RE: SOTW: Mk2 Toyota MR2

[seismic22]

Good car but very pricey.

[Contigo]

Great in their day but just so dated and dull for me these days. For a Grand I'd find other cars that interest and involve me far more.

[dbdb]

A friend of mine had one of these in the late 1990s - a bright red Japanese import heavily modified turbo fresh from the docks and with "Man of world - Man in action" together with some Japanese script emblazoned across the boot lid. This was removed with boiling water the moment he got it home.

It was mind-that-hedge fast – exciting to the point of fear! Either that or it wouldn’t start. It blew up in the end and he replaced it with a E36 3 series which was a good car but boring in comparison.

I think of it now with a wistful snigger; that’s a good sign for a car like this.

Edited by dbdb on Friday 29th June 12:07

[KMB]

I still miss my MR2 Rev3 Turbo, it looked bog standard (but had a few psi extra) and really was great fun. Handling with some decent strut braces was also far far better than you might reasonably expect, given the reputation as a hedge finder.

Great cars, if only they weren't all butchered these days.

[garypotter]

I owned an import 91H celica for 7 years and took from 60k to 248,500 miles before it let go badly in the fast lane on the A3. driven hard every day and loved, I think this also had the 3sge engine in from memory! so with regular oil changes this has still a little bit of life left in it.

[SonicShadow]

bicycleshorts said:

- front tyres are 195/55/15 and are cheap (£30 per corner for T1Rs), rears are 225/50/15 and are not (£80 per corner for T1Rs)

Those tyre prices are very conservative. Looking at £50 each for the fronts, and £85 for the rears (T1R's) + fitting. IMO, you are beter off upgrading to 16's.

[bicycleshorts]

SonicShadow said:

Those tyre prices are very conservative. Looking at £50 each for the fronts, and £85 for the rears (T1R's) + fitting. IMO, you are beter off upgrading to 16's.

Wtf! Camskill used to have them for £30-35, I know because 195/55/15 was the same size as my MX5. They've upped the price to £50 as you say. That's annoying.

[Frimley111R]

cvega said:

185k miles for a maintained engine is nothing.

Its not the engine thats the issue, its everything else that also has 185k of wear and tear.

[TameRacingDriver]

Riknos said:

Plenty of mk2 MR2s around for less than a grand, this is not the best example.

mk2 rev3 MR2 Turbo, still regret not getting one of these... oh and the DC2 ITR...

Had both, glad I did. The ITR is the better car of the two though IMHO, its a lot faster on the corners, as well as being more practical and better sounding... but the MR2 is cheaper and mid engined, and a tiny bit quicker in a straight line (when standard).

Not sure what the NA version is like though in comparison. I was tempted to try but I have heard from some they're a little slow for their claimed power output?

[thewheelman]

B'stard Child said:

185,000 miles and only just under a bag of sand!!

Interesting......

That's what I thought! There are plenty around with less mileage for the same money.

There's one on eBay right now with 85k FSH with recent clutch, for £100 more.

[RevOne]

This makes me miss my MR2, sold via Piston Heads (obviously).

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/sales/3823101.htm

I think this shed is a bit pricey given the miles and that its not hard to pick up a mint example for >£800.

Extremely fun cars though and i never really feared the handling... it seemed pretty neutral and progressive on smooth roads, a bit of a different story if there was a bump/manhole mid corner.

[TheHeretic]

TameRacingDriver said:

Had both, glad I did. The ITR is the better car of the two though IMHO, its a lot faster on the corners, as well as being more practical and better sounding... but the MR2 is cheaper and mid engined, and a tiny bit quicker in a straight line (when standard).

Not sure what the NA version is like though in comparison. I was tempted to try but I have heard from some they're a little slow for their claimed power output?

I've had both rev2 NA and rev3 turbo. Handling wise they are pretty much identical. As for the NA being slow, I don't think so, certainly not for the time, and not for an NA. The pre-cat engine, and the post cat engine, whilst having different HP rating, we're pretty much the same performance wise, with the latter edging it just slightly, (mainly die to the cat). The BEAMS was very much nearer the turbo, then the NA.

Never driven an ITR so cannot comment on that regard, but I always found the mr2 to be very, very planted in corners, especially with a little right foot in there.

Any excuse!

[TameRacingDriver]

TheHeretic said:

I've had both rev2 NA and rev3 turbo. Handling wise they are pretty much identical. As for the NA being slow, I don't think so, certainly not for the time, and not for an NA. The pre-cat engine, and the post cat engine, whilst having different HP rating, we're pretty much the same performance wise, with the latter edging it just slightly, (mainly die to the cat). The BEAMS was very much nearer the turbo, then the NA.

Never driven an ITR so cannot comment on that regard, but I always found the mr2 to be very, very planted in corners, especially with a little right foot in there.

I stand corrected.

The MR2 I found had better traction out of a corner than the ITR (only just though), but the ITR could go into a corner much faster and hold it there. Brakes were fantastic too (not that the brakes on the 2 were that bad).

[Captain Muppet]

cvega said:

185k miles for a maintained engine is nothing.

It's a UK car, it's got a sunroof and UK clocks / foglight switches. JDM's are only tintop or t-bar

Also it has UK side indicators in the front wings rather than JDM things in the stripe.

[/geek]

I loved my mk2 rev2 MR2. Had it for 7 years. The headgasket went (massive oil leak, rather than coolant to combustion chamber). Fixed it and it was fine until it suffered a massive electricity leak, after which it was no fun at all (stupid EHPAS).

I replaced it with a K-series Elise, which hasn't done it's headgasket.

[Ellieb10]

Had an early Turbo t-top in BRG which was reasonably entertaining. Dropping into third and winding it out on the motorway was good fun but they need a big single turbo mod otherwise they run out of huff - non turbo I found a bit slow. Handling was fine unless you did something stupid like lift off mid corner. T-top leaked like a sieve - the quick fix is vaseline but that will stuff the rubbers in the medium term. With 185 on it I'd be a bit concerned about the bottom end unless its FSH.

[Zircon]

This was a shed not so long ago though guys.......look for a Turbo!

I have owned my Mk2 UK spec Rev2 for 10 years. I have changed the engine to a 285bhp Rev3 Turbo unit which gives me a 0-60 of 5.2 seconds.

Massively underrated car - and the handling criticism was hugely overplayed as they handle just fine. It isn't as agile as an MX5, but it is a different type of car - a GT (hence the name).

As for power - yes the Rev3 N/A had 174bhp, but the Rev1 / 2 will get you to 60 fractionally quicker despite having 157bhp.

Don't just read stats or motoring reviews from 1990 - go and drive a fast one and you will understand why they made them for 10 years and sold all around the world. You will also then appreciate why the owners clubs for teh MR2 are huge.

[J4CKO]

Frimley111R said:

cvega said:

185k miles for a maintained engine is nothing.

Its not the engine thats the issue, its everything else that also has 185k of wear and tear.

I don't get the obsession with mileage on a 20 year old car, were people meant to stash them awayin case you wanted it later on ?

I would be ignoring almost completely the odometer and looking at the invoices for work done, the state of the body and how it drives and not a fairly arbitrary and often plain wrong mileage reading.

Ok on a car up to what, five years old it has more relevance but on something this old you buy on condition, I really don't trust mileages, cant imagine for instance there are many low mileage 3 series BMW's out there from private dealers, clocking is rife, in fact this may have lost 60k at some point in its life as well.

I know someone who justifies a change of car as it has 60k on and rejects possible replacements due to it having covered the epic distance of 35,000 miles.

All MR2's will probably be a little baggy by now, if that bothers you don't buy a twenty year old car.

There are loads of ruined ones of these out there, this looks quite good, as long as the interior isnt a whiffy old bin, the body is good and it drives ok then I dotn see an issue.

[Chris71]

Contigo said:

For a Grand I'd find other cars that interest and involve me far more.

What sort of things are you thinking of?

Granted, a standard mk2 MR2 isn't the pinnacle of sports car evolution, but what else can you get in good nick for that sort of money? The E30s and Peugeot 205 GTIs have long since moved up in price. And while the MX5 is easier to slide around it's debatable as to whether it can match a well setup MR2 for precision.

[Mr2Mike]

cvega said:

185k miles for a maintained engine is nothing.

It's a UK car, it's got a sunroof and UK clocks / foglight switches. JDM's are only tintop or t-bar

My Japanese import had a sunroof.

[thewheelman]

Chris71 said:

Contigo said:

For a Grand I'd find other cars that interest and involve me far more.

And while the MX5 is easier to slide around it's debatable as to whether it can match a well setup MR2 for precision.

Driven several versions of both MX5 & MR2, can't say the MR2 came close to the handling precision of the MX5.

The MK2 MR2 was widely mocked due to its handling, where as the MX5 is globally known as a drivers car.