Any MR2 Roadster owners out there?

Ernie Ball

Ever since I got my MR2 a few months ago, I've been jealous of those MX5 owners with their owners' club. The UK has an MR2 roadster owners' club, but, well, it's not exactly convenient to go to their meetups.

Are there any MR2 roadster owners interested in getting a club here in Ireland off the ground? If so, post here or PM me.

And can I just ask that all eejits refrain from trying to sidetrack this thread with jealous or insecure comments about 'girly' or 'hairdressers' cars blah blah blah? Thanks.

unkel

Seek and thou shalt find

Ernie Ball

unkel wrote:

Seek and thou shalt find

Seek and thou shant find.

That's not an MR2 Roadster club.

MR2 Roadsters look like this:

unkel

Sorry!

And I see you're a member here already

franksm

Ernie, you wouldn't be totally out of place bringing the MR2 to an MX5 run We normally only get 5 or 6 cars turning up anyway, 'cept in Summer when 12 to 20 is possible. There's a lad with an MR2 turbo who comes along too.

I have an MX5 but sometimes bring a Triumph Stag along - although it's difficult to keep up with the '5ers, the Stag doesn't do corners quite so well. Plus I have used up my annual 5,000 mile insurance allowance on that car anyway.

First Sunday of the month, Pope's Cross, Phoenix Park - 1200 noon or so.

prospect

I second that motion Ernie, you are welcome to join us.

No membership fee or any of that B.S., and a bit of diversity is always nice...

Ernie Ball

Thanks, guys.

I might make it to the September meeting...

heggie

Ernie Ball wrote:

That's not an MR2 Roadster club.

MR2 Roadsters look like this:

um, i think you mean an MR2s spyder, because MR2's have always been roadsters afaik. anyway, the older ones are far better cars! cant wait to get one

Ernie Ball

heggie wrote:

um, i think you mean an MR2s spyder, because MR2's have always been roadsters afaik. anyway, the older ones are far better cars! cant wait to get one

Spyder is the name of the car in the US. In Europe it's called the MR2 Roadster. The previous generations were not roadsters since they had roofs and fixed window frames, even if those roofs were removable.

As for the older ones being better cars: to each his own. I drove a friend's Mk1 back in the 1980s and loved it. Haven't driven a Mk2, but they are basically bloated, ugly and built for straight-line speed only, as far as I'm concerned. The fake Ferrari styling is pure cheese in my opinion. I understand the affection of the 'boy ricers' but don't share it.

The mk3 (the roadster) is, overall, the best performing car of the lot, especially after a few chassis mods. And if you miss the straight-line speed, put a turbo in it (210-250bhp in a car that weighs less than a tonne) or a 2ZZ engine from a Celica GT-S (200bhp) and you've got a car that is at least as fast as Mk2 turbo and can also go around corners at speed. As it is, the car has a 1.8 litre with 140bhp and you can probably get an extra 10-15bhp with an aftermarket intake, exhaust and a chip. For now, the power is more than enough for me.

Squirrel

Ernie Ball wrote:

Spyder is the name of the car in the US. In Europe it's called the MR2 Roadster. The previous generations were not roadsters since they had roofs and fixed window frames, even if those roofs were removable.

As for the older ones being better cars: to each his own. I drove a friend's Mk1 back in the 1980s and loved it. Haven't driven a Mk2, but they are basically bloated, ugly and built for straight-line speed only, as far as I'm concerned. The fake Ferrari styling is pure cheese as far as I'm concerned. I understand the affection of the 'boy ricers' but don't share it.

The mk3 (the roadster) is, overall, the best performing car of the lot, especially after a few chassis mods. And if you miss the straight-line speed, put a turbo in it (210+ bhp in a car that weighs less than a tonne) or a 2ZZ engine from a Celica GT-S and you've got a car that is at least as fast as Mk2 turbo and can also go around corners at speed.

The Mark 2 doesn't have fixed window frames actually, and they could be gotten t-bar aswell.

And not all Mark 2 owners are 'boy ricers'. My dad is a 50 year old with a pristine condition black '93 G-Limited, with no mods whatsoever, the typical 'boy ricer'.

And tbh I don't think any mid engined car is built for straight lines only, the whole point is for the handling and I myself have driven all 3 and found the Mark 1 to be the best handling, it was just more nimble, than the Mark 2, followed by the Mark 3, none of these had any chassis modifications and the Mark 3 was just too soft, would be the best way to describe it, it understeered on the way out of corners and it didn't want to go into power oversteer when I accelerated, whereas the Mark 1 did, the Mark 2 was more neutral, it didn't understeer but the extra weight at the back didn't want the car to oversteer, it did slightly. They're all different cars, the Mark 1: A sports car, small, nimble; Mark 2: In effect a mid-life crisis car, but still willing; Mark 3: The most mainstream of the 3, designed to go directly against the MX5, Barchetta etc. instead of being in a little sub group on it's own.

The MR2 owners club should be fine for you, I'm sure there's some Mark 3 owners in it, the site looks pretty old, perhaps you should try contact some of the members.

Just my 2 cent

Ernie Ball

Squirrel wrote:

The Mark 2 doesn't have fixed window frames actually, and they could be gotten t-bar aswell.

You're wrong about this. The Mark 2 has a frame front and rear:



As for the rest, I couldn't disagree with you more about almost everything you say. I think my car handles a lot better than the Mk 1 and I suspect it handles better than the Mk 2 (all reports other than yours say so). It has a lower centre of gravity than either and that makes a world of difference.

The Mark 3 cannot accurately be called 'soft,' even in relation to those other cars. And I don't know what was wrong with the car you drove (tyre inflation?) but the usual complaint about the Mark 3 is oversteer, not understeer. It's easy enough to get the back end out and giving the car power in the middle of a corner makes it bite into the road quite nicely.

As for the Mk 3 being more mainstream: on what planet? It has virtually no storage space, weighs next to nothing and is substantially lower than the other two. I think you'll find that the sales figures bear out just the opposite of what you claim...

Also, I didn't say that the Mk 2 only appeals to boy ricers. I said it does appeal to them. And it does.

mmenarry

prospect wrote:

I second that motion Ernie, you are welcome to join us.

No membership fee or any of that B.S., and a bit of diversity is always nice...

Thirded!

You're more than welcome to come along. I "shared the road" on a strech t'other side of the border with a roadster a few months ago - both of us had the tops down, both of us grinnin' like eejits. Lovely looking cars, from what I could see in my rear view mirror. He was definately taking it a lot easier than I was..........

Michael

RicardoSmith

I've driven a few Mk1 T-Bars, a couple of supercharger ones, a non turbo and a turbo Mk2. Never driven a Mrk3. Of them all the turbo was the nutter car. Have either of you driven that? Maddness. But I'd love one. Always like the interior on the Mk2, the Mk1 is too thunderbirds and the Mk3 well it looks too fussy to my eye. Bit too much of a hint of a boxster. Still I'd love one of those aswell.

Its hard to find one of the old cars that hasn't been shunted at some stage so I'd say its hard to give an accurate assesment of that they are like. Most of them aren't stock. A friend of mine had a Mk1 T-Bar for a few years, but he had 15" wheels and low profiles tires on it so that probably made it feel a lot stiffer than stock. Certainly was stiffer and heavier than the CRX I had at the time.

If its not too uncool. I find GT2 pretty close to how the cars I've driven in real life feel. The Mk3 in that is awesome. The Mrk1 and CRX are as I remember them too.

heggie

Ernie Ball wrote:

'boy ricers'

You've been hanging around with too many americans, btw, which peter mark do u work in?

Ernie Ball

heggie wrote:

You've been hanging around with too many americans, btw, which peter mark do u work in?

Don't work for Peter Mark, but my MR2 will smoke your Integra...

heggie

whose the boy racer now!

my turbo when i get it will rape your 'roadster' , all for a quarter of the price! lovely.

Ernie Ball

my turbo when i get it will rape your 'roadster' , all for a quarter of the price! lovely.

Well my dad can beat up your dad.

I guess you must be the 'eejit' referred to in the first post.... Now please be gone from my thread.

heggie

nah i purely made the hairdresser remark because you implied the mk2 mr2 is a boy ricers car, which is just a sad as the hairdresser slags, so come off your high horse and keep track of things YOU say, and again, YOU started the car comparisons! i dont think i've come across a more arrogant snotty nosed git on boards!

Squirrel

Ernie Ball wrote:

You're wrong about this. The Mark 2 has a frame front and rear:



As for the rest, I couldn't disagree with you more about almost everything you say. I think my car handles a lot better than the Mk 1 and I suspect it handles better than the Mk 2 (all reports other than yours say so). It has a lower centre of gravity than either and that makes a world of difference.

The Mark 3 cannot accurately be called 'soft,' even in relation to those other cars. And I don't know what was wrong with the car you drove (tyre inflation?) but the usual complaint about the Mark 3 is oversteer, not understeer. It's easy enough to get the back end out and giving the car power in the middle of a corner makes it bite into the road quite nicely.

As for the Mk 3 being more mainstream: on what planet? It has virtually no storage space, weighs next to nothing and is substantially lower than the other two. I think you'll find that the sales figures bear out just the opposite of what you claim...

Also, I didn't say that the Mk 2 only appeals to boy ricers. I said it does appeal to them. And it does.

As for the car being soft, it has no fixed roof which loses alot of strength, if I recall you wanted to stiffen up the chassis, which would help the car.

As for it being more mainstream, look at the MGF/TF, another small 1.8 Mid-Enigned convertible, the MX5 is another small 1.8 convertible, although Front-Engined. It was designed to compete, not be in it's own niche market such as the other two.

And have have you never seen a done up Mark 3? If you haven't you either pay no attention or are very sheltered.

Sorry for going off topic, the only clubs I could find were the one already mentioned and the British one

prospect

mmenarry wrote:

from what I could see in my rear view mirror. He was definately taking it a lot easier than I was..........

Subtle.....

Ernie Ball

Squirrel wrote:

As for the car being soft, it has no fixed roof which loses alot of strength,

In other words: it's a Roadster? With the hard top on, it is significantly stiffer. I'm also putting strut braces, member braces and an anti-flex plate on the chassis and, eventually, lowering it. Even so, I don't find it 'soft' out of the box.

As for it being more mainstream, look at the MGF/TF, another small 1.8 Mid-Enigned convertible, the MX5 is another small 1.8 convertible, although Front-Engined. It was designed to compete, not be in it's own niche market such as the other two.

Yeah, it's so mainstream that not a single MR2 owner has responded to my original post... Tell you what: do an experiment and count the Mark 3s and Mark 2s you see on the roads. Then remember that the Mark 2s are the older car... Then do the same thing comparing with MX5s and MGFs. Now tell me again: which one is mainstream?

And have have you never seen a done up Mark 3? If you haven't you either pay no attention or are very sheltered.

As I recall, you are 16 or 17 and live at home, no? I'm 44 and have lived in 3 countries. Do you really feel you can give me lessons about who is 'very sheltered'?

I've seen just about every kind of Mark 3, most recently when I took the car to the UK for an MR2ROC event. Saw some fast cars with 17" alloys and chips and dual exhausts and turbochargers and other gear but didn't see anything too ricey. Can't say the same about some of the Mark 2s I've seen, which, as the other poster pointed out, offers more 'bang for the buck' (in simple bhp) than the Mark 3 and therefore appeals largely (though not exclusively) to boy ricers who like to talk in charming metaphors about what their car can 'rape'.[/QUOTE]

heggie

Wow someons touchy! the reason why there are not as many mk2 mr2's here is that they were never sold in Ireland, and are all imports. Any who gave u the idea that the mk2 cant handle well? there was a clip i downloaded one time (cant remember where) that showed it had incredible handling, i mean its a mid engine rwd, its not a bloody glanza

Ernie Ball

heggie wrote:

Wow someons touchy! the reason why there are not as many mk2 mr2's here is that they were never sold in Ireland, and are all imports.

Huh? If true, that strengthens my claim, it doesn't weaken it. You mean to tell me that all the Mk2s are imports and yet I still see more of them than I do Mk3s?

heggie

duno what your claim is tbh, i see more 2000 + mr2's than i do mk2's on the road. Im having a hard enough time trying to buy one, there not too common at all, go onto auto trader, yes most are mk2's but consider their age, theres not too many more than the mk3's.
btw do you think 17"s make your car go faster? sounds like u do

Ernie Ball

heggie wrote:

duno what your claim is tbh

snip

btw do you think 17"s make your car go faster? sounds like u do

Given the difficulty you have following what I'm saying, you really shouldn't be going out on a limb like this. Maybe you can explain how you reached that conclusion... On second thought, don't.

Now take your illiterate blather out of my thread or I'll have to go over to your thread and start stating my opinions of '95 Integras.

prospect

Lads,

There is no point in arguing if one car is better than another. There is a simple reason for this, everyone has different expectations and desires.

If Ernie feels his MK3 roadster is the best, then more power to him for actually owning one, and driving one.
I love my MK1 MX5 and no amount of stats and facts will change that.

Can you people not respect another persons difference of opinion?
Different horses for different courses.

Squirrel

I respect his opinion but I don't respect him not taking what he's giving, he said that Mark 2 cars are done up by 'boy ricers', a wild generalisation, so heggie asked if he was a hairdresser, again another wild generalisation and he lost it.

Ernie Ball wrote:

As I recall, you are 16 or 17 and live at home, no? I'm 44 and have lived in 3 countries. Do you really feel you can give me lessons about who is 'very sheltered'?

No you are not mistaken, I'm 16 but have been around cars all my life. I just said that there's alot of boy racers in Mark 3's, and there'll be loads more in a few years, when they're of equivalent age to the Mark 2's now, but the Mark 3's are officially imported so there will be more of them.

Btw heggie when are you hoping to get you're MR2?

Here's some pics of my dads Mark 2, is that boy racer?

commuterised

where's this MX5 owners club?

I've got a mark 1, 1.8 enuos roadster, v spec.

I've seen some UK sites, but are there any Irish ones about?

prospect

http://www.mx5ireland.com/

Ernie Ball

Squirrel wrote:

I respect his opinion but I don't respect him not taking what he's giving, he said that Mark 2 cars are done up by 'boy ricers', a wild generalisation

OK, let me go through this slowly. What I said was: 'I understand the affection of the "boy ricers" but don't share it."

Logically, which claim follows from that statement?:

a) All Mark 2 MR2s are driven by boy ricers
b) Only a boy ricer would want to drive a Mk 2 MR2.
c) All boy ricers like Mk 2 MR2s.
d) Some boy ricers like Mk2 MR2s.

Which do you think it is? You get 4 guesses.

No you are not mistaken, I'm 16 but have been around cars all my life.

That's great. I've been driving for 27 years. Can you stop condescending to me now?

I just said that there's alot of boy racers in Mark 3's, and there'll be loads more in a few years, when they're of equivalent age to the Mark 2's now, but the Mark 3's are officially imported so there will be more of them.

I only disagree with the first part. Not only are there not a lot of boy racers in Mark 3s, there are not a lot of people in them. Witness the deafening silence to my call for a club.

Here's some pics of my dads Mark 2, is that boy racer?

I refer you to the logic test above.

Squirrel

Ernie Ball wrote:

OK, let me go through this slowly. What I said was: 'I understand the affection of the "boy ricers" but don't share it."

Logically, which claim follows from that statement?:

a) All Mark 2 MR2s are driven by boy ricers
b) Only a boy ricer would want to drive a Mk 2 MR2.
c) All boy ricers like Mk 2 MR2s.
d) Some boy ricers like Mk2 MR2s.

Which do you think it is? You get 4 guesses.

Exactly like there's some boy racers in Mk 3's, and hair dressers as heggie pointed out earlier.

Ernie Ball wrote:

That's great. I've been driving for 27 years. Can you stop condescending to me now?

And how am I being condescending, I'm stating an opinion, you're bringing my age into it.

Ernie Ball wrote:

I only disagree with the first part. Not only are there not a lot of boy racers in Mark 3s, there are not a lot of people in them. Witness the deafening silence to my call for a club.

While so far I think I'm the only person who replied who has a Mk 2 in my drive

*Offers hand to Ernie Ball*

Your best bet would be to contact the MR2 owners club and see about getting roadsters included with them.