RE: Supra and MR2 could return, says Toyota
Discussion
What happened the picture of the Supra above? I was going to say that it looks naff without the spoiler and furthermore, with it being the twin turbo model it would benefit greatly from having the proper bodykit and spoiler on it if it was ever going to be driven fast!
As for the mk2 Turbo, the following it has here is testament to it's quality. It just strikes me as a really special car. I love the mk1, it's a great little piece of design and a hoot to drive. But the mk2 Turbo is a real giant killer. And thats an over-used phrase if there ever was one, so often applied to Smart Roadsters and redtop Corsas and other cars of dubious ability. But the MR2 Turbo is a real rocketship, and I'd like to see Toyota go back to that sort of thing!
As for the mk2 Turbo, the following it has here is testament to it's quality. It just strikes me as a really special car. I love the mk1, it's a great little piece of design and a hoot to drive. But the mk2 Turbo is a real giant killer. And thats an over-used phrase if there ever was one, so often applied to Smart Roadsters and redtop Corsas and other cars of dubious ability. But the MR2 Turbo is a real rocketship, and I'd like to see Toyota go back to that sort of thing!
kambites said:
What theory? I don't think anyone ever claimed that the mk3 was a faster car.
A big difference for the track is as the mk2 is a fat bloater loads of weight can be stripped out and moved lower to improve COG etc. The mk3 & mk1 are lightweights to begin with so have very little to loose.I have never heard of anyone whos owned, driven daily, tracked all three ever say they thought the mk2 to be the best.
I can't imagine you know many people who've done that with all four cars!
And yet the mk2 stands tall, over 20 years later it is the one seeing the most praise heaped upon it, and still lusted after by many. Maybe Toyota just know how to make a really great sports car with GT characteristics blended in? And lets face it, the mk3 wa a bit of a let down.
And yet the mk2 stands tall, over 20 years later it is the one seeing the most praise heaped upon it, and still lusted after by many. Maybe Toyota just know how to make a really great sports car with GT characteristics blended in? And lets face it, the mk3 wa a bit of a let down.
Baryonyx said:
wst said:
...Mk3 is for hairdressers...
...As for the mk3 MR2, it's mechanical weaknesses aside I just don't think it delivers on the key aspect on which these cars should be considered: driver enjoyment. It's a good car, no doubt, but it does not feel special, it impresses but it does not 'wow'. The mk2 does. It's got the comfort of a GT, a better engine and exquisite handling if you're willing to exploit it. It's not as easy to mk3 to drive, the mk2 rewards a skilled hand with dividends. Especially the Turbo model, which has to be the best bang:buck you can get when buying a used car. Where else can you get a turbo powered, mid-engined sports car? The Mk3 is by no means a bad car, but compared to the mk2 it's a real let down...
It is a proper fun sports car - It is fast enough on the road, definitely quicker than a standard MK2, and there was a turbo option to keep up with the imported MK2 'Tubby' - It is not my only car (I have a wife & 3 kids who won't all fit in at the same time), so I don't need a boot and lugging the weekly shop really is not what a sports car is for - And so really it comes down to looks, the MK2 is a good-looking car, granted - I miss pop-up headlights, but they are not coming back and I really don't think the MK3 is so terribly ugly, certainly not bad enough to outweigh its performance.
I have had mine 4 years, the longest I have ever kept a car, because I cannot find anything else that comes close, in terms of real-world usable mid-engined fun, to trade up to in the same price bracket.
profile by kentsmudger, on Flickr
Edited by Silver Smudger on Tuesday 6th December 20:04
Baryonyx said:
I can't imagine you know many people who've done that with all four cars!
And yet the mk2 stands tall, over 20 years later it is the one seeing the most praise heaped upon it, and still lusted after by many. Maybe Toyota just know how to make a really great sports car with GT characteristics blended in? And lets face it, the mk3 wa a bit of a let down.
I've owned all of them, mk1B, rev2's, rev3s, mk3. On the mk3 owners club you'll see people who have had all, also on the Elise forums and wouldn't suprise me if many Boxster owners also grew up with MR2's. Many people have migrated away from Imoc, DC, OC as they have had real phases of being full of chavs with mk2 rev1 turbos wanting 600bhp by turning up the boost... And yet the mk2 stands tall, over 20 years later it is the one seeing the most praise heaped upon it, and still lusted after by many. Maybe Toyota just know how to make a really great sports car with GT characteristics blended in? And lets face it, the mk3 wa a bit of a let down.
Mk1 & mk3 tends to be an older crowd who have done them all and have them as toys now, mk1 and mk3 were not manly enough for the knuckle draggers so why would their owners go on mk2 dominated clubs?
No idea why you say the mk2 stands tall and lusted after by many, its a real away toy now in terms of cost, the mk2 was the least favourably reviewed by the motoring press universally as well.
I'm not saying the mk1 or 3 are perfect, far from it mk3 engine is made of chocolate and most mk1s have more rust than clean steel. I do think people totally miss the point of the mk3 though, look at it as a cheap Elise and it makes a whole lot more sense, they are very similar.
The mk2 was possibly a bigger sales success due to a number of factors, boom time '90's mainly & it had a big boot and so could be an "only" car being the 1st things that spring to mind.
My current Mk3 :-
and for balance one of my old mk2's
Edited by Herman Toothrot on Tuesday 6th December 19:38
Gaz. said:
The mk2 isn't a GT, a Supra is though.
Of course it is - boot, long, medium weight, large fuel tank. A GT is exactly what it is, just a lighter one than the Supra. Doesn't stop it being a good all rounder too though......and a GT is still a sports car.The Mk1/2/3 debate Is an odd one as the cars are very similar. The Mk2 gets called all sort of negative things, yet the only times the 3 compete on track the Mk2 comes out on top and still the doubting remains.....
Ah well I'll jump in the sports wagon with a pic of my current classic Toyota
Lightweight version and one of only a few left in the country.
I've never acknowledged the Mk7 Celica as a proper evolution of the ST xxx. Are we counting the GT 86 as the Celica repacement in the Toyo sandwich; I forget..
/blatantpicwhoring
Lightweight version and one of only a few left in the country.
I've never acknowledged the Mk7 Celica as a proper evolution of the ST xxx. Are we counting the GT 86 as the Celica repacement in the Toyo sandwich; I forget..
/blatantpicwhoring
squareflops said:
Ah well I'll jump in the sports wagon with a pic of my current classic Toyota
Lightweight version and one of only a few left in the country.
I've never acknowledged the Mk7 Celica as a proper evolution of the ST xxx. Are we counting the GT 86 as the Celica repacement in the Toyo sandwich; I forget..
/blatantpicwhoring
lovely, i had a sainz for a few months Lightweight version and one of only a few left in the country.
I've never acknowledged the Mk7 Celica as a proper evolution of the ST xxx. Are we counting the GT 86 as the Celica repacement in the Toyo sandwich; I forget..
/blatantpicwhoring
Zircon said:
Of course it is - boot, long, medium weight, large fuel tank. A GT is exactly what it is, just a lighter one than the Supra. Doesn't stop it being a good all rounder too though......and a GT is still a sports car.
The Mk1/2/3 debate Is an odd one as the cars are very similar. The Mk2 gets called all sort of negative things, yet the only times the 3 compete on track the Mk2 comes out on top and still the doubting remains.....
Rob, thing is with the chmpionship / whatever it is called now is ultimately power counts for too much on track. The mk1 has at best a 32bhp disadvantage and the mk3 a 20bhp disadvantage, really this is more like a 51 and 35bhp disadvantage as everyone uses the rev3+ engine not the 158bhp rev1/2. Sure the mk2 has a weight disavantage - but this is moved low, as in steel plates under the seats, everything is stripped out and weight moved, can't be done as much in the mk1 or mk3 as they are light already. Good PWR really counts the most under acceleration and braking so smaller tighter track, higher maintained speed tracks outright power will always have a big advantage. I can tell you now, a week behind the wheel of a mk3 and you'd be driving twisty, cambered, lumpy B roads faster than you ever thought possible in your mk2 turbo.The Mk1/2/3 debate Is an odd one as the cars are very similar. The Mk2 gets called all sort of negative things, yet the only times the 3 compete on track the Mk2 comes out on top and still the doubting remains.....
Edited by Herman Toothrot on Tuesday 6th December 20:36
Herman Toothrot said:
I can tell you now, a week behind the wheel of a mk3 and you'd be driving twisty, cambered, lumpy B roads faster than you ever thought possible in your mk2 turbo.
I know you favour the mk3, but posting ridiculous statements like this is doing nothing to further your case. Unless you mean an off-road track, the mk3 will be faster. But thats because it has a higher ground clearance for getting over the ruts and bumps. But then you'd be better off in a 4x4!No, the Turbo is definitely the weapon of choice for fast road use. The Mk3 might feel delicate at the low speeds it carries but the Turbo is definitely the fastest across the roads. Down twisty B-roads it's still frighteningly quick, and often then you'll be backed off as it has more power than some B-roads know what to do with! Off the back roads and country lanes it's even faster, and thats where it really starts to compete with some exotic performance cars. The mk3 is great for cruising around with the roof down, enjoying life at a slower pace. If you've got the stones to give the turbo a push down a technical road you'll soon find that it's extremely fast.
Of course, driving the turbo quickly does test the mettle and the skills so it's entirely possible more reserved drivers might find the more benign mk3 comfortable at moderate speeds.
^ To give Steve his credit, he has had a tuned Mk2 Turbo, a VX220 and an MX5 turbo so I know you have a valid opinion. However, just like your MX5 turbo was heavily modified from standard, don't you think you could shift the weight around in a road going Mk2 and achieve the better balance you say the championship cars receive? The results of the championship races still show the Mk2 as an overall package is beating the others, either through power or handling advantages in one way or another.
I don't doubt there are better handling cars out there than the Mk2 - the Mk3 is for example, but cars are far more than just how they drive, they are emotive things and that is something beyond measure and why the likes of Alfa Romeo somehow still survive in our reliability zero tollerence motoring society!
All I have to do is look out of the window at my Mk2 and it stirs the soul - a Mk3 just does nothing for me, meaning I have no desire to go and drive it. A VX220 / Elise however is a different thing and I would save the extra few grand for one of those over a Mk3 any day....They look great and go great too.
I don't doubt there are better handling cars out there than the Mk2 - the Mk3 is for example, but cars are far more than just how they drive, they are emotive things and that is something beyond measure and why the likes of Alfa Romeo somehow still survive in our reliability zero tollerence motoring society!
All I have to do is look out of the window at my Mk2 and it stirs the soul - a Mk3 just does nothing for me, meaning I have no desire to go and drive it. A VX220 / Elise however is a different thing and I would save the extra few grand for one of those over a Mk3 any day....They look great and go great too.
Silver Smudger said:
Baryonyx said:
wst said:
...Mk3 is for hairdressers...
...As for the mk3 MR2, it's mechanical weaknesses aside I just don't think it delivers on the key aspect on which these cars should be considered: driver enjoyment. It's a good car, no doubt, but it does not feel special, it impresses but it does not 'wow'. The mk2 does. It's got the comfort of a GT, a better engine and exquisite handling if you're willing to exploit it. It's not as easy to mk3 to drive, the mk2 rewards a skilled hand with dividends. Especially the Turbo model, which has to be the best bang:buck you can get when buying a used car. Where else can you get a turbo powered, mid-engined sports car? The Mk3 is by no means a bad car, but compared to the mk2 it's a real let down...
It is a proper fun sports car - It is fast enough on the road, definitely quicker than a standard MK2, and there was a turbo option to keep up with the imported MK2 'Tubby' - It is not my only car (I have a wife & 3 kids who won't all fit in at the same time), so I don't need a boot and lugging the weekly shop really is not what a sports car is for - And so really it comes down to looks, the MK2 is a good-looking car, granted - I miss pop-up headlights, but they are not coming back and I really don't think the MK3 is so terribly ugly, certainly not bad enough to outweigh its performance.
I have had mine 4 years, the longest I have ever kept a car, because I cannot find anything else that comes close, in terms of real-world usable mid-engined fun, to trade up to in the same price bracket.
profile by kentsmudger, on Flickr
Edited by Silver Smudger on Tuesday 6th December 20:04
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff