MR2 v MX5 v MG F

ambro25

Ernie Ball wrote:

If you 'pissed on' either an MR2 or an Elise with your MX5, it's only because the person driving the other car didn't know what he was doing. (etc, etc, etc.)

Or maybe they did...but I did better

It's all subjective at the end of the day - but I am certainly secure in the knowledge that, unlike an Astra or a Mondeo, at least I'm driving something with which I can have fun (tons of on the wet ) and give any one of MR2, Elise and the like a fairly good run for their money... I sense envy, all of a sudden... or is buyer's regret for your MR2, Ernie?

ambro25

py2006 wrote:

I saw 3 MX5's yesterday, each of them had 2 women in them! It got me thinking "Oh god, I cant be driving one of them, the abuse I would get".

A lot less of 'that' type of abuse, than abuse from Astra/Mondeo/3-series/etc. drivers - e.g. wholly out-of-the-blue two finger salute, cut up at any given occasion, tailgated for miles, never let out of intersections, etc, etc... As I've told you, be ready :rolleyes:

py2006 wrote:

But I have to admit the MX5 is classier looking. The MR2 is more sporty looking or something. (...) I guess I am still undecided.

Go for the Maz', and know that you'll then have to decide "Mk1 pop-eyes or Mk2 no-pop-eyes?". Go for 1.8 if the running budget can stretch it (though the base 1.6 is fun enough), Mk1 if you're going to tune *tastefully* (e.g. not on the outside;) ).

I prefer the driving position in the MX as it 'encapsulates' more. Legs down the tunnel, mini gearknob that falls just right where your left hand would expect it, good support from seats - it feels a lot nicer and 'firmer' to drive (without being too rough) than my Impreza... Just more solid, somehow. But no good for long (loooooong, i.e. 400 miles +) journeys, be warned.

From experience (4 years), running costs are no more expensive than any other small family car (servicing, tyres, parts, etc.), aside from 'higher' usual suspects (insurance premium, speeding offences ). But that depends on how you drive it, of course.

EDIT: if you can find a Mk1 1.6 turbo (rare as hen's teeth, these are now) with a reasonably good pedigree, I'd jump at the chance. Been looking myself for a couple of years, no luck yet. Now with that beast, ole Ernie up there can eat his words re. MR2s and Elises.

Kangaroopoo

I have to sell my peugeot 206 cc 2004 (4,000) miles if anyones interested (E23, 750). Need to buy a cheaper car but really want a convertible, and in the same boat only ones I like the look of are alfa romeo spider or the MGF and I have about 10-12K to spend. Really want an mgf and I know they dont have the best rep but people I know who have one think they're great but will I get parts if Rover are gone.

What to do??????What to do??????

Blaster99

The MX-5 was exceptional when it first came out but it's old hat now. Still good but not exceptional. The MR2 has the kudos of being mid-engined which is an interesting experience. It certainly handles very well and I'm pretty sure it's quicker than an MX-5. The MR2 is light by today's standards and it's a nice and nimble car to drive.

Ernie Ball

ambro25 wrote:

I sense envy, all of a sudden... or is buyer's regret for your MR2, Ernie?

Buyer's regret?! Are you mad? I love that car. It handles like a dream, has pulse-quickening acceleration (including from 50-70, thanks to the VVTi motor) and my head doesn't pop out over the windscreen the way it does on an MX5.

I acknowledge that the MX5 is a good car and I believe I've already acknowledged that there's not a lot in it between them. However, to my mind the MX5 is:

1) as common as muck;
2) a tad girly (though not as girly as some might claim);
3) not suitable for someone my size (6 foot 2 with a long torso).

Also, I'm not convinced that Mazda reliability is anywhere near Toyota's. Toyota is the most reliable mark there is, as far as I'm concerned.

We may have to settle this on the field of battle.

Ernie Ball

ambro25 wrote:

then have to decide "Mk1 pop-eyes or Mk2 no-pop-eyes?"

Decisions, decisions...



or



Which one will you choose?

ambro25

Ernie Ball wrote:

Which one will you choose?

This one



"Other Ford powered cars there was the Monster Miata. This one had more than just the 5.0 V8 under the hood. It was also supercharged by Kenne Bell."

ambro25

Ernie Ball wrote:

We may have to settle this on the field of battle.

place, time, bring your cohones, etc.

I've seen more MR2 on the roadside (well... 3 ) than MX5s (none) over the last 4 years. Circumstancial, I know. But I'd say that, given the length of time MX5s have been commercialised and consistent placing in top end of most-reliable-car surveys over the years, the MR2 still has it's mettle to prove in the reliability dept. Doesn't mean to say it won't , all the same.

Common as muck? I'd have said the Micra was common as muck, but an MX5 is a bit of a stretch of the terms... Anyhow, mine is the only Berkeley in the Republic - howzat?

Girly? I've addressed that before. It's only 'girly' when it's being 'girly'-driven -and I've seen enough Irish men girly-drive already, MX5 or 5-series notwithstanding

Granted, tho' - at 6'2 you may feel squeezed, and that's fair.

But -to address an earlier comment re 'old hat'- one of the main reasons I went for the MX5 was precisely because it's old school driving: good luck to you getting the same fun-to-€ ratio on 4 wheels this side of €35k.

prospect

Ah, the debate continues...

May i suggest that all interested parties visit:
http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/default.html

And first input Mazda, and then MX-5 Total. Note Result
Now input Toyota, and then MR2 Total. Note Result

Now click on the Manufacturer Index and choose Top Ten.
Now look for MAZDA in the list. Note Result
Look for TOYOTA in the list. Note Result

Compare results noted, and derive conclusion.

Alun

ambro25 wrote:

EDIT: if you can find a Mk1 1.6 turbo (rare as hen's teeth, these are now) with a reasonably good pedigree, I'd jump at the chance. Been looking myself for a couple of years, no luck yet. Now with that beast, ole Ernie up there can eat his words re. MR2s and Elises.

But after-market turbo kits are pretty easy to come by and not too difficult to fit if I recall correctly. One guy in our MX-5 club even had a supercharger fitted :eek:

unkel

prospect wrote:

May i suggest that all interested parties visit:
http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/default.html

The MX-5 is very reliable, but that the Toyota MR2 is less reliable than an Opel Astra :eek: :eek:

Dagon

I'm too lazy to go over there and do that, but out of interest what was the result?

Alun

Dagon wrote:

I'm too lazy to go over there and do that, but out of interest what was the result?

I'm not telling you. Lazy git

prospect

Dagon wrote:

I'm too lazy to go over there and do that, but out of interest what was the result?

Lazy bugger

Well i am happy to report:
No. One Manufacturer for reliability = Mazda
Toyota does not feature in the Top Ten

MX5 = Position 20
MR2 = Position 66
BTW - The lower the number, the better.....

py2006

prospect wrote:

Deviating from the point a bit, but i get where you are coming from.

But lets face it. The MK1 MX-5 is a modern classic. It is THE BEST SELLING SPORTS CAR EVER - NO EXCEPTIONS. There is a reason for this.
Fine, I will not even begin to argue the performance stats regarding 0-60 or 1/4 mile times, compared to an MR2 or especially an S2000.
(But lets eliminate the S2000, it is in a different category. I mean if we are going to cross price brackets, sure why don't we include the 911 turbo ec. etc.)

My arguement for the MX is that it is, beautifully designed, extremely reliable, reasonably pratical, well priced, fantastic to drive, and without doubt the best handling car i have ever driven (perfect 50:50 front rear weight distribution).

With regards to Girly image, i think all small sports cars have that image. MR2 (particularly the current model), MX5, MG, SLK, Z3, Z4, Megane Coupe, 206 Coupe and on and on and on... They all have the girly image!

But i don't care, because unlike any other i have driven, every time i drive the MX i have a beeming smile because of its charm, involvement, response, handling, performance and I just love rear wheel drive
A truely, truely, fantastic classic.
In fact, i think i'll go for a spin right now, ha. Oh no, wait, i brought the bloody Megane in today

Hmmm, now you have convinced me to lean more towards the MX5 again!! Damn you all!

py2006

ambro25 wrote:

A lot less of 'that' type of abuse, than abuse from Astra/Mondeo/3-series/etc. drivers - e.g. wholly out-of-the-blue two finger salute, cut up at any given occasion, tailgated for miles, never let out of intersections, etc, etc... As I've told you, be ready :rolleyes:



Go for the Maz', and know that you'll then have to decide "Mk1 pop-eyes or Mk2 no-pop-eyes?". Go for 1.8 if the running budget can stretch it (though the base 1.6 is fun enough), Mk1 if you're going to tune *tastefully* (e.g. not on the outside;) ).

I prefer the driving position in the MX as it 'encapsulates' more. Legs down the tunnel, mini gearknob that falls just right where your left hand would expect it, good support from seats - it feels a lot nicer and 'firmer' to drive (without being too rough) than my Impreza... Just more solid, somehow. But no good for long (loooooong, i.e. 400 miles +) journeys, be warned.

From experience (4 years), running costs are no more expensive than any other small family car (servicing, tyres, parts, etc.), aside from 'higher' usual suspects (insurance premium, speeding offences ). But that depends on how you drive it, of course.

EDIT: if you can find a Mk1 1.6 turbo (rare as hen's teeth, these are now) with a reasonably good pedigree, I'd jump at the chance. Been looking myself for a couple of years, no luck yet. Now with that beast, ole Ernie up there can eat his words re. MR2s and Elises.

Thanks for your input there. I am learning new things everyday
What year did the Mk2 version come out? I am thinking '98 or was it in '99 with the anniversary edition?

I would definitely go with the 1.8

Ernie Ball

unkel wrote:

The MX-5 is very reliable, but that the Toyota MR2 is less reliable than an Opel Astra :eek: :eek:

Apples and oranges. They don't break down the MR2 ratings into Mk 1, Mk 2 and Mk 3. Indeed, the only breakdown they have is for 1990-2000, which are all Mk 2 MR2s. That's a totally different car to the 2000-present roadster. So, great, the previous (turbo) version was less than reliable. That tells us nothing about the roadster.

And, in general, I stand by my claim that Toyotas are the most reliable cars. Consumer Reports in the US says this year in, year out based on far larger samples than the relative small samples available to Warranty Direct (limited to people who purchased their extended warranties in the UK, as far as I can tell).

py2006

Well I guess I can scratch the MG F off the list anyways!

Ernie Ball

Another interesting review.

py2006

Ernie Ball wrote:

Another interesting review.

Hmmmm, so the MX5 is more costly to run And they more costly MR2 is cheaper to run.

unkel

Ernie Ball wrote:

Another interesting review.

I've never read such a rubbish review. It obviously weighs the perceived cost of a car more than anything else

Ernie Ball

Yes, it emphasises costs. That's the nature of the audience (fleet owners). I posted it because it makes the point that reliability isn't an end in itself: we want reliable cars because they cost less (in time and money) than unreliable ones. So this article points out that the financial costs of running an MR2 at least are significantly lower than for an MX5.

But they don't ignore the performance of the cars, nor do they delve into it the way a motoring magazine would (the reviews in those sorts of publications are largely favourable to the MR2).

v10

Can you get a MR2 T-Sport (as in with the VVTLI engine) ?
You can get a Corolla version and a Celica version but I don't know if they ever made a MR2 version.

Anyway if they do, and you decide to go for the MR2 (which I would) get the VVTLI version. I have the Celica and its a excellent engine (190bhp) and the power is great for a 1.8 engine ... 140mph+

Wouldn't touch the MG personally ... too many rattles !

The only time I seen these cars compared with a few other roadsters (Top Gear I think) the MR2 and the MX5 were very close .. although the MR2 was the only one that could keep out the water out when they power hosed them...which would be important to me (this being Ireland and all).

py2006

v10 wrote:

Can you get a MR2 T-Sport (as in with the VVTLI engine) ?
You can get a Corolla version and a Celica version but I don't know if they ever made a MR2 version.

Anyway if they do, and you decide to go for the MR2 (which I would) get the VVTLI version. I have the Celica and its a excellent engine (190bhp) and the power is great for a 1.8 engine ... 140mph+

Wouldn't touch the MG personally ... too many rattles !

The only time I seen these cars compared with a few other roadsters (Top Gear I think) the MR2 and the MX5 were very close .. although the MR2 was the only one that could keep out the water out when they power hosed them...which would be important to me (this being Ireland and all).

Hmmmm interesting, I dont have a garage at my house. If I get an MX5 or an MR2 it will be in the driveway. Does that mean if it pisses rain for 2 days straight I will be swimming in my car?

Ernie Ball

v10 wrote:

Can you get a MR2 T-Sport (as in with the VVTLI engine) ?
You can get a Corolla version and a Celica version but I don't know if they ever made a MR2 version.

Anyway if they do, and you decide to go for the MR2 (which I would) get the VVTLI version. I have the Celica and its a excellent engine (190bhp) and the power is great for a 1.8 engine ... 140mph+

There is no option for that engine although people do put it in MR2s themselves. But that's kind of insane if you're not racing. As it is, even with the 140bhp 1ZZ (i.e., VVTi not VVTLi) engine, the MR2 has 0-60 and quarter mile times almost identical to the Celica GT-S, which weighs substantially more. They also have roughly the same top speed. A 190bhp engine would be too much for the MR2 IMO, though I know there are those that like that sort of thing. It would be such an easy car for the average driver to kill himself in, which is probably why they don't offer it.:eek: They do offer a turbo version of the 1ZZ, I believe, in Japan.

In the US, Lotus uses that Celica motor, the 2ZZ, on the Elise, which is even lighter than the MR2.

This is neither here nor there but: Why on earth does the Celica GT-S have front wheel drive?

ambro25

py2006 wrote:

Hmmmm, so the MX5 is more costly to run And they more costly MR2 is cheaper to run.

py2006, that's one article. Don't jump to conclusions. For instance, why don't you give Tesco a buzz and get an insurance quote for a late-model Mk1 MX5, a Mk2 MX5 and a MR2? I'll concede to Ernie that the 1.8i is thirsty, but it's not out of proportions: I get about 32 mpg in town, about 40 mpg (with top down) on extended motorway travel.

Ernie Ball wrote:

So this article points out that the financial costs of running an MR2 at least are significantly lower than for an MX5.

I wouldn't go that far. Ernie, bear in mind that this is a UK article: I used to run my MX5 in the UK, I can tell you there's stu-fu**ingly-pid difference :eek: in running costs now that it's on IE plates (with IE insurance, IE servicing, IE roads, etc.) - m8, I'd hate to think (given the € tag on MR2s here) how irrelevant (and irritating) those figures would turn out to be once they'd be 'IE-localized'.

py2006 wrote:

Hmmmm interesting, I dont have a garage at my house. If I get an MX5 or an MR2 it will be in the driveway. Does that mean if it pisses rain for 2 days straight I will be swimming in my car?

Nope, utter toss. Not a single leak here on an 8-year old car, original seals and roof. It's elemental car care and RTFM:
1) Care for your seals
2) Always unzip the back window when you put your roof down
3) Make sure you line up your roof properly when you put it back up

Lexmark.Printer

JD Power Survey 2005:
Roadsters and coupes


1st Porsche Boxster
2nd Toyota Celica
3rd Toyota MR2


http://www.whatcar.com/News_SpecialReport.asp?NA_ID=214562&EL_ID=3121180#

Both the MR2 and the MX5 are great cars as for the MGF just don't!! Do a search on head gaskets just one of the many many faults the Rover knew about but did nothing to fix.

Which would I pick... The MR2 but that’s just my choice which ever one of those 2 you pick you won't be disappointed.

unkel

Lexmark.Printer wrote:

which ever one of those 2 you pick you won't be disappointed.

Sound conclusion. I think we all agree to that

Alun

py2006 wrote:

Hmmmm interesting, I dont have a garage at my house. If I get an MX5 or an MR2 it will be in the driveway. Does that mean if it pisses rain for 2 days straight I will be swimming in my car?

No! Ours lived on the driveway for years as well. This was in Holland, and believe me, they have lots of rain there too Never a problem. If you attack any car, cabrio or not, with too powerful a jet washer, especially if you aim it around door seals, some water will get in.

Just a tip concerning rain ... there is a common problem with MX-5's where a drain hole just behind the seats can get bunged up with gunk. Just poke something down there, like a bit of coathanger wire and all is solved.

Ernie Ball

Something else to consider: the
Lotus Elise.

The ones over here have Rover engines and the car is lacking in creature comforts relative to the other two. It's also almost certain to be less reliable. But even the slowest version will outperform the MR2 and the MX5. It weighs next to nothing.