Top Gear

[qwertyuiop]

If anyone watched Top Gear on Halloween, you will have seen some of the best road cars in the world.

Now, Top Gear usually sucks for a number of reasons:

1) Jeremy Clarkson is like the uncle you see about once a year, usually at christmas, and you just wish he would shut up and/or not recognise you.

2) The **** 'cool wall'.

3) They usually drive the new range of average cars for the average person... no one wants to see that.

4) The presenters ALWAYS have disturbing orgasms on the test track.

5) They have 'celebrities' on every week. It's a car show, no one wants to see egotistical idiots make bigger idiots out of themselves by trying to pretend they know what they are talking about. It is awful.

However, the show I'm refering to was actually good, as for the vast majority of it, they raced supercars. They took the raw, thrashy, aggression from the late 80's and early 90's and compared it to the super slick engineered machines of today.

Okay the results were obvious, but it was a good watch. It was good to see a Jaguar XJ220 destroy a Porche Carrera from a stand still. You seen a Mclaren F1 tear past the Ferrari Enzo and a Zonda.

Around the track however, ie. when corners are involed, the newer cars are faster.

Jeremy Clarkson then said something interesting though, which is more fun to drive?

Of course the next car in the spotlight was a Ferrari F40... my first thoughts were, so that's where Toyota were inspired then. Then they showed it thrashing around the track, that car is impressive, especially when it tweeked out on the corners and then jolted back into line. It is seriously quick.

The point is, the more I read MR2 forums, the more I hear how the earlier models are more fun to drive. It only tends to be people who are perhaps, how should I say it, not used to driving fast rear wheel drive cars maybe, to show favour for the newer 'updated' models. People have become a little lost when it comes to cars nowadays, it seems that safety is the biggest selling point of a vehicle. While safety is important, I don't doubt this, it is a shame that a lot of the newer cars sometimes feel as if there has been some sort of compromise made for the aggression, in favour of new 'modern' features, sometimes this can kill the character of a car.

Discuss.

[Bibbs]

MR2 wise?

The mk1 is the best handling .. but is let down by power, 80's styling and rust.

The mk2 is more of a touring car, loads more room, actually praticle, but lost a lot of it's feel over the mk1 and gained a LOT of weight .. also good for stoopid power.

The mk3 is as close to the mk1 as the law allows .. good feel, but again let down by room.

[midmotorsteve]

I think MR2s are a bad example of this, i think your confusing fun, with Flawed, i.e the period 1989-1991...

They are all fun :)

Before people with early mk2 start shouting, how many of you still have 14" wheel with 205s on the rear? esp Turbos :)

[EarL]

When manufacturers build a new car, as you've already mentioned, they build in the "safety factor". When you buy a car such as the Mk II MR2 (and in my case it's going on for 15 years old), the safety factors were much less, but I know which I'd rather drive.

Having driven a Mk III, I'd go for mine ANY day of the week. It may be raw, and a bit of a handfull, but it's alive and has character. Too many cars built today are souless. Take the Nissan Skyline R34 for instance. No doubting it's a savagely fast car, but ever driven one??? IT does the driving! :ffs:

The F40 was a beast in the same way that the Mk II MR2 can be a beast. Hugely powerful, mid engine, rear wheel drive. Ferrari didn't build 'em like that for nothing.

Stuff your four wheel drive, four wheel steer, electronic bags of crap. I'll stick with my tubby thanks.

PS. Steve, my 2 now has it's old 14's back on for the winter. Great fun mate!

[mr2nut123]

you are pretty feked if you crash an older car but like you said, theyre built as sports cars for reasons, i.e. going fast and having fun and if you crash its your tough **** :P when they bring this sat nav detection rubbish in you wont be able to even go over the limit, even on a bypass :ffs:

[DeusMR2]

The mk1 is the best handling .. but is let down by power, 80's styling and rust.

The mk2 is more of a touring car, loads more room, actually praticle, but lost a lot of it's feel over the mk1 and gained a LOT of weight .. also good for stoopid power.

The mk3 is as close to the mk1 as the law allows .. good feel, but again let down by room.

What he said

[mattmr2]

Interesting topic - glad you didn't mention the pre menstrual geri scene......

Anyhow,

I've spent the last year or so working with Mr2's and have seen them in all states of disrepair and more reciently we have been working with the MK3 - Its interesting I would say the MK2 has more structural safty features built in than the MK3, OK the MK3 comes with airbags and so on as standard but in terms of whats in front of you I'd rather be in a MK2......

I guess there was some comprimise on safty to save a bit of weight (back to there roots and all that) - Its quite increadable how little there is to a MK3, which I guess is why its the lightest of the three.....

Matt.

[LimeyMk1]

Have never driven a MK2 or 3 (yet) so I can't compare them with my Mk1, but I love the way it drives.

I'd heartily agree that it's underpowered but I'm working on that and will hopefully be installing a 4AGTE engine this time next year! :D