MR2 vs Clio 172
Discussion
I'm just putting this out to the PH crowd for general opinion. I have an MR2 Rev 2 at the moment and I wasn't planning to change it until next year when I've saved enough for something a bit special. However I've noticed 172's coming in at around £1000. For this price should I expect to have to shell out another £500 on getting it up to standard or are they genuine? What are the things to look out for on them? I've driven one in the past but it was brand new, so I imagine a 12 year old one will have it's common faults, but what are they? How would it compare to the MR2 as a daily driver? I know they are more economical and probably a bit quicker...
I've been looking at 172's recently. At £1k they are either broken or abused dogs. A broken one at this price might be a reasonable buy to repair e.g. one where the chocolate gearbox has given up again and the owner has run out of patience
Have you considered getting an MR2 Turbo instead...will make a 172 feel a bit weedy by comparison and they are pretty cheap these days.
Have you considered getting an MR2 Turbo instead...will make a 172 feel a bit weedy by comparison and they are pretty cheap these days.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 1st February 14:13
I've considered MR2 turbo's before but again buying one at that price range may be a ticket to big bills. I've just thought also, the 172 may not be accepted by my present insurer as I am on a classic policy. I think I will go and have a look at the general standard of them and see whether it's worth taking a punt or not.
I test drove a 172 when just before I bought my Rev3 last year.
They're very different cars as you'd expect. You can act like a complete hooligan in the 172 without the need to give so much as a cursory nod to driving technique. I was looking at Renaults closer to the £2000 mark, and even they weren't in great nick. I'd be careful about buying one for a grand.
In the end I went with the 2 because I found it to be a much more gratifying driving experience, as well as the fact that it felt like a more complete car. Obviously I can understand the appeal of the 172 mind and how exploitable they are, but at the end of the day I'd never chop my 2 in for a 172. I'd perhaps consider a cheap DC2 to run alongside my MR-2, but not to replace it really.
I'd imagine they aren't much more economical - I'm quite happily getting 40 on a run in my N/A 2. I average 32ish, and that's when I'm not driving like a tart. They might well be mechanically more reliable, just that the electronics will give up the ghost a lot sooner.
I'd suppose that they are easier to live with as a daily driver, with the extra seats and bigger boot, although I very much doubt they'd be as comfortable if you do many long journeys. I would think they'd warm up a lot quicker.
Edit: Be careful looking for an MR-2 Turbo, as I'm sure you're aware they're all imports and they rot like absolute pears. Finding a good one is hard enough, and they fetch pretty high values these days. If you want to go down the F/I route it'd be a lot cheaper sticking a 3SGTE motor in your existing 2. Can very easily be done for under a grand.
They're very different cars as you'd expect. You can act like a complete hooligan in the 172 without the need to give so much as a cursory nod to driving technique. I was looking at Renaults closer to the £2000 mark, and even they weren't in great nick. I'd be careful about buying one for a grand.
In the end I went with the 2 because I found it to be a much more gratifying driving experience, as well as the fact that it felt like a more complete car. Obviously I can understand the appeal of the 172 mind and how exploitable they are, but at the end of the day I'd never chop my 2 in for a 172. I'd perhaps consider a cheap DC2 to run alongside my MR-2, but not to replace it really.
I'd imagine they aren't much more economical - I'm quite happily getting 40 on a run in my N/A 2. I average 32ish, and that's when I'm not driving like a tart. They might well be mechanically more reliable, just that the electronics will give up the ghost a lot sooner.
I'd suppose that they are easier to live with as a daily driver, with the extra seats and bigger boot, although I very much doubt they'd be as comfortable if you do many long journeys. I would think they'd warm up a lot quicker.
Edit: Be careful looking for an MR-2 Turbo, as I'm sure you're aware they're all imports and they rot like absolute pears. Finding a good one is hard enough, and they fetch pretty high values these days. If you want to go down the F/I route it'd be a lot cheaper sticking a 3SGTE motor in your existing 2. Can very easily be done for under a grand.
Edited by Tib on Thursday 9th February 00:07
Mr2Mike said:
I've been looking at 172's recently. At £1k they are either broken or abused dogs. A broken one at this price might be a reasonable buy to repair e.g. one where the chocolate gearbox has given up again and the owner has run out of patience
Have you considered getting an MR2 Turbo instead...will make a 172 feel a bit weedy by comparison and they are pretty cheap these days.
I'd suggest an MR2 Turbo too. For me, it's the ultimate MR2. However, you won't find a good one for £1000! The thing to watch out for on MR2's is modding and tuning. They'll easily tune up to circa 300bhp without issue, but above that you need to start replacing engine components or risk throwing a rod or something else expensive like that! And also avoid paying over the odds for body-kitted examples, there are a few around with hideous bodykits which the sellers want a premium for! The more standard the better. And of course, the later it's been imported into the UK the better, to make sure the body work is in the best condition. After that, just get it undersealed yourself!Have you considered getting an MR2 Turbo instead...will make a 172 feel a bit weedy by comparison and they are pretty cheap these days.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 1st February 14:13
As for the Clio 172's at £1000, I'd expect them to be pretty dire. I looked a few 172's last year when I was getting rid of my Volvo S60. My insurer wouldn't touch them because of the 'sport' badge, yet was quite happy to cover me on an MR2 Turbo. Fair enough. The 172 is a nice little car, but definitely doesn't feel as special as an MR2. If there is one thing that puts me off the 172 and 182's (aside from the crap interior, complete with melting plastic steering wheel) it's the laggy electronic throttle. It feels at odds with the rest of the car and spoils things a bit. Otherwise, nice cars.
Mr2Mike said:
At £1k they are either broken or abused dogs. A broken one at this price might be a reasonable buy to repair e.g. one where the chocolate gearbox has given up again and the owner has run out of patience
Not true at all...I know this because I have just bought a really clean 172 for exactly £1000, less than 2 weeks ago.
Wanted something purely to thrash on a track, saw it eBay for £1200, offered £1000 and got it.
Phase one in silver with the OZ alloys, shift light, alloy bonnet and few other rare factory bits that were found on the ones made in the RS factory in Dieppe.
Standard apart from a full stainless system and manifold that was new about 2 years ago from Motech at a cost of about £500.
Literally mint inside and out, no dings, rust, marks, nothing.
80k miles and massive history file with it, FSH, heaps of work done such as all new suspension, bushes, clutch, water pump, cam belt, etc.
Can't find a thing wrong with it after very careful inspection prior to it beginning it's track life.
So choose carefully and in my experience, yes, £1000 will get you a nice 172
By the way, it's the first hot hatch I've owned since a 16v mk2 golf in the 1990's and I'm suprisingly impressed... Once you learn to absolutely rag it, It goes like an absolute f
king bd!Baryonyx said:
It sounds like you've been lucky! Most of the 172's I looked at were upwards of £1700 and they were usually very tatty and tired. Most had kerbed alloys, which is something that always puts me off. Congrats on finding what sounds like a good one at a good price!
Thanks I think I've probably been lucky more than anything!
Sorry for the bad pic!
Baryonyx said:
It sounds like you've been lucky! Most of the 172's I looked at were upwards of £1700 and they were usually very tatty and tired. Most had kerbed alloys, which is something that always puts me off. Congrats on finding what sounds like a good one at a good price!
This. I looked very closely at one for £1800, it was in good nick apart from rust all along the roofline. 
Perhaps worth pointing out that just going from a UK rev2 to a rev3 is a jump in 40bhp according to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_MR2#Second_gen...
I just bought a rev3 for a grand and I'm very happy with it coming from a 260+bhp Impreza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_MR2#Second_gen...I just bought a rev3 for a grand and I'm very happy with it coming from a 260+bhp Impreza.
Tib said:
This. I looked very closely at one for £1800, it was in good nick apart from rust all along the roofline.
And that kind of rust has to be terminal. I can't imagine it being cheap to sort out. I remember looking at a Lexus LS400 which was in good shape, but all along the roofline at the join with the windscreen was blistered and bubbling, and peeling to reveal ugly brown rust in some places. I thought it looked pretty hideous, and I wondered how long it would be until that became a real problem. I didn't even bother test driving that one!<MR2 nerd>
The difference was something like Rev2 GTI 150ish bhp, Rev3 GTI 180ish bhp for an early one, 170ish bhp for a later one.
It is worth noting that up until the Rev3 there was also a weedy very low power version with a different engine (3FSE?) that you occasionally find at about 130-135bhp. Easiest way to tell is the failry low redline at either 6 or 6.5k.
Between me, the ex and my best mate we have owned at least 2 examples of each NA model except the Rev5 vvti engine which i always wanted, 200bhp and a slightly higher redline.
</MR2 nerd>
I still want a Turbo 2 the most.
The difference was something like Rev2 GTI 150ish bhp, Rev3 GTI 180ish bhp for an early one, 170ish bhp for a later one.
It is worth noting that up until the Rev3 there was also a weedy very low power version with a different engine (3FSE?) that you occasionally find at about 130-135bhp. Easiest way to tell is the failry low redline at either 6 or 6.5k.
Between me, the ex and my best mate we have owned at least 2 examples of each NA model except the Rev5 vvti engine which i always wanted, 200bhp and a slightly higher redline.
</MR2 nerd>
I still want a Turbo 2 the most.
SonicShadow said:
Which models are you talking about? I dont think there was a 40bhp difference between a Rev2 3SGE and a Rev3 one, or a 40bhp difference between a Rev2 3SGTE and a rev3 one.
wikipedia said:
European market trim levels:
Coupe with the NA 2.0L 3S-FE engine producing 138 hp (103 kW) (not available with T-bar roof).
GT Coupe with the NA 2.0L 3S-GE engine producing 154 metric horsepower (113 kW; 152 hp).
...
Late 1993:
European 3S-GE now rated at 180 PS (130 kW; 180 hp)
Didn't notice that the OP's was a GT, still 28bhp according to that page Coupe with the NA 2.0L 3S-FE engine producing 138 hp (103 kW) (not available with T-bar roof).
GT Coupe with the NA 2.0L 3S-GE engine producing 154 metric horsepower (113 kW; 152 hp).
...
Late 1993:
European 3S-GE now rated at 180 PS (130 kW; 180 hp)
It's not so much the power difference that interests me, more the handling characteristics and the fact I just fancy a change. Never owned a hot hatch and it would be another box to tick.
However, if I do it I really need to find a very good one or I'm not bothered. The one in the picture above looks immaculate but I imagine a rare find! A straight swap would be the best option
However, if I do it I really need to find a very good one or I'm not bothered. The one in the picture above looks immaculate but I imagine a rare find! A straight swap would be the best option
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff