Jump to content

Who's had an MR2?


Recommended Posts

Just wanted a few more opinions on them, thinking of getting one next year to use as a weekend/occasional track day or on a drag strip (not aiming to beat anyone, just to have fun in).

If funds allow then I think I'll get one, and keep the Rover as a daily driver. I'd start with a non turbo one and then move on to a turbo once I've got some experience in one.

I have a mate (TB Developments) who builds these for a living, so working on it wouldn't be a problem, turbo engine swap wouldn't be a problem, etc... (link in my sig).

Basically I've been considering another CRX, or a Starlet GT, or something along those lines but after being around a lot of MR2's and actually thinking about it, it's more logical to get a car that's designed to be a mid engined rear drive sports car from the beginning, instead of trying to turn a cheap FWD hatchback into a "racer".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wanted a few more opinions on them, thinking of getting one next year to use as a weekend/occasional track day or on a drag strip (not aiming to beat anyone, just to have fun in).

If funds allow then I think I'll get one, and keep the Rover as a daily driver. I'd start with a non turbo one and then move on to a turbo once I've got some experience in one.

I have a mate (TB Developments) who builds these for a living, so working on it wouldn't be a problem, turbo engine swap wouldn't be a problem, etc... (link in my sig).

Basically I've been considering another CRX, or a Starlet GT, or something along those lines but after being around a lot of MR2's and actually thinking about it, it's more logical to get a car that's designed to be a mid engined rear drive sports car from the beginning, instead of trying to turn a cheap FWD hatchback into a "racer".

Ask Hou. He's had one for quite a while.

D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a rev4 turbo, dont bother with the na they suck balls. The turbo's arnt scary and if your that worried just buy a boost controller with duel maps for low boost and high :)

Tim will be able to advice you on the best model as well but i personally would only go rev3 or above ;). Can be pretty thirsty (mine was) but honestly best driving possession to date i'v ever had was in my rev4. such a nice place to sit and be!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a rev4 turbo, dont bother with the na they suck balls. The turbo's arnt scary and if your that worried just buy a boost controller with duel maps for low boost and high :)

Tim will be able to advice you on the best model as well but i personally would only go rev3 or above ;). Can be pretty thirsty (mine was) but honestly best driving possession to date i'v ever had was in my rev4. such a nice place to sit and be!

You get that feeling as if you're doing more than driving it dont you lol? The whole cockpit feel. Similar the the Del Sol I had

D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want the "driver's" Mk2 make sure it's a Rev 1. Reasons:

1 - Lighter

2 - More supercar-like suspension goemetry.

3 - No power steering, no ABS, better for driver input.

If you want all the toys get a later one.

The reason the Rev 2> wasn't as nimble was because Toyota found out that the average person actually isn't up to driving something that's like a supercar - so people kept crashing them. As far as I can tell the reason is you can drive it right up to the limit of traction in a fast corner because it's so well balanced, but if you then come off the throttle mid corner you'll swap ends.

The later cars do things like dive TWICE the amount under braking due to the changes Toyota made.

And ok the later n/a ones are more powerful than earlier ones, but due to the extra weight they are not any faster!

I would get a nice rev 1 GT, or a cheap turbo with a blown engine, and do a V6 swap.

Or look for a ready made V6 one, they are out there.

(I've got a Rev 1, but it's the slow one - oops.... :) )

Watch for rotten sills / arches, and high milage engines (I bought a GT, I knew the cills were gone which I was welding but the engine turned out to be toast at 160k so I had to scrap it - ie went on eBay for £90!!!)....and the low power 3SFE "coupe" version I got by mistake.

Lastly the calipers are NASTY and are nearly always seize - luckily there is a solution! :p

WMS-800x600-4P0181-b.jpg

Here's mine:

sighting-lap.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the Mr2 for about a year, rev3 UK na tbar. Good fun to drive but a bitch to work on. Why not go for a mk1 though, might be ugliest but handle the best.........then turbo it

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mk1's got a bigger engine bay funnily enough! Handling between a Mk1 and a Rev1 Mk2 isn't a million miles apart, the Mk2 has better grip out of corners but the Mk1 is more chuckable.

They will be more rotten by now though. Here's what I found under my Mk1 (still off the road, the Mk2 is a "runabout"):

IMG_5302-25.jpg

IMG_2038-50.jpg

IMG_2043-50.jpg

:)

I'd already done this!

img269780048lu.jpg

img270780052vr.jpg

img273480066yw.jpg

img2875800122qt.jpg

img2887800135vi.jpg

img2995800192to.jpg

img3102800227ub.jpg

img3135800243hs.jpg

Little buggers! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, that's a good point, there are three roof types:

1. T-Bar, nice but heavier/more flex.

2. "Moon roof" (sunroof).

3. Tin-top, these are JDM import only as far as I know and are the best for a track car, lightest and strongest. (possibly more insurance on an import though)

Link to post
Share on other sites

would agree with some of the comments above about the n/a's ..not really worth it..

my own opinion.. go with a rev3/4/5 specially if you wanna tune it... 3/4/5's have thicker cylinder walls, better head gasket and inlet manifold, MAP not MAF, standard management is a lot better also, think the heads may be a tad different too but im not 100% sure.. speak to luke @ pacific works..hes one of the main guys in mr's and knows them out the back of his hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm set on a mk2 rev 3 onwards N/A to start with, insurance costs and inexperience to RWD being the main reasons. 170bhp will be enough to start with.

It'll be as fast as anything I've had before and I don't want to jump straight in at the deep end with a 240bhp mid engined rear drive car.

Has anyone actually got any feedback on owning/driving one? Being sat in one is nice, feels like it was made for a purpose, nice cosey interior. Will be good to finally get back in a Toyota. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to get exact figures to make the point about the weight etc, but the internet is very chinese whispers about kerb weight etc. Found this lot:

From Carfolio:

1990 (119bhp sSFE) Coupe - 1265kg - 0-60 9.3sec

1990 (154bhp 3SGE) GT - 1275kg - 0-60 8.0sec

1996 (168bhp 3SGE) GT - 1280kg - 0-60 7.5sec

From Wikipedia:

1991 T-top Turbo = 1262kg

1991 n/a (normal roof?) = 1179kg

Changes to the suspension geometry, tire sizes and power steering in 1992/93 were made in response to journalist reports that the MR2 was prone to "snap-oversteer". As a counterpoint to the snap-oversteer phenomenon of the MR2, other journalists point out that most mid-engine and rear engine sports and super cars exhibit similar behaviour, and that a change to the driver's response to oversteer is really the cause. In any car, braking shifts the weight forward, and acceleration to the rear. When drivers enter a corner with too much speed, and lift the throttle mid-corner, the weight transfers forward causing the rear suspension to toe-out the tires, the recipe for cut-throttle oversteer, or even a spin. When improper steering inputs were made attempting to correct this non-power-on oversteer, the rear of the MR2 would swing one way, then wildly (and quickly) the otherâ??thus the term "snap" oversteer. Toyota elected to change the MR2 suspension and tires to reduce the likelihood that this would occur, though many drivers would lament the change and claim that it "neutered" the sharp edge the MR2 was known for.[18] Toyota claimed that the changes were made "for drivers whose reflexes were not those of Formula One drivers." [19]

http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.a...=0&t=573990

UK Market

Rev 1 + 2, coupe and T-Bar.

3SGE engined N/A (GTi 2.0) 158bhp, 0-60 7.5, 140mph

3SFE engined N/A 119bhp, very slow!

Rev 3, 4 + 5

3SGE engined N/A 173bhp, 0-60 7.5, 140mph

Rev 5

BEAMS engined N/A approx 190bhp 0-60 6.5 (quite rare and sought after)

Jap Market

Rev 1 + 2 (coupe and t-bar)

3SGE engined N/A (G-Limited) 158bhp, 0-60 7.5, 140mph

3SFE engined N/A 119bhp, very slow!

3SGTE engined Turbo (GT+GT-S) 220bhp 0-60 5.7, 155-160mph

Rev 3, 4 + 5

3SGE engined N/A (G-Limited) 173bhp, 0-60 7.5, 140mph

3SGTE engined Turbo (GT+GT-S) 241bhp 0-60 5.2, 155-160mph

Rev 5

BEAMS engined N/A approx 190bhp 0-60 6.5

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I'm set on a mk2 rev 3 onwards N/A to start with, insurance costs and inexperience to RWD being the main reasons. 170bhp will be enough to start with.

It'll be as fast as anything I've had before and I don't want to jump straight in at the deep end with a 240bhp mid engined rear drive car.

Has anyone actually got any feedback on owning/driving one? Being sat in one is nice, feels like it was made for a purpose, nice cosey interior. Will be good to finally get back in a Toyota. :p

my bro had one...handled really really well just a standard setup!

Link to post
Share on other sites

crx man

will be worth it once money has been thrown in to get the thing spic and span

my friend (working at homebase and on a tight budget) bought one with no mot or tax and about a million problems for £550

293601_2041503995986_1195898681_31899549_4556984_n.jpg

a lot of filler, fibreglass, 10 mot's and countless man hours later

300275_2119838194292_1195898681_31990034_1240927403_n.jpg

(the wheels were cheaper than one replacement honda wheel after kerbing one)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved my CRX, was a good car, would have another one but only if I knew it was pristine... but of course one in that condition is going to be worth a lot of £££...

I think an MR2 is definately what I want though. Same straight line performance as a CRX aslong as you get a rev 3 onwards (very similar 0-60 time), but with a MR setup rather than FF, and it's a better base to build off potential future upgrades, an MR2 turbo vs turbo'd CRX, I'd rather have the MR2.

Also it's more of a dedicated and focused car, whereas the CRX although they are awesome they are only based on a front drive hatchback.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a mate in the same town who builds MR2's for a living. Engine swap, turbo upgrades, fully rebuilt engine, pretty much anything I want can be done just 5 minutes down the road. Which is why I'm not worried about the awkward location of the engine. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a 2.2 version of the 'FE engine (5SFE), I'm pondering building a 2.2 3SGE (in effect a 5SGE) n/a engine in a Rev 1 tintop.

As a rough guide (in theory) it would turn the 159bhp version of the 3SGE into 174.9bhp, and the 177bhp version into 194.7bhp before fitting anything aftermarket. :(

Has to be said that power really isn't everything - I outpaced loads of cars (inc a Porsch) round brands hatch the other day with my weedy 119 ponies.

Your mate has WMS brakes if I'm not mistaken! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a 2.2 version of the 'FE engine (5SFE), I'm pondering building a 2.2 3SGE (in effect a 5SGE) n/a engine in a Rev 1 tintop.

As a rough guide (in theory) it would turn the 159bhp version of the 3SGE into 174.9bhp, and the 177bhp version into 194.7bhp before fitting anything aftermarket. :(

Has to be said that power really isn't everything - I outpaced loads of cars (inc a Porsch) round brands hatch the other day with my weedy 119 ponies.

Your mate has WMS brakes if I'm not mistaken! :lol:

You've got alot of patience doing all the rust haha. I built a nova turbo for a friend once and first job was getting the shell upto scratch, the rust was a pig lol. Never again lol

D

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a 2.2 version of the 'FE engine (5SFE), I'm pondering building a 2.2 3SGE (in effect a 5SGE) n/a engine in a Rev 1 tintop.

As a rough guide (in theory) it would turn the 159bhp version of the 3SGE into 174.9bhp, and the 177bhp version into 194.7bhp before fitting anything aftermarket. :D

Has to be said that power really isn't everything - I outpaced loads of cars (inc a Porsch) round brands hatch the other day with my weedy 119 ponies.

Your mate has WMS brakes if I'm not mistaken! :(

Yeah he's got WMS brakes on his Glanza. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...