What convertible?

Howard said:
Read: Worse ;)

No reason to pick either of those over an MX5 in this situation tbh. The TF just isn't as good, and you either want a classic car or you don't.
Click to expand...

Hehe, fair point. I would still take a TF over a MX-5, even after my terrible experience with one! When it was working I loved it. It's one of those things I just can't explain :p My bank manager and the AA will thank me for getting rid of it. The AA wanted to charge extra for the number of times I had used their service!

If I had a massive garage and enough money to indulge my car hobby properly I'd genuinely buy my old car back, and perhaps put a K20 in the back. For now, my S2000 is a much more sensible choice.

This is the one that gave me so much joy, then continually leaked all of its coolant on to the M40... after an engine transplant... after an oil pump failure. The definition of love/hate.
http://www.mortimersprestige.co.uk/stock/mg-tf-80th-anniversary-135-50
 
Last edited:
Sin_Chase said:
Other than insurance I am not seeing how an S2000 is that much more expensive (if at all really) to run than an ST.
Click to expand...

They should be similar, the only thing that perhaps may be a little more expensive for the S2000 is its parts, as there may be less supply?

I would imagine oil/tyres/servicing etc to be identical.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Other than insurance I am not seeing how an S2000 is that much more expensive (if at all really) to run than an ST.
Click to expand...

I said the S2000 would be similar if not slightly more to run than the ST. I hear insurance is a joke with anything that read "Type R"!!

A good motivating point for me selling my ST is to save a lot of money, the ST is a dream car for me, and I wouldn't swap it for a similarly running cost car (if this makes sense?)

Anyway I've now scrapped the convertible idea, it's not practical really, the roof would never be down at all in the country :p. Will save it for when I inevitably move abroad to live...
 
I prefer the Mr2 to the Mx5 (well I would, I had one). I would suggest driving both if you're considering the mx5 and seeing what you prefer. Make sure you get as new a car as possible if buying the Mr2 and definately a facelift model (circa 2003 on).

Better handling car in the dry, practically impossible to unstick it with the power it has on offer. I just prefer the overall drive and balance of the Toyota - You will not be hanging the back end out in the wet though as it'll put you in a hedge - depends what you're looking for I guess.
 
Being called a hair dresser for having a MX5 is one thing but having the newer shape MR2? They'll think your Grahem Nortons love child!
 
AndrewNR said:
They should be similar, the only thing that perhaps may be a little more expensive for the S2000 is its parts, as there may be less supply?

I would imagine oil/tyres/servicing etc to be identical.
Click to expand...

Parts - Not really.

Some parts are stupid expensive for some unknown reason (Wishbones for example) but others are surprisingly cheap.

Not really any supply issues either. I get stuff down next day through my dealer.
 
Rybo89 said:
Being called a hair dresser for having a MX5 is one thing but having the newer shape MR2? They'll think your Grahem Nortons love child!
Click to expand...

Has the exact same image as the mx-5 does imo, plus nobody actually takes that kind of stereotype seriously and lets it put them off buying a cracking car....do they? :p
 
Spent a long time looking for an S2000, there are occasionally decent ones that pop up around £4500 - but you'd be lucky. The problem with all S2000's that not hugely overpriced is that they shift really quickly. I've spoken to loads of dealers or private sellers who have had them listed for hours before someone has put a deposit on it.

MX-5's you'd have the pick of the bunch for £4k, even at £3k you'd have a choice of good ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom