The new mk4 mr2?

[craig]

hmmmmmmmmmm

Not too keen to be honest. I only really like the MK2 and the MK4 looks like, as said previously a MK3 MR2 rear and a current Celica front end!!

Not for me

[MRV6]

Don't mind it though it's very celica-ish. Like the 3.3l V6 though!

[Tony jinxy froude]

HATE IT !!!, in my opinion they spoilt every MR2 from the MK1 onwards ....... long live the MK1 ............... dont worry guys.... i saw Braveheart last night and i feel kinda patriotic for the MK1 , Jinxy

[Vindezal]

the mr2 doesnt like being hammered or bang in gear changes like i found out! lol

[BenF]

Holy celica batman! found this magazine page showing details of how the new mr2 is possibly going to look.....looks to me like toyota have cut the rear off the mk3 and whacked the front end of a celica onto it!

This car is rumoured to be a hybrid,that is a 1.5 4 cyl petrol with an electric motor,how is that a sportscar?...also rumoured to come in a V6 version,please god let it be a V6!

Hmm, at first glance the Red car just seems to be a photoshop composite of 350z (front) RX8 (side) and the current Celica (top). The lower (sliver) car looks better IMO but has completely different styling. I

It really depends what this is - Toyota need a new GT car to replace the Supra, and a lightwight sportscar replacement for the Roadster.

I can't beleive its going to be a 1.5+Electric engine just isn't going to do 0-60 in sub 10 seconds - and performance would have to be on a par with the existing Roadster. I've no problem with Hybrids, but IMO they're more suited to town cars rather than sports cars.

However, if they've got (eg) a 190ps vvti lump with an electric motor to lend some more low down torque that could be more interesting if the weight penalty doesn't take away any advantages.

Personally I'd like to see something with a 6 Cylinder engine, or 4 + forced induction and power to weight ratio at least 180/bhp tonne.

I see some people have found that a 3 litre lump does (just) fit into the current Roadster - it wouldn't suprise me if Toyota did the job properly .. the other pic a few weeks back of a test Mule driving around the Nurburgring looked like it had been widened at the back to take something more interesting possibly

[Jon Bradley]

nah that thing will be far too heavy/pricey.

[77West]

Folks - here comes a dissertation!

the rumour about a hybrid MR2 has been about for years....

Why are you worried about a hybrid MR2? Dont listen to the Clarkson crowd, frightened of the environment/new technology etc, Toyota should be applauded for their approach to technology. Now think about this, a 1.5 vvti in the front with say 110bhp (think yaris t sport) then whack in to the equation a further 70 or 80bhp of electric grunt. Ok the equivalent of 180bhp might now sound alot, but consider that Toyota have managed to make the current Prius weigh less than similar 4/5 doors and is incredibly aerodynamic (0.28 CD). So a lightweight aerodynamic car with an almost flat power curve, erm sounds all right to me! Because of the batteries and the hybrid kit loitering at the other end you can obtain almost equal weight distribution.

[b]Now the myths:[/b]
1. Hybrids dont need to be plugged into the mains! They charge themselves under breaking, regaining the Kinetic energy normally lost. Batteries are warrantied forever (well nearly) and Toyota will replace them without destroying the environment. Should be able to thrash it and manage 45 to 50 mpg.
2. Their heavy! wrong they are now lighter than conventional cars
3. They'll be unreliable: nope again, they've been used in Japan since the 90's and are as reliable as any other Toyota.
4. They're expensive, they were at first but once you include the Powershift grant from the government (£1,000) you can drive away a Prius for £15,900. Not to bad really.
5. They'll be like Betamax! Ok, theres a risk with technology but considering Toyota plan to have a hybrid option on every model inside this decade it doesn't sound like a passing fad. LPG now that will die on its ar$e.....
6. Their no better for the environment: erm, well actually they are as they have lower emissions than even small cars like a Yaris. Oh and when you say so what, bear in mind that saves you money on Tax (loads if you had one as a company car).
7. No one will want one: waiting list is now 7 months and Toyota are opening new factories in order to meet demand across the world, even the yanks are driving them - thank god. In order to placate them Ford have released an SUV with hybrid technology.

Right, so I'm biased I drive a Mk 2 Prius (and have an MR2 on the way), i drive the T spirit version as a company car its been managing 55mpg has a higher standard kit than most cars - ok its not a fun car but I can well believe an MR2 will be. Next to the UK is the hybrid RX 300. A 4x4 capable of v8 performance with economy and emissions of a Ford Focus, get used to it. You can expect to see Hybrid Fords (bought Toyota technology), Hondas all the Lexus range, GM and the Fiat group are working on them. I know its not the same as roaring 300bhp turbos, but those days seem to be dwindling - embrace the future and keep the old cars working as long as possible.

[JohnnyC]

Just imagine the repair bill when you've took it to Kwik-Fit for new shoes and the monkey has jacked it up in the wrong place and has ruined the battery pack
Seriously though, it's the future I reckon

[BenF]

Folks - here comes a dissertation!

the rumour about a hybrid MR2 has been about for years....

Why are you worried about a hybrid MR2? Dont listen to the Clarkson crowd, frightened of the environment/new technology etc, Toyota should be applauded for their approach to technology. Now think about this, a 1.5 vvti in the front with say 110bhp (think yaris t sport) then whack in to the equation a further 70 or 80bhp of electric grunt.

The size of the electic motor might be a bit optimisitic - say 40bhp ( that's a 30,000 watt motor) is probably closer to the truth.

Ok the equivalent of 180bhp might now sound alot, but consider that Toyota have managed to make the current Prius weigh less than similar 4/5 doors and is incredibly aerodynamic (0.28 CD). So a lightweight aerodynamic car with an almost flat power curve, erm sounds all right to me! Because of the batteries and the hybrid kit loitering at the other end you can obtain almost equal weight distribution.

Toyota get a big thumbs up from me for the Prius - but don't you mean a flat torque curve - this is what electic motors are good at, flat, even torque all the way to very high RPMS.

The Mk2's Cd is around 0.3 - 0.32 ISTR.

Now the myths:
1. Hybrids dont need to be plugged into the mains! They charge themselves under breaking, regaining the Kinetic energy normally lost. Batteries are warrantied forever (well nearly) and Toyota will replace them without destroying the environment. Should be able to thrash it and manage 45 to 50 mpg.

I can't ever see how you'd get 45 or 50mpg when you're driving it hard. On trackdays I've seem MPGs as low as 6 on my turbo - on a spirited drive on country backroads you'd be in the low 20's

Petrol engines are at best 25% efficent in terms of engergy released by petrol consumed. Electric Generators (or motors) can be upto 40% efficent at best, so even if you recycle Kinetic energy only a small proporton of that energy recovered can then used to accelerate the car once again (16% if the motor/generator is 40% efficent)

On a track or twisty backroad and you'll flatten the electric reserve very quickly and be relying on the petrol motor for drive.

2. Their heavy! wrong they are now lighter than conventional cars
3. They'll be unreliable: nope again, they've been used in Japan since the 90's and are as reliable as any other Toyota.
4. They're expensive, they were at first but once you include the Powershift grant from the government (£1,000) you can drive away a Prius for £15,900. Not to bad really.
5. They'll be like Betamax! Ok, theres a risk with technology but considering Toyota plan to have a hybrid option on every model inside this decade it doesn't sound like a passing fad. LPG now that will die on its ar$e.....
6. Their no better for the environment: erm, well actually they are as they have lower emissions than even small cars like a Yaris. Oh and when you say so what, bear in mind that saves you money on Tax (loads if you had one as a company car).

But how do they stack up against diesels of similar performance ...? Diesel engines are much more efficent than petrol engines due in part to their higher compression ratios ..

7. No one will want one: waiting list is now 7 months and Toyota are opening new factories in order to meet demand across the world, even the yanks are driving them - thank god. In order to placate them Ford have released an SUV with hybrid technology.

Right, so I'm biased I drive a Mk 2 Prius (and have an MR2 on the way), i drive the T spirit version as a company car its been managing 55mpg has a higher standard kit than most cars - ok its not a fun car but I can well believe an MR2 will be. Next to the UK is the hybrid RX 300. A 4x4 capable of v8 performance with economy and emissions of a Ford Focus, get used to it. You can expect to see Hybrid Fords (bought Toyota technology), Hondas all the Lexus range, GM and the Fiat group are working on them. I know its not the same as roaring 300bhp turbos, but those days seem to be dwindling - embrace the future and keep the old cars working as long as possible.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see a Hybrid sports car. Someone did a Spoof S2000 'mk2' post giving the new spec as a 3 litre 6 cylinder engine with 415v electric hybrid motor - something like that for the new MR2 would be great.

What *really* would be the way forwards would be Hydrogen powered cars which use hydrogen genered from renewable electricity sources, but that isn't going to happen for a good few years yet.

[Kieron]

It modernises the MR2, the way the MK2 modernised the MK1 in keeping with the look of the cars of today.

Not sure about this hybrid business - have to wait and see.

Convertable looks better. No longer a poor man's Boxster.

Still think the MK2 was the best looking variant. Still get loads of positive comments when I'm out in mine.

[PW@Woodsport]

the way the MK2 modernised the MK1

the mk2 certainly did NOT modernise the mk1,the mk2 is a different car altogether...it was a step backwards in terms of being a sportscar not forward.

[michael]

the mk2 certainly did NOT modernise the mk1.

How can you say that?

The technology and design is newer, therefore more modern.... you may not feel it *improved* on the MK1 but it definately modernised the boxy little trout.

the mk2 is a different car altogether...it was a step backwards in terms of being a sportscar not forward.

This depends on your definition of a sportscar

All 3 MR2s to date have followed different paths and acquired their fans along the way, at least Toyota have tried something for everyone, they just need to expand the range to include a couple of other models to ensure they continue to do so - the lightweight shoebox, the sexy GT flagship, the practical coupé, the hot hatch.

Lets not fight over which MR2 is the best so soon in the year, at the end of the day they can all be improved in some way or another, that's why we are here

[PW@Woodsport]

*rolls sleeves up*

boxy little trout

i presume thats a mk1 you're referring to?

you may not feel it *improved* on the MK1

erm it didnt! it lost its sports car feel totally,lost its chuckable handling and became too heavy.

This depends on your definition of a sportscar

not at all,it depends on your definition of "modernised" and to add a mk1 IS a true sportscar,the mk2 as you rightly say is a GT,so its a new car in its own right not an updated version of the mk1,sure it has pop up lights and a mid engine,there the similarity ends.Now if you were to ask me the mk3 IS a modernised version of the mk1 if a little underpowered and not as good at its job.

If you feel that modernising a car is making it more rounded,adding 300kgs,making it longer,making it handle worse then yes its modernised but not a modernised version of the mk1,distinctly retro designed in sportscar terms if you ask me,but then again its not a sports its a GT.

[77West]

The Hybrid versus diesel debate is an interesting one, although not very sporting. Diesels return fantastic economy whilst cruising at motorway speeds, but suck in mixed driving conditions and as soon as they get into town choke cute animals and babies (well not really, but they do chuck out Nitrous Oxides which ain’t very friendly). At present Hybrids return slightly better figures on the motorway (if you keep the mph below 85) but still manage good economy round town or on B roads (constant changing from 30 up to 60 and back, country driving if you like). I’ve managed to achieve 50mpg whilst not leaving the city, no car can match that (erm perhaps a Smart but that’s not a car!). Hybrids can currently run on battery alone for up to a mile at 30mph (although this is increasing with each new model), so no emissions – I use this whilst in traffic. Only problem is that they run silent, so the local cats and postmen have to watch out for me.

Ok so on a track session 40mpg may not be obtainable in a hybrid, but consider that the harder you brake the more energy is returned to the batteries and you will see benefits.

Those of you not keen on this hybrid approach needn’t worry, its not likely that Toyota would offer only hybrid versions of the new MR2 – it’d be a commercial risk.

[michael]

*Dons crash helmet*

To modernise a car you make it modern, in keeping with the time it's made available - the MK2 is more modern than the MK1, it's newer so by definition it's more modern.

mod·ern·ise

To make modern in appearance, style, or character; update.

v. intr.
To accept or adopt modern ways, ideas, or style.


You don't have to improve on something to modernise it and by retaining the MR2 name the MK2 is by definition a modern MR2 when compared with the MK1, in the same way the MK3 is a more modern interpretation compared to the MK2 despite it being very different.

It's true that the MK1 has more elements of the traditional sportscar in that it's lighter but what else does it offer?

We all have our favourites and this topic will always create conflicts, I'm just happy that Toyota saw fit to offer the different versions so that most people are happy, yes it would be nice to have a good looking, powerful, lightweight MR2 with great brakes, great chassis and everything you could wish for but the general car market is about compromises, without them you end up in the supercar arena and most of those weigh more than a MK1 as well.....

[Lauren]

the mk2 certainly did NOT modernise the mk1.

How can you say that?

The technology and design is newer, therefore more modern.... you may not feel it *improved* on the MK1 but it definately modernised the boxy little trout.

the mk2 is a different car altogether...it was a step backwards in terms of being a sportscar not forward.

This depends on your definition of a sportscar

All 3 MR2s to date have followed different paths and acquired their fans along the way, at least Toyota have tried something for everyone, they just need to expand the range to include a couple of other models to ensure they continue to do so - the lightweight shoebox, the sexy GT flagship, the practical coupé, the hot hatch.

Lets not fight over which MR2 is the best so soon in the year, at the end of the day they can all be improved in some way or another, that's why we are here

I think the MK1 and MK3 have a lot more in common and in effect its the MK2 which is the odd one out. With the MK2 toyota made a car that appealed to a totally different market with the MK2 being more of a GT type car than a nippy little sportscar. I think this is why many MK2 owners don't get the MK3.

[Tony jinxy froude]

It modernises the MR2, the way the MK2 modernised the MK1 in keeping with the look of the cars of today.

* stands behind Paul woods, with sleeves rolled up *

What ever happened to individuality ?, nearly every modern car you see on the roads today looks the bloody same, thats why i love the mk1, at the time it was different looking to nearly every other car around at the time it was new, & even today its so different to cars that are new, you can tell a mk1 a mile off, you never hear of a mk1 owner flashing a Ford Probe by mistake , why would any body want a car which looks the same as any other make of car on the road ? sure Toyota may have stuck a bigger engine in the MK2 and through the revisions offered different options, but in my own opinion where they went wrong was making it look exactly the same as every new car offered at the same time, ask yourself this....... why are so many MK2 owners radically changing the way their MK2's looked like from new ?.... because they dont want their car looking the same as every other car on the road, yet look at the MK1.... you very rarely see that many radically altered MK1's , why ??, because the look & individuality was already there, it didnt need improving, just my opinion......................... and probably many others as well cheers, Jinxy

[michael]

What cars does the MK2 look like? In '89 what else looked like a MK2? Pontiac Fiero perhaps but it's more angular and US only....

The only similarity with the Probe is in the way the headlamps and sidelights are set out - in the dark they look identical, to compare them in the daylight is madness, the MK2 looks as much like a Probe as the MK1 looks like an X19 - not much.

As I keep saying each car has it's own merits and it's own fans, it's good that we all have something to like under the MR2 banner.

[michael]

I think the MK1 and MK3 have a lot more in common and in effect its the MK2 which is the odd one out. With the MK2 toyota made a car that appealed to a totally different market with the MK2 being more of a GT type car than a nippy little sportscar. I think this is why many MK2 owners don't get the MK3.

What do they have in common other than the fact they are both lighter than a MK2?

One is an angular mid engined car with early 80's styling and the other is an attempt to tap into the lucrative bargain soft top market to try and steal sales from the MX5 and other similar cars whilst maximising profit through the use of cheap materials and a compromised design. They share an engine layout but so does the MK2, all three are different in my eyes, it's hard to compare any of them but the MK2 seems more of an evolution of the MK1 whereas the MK3 is a new direction but using an established name and customer base in order to try and get sales. The Toyota of 2000 is different to the one of 1980, it's all about the money.

I don't think the MK2 was made to appeal to another market, it was intended to appeal to the same people who bought MK1s and then grew up wanting more luxury in keeping with the times, in the same way the MK3 came about because of trends in the car world, they create each model to appeal to a market, the MK1 was more groundbreaking in this respect as it was fairly unique at the time.

Anyway this one alqways goes on forever, I like all 3 variants but own none of them

[Lauren]

What do they have in common other than the fact they are both lighter than a MK2?

One is an angular mid engined car with early 80's styling and the other is an attempt to tap into the lucrative bargain soft top market to try and steal sales from the MX5 and other similar cars whilst maximising profit through the use of cheap materials and a compromised design. They share an engine layout but so does the MK2, all three are different in my eyes, it's hard to compare any of them but the MK2 seems more of an evolution of the MK1 whereas the MK3 is a new direction but using an established name and customer base in order to try and get sales. The Toyota of 2000 is different to the one of 1980, it's all about the money.

I don't think the MK2 was made to appeal to another market, it was intended to appeal to the same people who bought MK1s and then grew up wanting more luxury in keeping with the times, in the same way the MK3 came about because of trends in the car world, they create each model to appeal to a market, the MK1 was more groundbreaking in this respect as it was fairly unique at the time.

Anyway this one alqways goes on forever, I like all 3 variants but own none of them

I think what the MK3 has in common to the MK1 that the MK2 doesn't is that it is closer to the original concept of a small and light 2 seater.

Though as you say the MK2 is an evolution of the MK1 in many ways i think by toyota making it more luxurious and bigger in an attempt to coerce MK1 buyers into moving toward the MK2 they essentially missed the point as the MK1 was never a luxury car in the GT guise of things as i don't think MK1 buyers wanted the MK2 to move in this direction.

Essentially i see the MK2 as a sideways move to tempt a totally different market, by adding a bit of luxury and increased legroom and weight of course.

I think that the obviously 80s styling of the MK1 gives it some distinction and firmly anchors it in that period, so although it looks dated compared to more modern machinery this is actually a plus point as it is very definately a car of that era.

The MK2 was obviously toyotas attempt of a ferrari copy styling wise and though the MK3 is obviously a minature boxster and the MK1 to some extent is based on the X1-9 the japanese have never been good at doing anything original in all honesty.

Like you say this debate could and probably will go on forever.