Discussion
Owned a mk1 mx5. superb little car. owned 2006 mk3 mr2 good but not as easy to live with as the mk1 mx5. The luggage sapce can be an issue but a boot rack will solve it. now own mk3 mx5 great fun on my commute to work. given the choice for an everyday car it would be mk3 mx5. for summer only fun mk1 mx5 or mk3 mr2 if i couldn't find a rust free mx5.
kambites said:
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.
Yes, Mazda has been consistent and the general marketplace has easily understood the propositionToyota have a great history but have dabbled in sports cars, MR2 and Supra being good examples.
Honda show off their engineering prowess with 2 world class cars, the NSX and S2000. What do they do? demonstrate greatness, start to develop the market and then fail to follow up. Criminal! Early stage market development that had mainstream acceptance and great profitability beckoning.
RobM77 said:
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...
Had both. 1.6 mx5 and 2003 mk3 mr2
The MR2 is the better driving car after a few tweaks IMHO. Speed wise not much to choose. Brakes on mr2 are fabulous balance and power for stock if working well and rears not binding.
I might be biased because I don't need storage space and I have a hardtop but the lack of serious corrosion on the mr2 compared to our mx5 is a bonus.
More engines go pop on the mr2 to be fair but later cars better.
I can't see me getting rid of it tbh. I bent it on track and it was 2 hrs work to remove the rear quarter panel and bumper and cost me 140 quid or so for 2nd hand panels. Meccano cars!
The MR2 is the better driving car after a few tweaks IMHO. Speed wise not much to choose. Brakes on mr2 are fabulous balance and power for stock if working well and rears not binding.
I might be biased because I don't need storage space and I have a hardtop but the lack of serious corrosion on the mr2 compared to our mx5 is a bonus.
More engines go pop on the mr2 to be fair but later cars better.
I can't see me getting rid of it tbh. I bent it on track and it was 2 hrs work to remove the rear quarter panel and bumper and cost me 140 quid or so for 2nd hand panels. Meccano cars!
200Plus Club said:
Had both. 1.6 mx5 and 2003 mk3 mr2
The MR2 is the better driving car after a few tweaks IMHO. Speed wise not much to choose. Brakes on mr2 are fabulous balance and power for stock if working well and rears not binding.
I might be biased because I don't need storage space and I have a hardtop but the lack of serious corrosion on the mr2 compared to our mx5 is a bonus.
More engines go pop on the mr2 to be fair but later cars better.
I can't see me getting rid of it tbh. I bent it on track and it was 2 hrs work to remove the rear quarter panel and bumper and cost me 140 quid or so for 2nd hand panels. Meccano cars!
What tweaks have you made out of interest? I've iThe MR2 is the better driving car after a few tweaks IMHO. Speed wise not much to choose. Brakes on mr2 are fabulous balance and power for stock if working well and rears not binding.
I might be biased because I don't need storage space and I have a hardtop but the lack of serious corrosion on the mr2 compared to our mx5 is a bonus.
More engines go pop on the mr2 to be fair but later cars better.
I can't see me getting rid of it tbh. I bent it on track and it was 2 hrs work to remove the rear quarter panel and bumper and cost me 140 quid or so for 2nd hand panels. Meccano cars!
only driven the standard car.
Mine is a face-lift so has a couple of extra braces but I got the Matt underbody brace for 110 quid which is fabulous and picked up a set of 2nd hand tein shocks with springs for 200 quid. A good wheel alignment on a Hunter rig made it fabulous fun to drive.
Its ok in std form but tends to wander a bit pressing on and the above sorts it all.
30mm drop is all it needed with slightly better shocks but bear in mind also mine had 103k on clock on oe shocks.
I just love driving it now and you can throw it at bends as long as you remember it's mid engined :-)
Its ok in std form but tends to wander a bit pressing on and the above sorts it all.
30mm drop is all it needed with slightly better shocks but bear in mind also mine had 103k on clock on oe shocks.
I just love driving it now and you can throw it at bends as long as you remember it's mid engined :-)
Swapped my 1992 MX5 for a 1991 MR2 turbo T-bar 5 years ago, and still have the MR2 today, the MX5 is a great little car to learn how to properly feel the road and too gain confidence with pushing on without worrying about hitting silly speeds too fast, the MR2 in my opinion has one of the best driving positions I've experienced, has enough storage space, but being a turbo it's a lot quicker than my old MX5, need to be REALLY fast in correcting the rear end when it pops out on the MR2, the MX5 on the other hand was quite easy too control.
Got to be a MK2. Not sure why all the negativity in this thread, they are very well sorted suspension wise and great drivers cars, nicely adjustable when pushing the limits. Maybe not as nimble as a MK3 or MK1, but they feel special every drive. They also have loads of luggage room (much bigger boot than you'd imagine).
I've had four. Feel free to PM me if you fancy one. Here's my '95 turbo.
SilPHSSstatic-13 by Dan J, on Flickr
And because i'm feeling nostalgic, my first one, a '95 UK NA.
IMG_2993 by Dan J, on Flickr
I've had four. Feel free to PM me if you fancy one. Here's my '95 turbo.
SilPHSSstatic-13 by Dan J, on FlickrAnd because i'm feeling nostalgic, my first one, a '95 UK NA.
IMG_2993 by Dan J, on FlickrLast weekend I had a passenger ride in the Salon Motorsport mk1 MX5 fitted with their supercharger.
The 182 bhp transforms an otherwise bog standard engine. I was seriously impressed.
Apparently the car went in for it's MOT two weeks ago at a local garage and the mechanic drove it into
the workshop and pulled the bonnet. Lifted the bonnet and stood for a moment, then dashed into the
office and came out with his camera.
The 182 bhp transforms an otherwise bog standard engine. I was seriously impressed.
Apparently the car went in for it's MOT two weeks ago at a local garage and the mechanic drove it into
the workshop and pulled the bonnet. Lifted the bonnet and stood for a moment, then dashed into the
office and came out with his camera.
loggo said:
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 ??
t! danllama said:
Got to be a MK2. Not sure why all the negativity in this thread, they are very well sorted suspension wise and great drivers cars, nicely adjustable when pushing the limits. Maybe not as nimble as a MK3 or MK1, but they feel special every drive. They also have loads of luggage room (much bigger boot than you'd imagine).
I've had four. Feel free to PM me if you fancy one. Here's my '95 turbo.
SilPHSSstatic-13 by Dan J, on Flickr
And because i'm feeling nostalgic, my first one, a '95 UK NA.
IMG_2993 by Dan J, on Flickr
Not really the same beast tho comparing an MX5 with an MR2 Turbo. Nice car BTWI've had four. Feel free to PM me if you fancy one. Here's my '95 turbo.
SilPHSSstatic-13 by Dan J, on FlickrAnd because i'm feeling nostalgic, my first one, a '95 UK NA.
IMG_2993 by Dan J, on FlickrMR2 0-60. 6 seconds. 1/4 mile 14.5 seconds
MX5 0-60. 9 seconds. 1/4 mile 16 seconds
The MR2 Turbo was a brilliant car, such a shame they were never imported officially and never got the press they deserved, baring in mind the Ferrari 348 launched the same year was only 0.1 faster 0-60...
I think the MK3 MR2 kind of misses out, the people into MR2s tend to either be MK1 people who wanted the original purity or MK2 Turbo owners who wanted more and more and more power (and stickers from Japan)
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff