Discussion
paulguitar said:
I've gone from an MR2 to a Boxster and I disagree with this.
I loved my MR2, but it was slow and not really 'special'. The Boxster is not a rocket ship but is significantly quicker, enough to make overtaking viable rather than living on a prayer, and it feels special every time I fire it up.
Fair enough... I loved my MR2, but it was slow and not really 'special'. The Boxster is not a rocket ship but is significantly quicker, enough to make overtaking viable rather than living on a prayer, and it feels special every time I fire it up.
I agree the Porsche did feel more special than the MR2, walking up to it, and sitting in it, firing up the straight 6 engine, yep, all very satisfying.
It was also hugely competent in most areas, but here's the thing, I was discussing this also with a friend at the weekend who went out in one of my old Boxsters, and we agreed that while it did have a good balance, great ride, good brakes, and just did everything quite well, it was just kinda... boring.
The engine was also far too muted as standard, but my second one had a sports exhaust on which made it unbearable with the roof up with the drone.
I dunno, for me it just felt too serious, lacking in any fun or character.
As for overtaking, I didn't think it was great for that considering it was supposed to have 250 bhp. It was fine when you got the revs right up, but just as gutless as a much smaller engine at low revs. They were both like that so I'm guessing a trait of the engine - once you got above a ton, then it started feeling as though it was interested in going fast. Below that, flat as a fart. For a car with more BHP than my current JCW Mini, the Mini would absolutely slaughter it in a straight line (or if not, then it certainly feels like it from the drivers seat!).
Add to that the running costs were so much higher, and I was always paranoid about potential engine failure, which sadly did happen to me with my second, after just a month of ownership.
I will never own another Porsche, but would happily own another MR2. It was fairly slow, but honestly, I didn't care, it was just so nice to drive, so involving, didn't sound bad with an upgraded exhaust, and was a good 300 - 400 kg lighter than a Boxster, and it felt like it.
I guess they're not really natural rivals though, despite the similar looks and mid engine layout, the MR2 is more akin to an Elise than the more GT like Boxster.
Just my opinion though, take it as it is
TameRacingDriver said:
paulguitar said:
I've gone from an MR2 to a Boxster and I disagree with this.
I loved my MR2, but it was slow and not really 'special'. The Boxster is not a rocket ship but is significantly quicker, enough to make overtaking viable rather than living on a prayer, and it feels special every time I fire it up.
Fair enough... I loved my MR2, but it was slow and not really 'special'. The Boxster is not a rocket ship but is significantly quicker, enough to make overtaking viable rather than living on a prayer, and it feels special every time I fire it up.
I agree the Porsche did feel more special than the MR2, walking up to it, and sitting in it, firing up the straight 6 engine, yep, all very satisfying.
It was also hugely competent in most areas, but here's the thing, I was discussing this also with a friend at the weekend who went out in one of my old Boxsters, and we agreed that while it did have a good balance, great ride, good brakes, and just did everything quite well, it was just kinda... boring.
The engine was also far too muted as standard, but my second one had a sports exhaust on which made it unbearable with the roof up with the drone.
I dunno, for me it just felt too serious, lacking in any fun or character.
As for overtaking, I didn't think it was great for that considering it was supposed to have 250 bhp. It was fine when you got the revs right up, but just as gutless as a much smaller engine at low revs. They were both like that so I'm guessing a trait of the engine - once you got above a ton, then it started feeling as though it was interested in going fast. Below that, flat as a fart. For a car with more BHP than my current JCW Mini, the Mini would absolutely slaughter it in a straight line (or if not, then it certainly feels like it from the drivers seat!).
Add to that the running costs were so much higher, and I was always paranoid about potential engine failure, which sadly did happen to me with my second, after just a month of ownership.
I will never own another Porsche, but would happily own another MR2. It was fairly slow, but honestly, I didn't care, it was just so nice to drive, so involving, didn't sound bad with an upgraded exhaust, and was a good 300 - 400 kg lighter than a Boxster, and it felt like it.
I guess they're not really natural rivals though, despite the similar looks and mid engine layout, the MR2 is more akin to an Elise than the more GT like Boxster.
Just my opinion though, take it as it is
I'd suggest that with a Boxster, they don't really wake up until about 4,000RPM. They simply need to be revved, and doing so is great fun. I have the 2.7 and it really sings high up in the rev range, and changing from 2nd to 3rd at full chat still often makes me literally chuckle out loud, such is the joy of the induction sound.
As I said, I loved my MR2 as well, but always felt it needed another 100 BHP and a better noise.
paulguitar said:
All fair and valid points, I agree with much of that.
I'd suggest that with a Boxster, they don't really wake up until about 4,000RPM. They simply need to be revved, and doing so is great fun. I have the 2.7 and it really sings high up in the rev range, and changing from 2nd to 3rd at full chat still often makes me literally chuckle out loud, such is the joy of the induction sound.
As I said, I loved my MR2 as well, but always felt it needed another 100 BHP and a better noise.
I'd suggest that with a Boxster, they don't really wake up until about 4,000RPM. They simply need to be revved, and doing so is great fun. I have the 2.7 and it really sings high up in the rev range, and changing from 2nd to 3rd at full chat still often makes me literally chuckle out loud, such is the joy of the induction sound.
As I said, I loved my MR2 as well, but always felt it needed another 100 BHP and a better noise.
Yeah I agree, both of mine were the 3.2 and they both needed at least 4,500 rpm on the tacho before they woke up. They really didn't seem to particularly enjoy being used below that. Despite the fact the 3.2 is the more torquey one over the 2.7, anyone who thinks they're getting a properly torquey car as a result is going to be disappointed.
I think the other problem for me was gearing, which was not really suited to UK roads, in the 3.2 you could do over 70 in second and over 100 in third, but then 4th, 5th and 6th were more closely stacked, so it was clearly designed for an autobahn, which makes sense I guess given it was made in Germany and has slightly GT like leanings.
In all honesty, I wish now my second Boxster had been the 2.5. Shorter gearing, more robust, cheaper to buy, lighter, I think they are the overlooked ones of the range and more comparable to an MR2.
TameRacingDriver said:
paulguitar said:
All fair and valid points, I agree with much of that.
I'd suggest that with a Boxster, they don't really wake up until about 4,000RPM. They simply need to be revved, and doing so is great fun. I have the 2.7 and it really sings high up in the rev range, and changing from 2nd to 3rd at full chat still often makes me literally chuckle out loud, such is the joy of the induction sound.
As I said, I loved my MR2 as well, but always felt it needed another 100 BHP and a better noise.
I'd suggest that with a Boxster, they don't really wake up until about 4,000RPM. They simply need to be revved, and doing so is great fun. I have the 2.7 and it really sings high up in the rev range, and changing from 2nd to 3rd at full chat still often makes me literally chuckle out loud, such is the joy of the induction sound.
As I said, I loved my MR2 as well, but always felt it needed another 100 BHP and a better noise.
Yeah I agree, both of mine were the 3.2 and they both needed at least 4,500 rpm on the tacho before they woke up. They really didn't seem to particularly enjoy being used below that. Despite the fact the 3.2 is the more torquey one over the 2.7, anyone who thinks they're getting a properly torquey car as a result is going to be disappointed.
I think the other problem for me was gearing, which was not really suited to UK roads, in the 3.2 you could do over 70 in second and over 100 in third, but then 4th, 5th and 6th were more closely stacked, so it was clearly designed for an autobahn, which makes sense I guess given it was made in Germany and has slightly GT like leanings.
In all honesty, I wish now my second Boxster had been the 2.5. Shorter gearing, more robust, cheaper to buy, lighter, I think they are the overlooked ones of the range and more comparable to an MR2.
I have not driven the 2.5, but I have heard they are free-revving and great fun.
I have never had a Boxster but i have had both a 987 and 981 Cayman S. I sourced the MR2 mk3 that I have for a friends daughter who then went and promptly refuse it because she wanted a Boxster (at 19 get real girl) so i told my friend I would keep it. I would say that on the road compared to the Porsche they are 70% there in terms of driving enjoyment. They really could do with the 190bhp engine but the power on that engine is all so high in daily driving it doesnt really make much difference. Where the Porsche wins really is on the edge handling and raw power. Most drivers cant get into that 3/10ths on the road so as a used car now the MR2 is really good value and better than any MX5 I have ever driven. Im going to keep mine. I did an in depth service on it changing literally everything that was a consumable or fluid, have refurbed the calipers and fitted new discs and pads all round, about to do the same with shocks and springs, got Michelin PS3's on it and have updated the Audio system massively. All for fairly little money. The costs to do stuff like that, and the other jobs I have planned are much much cheaper than on any of the Porsches ive had. OK its never going to win in terms of interior quality or kit but neither should it but to me that not the point. The roof of mine is a Swansea replacement and its much lighter and much better than any original i tried when I was looking for one. I would recommend that upgrade to anyone. Engine wise I think a turbo upgrade to the ZZ1 would be a better option than the ZZ2 or any V6
I’ve owned an MR2 roadster for 20 years. In 2017 I nearly swapped it for either a new 2.0 Boxster or a used 3.4s. I preferred the 2.0 to the 3.4 where the extra power and the PDK made it feel boring. A 2.0 manual was fast enough and I found it bore run than the 3.4. But it wasn’t 10x better and that was the cost differential so I didn’t get one.
craigjm said:
I would say that on the road compared to the Porsche they are 70% there in terms of driving enjoyment. They really could do with the 190bhp engine but the power on that engine is all so high in daily driving it doesnt really make much difference. Where the Porsche wins really is on the edge handling and raw power. Most drivers cant get into that 3/10ths on the road so as a used car now the MR2 is really good value and better than any MX5 I have ever driven.
I'd respectfully suggest you're doing the MR2 a massive disservice if you think that it's only 70% as enjoyable to drive on the road as a Boxster. I'd probably say 130% as enjoyable as I think it's a more fun road car hands down, but it obviously depends what you look for in a car. Obviously though if a lot of driving is more A roads than B roads and longer distances then the Porsche is clearly better there.I found the Porsche to be far too grippy to explore the limits on the road as well, which the MR2 can do so much more easily, and that is part of what makes it more fun for me.
I also used to fantasise about the 2zz in one but maybe I'm either just old now or my preferences have changed, but I wouldn't want one now. I always used to think I'd want a 111R for the same reasons, but now I just think they're too highly strung and you really have to drive like a loon to get anything out of them. Give me some low down torque any day nowadays.
As for the mx5, I agree when it comes to out of the box, although I would say my BBR Super 200 is easily as much fun as the MR2 I had but here's the thing, it's quite extensively modified in order to do that, and even then it's probably only slightly better to drive and that's subjective anyway. A standard mk3 MX5 though? Forget about it, MR2 wins. Although I did feel the MR2 really benefited hugely from the under brace and exhaust, as well as alignment, that really transformed it for hardly any money.
Yeah TameRacingDriver you are probably right maybe 85%. I bought mine 12 months ago like I said above intending it to be for someone else and it’s the car that I drive pretty much all the time. I have some updates I want to do to it still but it’s made me be done with expensive leases etc for cars 30x what I paid for it. The new Caterham V may make me change my mind.
Made the mistake of parking next to a new Defender today. It is absolutely gargantuan looking up from the MR2. I do not think I could see over its wheel arches. It was made worse by the woman driving having to park 1/2 in my space to fit it in. See Q7, Range Rover, X5 G class etc. I honestly feel I could park in their boot with space to spare.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Made the mistake of parking next to a new Defender today. It is absolutely gargantuan looking up from the MR2. I do not think I could see over its wheel arches. It was made worse by the woman driving having to park 1/2 in my space to fit it in. See Q7, Range Rover, X5 G class etc. I honestly feel I could park in their boot with space to spare.
Yeah when you end up parked between two full size SUV's it does make it hard to get out of the space because you cant see anything. I do like the new defender though in 90 configuration. Its the only SUV I do like. Commercial top and steel wheels for me.QuantumTokoloshi said:
Made the mistake of parking next to a new Defender today. It is absolutely gargantuan looking up from the MR2. I do not think I could see over its wheel arches. It was made worse by the woman driving having to park 1/2 in my space to fit it in. See Q7, Range Rover, X5 G class etc. I honestly feel I could park in their boot with space to spare.
I had a very scary moment in my MR2 where a tractor pulling a trailer started to turn across an A road in front of me. He finally saw me and aborted, and I'd been covering the brake and then braking hard. He simply had not seen me from his high driving position. I kept my headlights on at all times after that.
Not sure how I missed this thread first time around - I have had my MR2 Roadster for 10 years now, and I also have a reader's rides thread running. They are such underrated little cars.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Got the hard top on, heater is fierce, properly cooking hot.
I had to get the exhaust flexi coupling replaced, as it was blowing, looks to have upset an O2 sensor, getting an error code on the O2 heater circuit, nothing serious but will need sorting before MOT, just resert it when it does come on. Might be a new sensor or bypass with a resistor, still running closed loop okay, so I might try the resistor as a start.
O2 sensors are one of the few things that go wrong with them, once you have worked out which of the 3 sensors it is, it is a quick and easy fix to swap it out.I had to get the exhaust flexi coupling replaced, as it was blowing, looks to have upset an O2 sensor, getting an error code on the O2 heater circuit, nothing serious but will need sorting before MOT, just resert it when it does come on. Might be a new sensor or bypass with a resistor, still running closed loop okay, so I might try the resistor as a start.
Craikeybaby said:
O2 sensors are one of the few things that go wrong with them, once you have worked out which of the 3 sensors it is, it is a quick and easy fix to swap it out.
Anything exhaust side is easy to get to, Intake side, not so much, need to have a handy set of inspector gadget arms to get to it.Got a new hood fitted by the well known MX5 & MR2 Swansea based trimmer. I decided to go with red, as it gives a better contrast with the silver paintwork. I think it looks decent.
The workshop is in an interesting location, but the man knows his trade, Mohair top, fits perfectly, at a 1/4 of the price of equivalent trimmers. he also fitted the the new side drain bags I had bought, so the hood should be good for another decade or two. The drive down was in a biblical rainstorm, it was hammering down almost the whole way there, but was pleasantly surprised with the fuel consumption, 35 MPG, which was good, especially as I was not hanging about on the way back, outside of the Welsh "air quality 50 MPH" zone, which also happens to border a freaking great steel works!
The workshop is in an interesting location, but the man knows his trade, Mohair top, fits perfectly, at a 1/4 of the price of equivalent trimmers. he also fitted the the new side drain bags I had bought, so the hood should be good for another decade or two. The drive down was in a biblical rainstorm, it was hammering down almost the whole way there, but was pleasantly surprised with the fuel consumption, 35 MPG, which was good, especially as I was not hanging about on the way back, outside of the Welsh "air quality 50 MPH" zone, which also happens to border a freaking great steel works!
Craikeybaby said:
I need to get down there before he retires... My Roadster is still on the original hood, but it is starting to look a bit scruffy, with a few cracks etc. It still seems watertight though.
He looks to be going strong for a while still, old Welsh miner, well worth hanging about and talking to, knows the areas history etc. Anyone driven or considered the 1.8 T conversion by Zurawski motosport? it looks like a decently resolved conversion, with an easily available engine and 280 bhp attainable with just the addition of a map on a 20VT.
An interesting option, but i suspect not much change from £7K without car, which makes it trickier to justify.
An interesting option, but i suspect not much change from £7K without car, which makes it trickier to justify.
I've looked at the 1.8t conversion myself. My understanding is that drive in drive out would be circa £6k. I was thinking that there isn't another mid engine rwd car that would give that level of performance for the cost.
The bigger concern for me isn't the engine and lack of character but the gearbox. The standard MR2 box is good and I wouldn't want to lose that. Having said that, I haven't tried the VW box but imagine it won't be great.
The bigger concern for me isn't the engine and lack of character but the gearbox. The standard MR2 box is good and I wouldn't want to lose that. Having said that, I haven't tried the VW box but imagine it won't be great.
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff