I'm going to see another mr2 (pics!)

DingleBerry · 6 Nov 2007 at 11:30

I'm going to have a test drive in this car this evening.

TOYOTA MR2 GT T-BAR UK CAR

Lovelycar, really well looked after and loved to bits! 12 Months MOT, 3 months tax, lots of history and receipts

Interior: is standard exept MOMO gear knob and in excellent condition,

Standard exept 17 in alloys(worth £700) with very good tyres all round and apex induction kit (£200). It may have done over 90,000 miles but drives like new.

It is a Revision 4 Mr2 with circular tail lights, one piece spoiler and fully colour coded, its a real head turner!

T Bar, means the glass roof panels come off and fit snugly behind the 2 leather seats, for those hot days!

Rear wheel drive, awesome sound, electric windows, electric mirrors, Clifford Thatchem approved alarm / immobiliser, power steering, 2.0 litre GTi, Kenwood CD/MP3 player, what else do you need??

Very reluctant sale

Its not a rev4 is a rev3 for starters, n/a as well but that's what I was looking for. Its been debadged but he's kept them so I could re badge it at a later date. Its done 96k rather than over 90k. The heater control is broken a bit apparently too.

I've been round today in the light so I could have a look at the paintwork and its not too bad. I've taken a few shots of the bad bits.

You can see one of the alloys has been curbed and the paint is a little loose around some of the edges and there's minor bubbling in one place. Its obviously just had a blow over rather than a full paint off respray. Other than that it looks much as it does in the advert pictures.

You can see the leather on the driver seat has taken a bit of scuffing but I think they all have by now. Its not gone right through yet though. Fairly gay gear knob as well.

The asking price is £1950 which I don't think is an unreasonable starting point what do you think? Until the test drive its the paint that concerns me the most.

[TW]Fox · 6 Nov 2007 at 11:31

No Turbo, no point.

DingleBerry · 6 Nov 2007 at 11:35

wow you are as constructive as you are beautiful.

Zip · 6 Nov 2007 at 11:39

Hes right though.

The T bar is the heaver of the MR2s and with noturbo its not going to be all thast quicjk at all.

Jez · 6 Nov 2007 at 11:43

[TW]Fox;10428548 said:
No Turbo, no point.

Completely agree. Ive owned a turbo and they are mental cars. I dont see the point in buying an N/A. Red is also one of the least desirable colours.

Dale V · 6 Nov 2007 at 11:51

[TW]Fox;10428548 said:
No Turbo, no point.

go on enlighten us all, why? :confused:

from that statement its sounds like you have a lot of experience of the MR2 in NA and turbo form, so give us a breakdown of both, please

jamief · 6 Nov 2007 at 11:58

No turbo = no point.

Agree. Owned both, non turbo was rubbish.

DingleBerry · 6 Nov 2007 at 11:58

Jez said:
Completely agree. Ive owned a turbo and they are mental cars. I dont see the point in buying an N/A. Red is also one of the least desirable colours.

Perhaps but mostly because people are scared of them going pink. Which in fairness this one did but its been "fixed". I'm still not sure how I feel about that. It does look nice though.

The n/a makes a it more sense for me because for one my girlfriend will be driving it too and I don't want her reversing round too many roundabouts into walls. They are also quite a bit cheaper to run than the turbos and a little cheaper to insure. Its not like they aren't still pretty quick. Around 7s to 60 which admittedly isn't the be all and end all of performance measures...but still not too shabby.

Tbar probably does add a bit of weight but afaik there is just a stiffening bar in the engine compartment. I doubt the glass weighs THAT much more than a metal roof with a sunroof. No more than a passenger or a tank of fuel.

DingleBerry · 6 Nov 2007 at 11:59

jamief said:
No turbo = no point.

Agree. Owned both, non turbo was rubbish.

again...why? and in which order did you own them?

Jez · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:03

TBH for a cheap fun disposable car you could do worse, it will still handle beautifully, and will still be a nice drive on small twisty roads, and as you point out it wont be as dangerous for the girlfriend (or yourself!) to drive. So i guess, why not? Its 2 grand, if you dont like it get something else

Colour is subjective, so no point passing opinion on that really.

jamief · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:05

DingleBerry said:
again...why? and in which order did you own them?

N/A -> Turbo.

N/A was just a poor car imo, didn't enjoy it one bit.

DingleBerry · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:08

Jez said:
TBH for a cheap fun disposable car you could do worse, it will still handle beautifully, and will still be a nice drive on small twisty roads, and as you point out it wont be as dangerous for the girlfriend (or yourself!) to drive. So i guess, why not? Its 2 grand, if you dont like it get something else

Colour is subjective, so no point passing opinion on that really.

quite. Remember I'm stepping up from a rover 623, and my other car is a MGB GT which isn't exactly a rocket ship!

As far as colour goes I really like the black ones but its fairly hard to find decent ones that haven't been abused in some way without space ship miles up the north. I suppose 96k miles is quite a distance but they can go a fair bit further. The engine is pretty reliable I've been told, untill you strap a turbo to the side of it

jamief · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:10

Engines are reliable in whatever form.

My '91 GT Turbo had 100k on the clock, had it for nigh on 3 years and it didn't need anything doing other than a ball joint in all that time.

If you can find a turbo, get one. Whilst the MGB GT isn't a rocketship, the N/A MR2 certainly isn't either.

Gaijin · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:13

Fox my old bean, you've been slipping lately.

At least back up your point with some semi-conceivable reasoning

Dogbreath · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:15

The trouble with the Mk2 MR2 is that it's a lardy old bus (~1300kg). Putting the 3SGTE behind it makes it an interestingly quick lardy old bus, and the mid engined layout means you have no trouble putting the power down (in the dry anyway...).

The 3SGE just doesn't have sufficient grunt for the weight of the car. So you then have a car with mediocre handling and poor practicality without the performance to offset it.

However...if you are buying it purely for it's looks rather than any other attributes, then the N/A makes more sense. It doen't suck fuel quite as badly, it's cheaper to insure and will likely be a little more reliable (not that the turbo was particularly unreliable).

ci_newman · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:20

Dogbreath said:
The trouble with the Mk2 MR2 is that it's a lardy old bus (~1300kg). Putting the 3SGTE behind it makes it an interestingly quick lardy old bus, and the mid engined layout means you have no trouble putting the power down (in the dry anyway...).

The 3SGE just doesn't have sufficient grunt for the weight of the car. So you then have a car with mediocre handling and poor practicality without the performance to offset it.

However...if you are buying it purely for it's looks rather than any other attributes, then the N/A makes more sense. It doen't suck fuel quite as badly, it's cheaper to insure and will likely be a little more reliable (not that the turbo was particularly unreliable).

You're pretty close to the point there! The N/A is an Excellent car - fuel economy is around 35mpg average, 0-60 is high 7. seconds and the rev3+ engines gave out 173bhp. It is certainly quicker than most hatchbacks of the age and they are bulletproof!

The turbo is an excellent car, but IMO it's not a daily driver.

monkeyspank · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:24

Point of buying an NA lets see.. Insurance costs, running costs, repair costs, smoother power delivery, reliability.

Turbo is more fun but there's more expensive bits to go wrong. Although it can be used as a daily driver. (the turbo isn't constantly forcing air into the engine, only when you boot it). I travel to work in mine and usually don't even spin the turbo up, because the engine doesn't really get warm enough to give it some beans.

jamief · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:26

ci_newman said:
The turbo is an excellent car, but IMO it's not a daily driver.

Rubbish! A Ferrari or similar might possibly not be a daily driver, a 220bhp MR car is perfectly suitable for a daily driver. Given by the fact that I drove one every day for near on 3 years.

Dogbreath · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:26

ci_newman said:
The turbo is an excellent car, but IMO it's not a daily driver.

The N/A isn't a slow car by any stretch, but the performance isn't in line with it's looks (IMO of course). A bit of a sheep in wolfs clothing.

Have to disagree about the turbo not being a daily driver though. I did 60 miles a day in mine for around 3 years. It's not a cheap daily driver, but long commutes are generaly not hard on cars compared to town driving etc. IIRC mine had a bit under 100,000km when I got it, and had a bit over 160,000km when I sold it. Only major issue was a head gasket failure due to one of the heater coolant pipes cracking, but it's wasn't that bad a job to fix. I used to get between 25-29 mpg out of it.

cee-S-dee · 6 Nov 2007 at 12:35

If you can get the turbo GET IT! You won't regret it. I bought one last week and i love it, the grin factor is ace and with a good set of tires they handle brilliantly.

Saying that its worlds apart from my knackered rover 220 coupe with biscuit wheels and ditchfinder tyres on!

I haven't had any hairy moments yet as i'm taking it quite easy. I got a Rev 3 (1994 L) and paid £3900 for it.

I was originally looking at N/A's but i felt i would get bored of it quick as it was a turbo i always wanted.

Heres the only pic i have of mine atm