MR2 vs. MX-5 vs. Rover Coupe Turbo

[pmkeates]

Hi all,

Welcome to my first topic, let alone my first post!

I don't have an MR2, but have been looking for a new car now for a long time. What with my insurance renewal fast approaching in February, I'd like to have my new car a little before then so as to get a quote that's most competative on that car rather than my quite rubbish current one (Citroen Xsara SX 1.8 16v - Yes, you can cringe now).

That brings me to the problem of choosing a car. I'm in two minds, really - straight-line performance vs. cornering ability.

I'm considering a Rover Coupe Turbo. You can pick them up for next to nothing, are relatively cheap to insure and come pretty much stock with half-leather and close to 170hp/ton (Making for a quoted 0-60 of 6.2s). With a LSD, handling isn't terrible, but with 197hp (Making for a quoted top end of 150mph) and 240nm powering to the front wheels, the inevitable torque-steer will show its face.

Another car in the running is the MX-5. I could get myself a 95-ish 1.8 and have a quite a competent 0-60 in the low 8s, a convertible roof and RWD.

Then comes what I'm here for - the MR2. For around £4,000, I'd be looking at a nice 95-ish Rev3 GT w/ full leather and service history. With 173hp and a 0-60 in the high 7s, the car has good handling and performance combination.

To try and refine my choices, I'd like to know what people's opinions of the three cars above are and, more specifically, which "handles" better - the MX-5 or the Rev3 MR2? (I ain't gonna consider the Rover as the best around the bends )

Making a choice like this is hard and any comments on anything about the Rover Coupe Turbo, MX-5 1.8i and MR2 GT Rev3 (Or MR2's in general) for a driver looking for something fun but more importantly, something that can be my pride and joy.

If you'd like to make any other specific comments, like ones about my age (19) and driving a ~200hp car - you are more than welcome to! Honest, I won't take any offence from it!

Thanks in advance for any help - I'll be most grateful for someone elses insight

Sam

[jimGTS]

i would say the mx5 will handle better, but to be honest, it has a worse image than the mk2 mr2 of being a bit girlie....
what about considering a mr2 turbo with that money?? could get a nice rev2, or if your luckily a stock rev3....
performance wise and power, your cars you listed there puts the rover on top, however, mix in a mr2 turbo (import only) in the mix and itll kill the lot of em....

however, being 19, insurence on a group 20 car will cost ALOT....
the mr2 na is group 16, maybe 18 if you get the imported na, depends what company you go with....

theres some info...

[Ekona]

Out of those three, and ignoring the styling (which is a much more personal issue), I'd have the MX-5. It may not be the quickest point-to-point, but you'll more than make up for that in the twisties. Plus, you get to put the top down in the summer, which is possibly the Best Thing Ever.


Granted, you can pretty much guess what most other people on here will say you should get, but that's my two-penneth worth anyway.

[jimGTS]

when i say the mx5 will handle better, im just refering to an inexperienced driver, the mr2 takes a bit of getting used to being mid engineed and rwd....but once youve had some time and learnt the charactisics, then its one of the best handling cars for the money (maybe not so in the wet tho)....

[adamshaw]

i am currently selling a MR2 T-Bar on a 92 J plate for £2250ono. it hs 60k on the clock and is a UK car...cambelt changed.

Check out the for sale section if you are interested

regard

Adam

[MegatronUK]

Just to mix things up a bit, I used to have a Coupe Turbo and loved it. It was reliable, economical, well equipped and really very quick.

It's the odd one out though; being fwd... it's easy to live with and you won't have to get used the characteristics of a rwd car. It's a lot of car for the money and much more practical than either of the other two.

I know some people can't get over the badge thing, but it's still quite a good looking car for something british from the early 90's

All three are good cars in their own right though, can't really go wrong with any one of them.

[pmkeates]

The MR2 Turbo is pretty much out of the question, unfortunately, jimGTS. After doing some quotes, Group 20 won't just cost a lot, it will cost the EARTH! (I haven't even managed to find a quote yet!) Thanks for the suggestion anyway, mate

The MX-5 does seem to be a good handler, and coming from a car that has as much grip on the road as a lunatic to reality, it would be a nice change to have something that has good poise on the tarmac and can be chucked around a bit. Although, as has been said, I'd say it's the least aesthetically pleasing of the three... yes - I like Rover's!

The Rover is phenomenal in a straight line for the money. There isn't many cars that could match an Escort Cosworth 0-100mph for £1,500! I like the styling of the Rover's and the grandad image is a bonus in my opinion. At least it has a cool image and a bit of character being an insane Rover, which I think a cheap MX-5 won't have.

Then the MR2. Without a shadow of a doubt, the best looker (In my opinion, anyway) and again with a really cool image and character. Good handling, Toyota reliability and good straight-line performance.

Adamshaw - That's a nice looking MR2, but it's in a colour I just cannot live with, which is white. If a good respray wasn't so pricey, I'd be honsetly considering it!

MegatronUK - The Rover. 197hp to the front and quicker than most things on the road. Did you find the handling to be worse than your average family hatchback? On par, or even better? The Coupe Turbo is the fastest in a line, cheapest to insure (Ridiculously), cheapest to buy and I like the image they have. But if the handling is bad, I don't think I could live with it for long. Ah well. Decisions decisions

[Enrico]

I recently had to sell my MR2 Turbo for a cheaper car, but still wanted performance. I ended up getting a Rover Coupe Turbo thinking that despite the performance I would hate it, being 4 seats, fwd & engine in the front, but to be honest I think it is really very good. Admittedly I bought a modified one, with uprated turbo & suspension amongst other things, but it looks good, dives superbly, handles pretty good on Koni's, is relaxing & comfy on long drives, & even made more power & torque than some rev3 turbo's on the recent Leiceter rolling road day (254.4 bhp & 255 ft lb torque).
Parts are cheap as well, you can pick up a second hand engine complete for about £300!
Admittedly not an MR2 but good all the same.


By the way, I sold my MR2 as I lost my job, but now I am employed again I am starting to plan a big power MR2, so I could be selling if you are interested?
PM me if you want to know more, even if it's just about the cars in general.

Brook.

[mr2nut123]

ignore people who say 19 year olds shouldnt have turbos. im 19 and have a rev2 turbo. jealousy most of it anyway. when you say 20 people are like 'oh thats alright then, least your not stupid with it and in your teens'....ok so a lot of teens would mistreat them and drive harsh on every road but im certaintly not like that. try elephant for a quote, they say they wont insure you but its all about who answers the phone and if they trust you. youve just got to hope you get someone whos youngish and knows what they are on about with cars. i was told they wouldnt insure me till im 25, then 21 on the next call then i got a sound guy who got talking about cars (obviously into fast cars himself) and they sorted me a quote out. ok so its not cheap but im willing to pay it. if they insure people high risk and they crash they lose out on yearly bonuses etc. so its up to them in most companies. good luck anyway, i had an n/a when i was 18 and its one hell of a car with good power!...but then you get in a turbo

[Scotster]

I'm not meaning to be bias but i obviously am going to be. I would choose the MR2 hands down every time. The NA is absolutely cracking, its not got a turbo and with very lightly modding it you get 180bhp!! Thats not slow by any means and if you can insure it relatively easily then i say go for it. The rover is a cracking car and very very fast but its just not the same as an MR2 IMO. In all honesty a few years ago i looked at an MX-5 as everyone went on about how good they were on the road. I thought about it and thought about it but decided that the "girly" comments would be the death of me so steered clear. You do get the same comments about the mr2 being girly but take someone out for a spin in the thing and then let them say that. With an MX-5 they can still say its girly with an MR2 they can't, IMO.

At the end of the day its all down to what you want to spend. If you get yourself an MR2 NA then you have got your foot in the door and will be in line for a looooong life of MR2 ownership. First you will get the N/A then you will sell that and get the turbo then you will get a higher Rev version etc etc etc. You can't go wrong with a good MR-2, you can with the rover.

BTW, if you get a T-Bar its almost as good if not just as good as a convertable IMO

Scott =oP

[pete h]

thats 1 dilemma you have there.

like yourself i like the old 90's rover look, youst to own a 91 rover 216gti, had a lot of fun with it (especially embarrassing golf gti's 1.8 8v ) had it lowered 50mm which sorted out some of the handling problems, apart from bending a few front cross members.

my sister has a '99 mx5, great car, but as said previously they do have a very girlie image. and to tell you the honest truth if i see a lad driving 1 i automatically presume its his sisters of girlfriends. but driving both cars i do prefer the mr2

and for the mr2, generally a good all rounder, they do need a little getting youst to in the twisties because just when you think you know its characteristics it'll bite and throw its rear. the n/a doesnt have a load of power but it has enough to embarrass a few other cars.

if you go for the mr2, i'd go for the t-bar, and if you get the uk car you also get the leather

[hicks]

id go for the mx5. driven a couple and are so much fun. so easy to get sideways and very controlable. would be a good introduction to a rear wheel drive. mr2 will be quicker in the right hands but the mx5 is much more accessable and will give you more pleasure.

obviously that depends on what you buy a car for.

if you want looks and straight line speed the the mr2 would be better but i like to go out into the derbyshire dales and DRIVE my cars.

i dont like the rovers at all so wouldnt consider one. but each to there own.

have you considered a nissan 200sx the earlyier s13 model look good are quick and handle great. not sure on insurance though.

