Which of these would you enjoy driving more as a daily?
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
Do you know what size tank the MINI has?
50 litres. I get ~200 miles from a tank which does get slightly irritating.doogz said:
How cheap are R56s these days?
I preferred the turbo engine tbh (and i don't normally), and the economy was vastly better, 40mpg wasn't difficult to achieve.
I wouldn't touch an early R56 S. They start at about £4.5k. The fuel economy on my R56 S wasn't great, apart from on a run at 60mph where I once saw about 48mpg. In the real world, the difference between R53 and R56 is 5mpg maximum. I preferred the turbo engine tbh (and i don't normally), and the economy was vastly better, 40mpg wasn't difficult to achieve.
300bhp/ton said:
doogz said:
How cheap are R56s these days?
I preferred the turbo engine tbh (and i don't normally), and the economy was vastly better, 40mpg wasn't difficult to achieve.
A bit out of my budget. I had a good look at these at the main dealer a few years back.I preferred the turbo engine tbh (and i don't normally), and the economy was vastly better, 40mpg wasn't difficult to achieve.
I think the trouble is, I just prefer the look of the R53 and the appeal of a supercharger. Even if it is an inferior package overall or dynamically.
Trying to find out tank sizes at the moment, as that is a practical consideration. I don't really drive past any easily accessible petrol stations on the commute, so have to make a detour or go after work for fuel. This in itself isn't a major issue, but it adds time, effort and additional unneeded miles (to the petrol station and back).
My Impreza needs two visits each week if I use it for commuting (maybe 3 times, if I also use it for non commuter mileage in the evenings). I'd prefer to only go once a week if possible.
yonex said:
300bhp/ton said:
That's a good point, and something I was pondering on my way in this morning.
Do you know what size tank the MINI (or any of the others) have?
My Roadster will comfortably do 320 miles on a tank. I'd like to be able to do at least this many on a fill up if possible.
I am betting you'll not see much more than 25-27mpg in real life use out of an R53? Do you know what size tank the MINI (or any of the others) have?
My Roadster will comfortably do 320 miles on a tank. I'd like to be able to do at least this many on a fill up if possible.
when we fill up the range computer goes to 325-340miles. we got comfortably over 40mpg on a 400mile trip to Snowdon last year so mix of motorway A and B roads and 1 minor hoon while there.
OpulentBob said:
egor110 said:
OpulentBob said:
egor110 said:
The mr2 weighs loads more than a clio 182 ( not the cup) is a second slower to 60 ( if you bother with these ) and has a lower top speed.
0-60 on both is around 7 seconds. Both top out at around 140mph.
You're right about the weight.
But in the MR2 you won't be driving a slightly Max-Powered French shopping car.
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/5107...
MR2 7.1 secs
http://www.autosnout.com/Car-Performance-Statistic...
So I was right then.
ETA You're on 6k posts exactly... nice one!
Edited by OpulentBob on Wednesday 7th October 10:47
Mr2 is 7.7 seconds http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
182 is 6.9 seconds http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
Regardless it's another option for the original poster , interested to see what he ends up with.
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
yonex said:
Isn't a Clio a gamble at that money? If it has to be fun then Mx5, Mr2 (roadster) otherwise the sensible choice is something not fun and barge like...S60 
Not really, go for a mr2 and you have the risk of rust same with the mx5.Edited by yonex on Tuesday 6th October 23:27
The mr2 weighs loads more than a clio 182 ( not the cup) is a second slower to 60 ( if you bother with these ) and has a lower top speed.
You do realise that Yonex is referring to the MR2 Roadster, ie the Mk3?
Firstly, it's way less rust prone than the MX5's of similar vintage.
Secondly, "The MR2 weighs loads more than a Clio 182"
Really? So, a Clio 182 weighs less than 950kg?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 10:44
more like 1030kg http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
egor110 said:
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
yonex said:
Isn't a Clio a gamble at that money? If it has to be fun then Mx5, Mr2 (roadster) otherwise the sensible choice is something not fun and barge like...S60
Not really, go for a mr2 and you have the risk of rust same with the mx5.Edited by yonex on Tuesday 6th October 23:27
The mr2 weighs loads more than a clio 182 ( not the cup) is a second slower to 60 ( if you bother with these ) and has a lower top speed.
You do realise that Yonex is referring to the MR2 Roadster, ie the Mk3?
Firstly, it's way less rust prone than the MX5's of similar vintage.
Secondly, "The MR2 weighs loads more than a Clio 182"
Really? So, a Clio 182 weighs less than 950kg?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 10:44
more like 1030kg http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
As it is, the MR2 clearly doesn't weigh "loads more" than the 182.
Next?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 15:51
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
yonex said:
Isn't a Clio a gamble at that money? If it has to be fun then Mx5, Mr2 (roadster) otherwise the sensible choice is something not fun and barge like...S60
Not really, go for a mr2 and you have the risk of rust same with the mx5.Edited by yonex on Tuesday 6th October 23:27
The mr2 weighs loads more than a clio 182 ( not the cup) is a second slower to 60 ( if you bother with these ) and has a lower top speed.
You do realise that Yonex is referring to the MR2 Roadster, ie the Mk3?
Firstly, it's way less rust prone than the MX5's of similar vintage.
Secondly, "The MR2 weighs loads more than a Clio 182"
Really? So, a Clio 182 weighs less than 950kg?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 10:44
more like 1030kg http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
As it is, the MR2 clearly doesn't weigh "loads more" than the 182.
Next?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 15:51
As I said this thread is suggestions for the original poster, it makes no difference to me what he buys and i've no interest in futile online wars over which is better mr2 or 182.
egor110 said:
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
yonex said:
Isn't a Clio a gamble at that money? If it has to be fun then Mx5, Mr2 (roadster) otherwise the sensible choice is something not fun and barge like...S60
Not really, go for a mr2 and you have the risk of rust same with the mx5.Edited by yonex on Tuesday 6th October 23:27
The mr2 weighs loads more than a clio 182 ( not the cup) is a second slower to 60 ( if you bother with these ) and has a lower top speed.
You do realise that Yonex is referring to the MR2 Roadster, ie the Mk3?
Firstly, it's way less rust prone than the MX5's of similar vintage.
Secondly, "The MR2 weighs loads more than a Clio 182"
Really? So, a Clio 182 weighs less than 950kg?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 10:44
more like 1030kg http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
As it is, the MR2 clearly doesn't weigh "loads more" than the 182.
Next?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 15:51
As I said this thread is suggestions for the original poster, it makes no difference to me what he buys and i've no interest in futile online wars over which is better mr2 or 182.
You cannae be serious?!
Your previous posts in this very thread has been extolling how much better, faster and lighter the Clio 1*2's are than the MR2.
You and 300 are matches made in heaven
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
yonex said:
Isn't a Clio a gamble at that money? If it has to be fun then Mx5, Mr2 (roadster) otherwise the sensible choice is something not fun and barge like...S60
Not really, go for a mr2 and you have the risk of rust same with the mx5.Edited by yonex on Tuesday 6th October 23:27
The mr2 weighs loads more than a clio 182 ( not the cup) is a second slower to 60 ( if you bother with these ) and has a lower top speed.
You do realise that Yonex is referring to the MR2 Roadster, ie the Mk3?
Firstly, it's way less rust prone than the MX5's of similar vintage.
Secondly, "The MR2 weighs loads more than a Clio 182"
Really? So, a Clio 182 weighs less than 950kg?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 10:44
more like 1030kg http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
As it is, the MR2 clearly doesn't weigh "loads more" than the 182.
Next?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 15:51
As I said this thread is suggestions for the original poster, it makes no difference to me what he buys and i've no interest in futile online wars over which is better mr2 or 182.
You cannae be serious?!
Your previous posts in this very thread has been extolling how much better, faster and lighter the Clio 1*2's are than the MR2.
You and 300 are matches made in heaven
Which ever car the o/p decides to get is of no concern to me , I just wanted him to at least consider a clio.
If he decides on a mx5 or mr2 then brilliant I hope for his budget its reliable.
Some Gump said:
OP,
Have you considered one of these?
Most certainly have. But I'd want a 4x4 quad cab 2500 with the 5.9 Cummins ... or a Ford Lightning. Neither sadly good enough on fuel for the commute Have you considered one of these?
But yes in all honesty I have considered them, and even the 'man maths' can't get the figures close enough to being viable.
egor110 said:
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
TheJimi said:
egor110 said:
yonex said:
Isn't a Clio a gamble at that money? If it has to be fun then Mx5, Mr2 (roadster) otherwise the sensible choice is something not fun and barge like...S60
Not really, go for a mr2 and you have the risk of rust same with the mx5.Edited by yonex on Tuesday 6th October 23:27
The mr2 weighs loads more than a clio 182 ( not the cup) is a second slower to 60 ( if you bother with these ) and has a lower top speed.
You do realise that Yonex is referring to the MR2 Roadster, ie the Mk3?
Firstly, it's way less rust prone than the MX5's of similar vintage.
Secondly, "The MR2 weighs loads more than a Clio 182"
Really? So, a Clio 182 weighs less than 950kg?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 10:44
more like 1030kg http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
As it is, the MR2 clearly doesn't weigh "loads more" than the 182.
Next?
Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 7th October 15:51
As I said this thread is suggestions for the original poster, it makes no difference to me what he buys and i've no interest in futile online wars over which is better mr2 or 182.
The MR2 is fine, but lack of boot space would be an issue and I'd personally rather the MK2, even if it isn't as sharp a drive.
Still undecided at the moment, although not in any great rush.
KaraK said:
doogz said:
The noisiest electric power steering pumps in the world!
Aint that the truth! I think it's a case of "they all do that sir" as that seems to be "normal" for them - every time I hear one reverse parking I expect there to be a 'clonk' noise and something to fall out of the engine bay Oddly I've had a couple of cars that have had PAS pumps fail and they have never been that noisy 300bhp/ton said:
PGNCerbera said:
Riiigggghhhhtttttt. Man maths rules bro.
It's not just fuel you know. What about insurance, tax, mot, repairs, general maintenance. All adds up.
Why not sell some of your sheds and use the Impreza. At least you get to spend a lot of time in a good car.
It's not just fuel you know. What about insurance, tax, mot, repairs, general maintenance. All adds up.
Why not sell some of your sheds and use the Impreza. At least you get to spend a lot of time in a good car.
You seem to be bricking yourself about it though and this is informing your decision.
I'm betting you buy none of the cars in the op
PGNCerbera said:
Big difference between you and me pal is that....you're very, very different to me. Wildly so. I don't choose cars based on MPG.
You seem to be bricking yourself about it though and this is informing your decision.
I'm betting you buy none of the cars in the op
Well if mpg means nothing to you, you either don't do any sort of miles, or are simply rich enough and arrogant enough not to care about it. Either way, shame on you, if you can't accept it matters to others.You seem to be bricking yourself about it though and this is informing your decision.
I'm betting you buy none of the cars in the op
egor110 said:
OpulentBob said:
egor110 said:
OpulentBob said:
egor110 said:
The mr2 weighs loads more than a clio 182 ( not the cup) is a second slower to 60 ( if you bother with these ) and has a lower top speed.
0-60 on both is around 7 seconds. Both top out at around 140mph.
You're right about the weight.
But in the MR2 you won't be driving a slightly Max-Powered French shopping car.
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/5107...
MR2 7.1 secs
http://www.autosnout.com/Car-Performance-Statistic...
So I was right then.
ETA You're on 6k posts exactly... nice one!
Edited by OpulentBob on Wednesday 7th October 10:47
Mr2 is 7.7 seconds http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
182 is 6.9 seconds http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-fi...
Regardless it's another option for the original poster , interested to see what he ends up with.
Whatevs.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff