Discussion
Can the team help please ? I am looking for a Summer car (for next year) that must be little more than shed money. My choice has settled down to an MX5 or a Toyota MR2( mk3) but I am puzzled. Whilst the MX5, despite rust issues seem loved wherever it goes the MR2,which seems to be tops in everything apart from storage, has little following. Before I spend my cash can someone tell me what I've missed ??
That's a really good point. Many of us on here, including me, prefer the way the MR2 drives to the MX5. I'd guess that the lack of popularity can probably be explained by a couple of things:
Firstly, the MX5 has been uniformly good over its long existence: all the iterations have been praised. Conversely, whilst the mk1 and mk3 MR2s were highly praised, the mk2 wasn't, and whilst petrolheads know the differences, reputations 'on the street' are a very different affair. (Edited to add: If I remember rightly, the early Mk2s were criticised at launch and Toyota fixed the issues for later models, but the reputational damage was done.)
Secondly, the most recent MR2 has a major problem with storage because it had no boot, just a couple of small lockers behind the seats. This ruled the car out for many people, me included. I actually bought an Elise because it was more practical.
In summary though, they're both excellent cars and do indeed deserve to be considered alongside each other. I love MR2s
Firstly, the MX5 has been uniformly good over its long existence: all the iterations have been praised. Conversely, whilst the mk1 and mk3 MR2s were highly praised, the mk2 wasn't, and whilst petrolheads know the differences, reputations 'on the street' are a very different affair. (Edited to add: If I remember rightly, the early Mk2s were criticised at launch and Toyota fixed the issues for later models, but the reputational damage was done.)
Secondly, the most recent MR2 has a major problem with storage because it had no boot, just a couple of small lockers behind the seats. This ruled the car out for many people, me included. I actually bought an Elise because it was more practical.
In summary though, they're both excellent cars and do indeed deserve to be considered alongside each other. I love MR2s
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 28th October 14:37
I loved my mk2 MR2, not quite a sports car so much as a mini gt.
It had loads of luggage space except when you wanted the T Bar roof out (that had to be stowed behind seats, robbing some luggage space). But it acquitted itself on-track at Bedford many years ago.
That car, a 94-reg, eventually died of rusty sills. I still think they look great.
I now have a mk1 MX5 and have transported a number of unfeasibly large items by popping the roof down and using the passenger seat.
It had loads of luggage space except when you wanted the T Bar roof out (that had to be stowed behind seats, robbing some luggage space). But it acquitted itself on-track at Bedford many years ago.
That car, a 94-reg, eventually died of rusty sills. I still think they look great.
I now have a mk1 MX5 and have transported a number of unfeasibly large items by popping the roof down and using the passenger seat.
As the posts above point out, I think the MR2's problem is that over the generations it hasn't quite been able to decide what it wants to be whereas the MX5 has been very consistent in its ethos over the generations. Personally I prefer the mk3 MR2 to any iteration of the MX5 but I didn't get on with the MK2 at all; someone looking for a GT rather than a sports car would probably rate the mk2 MR2 over the others though.
5harp3y said:
Having driven both i much prefered the MX5 as i never quite get on with the mid engined feel.
I think this strikes the nail on the head. Both cars are very good examples of their layouts, and from a driving point of view therefore, people's preferences usually reflect their layout preferences.XJ40 said:
Interesting, I've been having a squint at these in the classifieds recently. Also the MG TF which should have a mention in the same bracket despite potentially off putting HGF issues...
They tick a lot of practical boxes on paper, the boot for instance is huge. However, even the TF, which I think replaced hydragas with traditional suspension, just didn't handle anywhere near as well as the MR2 and MX5 - it was a really disappointing car to push if you're a keen driver. Furthermore, my Dad, who cares little about handling, but has had a string of old MGs and wanted a modern one as well, was put off due to a poor ride. So in summary they didn't please either of their two main types of buyer! The driving position wasn't great either - it made me feel like Noddy in his toy car.RobM77 said:
hey tick a lot of practical boxes on paper, the boot for instance is huge. However, even the TF, which I think replaced hydragas with traditional suspension, just didn't handle anywhere near as well as the MR2 and MX5
Hmm, I disagree. The TF's chassis is, IMO, perhaps slightly behind the mk3 MR2 but significantly ahead of any iteration of the MX5 and is leagues ahead of the mk2 MR2. The driving position is woeful, the ride is overly firm, and the build quality is dire but I found the handling to be very capable. kambites said:
Hmm, I disagree. The TF's chassis is, IMO, perhaps slightly behind the mk3 MR2 but significantly ahead of any iteration of the MX5 and is leagues ahead of the mk2 MR2. The driving position is woeful, the ride is overly firm, and the build quality is dire but I found the handling to be very capable.
Well that's nonsense for a start. The Mk1 and 2 MX-5 have a bespoke backbone chassis, with fully-adjustable double wishbones at all corners.The MGF is a metro going backwards...
NDNDNDND said:
kambites said:
Hmm, I disagree. The TF's chassis is, IMO, perhaps slightly behind the mk3 MR2 but significantly ahead of any iteration of the MX5 and is leagues ahead of the mk2 MR2. The driving position is woeful, the ride is overly firm, and the build quality is dire but I found the handling to be very capable.
Well that's nonsense for a start. The Mk1 and 2 MX-5 have a bespoke backbone chassis, with fully-adjustable double wishbones at all corners.The MGF is a metro going backwards...
I shortlisted the MR2 and MX5 among others and settled on the MX5 because...
Better storage : I had recently become a dad and it was to be an alternative to a motorcycle that I could take the wee man in. The lack of storage on the Mk3 MR2 killed that for me.
Easier to work on : It's not my DD, and I am a tinkerer so the easily accessed and wide engine bay of the MX5 was preferable to the relatively poor access of the mid-engined MR2
More tuning/customisation options : I'm sure there are lots of options out there for the MR2 as well, but the aftermarket just seems better catered for in the MX5, which is related to the point above. I since supercharged mine and it's now up on axle stands waiting for me to finish a bit of chassis welding so I can get on with dropping in that 4.0 V8
"Proper" convertible : While the roof does come off the MR2, it's not quite as easily stowed nor dropped as the manual MX5 hood. clip-clip-clunk and it's done.
Better storage : I had recently become a dad and it was to be an alternative to a motorcycle that I could take the wee man in. The lack of storage on the Mk3 MR2 killed that for me.
Easier to work on : It's not my DD, and I am a tinkerer so the easily accessed and wide engine bay of the MX5 was preferable to the relatively poor access of the mid-engined MR2
More tuning/customisation options : I'm sure there are lots of options out there for the MR2 as well, but the aftermarket just seems better catered for in the MX5, which is related to the point above. I since supercharged mine and it's now up on axle stands waiting for me to finish a bit of chassis welding so I can get on with dropping in that 4.0 V8
"Proper" convertible : While the roof does come off the MR2, it's not quite as easily stowed nor dropped as the manual MX5 hood. clip-clip-clunk and it's done.
RobM77 said:
Kambites was commenting on the driving experience, not the engineering. On the subject of engineering though, what you say is true for the MGF, but not the TF. As you rightly say, the MGF re-used Metro suspension and uprights (you can still see the unused driveshaft joints at the front!), but the MG TF, IIRC, was a re-design using conventional suspension components.
No, both versions of the MGF used a metro floorpan and metro front subframes (both at the front and the back). Detail changes were made to the chassis in the evolution to the TF.He's wrong about the driving experience too, though. The only reasons for a poor handling MX-5 are worn suspension components, a poor alignment or a poor driver. I think you were right when you said the main difference between the MR2 and MX-5 derive mainly from personal preferences between mid or front engined. I chose front engined, because I wanted a car I could learn more about driving in - and the forgiving, front-engined nature of the MX-5 meant it could be slid around more forgivingly. In my experience, the MR2 is a car that rewards 'precision' more than fun, and edged into safe understeer when pushed... although you are always aware of the sting in the tail!
kambites said:
Blayney said:
Post-2003 facelift is usually recommend by the internet experts. I want one.
I think 2003 was when they fixed the pre-cat problem which blighted the early cars? You can just take the pre-cats off early cars though. Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff