly modified Celica kept a friends' (lightly modified) DC2 honest on every drive. Neither of us was expecting it to be so capable when I bought it, and when I put it up for sale I reckon it was only pride that stopped him making an offer. Suspect buying an already 2ZZed MR2 could represent excellent vfm (wonders how many actually exist in the UK).
Can the 'Camry' V6 go in there as it can with the mk2 MR2? 6-cyl mk3 MR2 sounds like a very appealing thing...
All this engine bork/ swap talk brings me on to another
in the mk3 MR2s claim to being the 'new mk1 MX5'; it doesn't have the near-faultless reliability of the MX5s engine(s). True, theyre still very reliable and buying a later car mitigates the risk, but it's not the worry-free purchase that the MX5 is. The flipside of that coin ofcourse is that the MR2 is less of a ruster...
Another question I'd like to put to PHers regarding the MR2s 'claim'; is it as good-looking as the mk1 MX5 (which imho is a 'timeless' piece of car design)? I get that the packaging requirements of the mid-engine layout means that the proportions of the car must be fundamentally different, but even taking that into consideration I can't see the MR2 ever looking as 'right' as the original MX5 does now. I suspect the answer will overwhelmingly be 'no', and don't foresee many PHers arguing that the MR2 can hold a candle to the MX5 with regards to overall aesthetic appeal.
The MR2 has an almost cartoonish (anime/ manga/ 'cute') look in comparison to the MX5s more subdued 'classic' roadster design. I believe that the looks of the mk1 MX5 are almost universally liked, and even those who profess not to like it would have a hard time arguing that it's aesthetically 'wrong' in any way. Can the same be said of the MR2? I'm a big fan of them, but could easily nitpick afew styling cues/ lines that are a bit 'jarring'...
To conclude my Malbec-fuelled ramble, one final point on the subject of 'image'. While I acknowledge that the mk1 MX5 is neither 'butch' nor 'masculine' in any sense, I feel that I can drive one anywhere without looking (or feeling) 'effete'. I'm a 6'3" skinhead, with broad shoulders and a rather aggro resting facial expression (soft as sh*te really!) and don't feel out of place in what most people immediately regard as simply a small 'classic' roadster. How would the same big, bald ogre be perceived in a cutesy mk3 MR2 with its big round headlamps and grille resembling a simpletons grin? Worse, what if said MR2 was red or even God-forbid that purpley colour? Were I sat next to a white van on the North Circular with the top down in such a car, I'd fully expect to have homophobic slurs hurled at me.
In all seriousness, I genuinely dgaf how people perceive me, but I can't be the only PHer who feels the mk3 MR2 lacks the same classless/ genderless quality that the MX5 has... yet another argument against its being the 'new' mk1 MX5?
Imagine many owners ditch the space-saver too;
Even as a sort-of 'main car'/ DD I could def live with it. Fully understand how others couldn't though.
The suggestion of a smaller steering wheel is spot on- a mod I really should have made to both my MX5s, and also my current Z3 (as well as a smaller rear-view mirror; the stock one is inexplicably huge). Probably the first mod any tall/ long-legged driver should make on a small roadster, not sure I'd fancy having a proper shunt sans airbag in such a car tho...
Re the 1ZZ, I'm more wary than most because I've been burned before. I was young, daft and far less inclined to regularly check oil than I am now. Would the engine have survived had I not run it with too little oil? Quite possibly... I'd simply pay a bit extra for a later car now, and greater peace of mind.
Shame the 2ZZ swap isn't as straight-forward as one would assume- to those thinking 'if the 1ZZ borks I'll stick in a 2ZZ' I'd suggest you look up what that involves. Looks pretty daunting to a mechanical retard like myself, and it would be a 'cheap roadster' no longer if you paid someone to do the swap for you...
This sucks even more for me, as I experienced a 1ZZ immediately followed by a 2ZZ and am therefore aware of the vast superiority of the latter lump, which in my lightly modified Celica kept a friends' (lightly modified) DC2 honest on every drive. Neither of us was expecting it to be so capable when I bought it, and when I put it up for sale I reckon it was only pride that stopped him making an offer. Suspect buying an already 2ZZed MR2 could represent excellent vfm (wonders how many actually exist in the UK).
Can the 'Camry' V6 go in there as it can with the mk2 MR2? 6-cyl mk3 MR2 sounds like a very appealing thing...
All this engine bork/ swap talk brings me on to another
in the mk3 MR2s claim to being the 'new mk1 MX5'; it doesn't have the near-faultless reliability of the MX5s engine(s). True, theyre still very reliable and buying a later car mitigates the risk, but it's not the worry-free purchase that the MX5 is. The flipside of that coin ofcourse is that the MR2 is less of a ruster...Another question I'd like to put to PHers regarding the MR2s 'claim'; is it as good-looking as the mk1 MX5 (which imho is a 'timeless' piece of car design)? I get that the packaging requirements of the mid-engine layout means that the proportions of the car must be fundamentally different, but even taking that into consideration I can't see the MR2 ever looking as 'right' as the original MX5 does now. I suspect the answer will overwhelmingly be 'no', and don't foresee many PHers arguing that the MR2 can hold a candle to the MX5 with regards to overall aesthetic appeal.
The MR2 has an almost cartoonish (anime/ manga/ 'cute') look in comparison to the MX5s more subdued 'classic' roadster design. I believe that the looks of the mk1 MX5 are almost universally liked, and even those who profess not to like it would have a hard time arguing that it's aesthetically 'wrong' in any way. Can the same be said of the MR2? I'm a big fan of them, but could easily nitpick afew styling cues/ lines that are a bit 'jarring'...
To conclude my Malbec-fuelled ramble, one final point on the subject of 'image'. While I acknowledge that the mk1 MX5 is neither 'butch' nor 'masculine' in any sense, I feel that I can drive one anywhere without looking (or feeling) 'effete'. I'm a 6'3" skinhead, with broad shoulders and a rather aggro resting facial expression (soft as sh*te really!) and don't feel out of place in what most people immediately regard as simply a small 'classic' roadster. How would the same big, bald ogre be perceived in a cutesy mk3 MR2 with its big round headlamps and grille resembling a simpletons grin? Worse, what if said MR2 was red or even God-forbid that purpley colour? Were I sat next to a white van on the North Circular with the top down in such a car, I'd fully expect to have homophobic slurs hurled at me.
In all seriousness, I genuinely dgaf how people perceive me, but I can't be the only PHer who feels the mk3 MR2 lacks the same classless/ genderless quality that the MX5 has... yet another argument against its being the 'new' mk1 MX5?
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'.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff