Car decisions... MR2 or RX7

Hi folks, im going to be buying a new car shortly. Well ive been dreaming and dreaming, and i want either an NSX, M3, or Supra TT. Well i odnt have the money, lol. So im probably gonna settle for either an MR2 Turbo, or 93+ RX7. If i find either, i want them to have new engines in. Ive heard reliablitly of the RX7 over 100K is pretty iffy, and 3SGTEs are pretty expensive. So what do you think? any other suggestions?

The RX7s have a horrible rep for reliability at any mileage.

I bought my turbocharged mr2 at 180,000 miles with the original untouched motor in it. I have since modded it like crazy to nearly double the factory HP levels and it is still running strong at 192,000 miles.

As for the 3sgte being expensive, not sure what you call expensive.
You can buy a used 3sgte engine that is warranteed and guaranteed to have less than 50K miles on it for $1200.

I bought Hyde (my turbo car) for $1750. There are deals out there if you shop.

Ok Thanks, but i still want to get as many opinions as i can. What about performance? MR2s are just as good as rx7s? I know they can out handle them, but what about everything else?

Originally posted by JekylandHyde
The RX7s have a horrible rep for reliability at any mileage.

I bought my turbocharged mr2 at 180,000 miles with the original untouched motor in it. I have since modded it like crazy to nearly double the factory HP levels and it is still running strong at 192,000 miles.

As for the 3sgte being expensive, not sure what you call expensive.
You can buy a used 3sgte engine that is warranteed and guaranteed to have less than 50K miles on it for $1200.

I bought Hyde (my turbo car) for $1750. There are deals out there if you shop.

Is that your unbiassed opinion????? RX7 engines are so reliable that you can shove branches into the intake manifold and make mulch for yer grandma! They're expensive though.:bloated: Get the mr2, it gives you the impression that youre riding in a Ferrari 308, kinda like the way an inflatable woman gives you the impression that you're with a real woman.:flipa:

Back in 94 I almost tradd the 2 for an RX7....I wish I would have. I like it better...it is faster....I think it is lighter. It has been a long time. I test drove it and remember thinking....this car will only get me into trouble...I kept the VERY SLOW MR2

Originally posted by wild willy
I kept the VERY SLOW MR2
The MR2 is what you make of it... yes, the RX7 is faster out of the box, but at what cost? There isn't a year of the last generetion RX7 that can even come close to matching the MR2s realiability.

The thing I love about the RX7 is the rarity...

Originally posted by kaoru-tochiro
Is that your unbiassed opinion?????
Who asked for an unbiased opinion? If you ask this kind of a question in an MR2 forum, it is logical to deduce that the opinions will be biased.

As for the rest of your post I can't imagine what the point is beyond entertaining yourself. Your post shows a lot of insight into your character. Thank you for showing us yourself so clearly.

As for the 308 comparison, there is none.
The turbo MR2 was faster stock than the 308... and the realiability, insurance and maintenance cost far exceed the 308.

I suspect that the set up on my car is faster than a 308 in everyway shape and form ....

I only raced one at an autocross once and I destroyed it by over 2 seconds.
As for the drag strip, I haven't seen one out there... and I am sure there are many reasons why.

Originally posted by JekylandHyde

Who asked for an unbiased opinion? If you ask this kind of a question in an MR2 forum, it is logical to deduce that the opinions will be biased.

As for the rest of your post I can't imagine what the point is beyond entertaining yourself. Your post shows a lot of insight into your character. Thank you for showing us yourself so clearly.

As for the 308 comparison, there is none.
The turbo MR2 was faster stock than the 308... and the realiability, insurance and maintenance cost far exceed the 308.

I suspect that the set up on my car is faster than a 308 in everyway shape and form ....

I only raced one at an autocross once and I destroyed it by over 2 seconds.
As for the drag strip, I haven't seen one out there... and I am sure there are many reasons why.

Bite me!:flipa: You're just some poor sucka that wished for a 308 but could only afford an mr2!
Mr2 is less unreliable as the RX7!!:flipa:

Originally posted by kaoru-tochiro
Mr2 is less unreliable as the RX7!!:flipa:
That is a double negative. I am glad we agree that the MR2 is more realiable than the RX7.

Originally posted by kaoru-tochiro
Bite me!:flipa: You're just some poor sucka that wished for a 308 but could only afford an mr2!
I sincerely wish you had the ability to step outside yourself and truly see how you present yourself to the world.

Where does your hate and sadness come from?

Unless you've got the $$$ stay far away from those RX7's. Its not just the reliability issue either, 'cause a good 3rd gen RX7 costs a lot to begin with, which i am sure you have probably noticed by now. A "GOOD" RX7 isn't far behind how much the Supra's are going for. Not too long ago, here locally, i saw an RX7 for sale, and half its body pannels were miss-alined, and this car was still going for over $14,000!!! Don't get me wrong, i love the RX7's looks and technology, but unless you've got the $$$$'s, it just isn't worth all the hassle; especially when you are so close to obtaining a Supra. In this situation, where money is a big issue, go for the MR2!!!!

Does the MR2 really out-handle the RX7???? I've never heard that one before.

Originally posted by JekylandHyde

Where does your hate and sadness come from?

This forum turned me bitter, people are so mean.:(

Originally posted by NSXN8
Does the MR2 really out-handle the RX7?.
I have no idea on this... but I can say from years of autocrossing, that when comparing performance between two cars it has much more to with the driver than the car.

Autocrossing is 75% driver, 20% tires and 5% car....

I suspect that properly modified MR2s and RX7s are very close.

The MR2 is one of the best handling cars in the world...but, you have to know how to drive it properly.....I do not

the rx-7 has a 50/50 weight distribution and weighs about as much the the mr2 does so handling wise, i think they would be very close.

my sister's boyfriend has a modded 3rd gen rx-7. his first engine blew around 60-70k miles i think and his second engine is screwed also. both engines were raced though. the car doesnt even start anymore. he's taking it to a shop that specializes in rotary cars ater his daily driver is paid off. he's expecting to be charged around 4-5 grand to get it fixed. i love both cars (the rx-7 a little bit more) but if you dont know much about the rx-7, i suggest you get the mr2. i've been learning about both cars for over three years and if i had a chance to get either car, i'd pick the mr2. how's that for unbiased?

sorry to bring this back BUT.. it is necessary to say for the knowledge of the ppl on this board that the RX-7 as im sure all you know are rotary powered.... if any of you know anything about any car is that 99.9% of the cars on the road are powered by cylinders. most car junkies, gear heads what have you just dont know how to take care of the rotary engine... let alone the normal schmoe. the rx-7 is an awesome car the engine will out last a deisel, if taken care of properly. ive seen some well over 200kmi on the oem engine. never rebuilt never touched.. the turbos however were often rebuilt around 100kmi... so there you have it if you find an rx-7 then its probably not gonna be that great. but there are tons of shops who rebuild it for a decent price. think of a stupid girl who can hardly drive stick at tearing up the clutch and replacing it every 5000 miles.. its not a bad clutch just a stupid girl. same thing with the rotary.. you gotta take care of it, if you dont know how too then itll die... not becuase its bad, but cuz you're a retard.

Kaitou, please eloborate. How does one take care of a rotary?

Particulary in comparison to how one takes care of the more popular cylinders designed engines?

Pardon my ignorance, but I have never owned a rotary, so I am not aware of their special needs.

jeez.... just get 'em both! and stop complaining, both cars will have their down sides. Drive both of them and go with the car that feels best to you.


if you want lots of power... like a race car, go with the rx7, that's how the FD engine was designed... and why the engines melt at about 50k miles when driven... "properly" (meaning way beyond street performance levels):D

i own neither, but i think it depends solely on what the specific specifications you are looking for...

Funny, Those are the same to cars I've been considering buying and rebuilding. I personally would go for the MR2 though. Reason is like you said the RX-7 over 100k can be iffy. I've seen and driven mr2 turbos from 91, my favorite, that run great. I would definitely suggest a turbo timer to cool the motor, especially if you live in a warm climate. The Rx-7 does have its pluses of having more options and standard horsepower. But if you can't afford and supra or M3, you probably can't afford regular maintanence on a rotary engine. So I say MR2 for price and reliability. I've also seen more body kits for MR2's online if that's and interest. But Goodluck.

save ur money and get a supra

MR2 or RX7...

The fastest my step dad has ever gone was in a '95 RX7 turbo (156mph) he loved it. The rotary is a nice engine, never owned one myself, but I've read all over including this board that it's a delicate piece of machinery.

The MR2 will last a long, long time. My 5sfe (91 n/a) is at 124k and with regular maintenance (simple stuff, no major problems) runs just fine, still pulls like new :)

Both cars turn heads, both are quick, and make driving fun. If you were to spend the same amount of money on a 2nd gen mr2 as you would on a stock rx7, you'd have one damn awesome 2.


One moment while I just imagine how sweet that 2 would be....

Sorry to jump on the bandwagon, but i love the MR2 also. RX7 is a nice car, but I really could never see myself trading reliability for (what I consider) mild performance gains and a 3rd gen RX will cost you a lot of money. even a 91 or 93 or something will set you back over 10...maybe 15...thats a lot of money for a car that is over a decade old. You can almost get an older Supra TT for that much or an NSX if you find a good deal...hell even a Esprit S4 is nearing that price if you get a 91 or so...still probably the Supra, Esprit and NSX will all go for something in the 20's unless you find a really good deal or one that needs some work.

if you want a fast 1/4 mile car I would reccoment an MR2 over an RX7 also...not sure about RX7 0-60 times, but I doubt it's 5.2...and a stock 3sgte jspec engine will get you to 60 in 5.0...which I think is pretty impressive...a few mods and you have a car in the 4 second range...with a bit more work you could be in 3 second range (Mclaren F1 territory :eek: )

you will not be able to find an rx-7 with a new engine. you will have to get a remanufactured one if you want to replace an engine. if you dont make much money, definitely do NOT get a 7. you will have to take care of the car like a baby and if you modify it, you will have to tune it real good or you might end up saying bye bye to engine.

i agree go with the mr2, but if u really like everything about the rx-7 better, and you have the money, then go ahead and get it. ive always heard that the rotary engine in the rx-7 were unreliable, unless you find one that had its oil changed when it was supposed to, and was taken care of really good. mr2s on the other hand, i usually hear good things about its reliability, that the engines last a long time. just make sure its worth getting, so u dont have to regret it.

Hey guys, just thought I'd step in and try to bridge the gap between these two cars. I loved MR2's years before I loved RX-7's, but the RX-7 is the only one I've owned. I currently have a 1988 RX-7. For the money, the MR2 is a better buy. You can find them much cheaper than a 3rd Gen RX-7, I feel as far as price goes the 2nd Gen RX-7's are more comparable to MKII MR-2's. A nice 87-91 Turbo II will set you back between 2,000 and 6,000 dollars and with the money you save over the third gen, you can make a lot faster than a third gen and more reliable. They are pushing about the same capabilites as an MR-2 in stock form. Third Generation RX-7's outclass MR-2's by far. Stock 0-60 times of 4.9 seconds, high 13 second quarter mile times stock, and they pull over 1G on the skidpad in stock form. To answer the handling question, the MR-2 would be left in the dust on an autocross or road course by a 3rd gen. Sure, the MR2 is a great handling car, but third gens are better without question. No car in that price range can touch it in terms of handling, not even the supra. As far as reliability goes, if you upgrade the cooling system, switch to single turbo, you'll be fine. I absolutely love the 3S-GTE engines, and if I had to drive a piston powered car, it would have a 3S in it, but they arent extremely reliable themselves, both rotaries and 3S's dont like detonation. Let's face it guys, you can blow any engine if you mistreat it, or mod it poorly, but both of these engines are capable of high miles if the driver doesent have a heavy foot. I hope I answered a few questions here, and I'd be more than happy to answer any others you guys have to avoid creating a thread full of ignorant comments and bad information.

I see a lot more old Toyotas still on the road with 200K miles or more on them than I do Mazda anythings....

I'm from a 2nd Gen RX-7 forum and heard about this discussion.
My cousin lives with me, and has his 1992 MR2 Turbo parked in my garage as well. I know how well the MR2T performs and how beautiful the 3S-GTE engine is, because I help him work on it. Just a little bit of back ground info, to let you know that I stand in the middle.

But it is quite evident that most people on this forum is unaware of the Rotary engine's reliabilty. No one seems to complain about the power, just reliability.

So let me bring up some points about the rotary engine.

1.
The Rotary engine has fewer moving parts than a typical piston engine.
A two-rotor engine has 3 main moving parts: The two rotors, and the output shaft.
A typical 4 cylinder piston engine has at least 40 moving parts, including pistons, connecting rods, camshaft, valves, valve springs, rockers, timeing belt, timing gears, and crankshaft.

The less moving parts, the better reliabilty.

2.
The rotary engine has smooth power delivery
All the parts in a rotary spin continuously in one direction, rather than violently changing directions like the pistons in a conventional engine do.
Rotary engines are internally balanced with spinning counterweights that are phased to cancel out any vibrations.
Each combustion event in a rotary engine lasts through 90 degrees of the rotors rotation, and the output shaft spins three revolutions for each revolution of the rotor (each combustion even lasts through 270 degrees of the output shaft's rotation). This means that a single-rotor engine delivers power for three-quarters of each revolution of the output shaft. Compare this to a single cylinder piston engine, in which combustion occurs during 180 degrees out of every two revolutions, or only a quarter of each revolution of the crankshaft.

This proves that the rotors spin at one-third the speed of the output shaft, meaning the main moving parts of the engine move slower than the parts of a piston engine. This also helps with reliability.

There are bad sides to the rotary engine too
1. Typically it is more difficult to make a rotary engine meet US emissions regulations. It doesn't mean that you can't. It means the exhaust is slightly dirtier.
2. They typically consume more fuel than a piston engine because the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine is reduced by the long combustion-chamber and low compression ratio.
3. They cost more, because they are produced less than the piston engine.

All in all, the rotary engine is a reliable engine, and shouldn't be considered as unreliable. Most poeple say it's unreliable because they don't understand the engine, and are usually repeating what someone else told them. My friend told me not to buy an RX-7 because "it's unreliable" but in the mean time, he knows nothing about cars, it's just what he heard from someone else.

If there's a broken down RX-7 you know if, chances are the owner didn't take care of it as well as you did with your MR2.

For the thread starter:
Both cars are great cars.
Test drive them both, choose one that's in your budget.
Don't ask others which is better. Who cares what they think, it's your car, not theirs.

I see a lot more old Toyotas still on the road with 200K miles or more on them than I do Mazda anythings....
Check production numbers and I'm sure you'll understand why. Toyota has been a popular Japanese company for much longer than Mazda. It isnt a question of reliability as much as it is that Toyota sent over a lot more cars.

Kaitou, please eloborate. How does one take care of a rotary?

Particulary in comparison to how one takes care of the more popular cylinders designed engines?

Pardon my ignorance, but I have never owned a rotary, so I am not aware of their special needs.
Nobody answered this question, so I figured I'd throw in some info to clear up some things.

There's three major things that differ between a rotary and a piston engine when it comes to maintenance for longevity. They are oil, cooling, and detonation.

Now of course these are all important for a piston engine, but a piston engine is also more forgiving when people get lazy with their maintenance.

First and most important is oil. As there are only three moving parts in a rotary engine, there are fewer things that need lubrication. The pieces that do need lubrication, the apex seals, are basically located within the combustion chamber. In a piston engine the cylinder walls can be lubricated with oil from beneath the piston rings, so that no oil needs to enter the combustion chamber. In a rotary, however, both sides of the apex seals are combustion chambers. Because of this, the rotary engine needs to inject oil into the combustion chamber to lubricate those seals. This oil then gets burnt up with the combustion process. Essentially, the rotary eats oil as part of its normal function. Because of this, the oil needs to be checked frequently (basically at every fillup). Also, you have to be more disciplined about changing the oil. A lot of times you can be pretty lax about oil changes in a piston engine (I once drove a car that hadn't had an oil change in probably 30k miles, and it still ran). Normally the oil will clean out carbon deposits in the system. These carbon deposits are then removed when you change the oil. However, carbon deposits that are injected into the combustion chamber with the oil for the apex seals will stay in the combustion chamber, depositing on the apex seals and preventing the oil from lubricating them properly. The oil needs to be changed religiously to prevent carbon from building up.

Cooling is pretty self-explanatory. Overheating is bad. Unfortunately the cooling system on the complicated twin-turbo system of the 3rd gen RX-7 is barely adequate under normal situations. Anyone wanting more power from a 3rd gen needs to make sure that they upgrade the cooling system to match.

Detonation is the third one. A piston engine can usually take a bit of mild detonation before it dies. A single detonation on a rotary has the potential to take out an apex seal, though. As with cooling, fuel management has to be watched closer when modding an RX-7 than with a piston engine. Piston engines generally are more forgiving to improper tuning than rotaries.

The simple fact is you can't be lazy with a rotary. They're only more unreliable if you treat them improperly. Too many people out there throw whatever parts on a car looking for more power without really considering the affects of those parts and how that power is achieved.

i heard that rx-7 engines usually have a harder time starting compared to piston ones, and it requires more maintenence or more care, dont know what you do diff to a piston, but is that true?

I'm from a 2nd Gen RX-7 forum and heard about this discussion.
My cousin lives with me, and has his 1992 MR2 Turbo parked in my garage as well. I know how well the MR2T performs and how beautiful the 3S-GTE engine is, because I help him work on it. Just a little bit of back ground info, to let you know that I stand in the middle.

But it is quite evident that most people on this forum is unaware of the Rotary engine's reliabilty. No one seems to complain about the power, just reliability.

So let me bring up some points about the rotary engine.

1.
The Rotary engine has fewer moving parts than a typical piston engine.
A two-rotor engine has 3 main moving parts: The two rotors, and the output shaft.
A typical 4 cylinder piston engine has at least 40 moving parts, including pistons, connecting rods, camshaft, valves, valve springs, rockers, timeing belt, timing gears, and crankshaft.

The less moving parts, the better reliabilty.

2.
The rotary engine has smooth power delivery
All the parts in a rotary spin continuously in one direction, rather than violently changing directions like the pistons in a conventional engine do.
Rotary engines are internally balanced with spinning counterweights that are phased to cancel out any vibrations.
Each combustion event in a rotary engine lasts through 90 degrees of the rotors rotation, and the output shaft spins three revolutions for each revolution of the rotor (each combustion even lasts through 270 degrees of the output shaft's rotation). This means that a single-rotor engine delivers power for three-quarters of each revolution of the output shaft. Compare this to a single cylinder piston engine, in which combustion occurs during 180 degrees out of every two revolutions, or only a quarter of each revolution of the crankshaft.

This proves that the rotors spin at one-third the speed of the output shaft, meaning the main moving parts of the engine move slower than the parts of a piston engine. This also helps with reliability.

There are bad sides to the rotary engine too
1. Typically it is more difficult to make a rotary engine meet US emissions regulations. It doesn't mean that you can't. It means the exhaust is slightly dirtier.
2. They typically consume more fuel than a piston engine because the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine is reduced by the long combustion-chamber and low compression ratio.
3. They cost more, because they are produced less than the piston engine.

All in all, the rotary engine is a reliable engine, and shouldn't be considered as unreliable. Most poeple say it's unreliable because they don't understand the engine, and are usually repeating what someone else told them. My friend told me not to buy an RX-7 because "it's unreliable" but in the mean time, he knows nothing about cars, it's just what he heard from someone else.

If there's a broken down RX-7 you know if, chances are the owner didn't take care of it as well as you did with your MR2.

For the thread starter:
Both cars are great cars.
Test drive them both, choose one that's in your budget.
Don't ask others which is better. Who cares what they think, it's your car, not theirs.

Hmm I think someone has been plagerizing, shouldn't you at least quote the source? haha

I'm new to this forum and i've just recently bought a 1993 MR2 turbo, now i must've read only a couple of threads and already im noticing so much fighting going on here.

My opinion is ofcourse the MR2 blows the RX7 away, BUT THATS WITH EVERY CAR ENTHUSIAST WHO LOVES THEIR OWN CAR, no car enthusiast would bash on their own car for the good of another. I just think people should just listen to whatevery one has to say and not make any unecessary comments on the side about someones knowledge.
Now, with that being said, I love the MR2 and i think it is a really reliable car,however i feel the same for the RX7 aswell. If you read what Savana has posted that it the RX7 in theory has less room for error. Now why do they break down? i can't tell you. Hmm prolly cuz the goddamn thing comes off the lot with a firecracker shoved up its ass? I mean if you put a twin turbo system on any car they'll die out withing the first 100 k .

But back to the main subject of the matter ..... BUY AN MR2!!! hehehehe

hehe blah blah blah.. originally posted in HowStuffWorks.. there..

but still.. it made me look like a guru, didn't it?

Okay.. this should solve the question:
To thread starter: You came to an MR2 forum to ask which car you should get. I think you already answered your own question.

It is definately a good car to get.. my cousin and i drove to Pittsburgh [from Toronto Canada] to pick up his.. you wouldn't do that for a normal car..

Sorry to jump on the bandwagon, but i love the MR2 also. RX7 is a nice car, but I really could never see myself trading reliability for (what I consider) mild performance gains and a 3rd gen RX will cost you a lot of money. even a 91 or 93 or something will set you back over 10...maybe 15...thats a lot of money for a car that is over a decade old. You can almost get an older Supra TT for that much or an NSX if you find a good deal...hell even a Esprit S4 is nearing that price if you get a 91 or so...still probably the Supra, Esprit and NSX will all go for something in the 20's unless you find a really good deal or one that needs some work.

if you want a fast 1/4 mile car I would reccoment an MR2 over an RX7 also...not sure about RX7 0-60 times, but I doubt it's 5.2...and a stock 3sgte jspec engine will get you to 60 in 5.0...which I think is pretty impressive...a few mods and you have a car in the 4 second range...with a bit more work you could be in 3 second range (Mclaren F1 territory :eek: )


i can't believe that yoru comparing the straightline aceleration of a FD3S to a freaking SW20. alright. they aren't even int he same class. and the fastest MR2T which was the pre 93 ones only ran a 14.7 at best. when the rx-7 TT does 0-60 in 5 flat at best and can average a 13.7 second 1/4 mile past on average. thats a whole freaking second different. which is around 10 cars lenghts behind. so i have no clue on what your saying on is the RX-7 as fast as the MR2. now you bring up the 98 MR2's the lsat of them with 245hp right? alright that car can do the 1/4 mile in 13.8 seconds at best. still behind the ordinarly u.s. spec FD. if your goin to do that then i might as well bring up the j spec rx-7 R2's which has a flow blown 280hp which runs a mid 13 second pass or how about the limited edition RX-7 RZ which has 280hp and is even lighter then the R2's. bottom line i would still pick a MR2 cusae its soo much more reliable. but the RX-7 is fundamentally a much faster car. you put the same mods in a FD and the FD will smoke the mr.2

I wasn't sure exactly how fast the rx7 was...I have checked them out off and on, but I was too lazy to go get the 0-60 and 1/4 times when I already knew it would be pretty fast, just not sure if it was at the same level as the mr2 or not.

If you are using an RZ in comparison with a mr2 (3rd gen 3sgte) then what about the 2000gt? Isn't that on the same level...I don't know much about it...but isn't it a limited production trim package with either higher hp and/or lighter weight or both?

Decided to add 3rd gen Rx7s to my list of cars I'm searching for since the cars I want (in the condition I want :rolleyes: ) are fairly rare.

i cant exactly prove this but i think that the rx7 doesnt have as good reliability because rotary engines are shaped in a triangle and it spins in a circular motion...when u get to about 100k miles the corners start to wear down where as cylinders dont wear down as fast...i heard that somewhere but i forget where

the tips that you are talking is called apex seals. and yes they do wear down abnormally fast. also the 0 rings starts to leak (=to bad head gasket on piston engines ) if there is too much heat introduced to the combustion chamber for a prolong period of time ( insert turbocharger here ) the first rx-7's the FB's will run almost forever if you maintain it religiously. the second gen FC's non turbo will also last a long time. its just the 3rd gen FD's thats giving the rotary such a bad name. the other gen's aren't that hard to work on either. they are still harder then standard engines but no where near as hard as the nightmare i call the RX-7 FD3S

well i have been a fan of toyotas since i was a kid cause my father loves them and brainwashed me that they are the most reliable car out there. so my first car was a '80 celica (father's first toyota) which i still have and love! the first car i bought on my own was a '88 turbo II which i just sold to put a ring on my wife's finger (somebody shoot me)! i just bought my friends MR2 turbo from the wedding money.

my opinion on the cars......
i take care of all my cars and therefore don't mind going that extra step to maintain them. i never really had any engine problems with my RX7. after i got it i only put on a straight pipe and RB exhaust and it hauled a$$. i finally blew it 5 years later racing a 300zx TT going 150mph on the freeway. after that i modded the hell out of it and still no problems! i miss that car like a MF! now i have the MR2 and i love it also.....just not in love with it! = ) but give me a couple years and maybe that'll change. I was a little disappointed with the speed of the 2. i'll see how it is after i mod it a little. I also had a supercharged 2 that was probably about the same speed as my 2 now. i would say the 2 handles better from stock form than my 7 did, but then again it's not a FD is it.

i'm looking into modding the 2 but it looks like it's going to cost a lot to do or get it to where i want it at least. so my plan so far is to save my money to get a FD later. plus i miss the distict sound of a ported rotary! i love both cars and both have their ups and downs. i think it would help everyone if we knew your price range and your goal for the car.....