RE: SOTW: Toyota MR2

[SonicShadow]

RS404 said:

Speaking of sonic shadow...

It's my forum name for a reason!

[pSyCoSiS]

I do like this iteration of the MR2.

It looks very modern and the shape has not yet dated.

Would like a turbo model at some point.

Another good SOTW.

[Guvernator]

Keep considering one of these as a track toy. Seems to have the perfect recipe to be a decent one. Mid engined, relatively light and compact (especially compared to modern machinery) and engines seem to be pretty reliable. Has anyone used one as such?

The turbo's are more powerful but the NA's might be more predictable. I've heard of NA Beams versions which push out over 200bhp?? Are these any good and how rare are they? Can't help thinking a "mini Ferrari" would be great fun on track.

[9000rpm]

That MR2 looks quite rough if you look at the pictures closely. not sure its got much life left in it at nearly 160K and that rust.

for comparison. I pick up an MR2 MK2 rev2 with full service history at the end of the year. 52K miles, mint interior and very clean exterior (no rust at all so suspect its been garaged all its life).

A dealer was selling it as a trade in. I really don't think they had a clue as to what a sweet little MR2 they had picked up and just wanted shot of it.

I picked it up for £850! It needed fresh rubber all round and I did a cam belt for piece of mind and few other little bits but apart form that it was as sweet as a nut and the best £850 I have ever spent!

I'm sure there are much better MR2 MK2 sheds out there than this weeks one.....

[dbdb]

I like this version of the MR2, it is by far the best looking. One of my friends had one about ten years ago. It was in imported MR2 Turbo which was quite heavily modified. It was fast and overpowered - to the point of frightening at times. Exciting though, if that's the right word. The engine exploded in the end.

[AdeV]

Guvernator said:

Keep considering one of these as a track toy. Seems to have the perfect recipe to be a decent one. Mid engined, relatively light and compact (especially compared to modern machinery) and engines seem to be pretty reliable. Has anyone used one as such?

The turbo's are more powerful but the NA's might be more predictable. I've heard of NA Beams versions which push out over 200bhp?? Are these any good and how rare are they? Can't help thinking a "mini Ferrari" would be great fun on track.

Chap I knew had one for 2-3 years, he drove it around Jerez circuit a few times before changing it for a 2005 Shelby GT350. IIRC, the only changes were an induction kit, and some slightly stiffer suspension. He had a lot of fun with it, although he did manage to prang it a couple of times, which affected the shut lines a bit, but nothing else (that big rubbery nose was a great impact absorber).

I drove the same car (before it had the suspension/induction kit) from Essex to Cadiz, it was a lovely drive, even on the motorways, but especially on the back roads. Very lively, and once in Spain the weather meant the T-bar windows could come off, v. nice.

[pedrotunes]

Here's my Rev2. Had it about a year now, bought a good one with no rust for not much more than shed money...please so far, it;s been very reliable, a decent drive and quick enough.

[Mr2Mike]

Most revolting wheels I have seen on a Mk2, absolutely hideous. It's a Rev 1 so has the small brakes and nasty suspension, and it has a lot of mileage on it. Doesn't even look particularly tidy, so this particular example is a great big fail for SOTW I reckon.

zygalski said:

Damn... those centre consoles are high!

That's because the fuel tank and coolant pipes live underneath the tunnel.

405dogvan said:

I don't get why any driver would actually want a turbo - more power, yes - spiky, unpredictable delivery, NO
and believe me, not much is spikier than an MR2 Turbo this side of a Saab 99

It just requires a little more skill to drive smoothly; the throttle pedal has more than two positions. I wouldn't considering anything but a Turbo personally. The Mk2 doesn't really have the handling finesse to make up for the lack of power on the normaly aspirated engines (which the Mk1 absolutely did), so you might has well have the significant amount of extra grunt the turbo offers.

Edited by Mr2Mike on Friday 15th February 12:03

[zygalski]

Mr2Mike said:

zygalski said:

Damn... those centre consoles are high!

That's because the fuel tank and coolant pipes live underneath the tunnel.

Doesn't that give you a numb left arm in traffic, what with the fairly snug interior as well?

[Mr2Mike]

OpulentBob said:

This whole Rev1 suspension arse-biter thing is up there with Nikasil and Audi's 100k mile imploding gearbox stories. OK so there may be some anecdotal evidence but it's really a bit of a non-issue.

Very similar in that there were plenty of Nikasil bore failures and subsequent engine replacement), and the Rev1 suspension geometry was demonstrably less communicative on the transition to oversteer than the later versions (though it feels sharper to drive with better turn in). Toyota wouldn't have changed it if there was no improvement.

I've not owned an overpriced VW so don't know much about the chocolate gearbox issue.

[Mr2Mike]

zygalski said:

Doesn't that give you a numb left arm in traffic, what with the fairly snug interior as well?

Not really, with both hands on the steering wheel there is plenty of clearance to your elbow, and it puts the gearlever in a nice position (though it's a typical old school cable gearchange with not enough feel unfortunately).

I found mine very comfortable for long distances, as befits the more "GT" feel to the car. I made numerous weekend trips from Plymouth to Norwich and back with no aches or pains.

[willfinch36]

Had mine coming up to 4 years now... Only use it about once a week, but can't bare to part with it...
Running about 285bhp (Turbo of course)

[steve_bmw]

I would like another mr2 turbo but it would have to be a late rev 3 and its slim pickings now.

[PAULJ5555]

I always wanted one of these, so last year I bought a Rev2 Turbo as a second fun car. It goes well I give it that but I feel the image now is a bit too Chavy/Boy racery.

Mine has a blitz Nur spec exhaust and its bloody loud (even with the bung in)I feel stupid driving it through town but opens roads are enjoyable.

I don't like the T top, its like driving round in a green house, the glass needs to be blacked out to give "some" privacy.

The seat belt catch in the door shuts are just stupid (what are they for other than making your belt loose all the time)

I love the retro pop up lights as no cars have them now and the driving position is good.

[killingjoker]

P-Jay said:

I think they're better than a contemporary MX-5 - there, I said it.

I disagree. We had a nice G-Limited but although it had a bit more grunt we still love our MX5's (1.6 Eunos & Mk2 1.8)- where as we only 'liked' the MR2.

Parts for it seemed more expensive, and the t-top just could not beat the total roof down experience of the 5. The 5's are also easier to work on.

[Mr2Mike]

PAULJ5555 said:

I feel the image now is a bit too Chavy/Boy racery.

Anything but IMO, these cars are now up to 22 years old, and becoming rarer every year so in the main they tend to be owned by proper enthusiasts.

There are obviously some ropey/abused examples, as there is with any marque, but I don't believe they fit anywhere near the stereotypical Chav image.

[Alfa159Ti]

I've had two NAs and two turbos in the past. Most fun cars I have ever owned and really reliable. Great driving position and every journey felt like an adventure, even if you were only going to the shops for a pint of milk.

Never really found the 'widowmaker'/ too heavy stereotypes to be founded, though the turbos do teach you a lot about driving and need to ne respected in the wet.

One of the turbos I owned was fitted with lots of HKS goodies and was scary quick - claimed many scalps in that thing from motors worth ten times as much. Well, in a straight line anyway... Eventually sold it to a 19 year old who was at the time driving a 1.2 Corsa. I often wonder if he / the car survived it.

Would love another turbo as a weekend car. Nothing offers so much bang for your buck.

Plus: Pop up headlights. What more do you want?

[Alfa159Ti]

Guvernator said:

Keep considering one of these as a track toy. Seems to have the perfect recipe to be a decent one. Mid engined, relatively light and compact (especially compared to modern machinery) and engines seem to be pretty reliable. Has anyone used one as such?

The turbo's are more powerful but the NA's might be more predictable. I've heard of NA Beams versions which push out over 200bhp?? Are these any good and how rare are they? Can't help thinking a "mini Ferrari" would be great fun on track.

Now that the cars are getting as bit long in the tooth finding a BEAMS is almost impossible. They have near mythical status within the community. Revvy 200bhp yamaha unit if I recall. No spiky turbo delivery, but significantly quicker than the standard NA. Check out some of the vids on Youtube, the BEAMS sounds lovely.

[anonymous-user]

Mr2Mike said:

OpulentBob said:

This whole Rev1 suspension arse-biter thing is up there with Nikasil and Audi's 100k mile imploding gearbox stories. OK so there may be some anecdotal evidence but it's really a bit of a non-issue.

Very similar in that there were plenty of Nikasil bore failures and subsequent engine replacement), and the Rev1 suspension geometry was demonstrably less communicative on the transition to oversteer than the later versions (though it feels sharper to drive with better turn in). Toyota wouldn't have changed it if there was no improvement.

I've not owned an overpriced VW so don't know much about the chocolate gearbox issue.

Fair comment. Maybe more noticable on a Turbo but my N/A gave me nothing but absolute confidence in the bends

[Nemo Sum]

I've always wanted one of these, the turbo ones, and a 300zx twin turbo manual. Have been keeping my eyes peeled on eBay for the last month and the good turbo MR2's seem to go for around 2-3K.