RE: Supra and MR2 could return, says Toyota
Discussion
If the MK3 had a more powerful engine, it may well have been as serious a car as the Elise, to a degree. It wasn't. I drove one for a time when I was staying in Manchester, and whilst it was nice enough to drive, it was like having a 1.1 litre engine in a 911. As a 'road car' the MK2 was the better car. More comfortable, more power, better brakes in my opinion, handled well enough, looked the part, good boot, excellent gearbox which was manual. The Turbo variant of the Mk2 kicks the bum of the MK3. In my opinion, they rank like this.
MK2 Turbo
MK1 Supercharged
Mk2 NA/MK1 NA
Mk3
MK2 Turbo
MK1 Supercharged
Mk2 NA/MK1 NA
Mk3
I'd rank them in almost the opposite order, as:Has anyone posted this yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5Y4bRmtXg
Give a mk2 about 800bhp and bad (good?) things start to happen!
Give a mk2 about 800bhp and bad (good?) things start to happen!
Melvin Udall said:
kambites said:
Simply how much I enjoy driving it.
I thought you were using some sort of vehicle dynamics decision. Far more enjoyed my NA and Turbo MR2 than the MK3. Melvin Udall said:
Dynamics do not equal numbers. To me dynamics means how it feels, how it handles, brakes, accelerates, changes direction, etc. that is much about feel as anything else.
Well OK yes. In that case I am interested in dynamics, and the dynamics I'm interested in are the ones that feel nicest to me. And on that score the mk2 comes bottom by some margin. I don't really care why it feels best, just that it does. 
Didn't the racers in the MR2 championship once worship the MK1, and drive them almost exclusively while claiming they were faster because of the lighter weight? Then someone tried a MK2 and started winning, so they all switched? I wouldn't be that surprised if the reason the MK3 isn't winning was because the fastest drivers are using MK2s, rather than it being inherently slower.
If we put the turbo and BEAMS aside, I think performance figures between the two are comparable, aren't they?
If we put the turbo and BEAMS aside, I think performance figures between the two are comparable, aren't they?
kambites said:
Oh sorry, I missed that.
It doesn't change the fact that the mk3 is a vastly better car though, IMO.
But they are different cars! One is a GT, the other is a lightweight sports car.It doesn't change the fact that the mk3 is a vastly better car though, IMO.
The Mk3 is a worse car at storage, speed, and looks, so it depends what your requirements are!
The Mk2 sold over a 10 year production period, the Mk3 only laster about 6 years......
Out of interest - what reason do you give for putting the Mk2 Turbo under the Mk2 N/A? I have owned both engines in the same MK2 car and the Turbo is in a totally different league.
At the end of the day, the Mk2 and 3 are only similar in name and engine position. Other than that they were never intended to be in competition. One is a roadster, the other not. One has no storage, the other does, one is fast, the other isn't and one is lightweight and the other medium weight. You might as well compare a Mk3 to a 350Z (with the exception of engine position). They are totally different cars in terms of feedback and intention.....
As we are posting up our cars.....here is my car which will be 19 in January......
Pretty epic design in my opinion.........
Edited by Zircon on Tuesday 6th December 12:34
I would love to see another MR2 in the vein of the MK2 turbo, not a watered down, underpowered one like the MK3. If ever there was a car that didn't have enough power for that chassis that was it. Not only was it sluggish to drive, it was never a good looking car and it managed to be even less practical than it's predecessors. A real own goal in terms of progress!
Make it light, powerful and reasonably affordable and I think it would be a winner.
Make it light, powerful and reasonably affordable and I think it would be a winner.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff