mx5, mr2 or mgf

[OpenToSuggestions]

Whilst I cannot comment on MR2, I bought my mk1 mx5 in 2012 for £900 and it has caused me few issues.
A used engine and gearbox is £125 because the cars die from rust only, as nothing else breaks.
For new parts are very cheap. I paid £30 for a new radiator when the original gave up the ghost last autumn.
A new roof fitted is £250. Same again for mid range tyres.

Is the MR2 better? It depends how you define better. Looks and performance wise I would say so but the mx5 is the perfect blend of reliability, cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, easy to maintain and fun.
Mine is SORN over winter, but each year when I get it out I let it sit a few minutes before taking it to 7k rpm and go sideways round a roundabout.
MK1 vs Mk2 wise is totally up to you. My preference is the MK1 as it is lighter and does not suffer the same rust issues as the mk2. Underneath they are nearly the same, as you can fit the mk2 dash into a mk1. The hard tops are interchangeable between MK1 and MK2. If it is a pre 1995 import then you don't have to worry about emissions as it has a de-cat MOT. Just avoid the post 1993 1.6 as it is 90hp not 115 like the earlier ones.

In 2012 I was out looking for an MR2. Ended up with an MX5.
With the MX5 only buy one that is not rusty. They are the world's best selling sports car and are literally everywhere, so wait for one that is not a turd.
I still find it mind boggling that fixing sill rust (~£200 per side) costs more than an engine and gearbox!

 

[adolf hamster]

funny i was looking for an mx5 and got an mr2

took her a wee blast up the hills today, i think some new tyres are definately needed but man it drive like a go kart.

for me the mx5 just owns the debate on looks, but then it looks kinda like an e type so, y'know.....

funny i went to get new tyres and already had someone try to buy it off me

 

[grudas]

If it is a pre 1995 import then you don't have to worry about emissions as it has a de-cat MOT.

Depends, mine is a 1994 import registered in UK in 2007 as Mazda MX-5. They check the plate and run a UK mx5 test on it not 1994 eunos roadster. I've tried explaining but it doesn't go down well.

 

[dale1uk]

Depends, mine is a 1994 import registered in UK in 2007 as Mazda MX-5. They check the plate and run a UK mx5 test on it not 1994 eunos roadster. I've tried explaining but it doesn't go down well.

My mate has this issue with his every year. He prints off the relevant section in the mot test procedure and takes if with him. It clearly states if the vin isn't on their system it has to be tested on the lower emissions test. He has an argument about it every time but the test centre eventuality back.down and agree he's correct.

 

[Nasher]

Whilst I cannot comment on MR2, I bought my mk1 mx5 in 2012 for £900 and it has caused me few issues.
A used engine and gearbox is £125 because the cars die from rust only, as nothing else breaks.
For new parts are very cheap. I paid £30 for a new radiator when the original gave up the ghost last autumn.
A new roof fitted is £250. Same again for mid range tyres.

Is the MR2 better? It depends how you define better. Looks and performance wise I would say so but the mx5 is the perfect blend of reliability, cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, easy to maintain and fun.
Mine is SORN over winter, but each year when I get it out I let it sit a few minutes before taking it to 7k rpm and go sideways round a roundabout.
MK1 vs Mk2 wise is totally up to you. My preference is the MK1 as it is lighter and does not suffer the same rust issues as the mk2. Underneath they are nearly the same, as you can fit the mk2 dash into a mk1. The hard tops are interchangeable between MK1 and MK2. If it is a pre 1995 import then you don't have to worry about emissions as it has a de-cat MOT. Just avoid the post 1993 1.6 as it is 90hp not 115 like the earlier ones.

In 2012 I was out looking for an MR2. Ended up with an MX5.
With the MX5 only buy one that is not rusty. They are the world's best selling sports car and are literally everywhere, so wait for one that is not a turd.
I still find it mind boggling that fixing sill rust (~£200 per side) costs more than an engine and gearbox!

It's not a large expense though really for the work involved and the rest of the car is pretty bomb proof. I wouldn't be worried about an MX-5 blowing up one morning, like I would with a high mileage German car

 

[grudas]

My mate has this issue with his every year. He prints off the relevant section in the mot test procedure and takes if with him. It clearly states if the vin isn't on their system it has to be tested on the lower emissions test. He has an argument about it every time but the test centre eventuality back.down and agree he's correct.

I think I may have the exact same sheet of paper.. will have to try my luck next time!

 

[dale1uk]

I think I may have the exact same sheet of paper.. will have to try my luck next time!

Yep, section 8 chart 2 of the mot test manual. It shows that if it fails the emissions test and was used before 1 August 1995 and there isn't an exact match in the "in service emissions book" (which there isn't as the import 5s have a different vin) then it's tested on the basic not cat test. You just have to stand your ground and get them to check in their own book.

 

[Duke]

Whenever I see an MGF, my inner monologue says "here was someone too dumb to buy a proper sports convertible" (i.e. MX5)

Its quite telling from the couple of dozen trackdays I've done that I've never seen an MGF there at all, most are either Clios or MX5s and sometimes MR2s (at this price point). There must be a reason for that..

 

[adolf hamster]

Its quite telling from the couple of dozen trackdays I've done that I've never seen an MGF there at all, most are either Clios or MX5s and sometimes MR2s (at this price point). There must be a reason for that..

Funny i'd have thought thats where most of them went, given how few there are on the roads.

Had a randomer offer me the same money i paid today for the mr2 so he could use it lane rallying, i guess at least i'll have someone to flog it to if i decide to sell at the end of the summer. Seriously i was just in to get tyres and he was getting his quad sprayer fixed.

 

[Evo8]

There are less problems with the facelift cars but they still end up going - from memory there were tweaks to the 2003, 2004 and finally 2005 cars where they finally seemed to sort it.

I don't think there were any tweaks until they eventually sorted it in late '55 and '06 cars.

2ZZ is a great swap and easy enough to do.

 

[adolf hamster]

I don't think there were any tweaks until they eventually sorted it in late '55 and '06 cars.

2ZZ is a great swap and easy enough to do.

the one i bought will need more than an engine swap to save it

 

[Dr Who]

Its quite telling from the couple of dozen trackdays I've done that I've never seen an MGF there at all, most are either Clios or MX5s and sometimes MR2s (at this price point). There must be a reason for that..

The ones that do go on tracks are usually raced, track days are for wannabe's

Many of the rest are usually in a garage being preserved by enthusiasts, but still a lot of daily drivers.

 

[ExoMale]

an mr2 is good, my mate had an import 2ltr non turbo, but the MRS model be better and more modern, i used to own an MGF just the basic 1.8 120hp model, for the 6 months i owned it, i loved every minute of it and it was my first car of that type, never had issues either, id have another, but you better of with the MGTF as is nicer looking.. the mx5 has always been considered the best in that segment that excludes the boxster, s2000 and the like, but my advice would either buy the mk3 i think it is(when it got wider and 2ltr) or trial the others as i found the earlier ones to0 tight for me whos 6ft4 of average build which is why i had the MGF, but i think an S2000 can be had for under £3k.

 

[Nasher]

You won't find a good S2000 for less than about 9k now.

 

[adolf hamster]

You won't find a good S2000 for less than about 9k now.

sad but true, great car though, i'd love one but that's a bit rich for my blood.

 

[sideways14a]

Anyone thinking of trying a soft top try and get your hands on a ND 5, i bet there are some already pushing down to 11k - give it to the end of the year when everyone is worrying about snow and rain and there will be NDs around 10k

Absolutely belting motor, goes much faster than you would think with its power and handles well as you expect.
The 1.5 is good as well, the 2ltr obviously a fair bit quicker and has a slipper between the rear wheels.

 

[Uncle_Gravy]

Put a V8 in it yet?

 

[OspreyO]

MR2 for me, but then i am a little bias, i have had a MK1, MK2 and driven a MK3. All very good capable cars, a turbo charged MK2 is a awesome machine but can chew you up and spit you eat when you least expect it. Never driven a supercharger MK1, always wanted to but never got round to it. The biggest down side to them is lack of boot space on a mk1 and 2 at least you get a boot on a mk3 you don't.

MX-5 great little car drove my dads old one years ago, great little car and a little more practical then a MR2. They handle very well and can be fun to drive, but i preferred the MR2 for handle and i loved having the engine behind me. Cant comment on a MG-f never driven one.

I drove a stock Mk1 SuperCharged MR2 T-Bar, unfortunately it was an auto. You felt the extra weight over a regular Mrk1 MR2. Indeed the regular Mk1 MR2 felt a bit heavy. I don't think you missed much from the Super Charger one except a bit more torque. I could not a a clean one at the time, and went for a CRX. The CRX could match a MR2 for pace as it seemed a good bit lighter. Wasn't as planted though and had a tendency to jump/skip, where the MR2 would have been stuck to the ground.

I couldn't stretch to a CRX SiR (160bhp) at the time, but drove them and a Civic Sir (170bhp). Mad thing. Doesn't seem that much compared to todays cars. But coming from a Mk2 GTI (118bhp) they seemed a lot faster.

 

[inflames]

I drove a stock Mk1 SuperCharged MR2 T-Bar, unfortunately it was an auto. You felt the extra weight over a regular Mrk1 MR2. Indeed the regular Mk1 MR2 felt a bit heavy. I don't think you missed much from the Super Charger one except a bit more torque. I could not a a clean one at the time, and went for a CRX. The CRX could match a MR2 for pace as it seemed a good bit lighter. Wasn't as planted though and had a tendency to jump/skip, where the MR2 would have been stuck to the ground.

I couldn't stretch to a CRX SiR (160bhp) at the time, but drove them and a Civic Sir (170bhp). Mad thing. Doesn't seem that much compared to todays cars. But coming from a Mk2 GTI (118bhp) they seemed a lot faster.

The CRX is a awesome little machine, one of the lads i worked with has still got one. We never had the chance to compare, as during the time i had my mk1 his CRX was off the road. His is now highly modified and boosted. Its a little weapon.

 

[ExoMale]

mx5 mk2 and whack on a supercharger or get the MGF Trophy, without going to like a classic spitfire or MG midget, your probably not going to find much more fun from a 2 seater affordable roadster than the mazda and mgf unless you find a cheap toyota MRS