Mk3 MR2 or MX5???

[TL1000R]

Right, firstly I'm well aware the default answer is always mx5 but I'm looking for advise from people that have actually owned one or both of these cars. What ever I buy will be my daily but there's only me that's going to be in it most of the time. I'm 6 foot and 16 stone so the last time is sat in a mx5 mk2 it was a little tight but not unbearable. Is the MR2 better? I know the MR2 is super limited on storage, even more so than an mx5 but I'm not to fussed about this. Also the MR2 seems to be a more focused drive but is it better or just harder???

Oh, once again, please don't just say mx5 because its the default answer in these parts.
Cheers.

[C.A.R.]

MR2 appeals more to me, but were more expensive for me to insure and there were less of them for sale locally.

MX5s cabin space actually gets more limited with each revision, so a MK1 has more physical space than a MK2 because it's a bit more sparse, less plush and the trim is less 'wrap-around' if that makes any sense whatsoever!

Sit in both and see which is more comfortable, as it sounds like it could be a critical factor...

As I understand it, the MR2 is a more challenging drive and less forgiving, whereas you can drive an MX5 even if you are very ham-fisted like me and still enjoy it very much...

[300bhp/ton]

TL1000R said:

Right, firstly I'm well aware the default answer is always mx5 but I'm looking for advise from people that have actually owned one or both of these cars. What ever I buy will be my daily but there's only me that's going to be in it most of the time. I'm 6 foot and 16 stone so the last time is sat in a mx5 mk2 it was a little tight but not unbearable. Is the MR2 better? I know the MR2 is super limited on storage, even more so than an mx5 but I'm not to fussed about this. Also the MR2 seems to be a more focused drive but is it better or just harder???

Oh, once again, please don't just say mx5 because its the default answer in these parts.
Cheers.

Doogz has an MR2 that they rate rather well, sure they'll chime in.


Afraid I can't comment on how much space you'd have as I'm not even close to being 6".

I would say you should also consider your driving style. The MX-5 is nicely balanced and ideal for driving like a hooligan. The MR2 far less so, being mid engined it'll reward a much smoother flowing driving style far more and it's truly the wrong car to be trying to powerslide about on the public roads.

I'd also say to consider mpg, the MR2 is capable of being fairly frugal, 36-42mpg, maybe even a little more. MK1 & 2 MX-5's aren't and will more likely be 26-28mpg cars able to nudge into the low 30's on a run.


Not sure on your budget, but I'd also add an MGF to your list. A nice blend between an MR2 and MX-5 in many ways. As in better on fuel than the MX-5 and more boot room than the MR2. They also drive pretty nice too, although again they aren't hooligans cars like the MX-5.

The VVC powered ones are fairly nippy too.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 1st February 14:10

[Chrisw666]

MR2 would be my preference if luggage space weren't a priority.

The MGTF is a more spacious car than either if you find them uncomfortable.

[C.A.R.]

My mk1 MX5 1.8 import did 35mpg all day long, it was actually very good on fuel..

The problem with the MG TF / MGF is that they look like crap and are just a bit pooh. The 160 has indeed got a nice throaty engine which would leave a standard MX5 behind, but they still look like a tarts car. I wasn't impressed by the number of squeaks/rattles in the 160 I sat in either, generally build quality felt a bit pants...

[TL1000R]

The MG is a totall no go for me. Hateful things in my opinion (sorry if you like). Budget is 3k tops really as that leaves some spare for refreshing and sorting any little issues. As for my driving style I've had two mk2 mr2's , both turbos so am well used to the way you have to drive a mid engine car. I'm leaning toward the mk3 but can't help wondering that there must be a reason the mx5 is the default. Is it better or to people just not know any better so go for it because every tells them it's the greatest.

[Vocal Minority]

I have an MR2, my best pal has a Mk 2 MX5. So the MR2

I am only 5'9" so probably not the best authority on this for you. But my impressions are that the cabins are relatively similar, but as said above the answer is to go and sit in one.

In terms of luggage, it is closer than you may think.Would upload a piccy but no access to relevant site at work I am afraid. The MR2 isn't brilliant, but it isn't quite as bad as people would have you believe. The storage cubby behind is big enough for a weekly shop for two, and two weekend bags, so long as you are both efficient packers. The MX5 boot is bigger in terms of its appeture, but it is pretty shallow, so the actual volumes of storage are probably fairly similar, it is just how convieniently it is spread out is the difference. Cabin wise the MR2 is very well made but a little dull and spartan. The MX5 feels alot like my old MGB and is the preferably laid out in my opinion

In terms of money, the MR2 is the cheaper to run, and mine has not (as you would expect) used a drop of oil in 12 months. Can't comment on the MX5 but as I haven't heard any bhing down the pub, I presume it has been fine.

Drive wise: The MR2 doesn't really deserve it's reputation for twitchyness IMHO, and is actually pretty benign. It is the quicker A to B car, and we reckon probably has an extra 5 mph or so in the medium to high speed corners (based on dual hooning - though he may just be a big girls blouse). In terms of 'fun' that is to say out and out chuckability, the MX5 probably edges it. An MR2 rewards precise driving, the MX5 rewards chucking - it is down to personal preference.

If you are coming from an MR2 turbo, don't expect the same level of performance. Neither car is slow per se, but neither is 'quick'.

Hope this helps.

[TL1000R]

Thanks Vocal.

I'm well aware there is going to be a big drop in speed as my last tubby was pushing out over 370bhp but that most of the reason I'm looking at these two now. I'm looking for crips handling, open top and mostly something I can use everyday as the tubby was far to expensive to run at 13mpg and you had to concentrate 100% of every drive or it would bite you. These two can be fun yet an everyday car it would seem.
Think I need to drive each to know for sure.

[300bhp/ton]

TL1000R said:

I'm leaning toward the mk3 but can't help wondering that there must be a reason the mx5 is the default. Is it better or to people just not know any better so go for it because every tells them it's the greatest.

I think there are several reasons. None actually all that important.

1. It was the first of the new breed sports cars, launched in 1989 to be the sole contender in the market.

2. Not only was it the first of the new breed, it was also the only choice for many years. Nothing truly competitive appeared until 1995 with the MGF and even then the F wasn't a true world market car like the MX-5 was (despite continually out selling the MX-5 in the UK and Europe )


I think that it's these points more than anything that make it the milestone vehicle it appears to be.

Is it good? Well yes, but I think sometimes people get a little carried away and do over hype it quite a bit. The MR2 is the better car, but only you can decide if its the better purchase.

[Vocal Minority]

TL1000R said:

Thanks Vocal.

Most welcome. Test drive is really the only way forward with these two. They both have their merits and which is better is generally a matter of preferance rather than any objective marker.