I'm fancying one for my next car because i think they look absolutely awesome to be honest, and the lights are cool as hell

However, they are such an old car now (last one was made in 2000 iirc) that i figure i may struggle to get hold of a decent one on reasonable miles, but do miles really matter on them? Are they expensive to maintain? Do alot of things go wrong with them due to their age etc? I have a thing about buying high milage cars you see my yaris tsport had 37k when i bought it and that was too much for my liking lol. I do about 12000 miles a year.

I'm not bothered about petrol consumption i've read that you can hammer them about and still get about 30mpg, but even so i'm young, don't have kids or mortgages etc, so i can afford to run a gas guzzler.

If i did get one, It would probably be the GT (or T-bar), I'm not old enough to afford the insurance of a turbo model. Well actually to be honest i can afford it quite comfortably but due to the fact i've never driven a rear wheel drive car in my life its probably best that i don't get a turbo model as i'd probably end up in a hedge lol, it'll be dangerous enough in the 168bhp GT.

One other thing, i've read some quite terrible stories about them regarding how in the wet, its extremely easy to spin the car on the slightest of corners. Thoughts?

Cheers.

reg mk2's only

Many ppl reckon the engines are fairly bulletproof but they can and do go wrong. High mileage isnt really a problem therefore as long as its been properly maintained. AFAIK all mr2's can be twitchy in wet conditions, much moreso in bends when wet but driver error is a big factor in this... the wise thing to do is drive like a granny really when the road is anything less than dry. The turbo models are even more twitchy due to the power increase when the turbo kicks in but again... care stops most incidents. As for 30 mpg... dunno about the NA's but 27 mpg is roughly careful driving in a turbo.... foot down and it starts using fuel like theres a happy hour at the petrol stations.

As for repair costs... they can be expensive depending on what needs doing. Best bet if you get one is make sure its in good mechanical condition before you buy, that its had its cam belt done recently, clutch also and there arent massive gear probs....

Also try to get to look when its definately cold engine. definately check the water when cold, before a test drive and look to see if their is mayo in the collant cap. Check that the exhaust emissions when initially starting are not blue or lots of white, a little black is fine.... mostly all the standard stuff in addition.

Id aim for a rev 3 at least if you're looking for a mk2(not to say there arent any great and lovely examples of rev2's and 1's), as for the other versions(mk1 and 3) i'll leave others to tell you about those as I have no real experience of them... back to the mk2 rev3 tho > its the version where most of the problems with earlier models were apparently satisfactorilly resolved... in part, from what ive read the mr2's reputation is derived from reviews of the earlier revisions which have seemed to stick. I am by no means saying that the car is the safest to drive though lol They are very rewarding tho....

Get a good one and it'll be great fun get a lemon and start watching cash heamorage

Sure someone else will be along shortly to either correct me or add to this but good luck and hope you get a gem if you take the plunge!

Good choice; pop-ups for the win.


There are still low mileage ones about. Mine passed 30K last year and has FTSH. I thought that was exceptional, but there's another one for sale near me with slightly lower mileage. I'd be more worried about a low mileage early naughties car than a well looked after MkII.


Wouldn't call them gas guzzlers; not if they're working properly. Sure they'll use a bit more than a Yaris but yes you can push them a bit and you'll still get decent mpg.


Good move. I know most owners (especially the tubby owners) don't agree with me on this but.... The N/A is a perfectly good car and a lot of fun to drive, and on the road the N/A is arguably the more enjoyable car as there's no turbo lag whatsoever and less danger of powering out the rear end. But I'm well aware that the performance of some turbos is approaching supercar levels - so if you really want to go very fast on a track then of course the Turbo's the one to choose.


Yes, it's very easy to spin the rear wheels in the wet, and you certainly have to drive with care. As for spinning the car; only if you drive it too fast for the conditions. Rear wheel drive is of course different to FWD, and if you get it wrong then the weight at the rear of the car doesn't help you out. Like anything, it'll be fine if you drive according to the conditions.

The handling of these cars is great, and they're one of the most rewarding things I've ever driven, and that includes 911s and Boxsters, S2000 and quite a few other supposedly more desirable cars.

But if you drive like a maniac they'll kill you.

Good luck finding one you want.

With the T-Bar of course check for a leaking roof. Look out for rust, though on the whole the UK cars are much better protected than the earlier MkI cars. Do the usual checks for HG problems etc, check the clutch isn't on the way out. Check the services have been done and remember this car has a timing belt that needs changing every so often (6 or 7 years IIRC).

On the turbo version I can comment that I haven't had a great problem getting hold of front end smashed versions when I'm looking for engines and looms for my RAV beasts.

If yer really keen - try a RAV4 1994- 1999 and stick a MR2 turbo engine in!! Thats gives you the 4 wheel drive as a plus.

I know this is an oldish thread but just gonna bump it up again as its getting to the time now where i'm intending to buy one so would like anymore insight people have to offer.

Cheers.

??????????? Turbo lag on a rev3? u got to be joking me even with increased boost there is hardly any........Granted there is nothing wrong with the n/a i do enjoy driving them from time to time but more enjoyable that a turbo?, i think not, unless the turbo car scares you and is past the boundries of your driving ability!!!!

As for powering out the rear, it only happens if you want it to or you drive like a pleb, these cars do not just sit sideways because they feel like it, they have to be provoked or driven by someone who cannot comprehend the laws of physics.

Mo

Hardly any != none at all.

I didn't say the tubbies particularly suffer from this; with a relatively small blower the lag effects are minimal.

And yes, I know the power is manageable; I'd argue that virtually any car is safe if you drive according to the laws of physics. I don't think a tubby would scare me, and if I did a lot of track driving I'd absolutely have to have one, but for the road I'm convinced that the N/A has more than enough power to be enjoyable without being too expensive to run.

I think you are a bit confused, regarding the MR2, a turbo on track is not needed at all, especially if it has all this lag that you have mentioned, you want something smooth and progressive that you can have on the limit. And TBH a turbo would probably be better on the road, as in having quick blasts upto speed and backing off.

Dont get me wrong, they are both good, I like the MR2 in both form's, it depends what you like really, and id have to agree the rev3 doesnt really have lag, neither does the rev1-2, the difference being the ct20 will pull the boost upto near 7k, where as the ct26 on a rev1/2 tails off after around 5.5k

I've been doing a few quotes and that, and for some reason i can get insured on a rev3 turbo for almost the same amount as a rev 3 N/A, now being that i'll be buying this in a few months when i turn 21 and will have 2 years no claims. My heart says buy a turbo, but my heads saying you've never driven a RWD car before, your going to die so be sensible and get a N/A to start with, thoughts?

Also, whats the fuel consumption difference between the two for someone like me who likes to drive enthusiastically from time to time? I would drive something like this very carefully most of the time because i'd be scared of losing it lol, but of course on straight roads its natural to want to hoof it a bit.

I had a 1.1 saxo for my first car and used to get 400 to a tank, i got the yaris and its dropped to 280-320 to a tank but to be fair i do hoof the yaris everywhere and its the t sport model which was short geared to make it faster, it revs at like 5krpm at 70 on a motorway in 5th lol.

I probably would do about 300 miles a week so how much would i be spending on petrol roughly?

I'm considering buying the Mr2 as a second car for nice days and buying myself something cheap to run and insure like a clio diesel or something for my daily car.

"All this lag" is hardly a representation of my comments as all I ever said was that the N/A has absolutely no turbo lag whatsoever, which I hope you'll agree is a fact. Mo then pointed out that there's hardly any lag on a Rev 3 and I agreed with that.

As for whether a turbo is desirable on track, I guess it depends on which track it is, but even on very twisty ones the power of a turbo can be exploited. In almost any contest I've seen between turbos and N/As on a track the turbos have won - though on occasions a very good driver in a very well set up N/A can beat a not so good driver in a turbo. You're right though - a turbo isn't 'needed' on a track, any more than it's 'needed' on the road - it's a personal preference and my view is that for me the N/A is adequate for the road but I think I'd find it a bit slow if I was on a track and other stuff was blatting past me on the straights; I don't expect everybody to feel that way though.

On the road other things may be more important - for example fuel consumption and safety. The N/A is capable of rapid progress on most roads and yet returns reasonable fuel figures. Yes, safety is down to the driver, not the car, but given that the N/A can do mental speeds, I see little need for the extra power of a tubby unless you're particularly into TLGPs.

I guess in an N/A you're looking at about 8 to 10 gallons a week for your 300 mile trip, depending on how you drive, and what the journey is like. No idea what you'd get in a tubby; I expect it would range from not many more gallons, to lots more gallons depending on how highly tuned it is, and how heavy your right foot is. I know it would kill me if I had to leave the MR2 in the garage and drive a diseasal to work just to save a few litres of juice.

I certainly wouldn't do that for 300 miles a week, though I guess if the distance was much greater than that I'd have to consider it. (Except I'd buy either a small petrol car, or else a large one with enough space for a decent LPG tank).

For whats its worth, I drove my n/a RAV4 for a good few thousand miles. Wanting a bit more fun, and after the engine had seized, I went down the track of fitting a 3SGTE from a MR2 which had had a front end smash. The RAV now has amazing performance on the straight and very good cornering and even wet weather behaviour in that its 4 wheel drive and I can lock the diffs.
I'm getting a 2nd RAV converted and have picked up 2 more turbo MR2s to donate the bits. This second car will be my day to day use, and I expect around 21mpg to 24 mpg, based on the first conversion.

In speaking to the owners of the donor cars, its clear that the turbo MR2 is a fun car with a mischievous back end when driven hard - but then thats the choice of the driver.
As for turbo or not, the difference to the RAV will be using the 127bhp 3SFE engine; or the 3SGTE with all the possibilities of taking that above 400bhp on its current drivetrain and having a chance to have some fun - at a cost of 210 miles on 50 litres.

i would say if you can afford it get a turbo, i got my rev3 turbo in april and love it never fails to put a smile on my face
if im light with the go pedal i can get 30+ mpg although i average 20-25mpg . so far i cant fault it for reliability and its easy enough to service yourself doing stuff like oil changes , plugs, gearbox oil change are all easy enough.


cheers

hi there i was wondering if any body can help me i have just brought a 1991 mr2 mk2 super addition can any body tell me what the difference is please im confused

Can you tell me how you know it is a 'super addition'?

yup... as Jappy says.. there is no such thing as a 'Super Edition' Mk2 MR2.

You have the UK GTi and then the imports in the form of either G-limited, GT Turbo, GTS Turbo.

Click to view attachment


Oh yes there is - I have one. It is a grey import G-Limited targa top with the words 'super edition' in transfers on both doors. All black leather interior including dash door inserts steering wheel handbrake and gear knob. The seats are leather/cloth designer. Hopefully photo attached.
And it is the best car I ever had and I am approaching my 56th birthday so I've had a few!! (cars that is...)

Ignore the words 'Super Edition' - probably an eBay sticker that a previous owner liked the look of...

nice looking car for the age though - very nice indeed!

Thanks - it does look good in photos - but much better in natural light.

Not totally convinced by the ebay solution - how sad would that be?

Click to view attachment

Very... But its not the worst... Its simply unbelievable what some people think looks nice. In case you've never come across is - http://www.barryboys.co.uk. There's quite a lot of colourful language, but usually its well deserved, and there are some comical efforts for car modding...

Enjoy the browse!

Yours is a rev1, NA, import .. the only specials were the "10th annaversary" ones and the "bathurst" Australian ones. (apart from Sard and TRD specials).

The imports only had half leather interiors, with cloth seats for the poverty spec and alacantara (sp) for the premiums.

Can you post a pix of the interior? Most of them had the handbrake/wheel/gearstick combo.

They are also known as "T-Bars" not targa. Targa is a Porsche/Nissan thing .. not a Toyota thing.


There was a "super edition" on the Mk1 MR2. It was a last of line run out with loads of options. Looks like a previous Japanese owner may have got the badges off an older car and stuck them on. Being a rev1 and an import anything is possible.

When I was sanding for new paint on my 91 mkII I found a couple super edition stickers randomly on the OEM paint, it was an SMG, T-top with the half leather interior and a nice steering wheel the previous owner kept when I brought it.

I think its just a dealer "feel good" thing pay 2grand to get a sticker and a steering wheel.

Interesting. Was it a NZ car, or a JDM import?

Hunting on the net I found this :


http://www.geocities.jp/toyota_corolla1200...ion-91_04_A.jpg

.. so I might be wrong. It does look like one, but in 10 years of ownership I'd never seen/heard of one.

On the book it's a rev1 (14" wheels, no front lip), NA (Engine lid), JDM (orange front indicators and 'tobelerones').

The logo is the same font as your pic too.

What do you mean SMG? I'd guess not a Sequential-Manual-Gearbox .. do you mean an auto? Maybe these are all Auto's?

Every day is a school day.

That font is horrid!

SMG = Steel Mist Grey colour i believe.

I deffo aint ever heard of a 'special edition' either.. might post it up on IMOC and see what the reaction is...

*Update

Found a thread on it... Looks like there may have been one after all.

http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php...t=super+edition