Does the mk2 MR2 handle as badly as I've heard?

[horton]

I'm looking at getting a cheapish fun car in the next month or so.
It must be automatic/reliable/available in Japan.

Going round corners is more fun than 0-60, so I have been looking at Mazda MX-5s and old shape Impreza WRXs and am even considering a mk2 MR2 (late model) or a Prelude.

All I've read about MR2s, is that they handle like shit, and will be crashed at the slightest provocation - but I also read that from 1993 some changes were made, but I don't know if that made them significantly safer or not.

1. Does the MR2 turbo come in an automatic flavour?
2. Do the later model turbos, or the BEAMS handle as badly as when the MR2 mk2 was first made?

if they do handle nicely, and are both available in auto, then MR2 turbo VS MR2 BEAMS - what would people go for?

I like the power that the MR2 has, when compared to the MX5, but at the end of the day, I don't want to crash it, and the MX5 sounds reasonably idiot-proof

[markCSC]

Can't comment about the MR2 but if you want a cheap auto MX5, my brother has one he is looking to sell.

PM me if you want more details

Oooops just read your profile and your location. Might be a bit far awya for you

Edited by markCSC on Thursday 18th October 17:34

[RobCrezz]

Where did you hear that? All MR2s handle great, the first lot of Mk2s were a bit hard to handle and a bit tail happy, but REV3s handle great. But the more pure Mk1 and Mk3 roadster are the better handling cars IMO.

[horton]

I've been getting my info from probably the worst place possible - online.

MR2s seem like a total bargain for the performance they offer, they look great and it's easy to find a nice example for sale...Im just wondering where the catch is, and assumed (based on what I had read) that they were likely to bite the unexperienced driver (ie. me) on the ass.

By bad handling, I didn't mean lack of grip, I meant easy to spin.

[groomi]

MKii MR2's handle brilliantly. The rev1's were more tail happy - but I never thought this was a bad thing IMHO.

I'm not the kind of driver to get the tail out in a wild slide, but I do like controlling weight transfer to use the tail to trim the line through corners. The rev1 mkii MR2 was perfect for this as is my 1.9 205gti which has a similar reputation.

Ignore the neigh-sayers and get one.

[Puddenchucker]

horton said:

All I've read about MR2s, is that they handle like shit, and will be crashed at the slightest provocation - but I also read that from 1993 some changes were made

The early version mk2 had 14" wheels and relatively slow (un-assisted?) steering. They could, in rare & extreme circumstances, be tipped into a virtually uncatchable spin (or so it's claimed).
The revised mk2, from mid 1992 IIRC, had 15" wheels, quicker power-assisted steering and revised suspension settings. This is the version I had, and it was quite probably the best handling car I've ever owned.
Mid-engined cars do handle differently from front engined cars, so provided you take it easy for the first few hundred miles, to learn how the car handles and reacts to inputs, to get to know it and build up speeds, you'll be fine and amazed at just how fast you can throw it around corners.

[horton]

any idea if they ever made an automatic MR2 turbo?

The BEAMS version was available in automatic, but I don't seem to be able to find an Automatic version of the turbo.

anyone compared the two? I'm not convinced that the BEAMS engine would suit an automatic as well as the turbo would.

[MrFlibbles]

no they never made an automatic turbo. Mr 2s handle great as long as you drive it like a mid engine rear wheel drive rather than a front drive hatch.

[Steve Evil]

I think the American market got an Auto Turbo, but it didn't appear in Europe or Japan.

[Herman Toothrot]

Mk2 MR2s 1989 - 1992 poor handling and not great grip, can be fun for the experienced driver but just do a search on imoc or mr2oc for "crashed" to see how wonderfully they handle for the average / poor driver. Do a search for Tiff reviewing one as well he drives in a circle and lifts off to demonstrate, just imagine you come round a bend and see out the otherside you need to slow down quickly, you'll leave the road.

Some people will claim they are great, but thats becasue they can't afford more than £1500 on a car. I've been visiting the MR2 forums for the last 6 years some of these very people you notice trading up to rev3+ cars after a while or post about retro fitting a rev3 sub frame...

Mk2 1992 - 1998, much better grip and no where near as snappy can be a very fast car for a decent driver, still many on owners clubs will say "in the wet I have to trundle along as the cars all over the place", personnally i disagree I drove my GTS whatever the weather and the only time I ever spun it was on track in hail. When you do get them out of shape they are still quite a handfull hence I'd still not describe them as great handling.

I've never seen an auto turbo in the UK probably because they be un-sellable who'd want an Auto sports car? Only reason I can imagine is via disability, else Auto boxes are for lux barges. In japan you may find autos as one of my Japanese friends said the japanese are lazy, driving in the city changing gears is an inconvienice, (he was trying to sell his auto 200sx at the time though).

[groomi]

Herman Toothrot said:

Mk2 MR2s 1989 - 1992 poor handling and not great grip, can be fun for the experienced driver but just do a search on imoc or mr2oc for "crashed" to see how wonderfully they handle for the average / poor driver. Do a search for Tiff reviewing one as well he drives in a circle and lifts off to demonstrate, just imagine you come round a bend and see out the otherside you need to slow down quickly, you'll leave the road.

Some people will claim they are great, but thats becasue they can't afford more than £1500 on a car. I've been visiting the MR2 forums for the last 6 years some of these very people you notice trading up to rev3+ cars after a while or post about retro fitting a rev3 sub frame...

Quite frankly, your post is a load of boswellox. Have you actually driven one of these? Your example about slowing down coming out of a corner is true of 99% of the cars on the road - and that scenario would be driver error for taking a blind corner too fast.

Regarding the £1500 point you make, I'd like to mention that we paid £5.5k for one a few years ago as my then girlfriends daily driver, while I swanned around in a £12k Jag - cost is not an issue, we bought it because we wanted it. She never crashed despite my not being entirely comfortable as her passenger in any car.

I'm quite sure the Rev2 and Rev3 cars are better, but that is not to say that there is anything wrong with the Rev1.

[silent k]

I've had a Rev1 N/A and a Rev 2 Turbo and took both of them on the track. The Rev 1 one was more snappy on track but I never had a problem with it on the road.

The Rev2 Turbo was fantastic on road and on track, it had the limited slip dif and even on track I couldn't get it to spin - it would power slide out of corners but it was entirely predictable and controllable.

[cptsideways]

They handle great, are quite grippy but when they do step out you had better be bloody good!!! I've owned, driven & sold many. I've also instructed many drivers on drift days with them. They are not easy!! 9/10 when they do let go you'll be going backwards, or round & round. I did drive a monster turbo'd one in the wet, it was quite frankly a death trap, slight camber changes in the wet would have slipping & sliding about it was not fun & this comes from me who does sideways for a living.

They are very tyre dependant, don't run them on cheapo's wanlee's etc as you'll soon be in the hedge. Other than they are good fun, amazingly well designed & packaged, generally reliable & good value for money.

[Herman Toothrot]

groomi said:

Herman Toothrot said:

Mk2 MR2s 1989 - 1992 poor handling and not great grip, can be fun for the experienced driver but just do a search on imoc or mr2oc for "crashed" to see how wonderfully they handle for the average / poor driver. Do a search for Tiff reviewing one as well he drives in a circle and lifts off to demonstrate, just imagine you come round a bend and see out the otherside you need to slow down quickly, you'll leave the road.

Some people will claim they are great, but thats becasue they can't afford more than £1500 on a car. I've been visiting the MR2 forums for the last 6 years some of these very people you notice trading up to rev3+ cars after a while or post about retro fitting a rev3 sub frame...

Quite frankly, your post is a load of boswellox. Have you actually driven one of these? Your example about slowing down coming out of a corner is true of 99% of the cars on the road - and that scenario would be driver error for taking a blind corner too fast.

Regarding the £1500 point you make, I'd like to mention that we paid £5.5k for one a few years ago as my then girlfriends daily driver, while I swanned around in a £12k Jag - cost is not an issue, we bought it because we wanted it. She never crashed despite my not being entirely comfortable as her passenger in any car.

I'm quite sure the Rev2 and Rev3 cars are better, but that is not to say that there is anything wrong with the Rev1.

so your an expert because your girlfriend has one andy our an anxious passenger and paid £2.5K over the odds if you got it 3 years ago?

I've had 3 mr2's over a 6 year period culminating in a heavily modifed rev2 turbo running hybrid turbo, greddy IC, Pigyback ECU, H&R suspension etc etc etc did 8 or 9 trackdays in them used them as my daily drivers. Never bothered owning a rev1 as withig 5 minutes driving a stock one you can feel its not a confident car, hence the immediate price disparity between rev1 cars and the rest.

Edited by Herman Toothrot on Friday 19th October 14:56

[torres del paine]

My Rev 3 tin top, LSD, Bilstein-equipped Turbo on Bridgestones does a good job but I think it's worth pointing out that there are quite a few standard cars out there that are shagged. Tracking, alignment, bushes, shocks, drop links etc often need looking at to fully realise the potential of these cars, which are it has to be said, a performace bargain, especially in Turbo form.

On our pot holed roads, they can be hard work as they have a firm ride as standard, and IMO aren't the best dampened car in the world. Moreover, the steering isn't as direct or feelsome as some and is off the pace nowadays, but this is hardly surprising. I think a bit of tinkering and know-how makes them into fast road cars and also up to the task of track work too. One just needs to find a good one. Things can get skittish on all but the smoothest of roads at speed, 140+ so sometimes a bit of care is needed.

Generally though, out on the road, a good Rev 3 (not driven Rev 1) will grip and handle very well indeed and beg to be driven hard. Understeer is not an issue really and even in the wet these cars cope well. All in all, a hoot.

Btw, the 3SGTE engine is an aggresive and rev-happy engine. It'll happily rev to 7,250rpm and do some good work over 4,000rpm. I've not had one problem with it in 2 years of almost daily, mixed driving - very impressed.

Unfortunately, mine will be going soon as I'm off traveling. I'm just not sure what I can replace it with that will give me the same grin for so little outlay.

Edited by torres del paine on Friday 19th October 15:52

Edited by torres del paine on Friday 19th October 15:55

[groomi]

Herman Toothrot said:

groomi said:

Herman Toothrot said:

Mk2 MR2s 1989 - 1992 poor handling and not great grip, can be fun for the experienced driver but just do a search on imoc or mr2oc for "crashed" to see how wonderfully they handle for the average / poor driver. Do a search for Tiff reviewing one as well he drives in a circle and lifts off to demonstrate, just imagine you come round a bend and see out the otherside you need to slow down quickly, you'll leave the road.

Some people will claim they are great, but thats becasue they can't afford more than £1500 on a car. I've been visiting the MR2 forums for the last 6 years some of these very people you notice trading up to rev3+ cars after a while or post about retro fitting a rev3 sub frame...

Quite frankly, your post is a load of boswellox. Have you actually driven one of these? Your example about slowing down coming out of a corner is true of 99% of the cars on the road - and that scenario would be driver error for taking a blind corner too fast.

Regarding the £1500 point you make, I'd like to mention that we paid £5.5k for one a few years ago as my then girlfriends daily driver, while I swanned around in a £12k Jag - cost is not an issue, we bought it because we wanted it. She never crashed despite my not being entirely comfortable as her passenger in any car.

I'm quite sure the Rev2 and Rev3 cars are better, but that is not to say that there is anything wrong with the Rev1.

so your an expert because your girlfriend has one andy our an anxious passenger and paid £2.5K over the odds if you got it 3 years ago?

I've had 3 mr2's over a 6 year period culminating in a heavily modifed rev2 turbo running hybrid turbo, greddy IC, Pigyback ECU, H&R suspension etc etc etc did 8 or 9 trackdays in them used them as my daily drivers. Never bothered owning a rev1 as withig 5 minutes driving a stock one you can feel its not a confident car, hence the immediate price disparity between rev1 cars and the rest.

Edited by Herman Toothrot on Friday 19th October 14:56

We had the Rev1 MR2 for over 5 years during which I drove it as much as my own cars. You drove one for five minutes and deride it.

I put it to you sir that you drove a duff one and are still talking complete rubbish.

[Bibbs]

Early MR2's were pony due to 14" wheels and MASSIVE tyre walls.

Get a set of 16" wheels (maybe 17" ) and it'll handle well. They are twitchy on the limit, but that what a ME car is all about.

I had 14", 15", 16", 17" and 18" wheels on MR2's over the years. the 14" were shocking.

Old turbo's are getting long in the tooth. Beams are rare.
Try and get a rev3/4/5 turbo if you can.

Edited by Bibbs on Friday 19th October 17:21

[driverrob]

My wife's 1995 (non-turbo) MR2 doesn't have anything like the power of my GTO but it's lighter and the handling is so good I really like driving it.
I'm old but not old enough to want an auto.

[Graeme_Gman]

Great little cars and certainly not as bad handling as people say. The early ones were a bit twitchy as stated because of the small wheels, but the later ones were awesome! Especially the turbo with their LSD.

[torres del paine]

Echo the wheel comments. 16" is spot on with staggered width tyres: 205 on the front and 225 on the rear.

I did have 245 on the rear but couldn't get a low enough profile on 16s, so they were a bit squidgy at high speed.

Other than engine mods for more power, I would recommend upgraded polyurethane bushes and strut brace for the front. Sharpens up the steering and adds tautness to the handling. A big improvement.