MR2 Roadster or MX5
Discussion
shnozz said:
Have you considered a MG TF? i would say having driven a MX5 that it is a easily a match for it and i think their are still some bargains to be had.
>> Edited by ninjaboy on Sunday 15th January 15:54
Not considered, I sat in one once at it didn't even remotely feel like a sports car.
>> Edited by steve bowen on Sunday 15th January 17:16
Ok nevermind, you sat in one and you claim its not a sportcar from that??? what the diffrence is between a MX5 and a TF i don't know lol i drove both and it was a difficult choice i chose the TF because it had the better engine imo and the handling was just as good rover/mg bashing is a sport that will continue for a long time
Unless the TF is a remarkeable improvement on the previous F it would fall a long way short of both the MX5 and the MR2. I can't really argue with the engine being the best out of the bunch considering it powers me around various tracks regularly, but the car itself isn't a patch on the 2 in contention. Unless its improved. A lot.
The TF and the F are totally diffrent cars suspension wise the TF has solid mounted subframes and springs, i would not argue that the MR2 is sharper, but i class that more in the elise class lol it is an extreme car. the MX5 and TF are inseperable in most respects i have pushed the TF hard and its lack of understeer, balance and grip where superb. I can't fault the MX5 i just didnt choose one most people who have driven the TF think it is underated. Evo did a test of a TF, MR2 and 206cc its a shame they used a 206 instead of a MX5 it would have been very intresting
>> Edited by ninjaboy on Sunday 15th January 21:28
Gazboy said:
...... freakishly bad on fuel for a light 1.8.
Tell me about it! I think I averaged mpg in the mid 20's in mine. IMO the problem is that they just force you to drive like a loon all the time
Are you serious- I average 20-25mpg in my Supra!
No joke!
I used to do a fairly regular route of 200 odd miles A-road & motorway driving so could measure the fuel usage quite accurately. Much of the problem was that the car is so fun to be thrashed that I found myself regularly driving to the limiter.
I was speaking to my dad tonight & he finds the same in his MX-5 1.8
ninjaboy said:
The TF and the F are totally diffrent cars suspension wise the TF has solid mounted subframes and springs, i would not argue that the MR2 is sharper, but i class that more in the elise class lol it is an extreme car. the MX5 and TF are inseperable in most respects i have pushed the TF hard and its lack of understeer, balance and grip where superb. I can't fault the MX5 i just didnt choose one most people who have driven the TF think it is underated. Evo did a test of a TF, MR2 and 206cc its a shame they used a 206 instead of a MX5 it would have been very intresting
I have only had a brief drive in the TF & while I agree it was much better than the old F, I preferred the MX-5 much more.
In the grand scheme of things, in the MX-5, MR2 & MGTF there are 3 good roadsters to choose from. IMO each is capable of putting a big grin on your face & each has it good & bad points depending on your priorities.
p.s. MX-5 is the best & anyone saying otherwise is plain wrong
Gazboy said:
Have you considered a MG TF? i would say having driven a MX5 that it is a easily a match for it and i think their are still some bargains to be had.
>> Edited by ninjaboy on Sunday 15th January 15:54
Not considered, I sat in one once at it didn't even remotely feel like a sports car.
>> Edited by steve bowen on Sunday 15th January 17:16
Ok nevermind, you sat in one and you claim its not a sportcar from that??? what the diffrence is between a MX5 and a TF i don't know lol i drove both and it was a difficult choice i chose the TF because it had the better engine imo and the handling was just as good rover/mg bashing is a sport that will continue for a long time
Unless the TF is a remarkeable improvement on the previous F it would fall a long way short of both the MX5 and the MR2. I can't really argue with the engine being the best out of the bunch considering it powers me around various tracks regularly, but the car itself isn't a patch on the 2 in contention. Unless its improved. A lot.
The TF and the F are totally diffrent cars suspension wise the TF has solid mounted subframes and springs, i would not argue that the MR2 is sharper, but i class that more in the elise class lol it is an extreme car. the MX5 and TF are inseperable in most respects i have pushed the TF hard and its lack of understeer, balance and grip where superb. I can't fault the MX5 i just didnt choose one most people who have driven the TF think it is underated. Evo did a test of a TF, MR2 and 206cc its a shame they used a 206 instead of a MX5 it would have been very intresting
>> Edited by ninjaboy on Sunday 15th January 21:28
I've driven the 206CC and the MGTF 130 back to back- 206CC is a nicer drive, although I wouldn't buy one with my own (or anyone elses) money. The TF simply doesn't compare to the MR2T- would you replace your car with something that was inferior to it in every single way out of choice?
Steve- why not buy a rebuilt RX7 from the owners club?
All 3 roadsters are poor compared to a MR2 turbo because it totally diffrent type of car! i only mentioned the TF to try and offer an alternative, my bad
formet i said anything if i wanted to upgrade from that i would be thinking about a wedge or chimera not a MR2 mk3 or a MX5 because i can't think of any points where they would compare very well to a MR2T to try is silly unless your going to superchare/turbo them in which case all would offer similar performance. Gazboy said:
I've driven the 206CC and the MGTF 130 back to back- 206CC is a nicer drive, although I wouldn't buy one with my own (or anyone elses) money. The TF simply doesn't compare to the MR2T- would you replace your car with something that was inferior to it in every single way out of choice?
Steve- why not buy a rebuilt RX7 from the owners club?
Very odd. I drove a 206CC on behalf of my mum when she looked at buying one. Most awful POS I think I have ever driven and an example of form over function. Not only was the performance very average, I truly learned what scuttle shake was and why a convertible that started life as a hardtop is not always a good idea. She ended up buying a second hand SLK.
My old MGF, whilst not a great car at all, was a whole lot better than the CC in my view.
Interesting that the revised MGTF appears from these reports a vastly improved car. I wondered why they were so much more impressive around Donnington than I expected. Lotus on track share several days each year with the MG owners club and some of them were pretty rapid for a hairdresser. Might have to blag a pax ride in one at Silverstone in a month or so as that is also a shared Lotus/MG day. See how improved they are
people said:
Steve- why not buy a rebuilt RX7 from the owners club?
i can't think of any points where they would compare very well to a MR2T to try is silly unless your going to superchare/turbo them in which case all would offer similar performance.
RX7 rebuilt is still tempting, does worry me the potential runnig cost.
The MX5 or MR2 Roadster will be turbo charged, then they would be better in everyway than a mk2 MR2T.
Lighter so more chuckable
Lighter so better PWR (unless MR2T has 350bhp)
Much newer (my MR2T is 14 years old)
Much better suspension design on MX5 not 100% on the MR2 Roadster, they will certainly handle better.
>> Edited by steve bowen on Monday 16th January 10:38
just my 2p,
for handling, i found the MR2 very snappy, it is the only car i have ever spun on the road.
My MX5 allows such extreme angles of oversteer, it feels that there is no way of spinning it, ps. i check my petrol consumption every week for over 3 years and it has never differed from 21-23mpg
for handling, i found the MR2 very snappy, it is the only car i have ever spun on the road.
My MX5 allows such extreme angles of oversteer, it feels that there is no way of spinning it, ps. i check my petrol consumption every week for over 3 years and it has never differed from 21-23mpg
I agree about the Mk3 MR2 being snappy. That's why I prefer it I like my cars to be snappy
The standard MX5 just felt very slow to me.. Shame - it is a good car. Everyone has their own 'seat of the pants' idea of adequate performance though.
I agree with Gazby about the MGTF. I test drove a low mileage one last year (I think I posted my full review on pistonheads). Up to 9 tenths it just never keyed into the road, and the driving position and non-centrically mounted steering wheel are just weird. At ten tenths it understeers doggedly in low speed bends - almost like there's lots of weight up front. The VVC engine didn't do much for me either. I've driven it in lightweight cars like the 7 or Elise, but in the TF it just felt flat. Great for my Mum, but for a petrolhead I think it's a non starter.
I like my cars to be snappy The standard MX5 just felt very slow to me.. Shame - it is a good car. Everyone has their own 'seat of the pants' idea of adequate performance though.
I agree with Gazby about the MGTF. I test drove a low mileage one last year (I think I posted my full review on pistonheads). Up to 9 tenths it just never keyed into the road, and the driving position and non-centrically mounted steering wheel are just weird. At ten tenths it understeers doggedly in low speed bends - almost like there's lots of weight up front. The VVC engine didn't do much for me either. I've driven it in lightweight cars like the 7 or Elise, but in the TF it just felt flat. Great for my Mum, but for a petrolhead I think it's a non starter.
Gazboy said:
Do the running costs of the RX7 compare well to the cost of taking an MX5/MR2 and turbocharging them and modifying the suspension?
Why was the Elise ruled out?
>> Edited by Gazboy on Monday 16th January 16:12
Well :-
New car MUST be faster than a 260bhp MR2T, thats have a bit of weightloss (1250KG wet) ~ 208bhp per ton
With the addition of a turbo kit both the Mx5 & MR2 roadster will be.
MR2 Roadster 975KG + 279bhp = 286 bhp /ton
MX5 1000KG + 260bhp = 260bhp /ton
I can buy either car, get used to it before turbo kit is fitted thats nice.
According to the MR2 owners there hasn't been a mk3 turbo'd engine failure. MX5 people say very reliable also, so once kit is fitted, mapped etc should be trouble free.
The RX7 is basically the same weight as my old MR2 depending on model and has slightly more power, but not much, it would also need modding to get to turbo mx5 / MR2 PWR, added expense.
Stock RX7 1240kg + 280bhp = 225bhp / ton
RX7 unless I know for fact engine has been rebuilt by the right people recently enough has to effectively have a £3K to £4K cushion sitting in the bank doing nothing, this would annoy me.
Elise, K series although light etc isn't reliable and isn't powerful, are there any turbo kits? Would be the earliest mk1 for £8K and the cheapest cars on autotrader are alwas the complete dogs. This is why I shy away.
Just a quick point, but a 260hp MX5 will set you back at least £10k, and that is for a MK1 1.8 that has already been modified to a VERY high standard..(that is based on the last 1.8FM2 that sold within the club) a phrase including hens and teeth come to mind....If you do the modifications yourself you better be ready for a lot of tooing and froing making sure the tuning is right, oh and a deeeeeeeeep wallet....
With MX5s, after 230hpish you faced with fairly deminishing returns...unless you are prepared to spend massive cash, and the closer you get to 250bhp the more gearboxes you will be eating.
May I suggest you see how you get on in mine and base your decision on that, after all, 0-60 in 5 flat at the 1/4 mile in 13.5 is plenty fast for a hairdresser.
With MX5s, after 230hpish you faced with fairly deminishing returns...unless you are prepared to spend massive cash, and the closer you get to 250bhp the more gearboxes you will be eating.
May I suggest you see how you get on in mine and base your decision on that, after all, 0-60 in 5 flat at the 1/4 mile in 13.5 is plenty fast for a hairdresser.
benjc said:
Just a quick point, but a 260hp MX5 will set you back at least £10k, and that is for a MK1 1.8 that has already been modified to a VERY high standard..(that is based on the last 1.8FM2 that sold within the club) a phrase including hens and teeth come to mind....If you do the modifications yourself you better be ready for a lot of tooing and froing making sure the tuning is right, oh and a deeeeeeeeep wallet....
With MX5s, after 230hpish you faced with fairly deminishing returns...unless you are prepared to spend massive cash, and the closer you get to 250bhp the more gearboxes you will be eating.
May I suggest you see how you get on in mine and base your decision on that, after all, 0-60 in 5 flat at the 1/4 mile in 13.5 is plenty fast for a hairdresser.
Ben,
Many thanks for taking me out for a spin this morning, what a great car. Highly impressed with the MX5 MK1 1.6 turbo of Bens that he's selling, so suprised at how planted it felt. The chassis can obviously easily cope with the power increase.
Now I need a volunteer to take me out in a MR2 roadster turbo ?
One more in support of the MX5. I run a Mk2 1.8is with a JR supercharger, plus manifold and back box.
I love it. It's running about 240bhp since I added a BRP powercard and small pulley. Never tried the 0 - 60 or standing 1/4 but it's quick.
An sdditional benefit of the s/charger is that the power delivery is so smooth and predictable - and sounds damn good too. More useable than a turbo in everyday driving, unless you want to spend another £2k on a replacement ECU.
Economy? Depends how you drive, but the powercard has improved it; I get up to 35mpg on a motorway run, hitting speed up to 100mph. Hooning around a lot less.
Next step? Thought about a big bottom pully and cooler to give another 20 or so bhp, but might have meant a new clutch. Cost maybe another £1000.
Initial cost of s/charger etc? ABout £1700 for the charger, £1000 manifold and exhaust. £400 fitting. £200 or so for the powercard. To'ing and fro'ing? Nah. I used my mate Richard at Maztek who got it right first time.
Just get a 5...... IMHO..
I love it. It's running about 240bhp since I added a BRP powercard and small pulley. Never tried the 0 - 60 or standing 1/4 but it's quick.
An sdditional benefit of the s/charger is that the power delivery is so smooth and predictable - and sounds damn good too. More useable than a turbo in everyday driving, unless you want to spend another £2k on a replacement ECU.
Economy? Depends how you drive, but the powercard has improved it; I get up to 35mpg on a motorway run, hitting speed up to 100mph. Hooning around a lot less.
Next step? Thought about a big bottom pully and cooler to give another 20 or so bhp, but might have meant a new clutch. Cost maybe another £1000.
Initial cost of s/charger etc? ABout £1700 for the charger, £1000 manifold and exhaust. £400 fitting. £200 or so for the powercard. To'ing and fro'ing? Nah. I used my mate Richard at Maztek who got it right first time.
Just get a 5...... IMHO..
Gotta come out in favour of the MX5 here. They really are a great little car to drive, especially when they have been given a little more oomph than the stock 1.8. ;-)
A friend of mine built this one a few years ago and we drove sea to shining sea, NY to SF in it in 2003. That was a real hoot.
www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/markf/miata
>> Edited by mefoster on Saturday 21st January 23:03
A friend of mine built this one a few years ago and we drove sea to shining sea, NY to SF in it in 2003. That was a real hoot.
www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/markf/miata
>> Edited by mefoster on Saturday 21st January 23:03
tvr-i-will-be said:
That thing must have flown.. Fantastic.
It was/is a really great little car - Very agreeable to drive even in reasoanbly heavy traffic on the LA freeways yet it had a wonderful knack of making the gradients in the Rockies and those long empty bits through Kansas just disappear. Not particularly flat out fast but it got there reasonably well and would break traction on demand without the clutch. Oh... and it sounded soooo sweeeet!
>> Edited by mefoster on Sunday 22 January 18:18
steve bowen said:
Ben,
Many thanks for taking me out for a spin this morning, what a great car. Highly impressed with the MX5 MK1 1.6 turbo of Bens that he's selling, so suprised at how planted it felt. The chassis can obviously easily cope with the power increase.
Now I need a volunteer to take me out in a MR2 roadster turbo ?
No problems Steve, glad you enjoyed the ride. The '93 s-spec Roadster benifits from added chassis bracing and different track rod ends to take into account lowered suspension that it had when it came out of the factory. So the Konis and RB springs on mine coupled with the 6 point roll bar all adds up to a nicely stable car that can handle the extra power.
For more info on the ECU have a butchers here:
www.flyinmiata.com/index.php?deptid=4527&parentid=0&stocknumber=07-16500%20%209697%20OBDII
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff