Discussion
Well having owned 3 MK3 MR2s I can confirm...
They have superb brakes and handling
The engine is actually not that hard to work on at all, it pretty accessible for basic/intermediate jobs
Storage space is not too bad either, its just not that easy to access
They won't kill you in the wet if (and its a big if) you drive them properly! Properly for an MR2 is not the same as for an MX5 or for a FWD hot hatch. MR2s are all about balance.
200bhp in a MK3 MR2 is fast, 240bhp+ in an Mk3 MR2 is a bit scary.
Oh and don't forget the 3 most important rules for an MR2
1. Buy decent tyres
2. Buy decent tyres that are correctly staggered
3. Buy decent tyres that are correctly staggered and watch the pressures religiously.
They have superb brakes and handling
The engine is actually not that hard to work on at all, it pretty accessible for basic/intermediate jobs
Storage space is not too bad either, its just not that easy to access
They won't kill you in the wet if (and its a big if) you drive them properly! Properly for an MR2 is not the same as for an MX5 or for a FWD hot hatch. MR2s are all about balance.
200bhp in a MK3 MR2 is fast, 240bhp+ in an Mk3 MR2 is a bit scary.
Oh and don't forget the 3 most important rules for an MR2
1. Buy decent tyres
2. Buy decent tyres that are correctly staggered
3. Buy decent tyres that are correctly staggered and watch the pressures religiously.
When I bought my mk1 MR2 it had different tyres front and back and didn't handle that well, having way too much understeer. I swapped front for back and it was hilarious, particularly in the wet, where to be honest it was distinctly dangerous. I then went out and bought the very best tyres I could brand new on all four wheels and it was utterly transformed 
The OP probably won't go wrong with a good example of either. Neither is perfect though but sure what is?
I'm now on my 3rd MX5, this time a 2006 MK3 1.8 having previously owned a '90 Eunos 1.6 and a '95 UK 1.8
I like the ease of use of the MX, sure it's regarded as a little bloated to the earlier and very latest cars but its got a ease of use the MR2 maybe doesn't have. Decent luggage space, mechanically pretty bullet proof and a very wide aftermarket and enthusiast scene. Criticisms of the standard suspension/geo setup and rust proofing are probably valid though.
I did enjoy my 2002 MR2. Out of the box I think dynamically better than the MX. Felt a little bit more special with the MR layout. Very tyre sensitive though and I always had nagging doubts about the engine longevity. Luggage space maybe shouldn't be a big consideration on cars like these but it was a disadvantage for a couple of work bags I carry. (which easily fit in the boot of the MX5) Easy car to work on though. I think one with a 190 celica engine fitted must be a real giggle!
I'd quite like a facelift MX5 (Mk3.5?) with the larger 2.0 engine and some BBR enhancements. Basically the Mazda would always win for me
I'm now on my 3rd MX5, this time a 2006 MK3 1.8 having previously owned a '90 Eunos 1.6 and a '95 UK 1.8
I like the ease of use of the MX, sure it's regarded as a little bloated to the earlier and very latest cars but its got a ease of use the MR2 maybe doesn't have. Decent luggage space, mechanically pretty bullet proof and a very wide aftermarket and enthusiast scene. Criticisms of the standard suspension/geo setup and rust proofing are probably valid though.
I did enjoy my 2002 MR2. Out of the box I think dynamically better than the MX. Felt a little bit more special with the MR layout. Very tyre sensitive though and I always had nagging doubts about the engine longevity. Luggage space maybe shouldn't be a big consideration on cars like these but it was a disadvantage for a couple of work bags I carry. (which easily fit in the boot of the MX5) Easy car to work on though. I think one with a 190 celica engine fitted must be a real giggle!
I'd quite like a facelift MX5 (Mk3.5?) with the larger 2.0 engine and some BBR enhancements. Basically the Mazda would always win for me
Fattyfat said:
The OP probably won't go wrong with a good example of either. Neither is perfect though but sure what is?
I'm now on my 3rd MX5, this time a 2006 MK3 1.8 having previously owned a '90 Eunos 1.6 and a '95 UK 1.8
I like the ease of use of the MX, sure it's regarded as a little bloated to the earlier and very latest cars but its got a ease of use the MR2 maybe doesn't have. Decent luggage space, mechanically pretty bullet proof and a very wide aftermarket and enthusiast scene. Criticisms of the standard suspension/geo setup and rust proofing are probably valid though.
I did enjoy my 2002 MR2. Out of the box I think dynamically better than the MX. Felt a little bit more special with the MR layout. Very tyre sensitive though and I always had nagging doubts about the engine longevity. Luggage space maybe shouldn't be a big consideration on cars like these but it was a disadvantage for a couple of work bags I carry. (which easily fit in the boot of the MX5) Easy car to work on though. I think one with a 190 celica engine fitted must be a real giggle!
I'd quite like a facelift MX5 (Mk3.5?) with the larger 2.0 engine and some BBR enhancements. Basically the Mazda would always win for me
I'm looking at buying a Mk3 Mx5 next month as soon as my pay cheque comes in. Toyed with the mk3 mr2 but for the exact reasons you gave it put me off. Storage and that lower power. As you mentioned as well the mx5 sounds like a car I can get in and enjoy whatever the mood unlike the mr2. Hoping to get a nice 2.0 sport and if all goes well look to get the 200 BBR mod after a year.I'm now on my 3rd MX5, this time a 2006 MK3 1.8 having previously owned a '90 Eunos 1.6 and a '95 UK 1.8
I like the ease of use of the MX, sure it's regarded as a little bloated to the earlier and very latest cars but its got a ease of use the MR2 maybe doesn't have. Decent luggage space, mechanically pretty bullet proof and a very wide aftermarket and enthusiast scene. Criticisms of the standard suspension/geo setup and rust proofing are probably valid though.
I did enjoy my 2002 MR2. Out of the box I think dynamically better than the MX. Felt a little bit more special with the MR layout. Very tyre sensitive though and I always had nagging doubts about the engine longevity. Luggage space maybe shouldn't be a big consideration on cars like these but it was a disadvantage for a couple of work bags I carry. (which easily fit in the boot of the MX5) Easy car to work on though. I think one with a 190 celica engine fitted must be a real giggle!
I'd quite like a facelift MX5 (Mk3.5?) with the larger 2.0 engine and some BBR enhancements. Basically the Mazda would always win for me
My wife has had both an MGTF, brand new and an MK111 MR2 again brand new.The MGTF was an easier car to live with was quick but once the head gasket went twice at the same time as the company collapsed that was it for her. I preferred it to the MR2 for it just suited the task of an everyday sports car.
The MR2 is much quicker and handles much better as well. Mechanically she is now on 95K miles and had just the usual service items and one failed lambda sensor.
Storage space is too small, for me the steering wheel is too big and because it does not lift up very high it is on my knees and make ingress and egress harder. When pushing on you do get scuttle shake on uneven corners but this does not affect the ride or handling.
They are not seen as good as the MX5 but that is down to the race series, the tuning scene and the fan base they have who do love telling everyone how good they are.
I would have an MR2 anytime based on our experience and the latest version we looked at with a view to getting a new one had the most awful offset pedals tiny boot and was just ordinary
The MR2 is much quicker and handles much better as well. Mechanically she is now on 95K miles and had just the usual service items and one failed lambda sensor.
Storage space is too small, for me the steering wheel is too big and because it does not lift up very high it is on my knees and make ingress and egress harder. When pushing on you do get scuttle shake on uneven corners but this does not affect the ride or handling.
They are not seen as good as the MX5 but that is down to the race series, the tuning scene and the fan base they have who do love telling everyone how good they are.
I would have an MR2 anytime based on our experience and the latest version we looked at with a view to getting a new one had the most awful offset pedals tiny boot and was just ordinary
Personally I prefer the MX5 as it's handling is so predictable and forgiving.
I know when I go around a bend how close to the limit of grip I am and I know what happens and how easy it is to correct when I go a little, or a lot past that limit.
As it happens I have a much maligned MK2 MR2 as a track car - it drives nothing like a standard MR2 and has far higher limits than the MX5 - but it's not as playful.
I know when I go around a bend how close to the limit of grip I am and I know what happens and how easy it is to correct when I go a little, or a lot past that limit.
As it happens I have a much maligned MK2 MR2 as a track car - it drives nothing like a standard MR2 and has far higher limits than the MX5 - but it's not as playful.
loggo said:
I'm probably over simplifying (hugely) but it seems the MX5 is a little mot "hairdresser" but easier to live with and the MR2 mk3 is a bit more hard-core. Now to tell the Mrs what she's having ! -she leans towards SLKs but that's not happening
Surely your wife can buy whatever car she wants?!The MR2 is always going to be a bit more "special" than the MX5 - it's one of only a handful of mid-engined small cars.
The MX5, while good at what it does, is a well-executed but utterly conventional roadster.
Either will require a bit more finesse to drive than the current crop of stability-controlled FWD/4WD cars (see various "is a RWD car going to kill me" threads that pop up on PH from time to time), but neither is a widowmaker. The MR2 is probably more twitchy, but you'd have to be pretty ham-fisted (footed?) to get in trouble.
I have had a 160 hp mk1 MR2 for a number of years now and have never spun it, not even on the track, but if the back end starts to slide you need quick reactions to catch it.
My money would go on the MR2, but as a hardened modifier, I would fit the 190 hp Celica motor for a bit more performance.
The MX5, while good at what it does, is a well-executed but utterly conventional roadster.
Either will require a bit more finesse to drive than the current crop of stability-controlled FWD/4WD cars (see various "is a RWD car going to kill me" threads that pop up on PH from time to time), but neither is a widowmaker. The MR2 is probably more twitchy, but you'd have to be pretty ham-fisted (footed?) to get in trouble.
I have had a 160 hp mk1 MR2 for a number of years now and have never spun it, not even on the track, but if the back end starts to slide you need quick reactions to catch it.
My money would go on the MR2, but as a hardened modifier, I would fit the 190 hp Celica motor for a bit more performance.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff