[Mk2] [Generic] What were toyota thinking when they made the mk2

[Frustrated Pilot]

they stopped production because it was a hair dressers car

[vishpish]

james really interestin what your sayin.most mk3 drivers as you say dont know what car/badge they are representing and driving. the mr-s is more like the mk1 and i believe both are excellently balanced....the mk2 ive heard is around the 42-58 distribution which lands me in a lot of stick justifying the handling abilities to my mates, but still a beautiful car.

i wouldnt term the mk2 as a hairdressers car nor would i call it a roadster like its younger and older brothers(mk3/mk1)...its definetly not a drifters choice either...kinda hard to describe!

[Alex B]

...kinda hard to describe!

I think of mine as a mid-engined go-kart with a body. But that's because I don't have power steering giving me a biased view.

[Don Cool]

they stopped production because it was a hair dressers car

LOL, yeah, the guys at work tried ripping me about buying a hairdresser's car when I got my mk2 n/a. It didn't really last long as it so obviously isn't..

Have had mine exactly 3 years to the day. (It got the full polish treatment yesterday "for its birthday" and it still looks great.) During that time I have put nearly 70k on the clock and I have to say that each and every mile has been a joy.

I'm not mechanically-minded, nor do I have much cash to spend on it so I just make sure it gets serviced every 7k or so. I want that engine to last as long as possible. Got 140k on the clock now.. looking forward to breaking through 200k and beyond!

What a great car!

[HighwayStar]

Yup, got to agree. I'm at 186k miles now so looking forward to seeing 200k in the next yr or so. I think of mine as what it is... a great GT car. Have to say as well that whilst it may not be the 'sports' car of its brethren it is incredibly capable for a GT.
Plus it looks fabulous.

R.

[Alex B]

Yup, got to agree. I'm at 186k miles now so looking forward to seeing 200k in the next yr or so. I think of mine as what it is... a great GT car. Have to say as well that whilst it may not be the 'sports' car of its brethren it is incredibly capable for a GT.
Plus it looks fabulous.

R.

I actually disagree slightly with it being an actual GT car. For me a GT car is a Grand Tourer, something that has a fair amount of poke and can go long distances, handle corners well and be relatively comfortable with it.

The MR2 ticked three of those boxes but the comfort/ride/feel was far more sporty/racey to be honest.

It almost seems to me that, really, the MR2 mk2 is a unique kind of car. I'm certain, however, that someone will be able to refute that with some examples of similar cars but I cannot think of one right now that is really the 'same.'

[poser]

I actually disagree slightly with it being an actual GT car. For me a GT car is a Grand Tourer, something that has a fair amount of poke and can go long distances, handle corners well and be relatively comfortable with it.

The MR2 ticked three of those boxes but the comfort/ride/feel was far more sporty/racey to be honest.

It almost seems to me that, really, the MR2 mk2 is a unique kind of car. I'm certain, however, that someone will be able to refute that with some examples of similar cars but I cannot think of one right now that is really the 'same.'

I actually like it for long distances, though I'm a short guy so maybe that helps. I find the driving position is engaging and actually keeps me awake. I would dread doing a long-haul trip in a big exec car with cruise control and massaging seats - how dull can you get?!

[010on1986]

the mk2 is a botch, lodged between: a refreshing initial concept (x1/9 clone) and a return to the concept (mk3).

the progression from the mk1 to mk2 to mk3 doesn't make sense, take the mk2 out of the equation and the step from mk1 to mk3 is right.

Faced with the prospect of a mk2, turbo or other wise, I'd get a celica.

How it can be mentioned amongst the likes of the NSX is beyond me.

Mk1 ain't that pretty, but in 1980 they were and to have had a sc mk1 in the 80's must have been amazing.....that should have been the mk2.

[Alex B]

I actually like it for long distances, though I'm a short guy so maybe that helps. I find the driving position is engaging and actually keeps me awake. I would dread doing a long-haul trip in a big exec car with cruise control and massaging seats - how dull can you get?!

While some may prefer (probably most continued owners tbh) the ride, it's still is not, in my humble opinion, in keeping with the ride of a 'GT' car. That was my point.

[James Junior]

IThe MK2 just got a bit long in the tooth and the sports car market was becoming more mainstream, hence the softer looking and low powered MK3.

The only reason the MK3 was lower powered was because it enabled Toyota to sell more units. Lower power means lower insurance group and therefore people will buy more.

Thats exactly my point - it was created to be accessible to as big a demographic as possible to ensure maximum commercial success.

[mattcambs]

the mk2 is a botch, lodged between: a refreshing initial concept (x1/9 clone) and a return to the concept (mk3).

the progression from the mk1 to mk2 to mk3 doesn't make sense, take the mk2 out of the equation and the step from mk1 to mk3 is right.

Faced with the prospect of a mk2, turbo or other wise, I'd get a celica.

How it can be mentioned amongst the likes of the NSX is beyond me.

Mk1 ain't that pretty, but in 1980 they were and to have had a sc mk1 in the 80's must have been amazing.....that should have been the mk2.

Botch is harsh, but yes the progression isn't logical.

For some the mk1 will always epitomise "MR2" and others the mk2

I actually think that the mk2 is a logical progression from the mk1 - it's the mk3 that ruined it (even though it's a great car).

[Alex B]

I actually think that the mk2 is a logical progression from the mk1 - it's the mk3 that ruined it (even though it's a great car).

I look at the Mk1 as a kind car at the cross-roads. Two directions it could have gone down. Mk2 was one direction, Mk3 was the other.

[James Junior]

the mk2 is a botch, lodged between: a refreshing initial concept (x1/9 clone) and a return to the concept (mk3).

the progression from the mk1 to mk2 to mk3 doesn't make sense, take the mk2 out of the equation and the step from mk1 to mk3 is right.

Faced with the prospect of a mk2, turbo or other wise, I'd get a celica.

How it can be mentioned amongst the likes of the NSX is beyond me.

Mk1 ain't that pretty, but in 1980 they were and to have had a sc mk1 in the 80's must have been amazing.....that should have been the mk2.

I strongly disagree.

I think the progression is very logical. Around the time of the MK2’s launch Toyota wanted their concept to 'grow up' a bit become a bit more refined and comfortable and a bit less compromising. Hence it's roomy cabin, higher spec, decent size boot The extra weight was lamented by purists but as someone mentioned above, Toyota were going more ‘GT’ with their MK2 so didn’t consider this an issue. The MK1 was fresh but never exactly had much panache. The MK2 had panache in spades at the time of it’s launch, with Ferarri-esque looks and a longer rounded profile. The moniker ‘poor mans Ferarri’ encompasses what Toyota were thinking when they designed the MK2. Toyota very cleverly tapped into the fact that whilst most men (and many ladies) fantasised over owning the Ferarri’s of the age, few could afford them. TheMK2 bought the concept to the mass market by being sexy and desirable, yet reasonably economical all at an accessible price point and achieved huge commercial success because of it.

Towards the end of the MK2’s life the ‘hardcore sports’ golden age of the nineties was drawing to a close with stricter emission requirements particularly in the EU (hence the reasons for the early death of UK Supra’s, RX-7’s etc) , and rising fuel and insurance costs. The roadster market had been exploited to huge success by Mazda and more recently MG and Porsche so the Toyota execs saw an opportunity to follow market trends again. Hence they applied their experience gained in production and design of the MK1 to a fresh ‘Boxster esque’ concept. I think the progression overall just shows that Toyota were very on the ball with understanding what consumers wanted at the time.

The comparisons between the NSX and the MK2 Turbo are very revealing I think. The NSX shows a similar desire from Honda to tap into the early nineties obsession with exotica . The fundamental difference was that Honda tried to go head to head and failed as no-one wanted to buy an £80,000 Jap ‘super-car;’ The MK2 Turbo meanwhile offered close to supercar performance but undercut the big boys significantly. Both NSX and MK2 Turbo are similar on paper – sports car looks, strong performance, mid mounted engine and yet one was a quarter of the price and subsequently hugely successful as a result. The NSX is obviously the better car, but didn’t work commercially.

[mattcambs]

James, I think you've expanded nicely on what I as saying. And I agree, too, that the MR2 Turbo/NSX comparison isn't a silly one. There is a clip on You Tube of a Jap car tv program with a rev2 Turbo vs NSX versus RX7 and a 200SX, I think. The MR2 holds off the NSX for ages on track, the NSX does get the better of it. The RX7 is 3rd and the 200SX is no-where! A rev3 vs NSX would be interesting. MR2 Turbos are underated in terms of their abilities on track in the right hands.
All in all I think an MR2 Turbo is 90% the car an NSX is at less than half the price.

We shouldn't think that the MR2 concept HAS to be about a light-weight sports car, just because the mk1 was.

[James Junior]

James, I think you've expanded nicely on what I as saying. And I agree, too, that the MR2 Turbo/NSX comparison isn't a silly one. There is a clip on You Tube of a Jap car tv program with a rev2 Turbo vs NSX versus RX7 and a 200SX, I think. The MR2 holds off the NSX for ages on track, the NSX does get the better of it. The RX7 is 3rd and the 200SX is no-where! A rev3 vs NSX would be interesting. MR2 Turbos are underated in terms of their abilities on track in the right hands.
All in all I think an MR2 Turbo is 90% the car an NSX is at less than half the price.

We shouldn't think that the MR2 concept HAS to be about a light-weight sports car, just because the mk1 was.

I'm surprised that the RX7 didn't dominate them all to be honest?!

I'd like to point out BTW that my comments are meant in no way to be derogatory to the NSX - it one of my favourite cars ever. I'm sure its 3.0 NA engine is sweet as a nut and is the last word in refinement . (afterall - Honda are master engine builders who see turbo's as an inelegant solution) The MR2 Turbo seem primitive with its brutal power delivery by comparison.

They are still however vastly comparable in many ways as Matt rightly says and that is what makes the MR2 Turbo such a great car.

Right I'm going to stop writing essays now - sorry guys. I'm just fascinated with the whole nineties Jap sports era and get a bit passionate!

[James Junior]

We shouldn't think that the MR2 concept HAS to be about a light-weight sports car, just because the mk1 was.

SO true. MK1 purists always say the MK2 was bloated and overweight.

Well maybe by comparison to the feather light MK1 but by comparison to any normal car they're still pretty light.

For everyday use I'd sooner suffer a bit more weight for a nicer cabin, more torque and a few more creature comforts!

[vishpish]

brilliant discussion...i think youve totally hit the nail on the head guys. there are many similarities between the nsx and mr2 and since buyin an mr2, fantasised about the possiblity of the nsx on the basis of its rarity and looks. right down to the interior, though, they are similar and theres a video on youtube with a cocky new zealand guy a yellow mr2 tubby and nsx - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HufTZ2nO6aw

dare i say it though, i think the mr2 looks a bit nicer than the nsx hmmmm and the rex:

NSX - too boxy
Rx7 - too curve
Mr2 - PERFECT

[rookie-racer]

we all know toyota launched the lexus brand in the late nineties, hence the need to deliniate toyota from lexus, and that might explain the mr2 going back to its roots in the mk3...

but ffs why didnt lexus launch a revamped mk2 mr2 as a model, it wouldnt have been the work of a genius to design some rear lights, rejig the interior, develop a new front end, and maybe plagiarise bits from the trd kit and offer it to europe as a v6 or v6 sc???

imho a facelifted mk2 v6/v6sc, as a lexus luxury gt, would have decimated sales of lower porsches, merc slks. maybe even made the tt still borne?

mk1 cool car in the eighties very capable still

mk2 cool car period very capable still

mk3 very capable - not cool as stock... but likes of rouges one with that vs kit - nice lookingbut still no liggage space

[ryan]

we all know toyota launched the lexus brand in the late nineties,

Lexus have been in uk since around 1992

[Lauren]

I strongly disagree.
Toyota very cleverly tapped into the fact that whilst most men (and many ladies) fantasised over owning the Ferarri’s of the age, few could afford them. TheMK2 bought the concept to the mass market by being sexy and desirable, yet reasonably economical all at an accessible price point and achieved huge commercial success because of it.

I think you make a good point about trends etc, effectively style won over function and the mk2 became a car that was liked by a greater number of people, it had the looks due to toyota copying the 355.

So whilst it might have looked great, the extra weight, the flawed handling, was not an issue to people who just wanted to look good. But by doing that, the purity of the original MR2 was somewhat lost.