[aaronjb]

I think I'd go for the MX-5 too really, at least if the choice was that or NA Mk2 - I think in experienced hands they'd be extremely close on track, too - pretty sure the MX-5 is a chunk lighter and they do handle extremely well. (Plus as hicks says, FR is more forgiving as your first RWD car than a MR car)

have you considered a nissan 200sx the earlyier s13 model look good are quick and handle great. not sure on insurance though.

Just look out for rust, they're a touch prone to it (that's an understatement..) and there are a lot of hammered-to-death examples around..

[vipernet55]

tbh, I'd probably go for an mx5. In particular an early jap imported 1.6. Then you can get the greddy turbo kit for it at a later state and go mental with it My girlfriend had one circa 200bhp and it was REALLY quick and handled brilliantly

[Lauren]

I'd go for a 1.8 MX5... the 1.6 is gutless in the later model cars. Otherwise an early 1.6 maybe okay.

Defo go for an import to get the LSD and AC, plus they are cheaper too. Great, great little cars.

[jonb-]

On paper i'd have the MX5 too.

In reality i got the mr2.

Mostly down to image.

[TomThumb]

after readying this i think what seperates a womans car from a mans, image wise, is not only looks but how much power its putting out. for examplem and i apolagise in advance. I think any mr2 NA owners retain more of that girley image as it all show and no go. same with the mx 5. i wouldent own a fast looking car if it couldent go fast. and where i live wiltshire&somerset there are only aging women, and men who roll what little hair they have left over their bald patch.

my perfect fun car would probably a fiat panda 4x4 with uprated suspension roll cage, and lastley a engine putting out 400+ bhp. a nice street sleeper. nobodys gonna talk about getting their ass kicked if its another fast looking car, you see a panda fly past you at 120 with flames poping out and you in a scooby doo, your gonna think bloody el..

i dont care so much as how i look, its how fast and how much fun you can have. i chose the mr2 turbo becuase of its ability to preform very well for 2 litre turbo and of course its tunability and lastley the huge following of addicts behind em, namley you the forum.

when chosing think what you want from a car. the mr2 cant offer practacality so much because of the 2 seats and small boot, handeling if fine as long as you understand the car and you in the dry. the looks are fine if you place some aftermarket body kit on it. but thats my oppinion anyway which everyones entitled too

If you choose the mr2 we will all welcome you, rover turbo's are good too but dont chose the mx5!

hehe, regards, tom.

[Lauren]

after readying this i think what seperates a womans car from a mans, image wise, is not only looks but how much power its putting out. for examplem and i apolagise in advance. I think any mr2 NA owners retain more of that girley image as it all show and no go. same with the mx 5. i wouldent own a fast looking car if it couldent go fast. and where i live wiltshire&somerset there are only aging women, and men who roll what little hair they have left over their bald patch.

GLOL!! words fail me! Sorry i wanted to write something more constructive but i'm at a loss at where to begin.

MX5s are great, I really don't think they have any issues with image anyways. Think about it the MR2 seems to suffer just as much if not more from teh hairdresser image. So it becomes six of one and half a dozen of the other. Who cares what the ignorant think?

[Scotster]

MX5s are great, I really don't think they have any issues with image anyways. Think about it the MR2 seems to suffer just as much if not more from the hairdresser image. So it becomes six of one and half a dozen of the other. Who cares what the ignorant think?

Definitely don't agree with you there. I have not had 1 single comment from anyone in my work (engineering factory) about the MR2. One of my mates was thinking of buying an MX-5 and he got totally slated, i say again he was only thinking of buying one lol.

I agree that they both are seen as "hairdressers" cars but FAAAAAAAAAAR more the MX-5 than the MR2.

Another thing that i just remembered. I have kids coming up to me asking how i can afford a ferarri???? With a kit on them and debadged people can't even tell what they are let alone call them hairdressers cars.

Scott =oP

[matt_mr2t]

I can't forgive the Rover for looking like an elongated grandad wagon.

I don't have a gay enough bone in my body (no pun intended) to drive an MX5 so the 2 wins it.

Thats my theory any way