Views on MR2's?

AlanJ

AlanJ

AlanJ

Associate
Joined
16 Nov 2005
Posts
683
Location
Torquay
Hi there I would like your views on a Toyota Mr2 Gti as i would like to buy one for my next car (coming from a AxGT).

Whats the reliability like? Fuel costs? Are they quick? Also what to look for when viewing one. And lastly would you say £2000 could find my a decent one? Thanks all.
 
I don't know about the MR2 GTi, although I have an MR2 GT Turbo from 1991 and imported from Japan on 2002.

Mine is slightly modified and I get 0-60 in less than 5.5. I get about 22 mpg and in the right conditions, you get handling that is awesome and the mid range acceleration is breathtaking.

The non turbos are of course not as fast, but you get very decent performance and with the almost supreme reliability of the Toyota engine. I will say though that I run mine as a second car as with it being rear wheel drive, it is unusable in the winter when it is ice and snow on the ground.
 
2k will be a Rev1 or Rev2 so you will be looking at the 158bhp 3S-GE which is actually faster than the 173bhp 3S-GE to 60 (around mid 7's)
 
Hmm, sorry if this sounds silly, but how can i tell *** difference between the rev1 rev2 ect...

Also i take it it'll be a lot faster than my 0-60 8.5 secs AXGT.
 
Jestergt said:
Hmm, sorry if this sounds silly, but how can i tell *** difference between the rev1 rev2 ect...

Also i take it it'll be a lot faster than my 0-60 8.5 secs AXGT.
Click to expand...

I'll think you'll find an AX GT is closer to 9.5 secs 0-60 as per:

http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=36278&Citro%C3%ABn

The non-turbo models are approx 7.5 secs 0-60 (varies +/- 0.3 secs depending on specific model / age) which is quick enough for most.
Im assuming that as you're in an AX, you're only 20 or younger (sorry if I'm wrong on that). You'll struggle to find a reasonable price for insurance on an N/A let alone a turbo model.

I've just bought myself a GTi-16 (as you are looking for) and you can get some nice models for circa £2k. Dont be rushed into buying the first you see though, its taken me 6 months to find the perfect one!

Its hard to tell the difference between rev 1s and rev2 without looking at the age of the car (no cosmetic differences) but the rev3 models have a single-piece rear spoiler and larger alloy wheels as standard.

And DO-DO-DO try and find a UK spec one, as imports tend to drop about £400 on top of the insurance and the only noticeable difference is a lack of aircon (which doesnt bother me with a T-Bar :D )
 
Not hugely faster no. The Mk2 MR2 is a very heavy car, almost double the weight of the AX for the Turbo versions. The normaly aspirated versions are a bit lighter, but then again they have quite a bit less power. The power to weight ratio of a UK spec normaly aspirated MR2 and an AX GT probably aren't greatly different.
 
ci_newman said:
Its hard to tell the difference between rev 1s and rev2 without looking at the age of the car (no cosmetic differences) but the rev3 models have a single-piece rear spoiler and larger alloy wheels as standard.
Click to expand...

If they are standard the Rev1 has 14" wheels covering it's puny disc brakes. The Rev2+ came with 15" wheels and bigger discs.
 
ci_newman said:
I'll think you'll find an AX GT is closer to 9.5 secs 0-60 as per:

Im assuming that as you're in an AX, you're only 20 or younger (sorry if I'm wrong on that). You'll struggle to find a reasonable price for insurance on an N/A let alone a turbo model.
Click to expand...


Thats fair enough Im 22 and Insurance isnt a problem. Ive been driving for 3 years and have two years no claims bringing the insurance to £632 fully comp.

I know the Ax is rubbish, thats why ive seen the light and now moving to JAP!
 
Ah, well then that opens a whole new book up :D

Depends what sort of mileage you do to work and how heavy your right foot is as economy is a big thing with a turbo car! I went for the N/A a)because of my lack of RWD experience b)my right foot is heavy and at 20 miles a day commute I'd rather a tank of petrol goes 300 miles instead of 200!

Its down to preference really, if you can drive in a restrained manner and can afford the insurance on a tubby (and higher maintenance costs) then go for it! If not, the first wet roundabout you come across will be one of your last!
 
My wife has had a mr2 for about a month now, ive driven it a few times. its good fun, not not hugely rapid, but it does feel good to drive. we p[aid a grand for a j reg with full toyota history and 80,000 miles on the clock. it is the slow version, cira 130bhp but it is very cheap to run, approx 35mpg around town.

it is a fun car to drive, but dont forget that the ax is a great car to drive, very underrated and the mr2 is also good to drive but for differant reasons, i think that the mr2 needs a lot more skill and commitment before it can be really enjoyed.
 
dilated said:
My wife has had a mr2 for about a month now, ive driven it a few times. its good fun, not not hugely rapid, but it does feel good to drive. we p[aid a grand for a j reg with full toyota history and 80,000 miles on the clock. it is the slow version, cira 130bhp but it is very cheap to run, approx 35mpg around town.

it is a fun car to drive, but dont forget that the ax is a great car to drive, very underrated and the mr2 is also good to drive but for differant reasons, i think that the mr2 needs a lot more skill and commitment before it can be really enjoyed.
Click to expand...
Think the FE is closer to around 119bhp and not 130
 
Dogbreath said:
Not hugely faster no. The Mk2 MR2 is a very heavy car, almost double the weight of the AX for the Turbo versions. The normaly aspirated versions are a bit lighter, but then again they have quite a bit less power. The power to weight ratio of a UK spec normaly aspirated MR2 and an AX GT probably aren't greatly different.
Click to expand...

Any reason why the Mk2 is just a heavy car really? I know the engine isn't the lightest thing but there must be other stuff to make up the weight.
 
saitrix said:
Any reason why the Mk2 is just a heavy car really? I know the engine isn't the lightest thing but there must be other stuff to make up the weight.
Click to expand...
to be honest - i think that its just the way its made, it is very solid with no flex or give.
 
There great cars for the money. Have a turbo rev2 now but used to have a n/a rev 1 and there pretty nippy. Youll certainly enjoy the car more than the AX.

MPG wise on an n/a you could easily see 26-32 depending on how you drive the thing.

Engines are support strong and reliable.

If you do view one make sure you get your head under the thing and check for any coolant leaks comming from along the middle of the car as this can be an expensive job and thats what happened to my rev1. Coolant should be a red'ish colour too.
 
saitrix said:
Any reason why the Mk2 is just a heavy car really? I know the engine isn't the lightest thing but there must be other stuff to make up the weight.
Click to expand...

I really don't know how they managed to make a 2 seater coupe weigh as much as a Mondeo. The metalwork behind the front bumper is pretty hefty, I have suspicions that was done more to bring the weight bias forward than for crash safety. The 3SGE/3SGTE engine is a big cast iron lump (alloy head though), and the gearbox is ridiculously heavy, at least it is on the turbo.

The T-Bars weigh more than the coupes, and are less stiff and the glass panels have a habit of leaking and squeaking against the rubber seals. That said many people are happy to put up with the negatives to be able to almost remove the roof when the sun comes out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom