Which is your favorite MR2 generation?

First Generation: MR2 MKI 1985-1989
Second Generation: MR2 MKII 1991-1997
Third Generation: MR2 Spyder 2000-present.

I'll take the MKII, hands down. I'm working on getting one for myself sooner or later. It just seems to be the sportiest of the three.

What do you guys think?

I hate the new MR2.
MKII is my favorite one.

I like the Mark II. I like the styling better than either of the others, and it has plenty of potential to get big hp numbers. The only obvious choice for me.

I like the second gen best. The spyders are a not-so distant second. Anyone know if the new ones have turbo or ever will if they dont?

They don't currently, if I'm correct.

However, I think there's a turboed one in this month's SCC. I don't know about the future.

Heh, did alot of reading since my last post in on this thread. I have learned more about the MKIII MR2, and have to say that I'll pass. It looks alright, but too much like a Boxster ripoff, and the engine isnt nearly as strong as the 3S-GTE in stock form.

On a side note- I may be getting an MKII turbo soon :cool: , but I'm still torn between that and an MKIII Supra turbo :( .

Supra turbo.

I'll go with the majority and say the Mark II. It looks a hell of a lot better than the new current body style.

Im going to be diffrent and say the MK I, I think it looks better, the styling is more unique (although now dated).
And thier so much fun to drive, they weigh a lot less than the MKII and are a lot more agile. Im also a great fan of the old 4age, its just such a strong versitle engine.

Originally posted by Moppie
Im going to be diffrent and say the MK I,...

That's beautiful! The reason I posted this in the first place is because of the vigorous debates I've seen between MKI and MKII driver/owners. While I picked the MKII, and would prefer to have a MKII, I have an underlying notion that the MKI would really be more fun to drive. Two reasons: [list=1]
less weight
available s/c
[/list=1] Truth is, I'd really like both. :flash: I'd like a MKI especially if I ever get into auto-x, but that may be a long time...

Iv heard the MK1 is a great car for using in Autocross and Hill climbing. Unforunatly the 4agze is limited in power making ablities, unless you want to spend a lot of money, or add a turbo, which gets tricky in the tiny engine bay. This is another problem, there isnt a lot of room to work on the engine, not a good quality in a race car.

Or you could be rediculously lucky and happen to find the 1989 supercharged version for a reasonable price. Now that one has potential!

Originally posted by Silver S2000
Or you could be rediculously lucky and happen to find the 1989 supercharged version for a reasonable price. Now that one has potential!

That's what I was talking about. (The 4agze is the supercharged engine). There great to drive, have a really flat Torque curve, and a nice responsive chassis, But there is no room to work on the motor, its a nightmare. And thier stuck with only about 140hp.

Right. Read posts, then reply. Got it. :D

the mkii is the best looking... but the mkiiis is the lightest and fastest.. and in ur poll it says mkii 91-97 they actually were made through 99

MKII is the best, I love my early '91 2.2. Absolutely gorgeous, structure like a tank (avoid the T-top), 2.2L motor is the only MR2 with any low end power. Better brakes and more roomy than MKI. 33 mpg at 75mph.
I have also had 2 MKI's in the past, an '85 and an '89 SC.
In response to Silver S2000: I would advise any one AGAINST buying an 88-89 MR2 Supercharged. I had one and hated the way the supercharger switches on and off. It has the throttle response of an oil tanker! Everytime you get into the throttle, even after every shift, there is a second or two lag as the blower switches on, the bypass closes, and boost builds. When the blower is off, you have a motor with no compression trying to breathe through a dinky, no plenum intake. Off boost power sucks! As for mod-ability, they can be flogged (reasonably) to about 200hp, but fuel economy goes downhill real quick. I sold mine for $1700 more than I paid for it.
On the good side, the drivetrain is much beefier than the NA, but keep in mind every drivetrain and engine part is different than the NA. The brakes on the '89SC are an inch bigger, too (hint for MKI NA users, the front brakes from an SC bolt right on!)

Welcome, guys! :flash:

Originally posted by Yellow MR2
the mkii is the best looking... but the mkiiis is the lightest and fastest.. and in ur poll it says mkii 91-97 they actually were made through 99
Thanks; I fixed it. :D I forgot to check when they stopped in Japan. :rolleyes:

revac, thanks for the input! :D The market for the MKI S/C in California is still pretty inflated, so I was already thinking of just getting an N/A model. You're helping me justify that to myself. ;)

It'll still be more fun to drive than what I've got now, and will be worth about the same. So, if I do it right, I could switch with no out-of-pocket costs. But, I've seen decent ones around for about $3K, so it might be wise to keep my other car too...just in case... hmmmm....

S2000: Well, that's just my opinion on the MKI SC. I'm just a stickler for crisp throttle response and power delivery. The guy I sold mine to just loved it. He put a 10 psi pulley on it and did a bunch of juvenile add-ons, so it was in worse shape last time I saw it. I also had a wrecked 88 SC which has been fully parted out. That car was worth quite a bit when you sell it part by part!
Next year I will work on my '91. I'll make a set of headers for it and put some kind of aftermarket fuel injection controller on it, like an Accel DFI. I feel the stock computer is a bit slow to react off the bottom, probably due to emission control programming.
In the future, I hope to come up with a supercharger set up using an Eaton M62 from a late 80's T-bird SC (these can be picked up on ebay for around $300), and a stock MKII Turbo intercooler.
It's great to see a forum for MR2's on the net. The other two forums I use is the Corral.net for late mustangs (lots of traffic), and hybridz.org for alternate-powered Datsun Z's

ITS all about THE second Generation MR2!

All I have to say is the designers most of been passing around the crack pipe on this one!:D

I think I'd prefer the MKII(turbo only). My buddy had two 88SC, and they were a blast. Just like a go cart. I would rank them 2nd then the spider thing. I agree with the SC lag, but they were fun none the less. Especially fro their time. My buddy had his right at 200hp also. (his last one that is) He wrecked his first before he could do anything to it. He actually bought the 2nd one from a guy who raced professionally. It was Bad A$$. Suspension, Pullies, Intake, Exhaust, etc. It looked very clean though. Everytime we'd race and beat some one he'd roll his window down and point at the SCed logo. It was quite funny. Anyway, I'd pick one of those way before I'd throw my money away on a MR-spider thing.

Originally posted by redvalkrie
ITS all about THE second Generation MR2!

All I have to say is the designers most of been passing around the crack pipe on this one!:D

I guess the guys a lotus hit the crack pipe quite often then. (:


Also, the spyder may not have the power plant of the turbo models but it still is the fastest out of all the N/A mr2s. I've seen a spyder LEAVE a MKII N/A like it was standing still. Their quite a few MKIIIs that are turbocharged now and Blitz even has their own Twin Turbo Spyder. And you also have to remember it's not all about power, take one of those cars on some twisties and you'll know what i mean. That thing STICKS to the ground. The suspension is great, the car is light, and it's a convertable. Granted it's not going to make the best drag car, but it's one HELLA fun car to drive around.

entiZ - defender of the 2!

MKII is definetly the best generation, not just because of looks, but also potential.
:frog:

yes i agree mkii all the way..

:flamer: :smoker: :smoker2: :bandit: :smoka:

Toss up between the Mark I and the Mark II. I hate the mark III because it doesnt have a clutch, with one it could have been a good car but without it I wouldnt even consider buying one.

I like the styling of the I and the II, I is more original but like moppie said dated. I like the weight of the I and im not really into turbos so the Mark II is a slow option. I actually considered buying a Mark II awhile ago.

Ill choose Mark II

Originally posted by Yellow MR2
the mkii is the best looking... but the mkiiis is the lightest and fastest.. and in ur poll it says mkii 91-97 they actually were made through 99

sorry buddy, the mk3 is the lightest but the mk2 is the fastest. 99 MK2s were running 0-60 in about 5.2 and the 1/4 in mid 13's in stock form. The mk3 runs 0-60 in 7 some seconds and the 1/4 in 15 or 16 seconds.

I love the MK2 but the mk1 would be nice for autocross and for just throwing around. The body is really nice and it's very agile.

For me, its the Mk. I Why? Because I can afford it. And its lighter. I am looking for an 88-89 SC. I would really like to get a new pulley for the SC, as it would fix revac 's problem. Also, it means that the blower wasnt on, preserving the internals of the engine. And a little more boost, and new suspension (mags said it got crappy for the SC), exhaust, less weight, intake, chip, and bang! A 5 second car! Wheee!

Chris, About your planned mods to your future MKI SC: Are you talking about the aftermarket blower crank pulley that is a little bigger in dia. than the stock? If so, all that does is up the boost a few psi. It's certainly a help, but does not cure the lag problem. The guy I sold my '89SC to did this and it have him a noticable boost in power, but his milage went to crap. Maybe he didn't do the reqired engine control mods correctly (it's something like rerouting a vacuum control line), I don't know.
What would be slick is to come up with a system like the '89 T-bird SC has. That blower (a 62cuin Eaton) runs all the time and the air is bypassed around the blower with a valve at low engine loads. I know a guy who has one (with around 200k mi, no less!) and the boost comes on nice and linear with no lag. Maybe you can leave the blower clutch on and have it switch off only at idle and when the cruise control is on (light load).

Or you could find the wire that sends the signal to the blower clutch to activate it, and cut it. Hook one end up to the power supply, and run it through a switch in the console. This would bypass the computers desire to keep it off, and I could put it on at will. That could work (and should be cheap/relatively simple)

What do you think?

Originally posted by dejoux
...I hate the mark III because it doesnt have a clutch, with one it could have been a good car but without it I wouldnt even consider buying one....

The MK3 only comes with a 5 speed thereby making a clutch the only option.

Originally posted by MR Yasir


The MK3 only comes with a 5 speed thereby making a clutch the only option.

By MK3 he Dejox means the new MRS/MR2 with the automatic clutch.

Down here what you call a MK3 is called a MK2 face lift, since underneath it's all the same car with only some minnor suspension changes, and a slight restyle.
:)

Originally posted by Chris
Or you could find the wire that sends the signal to the blower clutch to activate it, and cut it. Hook one end up to the power supply, and run it through a switch in the console.

Common trick. it also has the advantage of improving the fuel economy. :D

Originally posted by Moppie
Down here what you call a MK3 is called a MK2 face lift, since underneath it's all the same car with only some minnor suspension changes, and a slight restyle.
:) I think you have that backwards. The MKIII is the newest one - the MR-S/MR2 Spyder.

MR Yasir is saying the MKIII only comes with a manual tranny.

Or am I lost? :confused:

Originally posted by jay@af
I think you have that backwards. The MKIII is the newest one - the MR-S/MR2 Spyder.

MR Yasir is saying the MKIII only comes with a manual tranny.

Or am I lost? :confused:

1st, Iv heard many Americans refer to the facelifted MK2 as a MK3, making the new Spyder/MRS a MK4. this is of course wrong. :)
I might have miss interupruted what was said by MR Yasir :) so:

2nd, the new Spyder dosnt use a completly Manual gearbox, it uses a similar system to the Alfa's in that the gear box operates the clutch itself, and can either be shift manualy or can shift itself, if for example you forget to select 1st, after stopping or bouce it off the limiter.
Its not a true manual gearbox, and its not a true Automatic gearbox.
Its ment to be the ultimate combination of the two.

I thought the mark III had a pure stick (in the US it does, anyway)

The US MR2 Spyder only comes with a 5 speed manual. The 2002 or 03 models are going to get the automanual as an option but the 5 speed is still standard.

Im just getting my license really. and although im buying more of a luxury chill car for the commute i would be willing to spend a little less on that commute car and buy a cheap manual sports car to learn on

these MR2s seem to be in that range...2-3k can you all recommend any other low $ good sporty type cars to learn manuel on?

yah yah im admitting i cant drive stick..on a car...i drive standard trucks all time when i work but then again its considerabley different with a 88 Chevy Scottsdale 1-ton, for 1 thing you cant stall it....it just doesnt happen..

I'm going to buck popular opinion here and select the third generation, MR2 Spyder, for styling. And I realize there's less horsepower than the others, but this car would fit my needs better for fun drives in hilly, twisty, narrow roads where I live.

For me, the purpose of this car is for fun, short commutes in my neighborhood. Horsepower and awesome acceleration times can be met with other, completely different cars.

This "auto-clutch" thing is what Toyota calls "Sequential Manual Transmission"-----It is by no means an automatic since there is no "Drive" position on the gearbox, you do have to shift it yourself, either through the stick or the buttons on the steering wheel. It is not one of those auto/manual hybrid that are found on many cars these days (i.e. Lexus IS300 auto/Acura CL-S). The only difference of this tranny and a true manual is that you don't have access to a clutch pedal and the stick isn't "H" style but rather F1 style (up-down only), also it will down shift back to one for you if you forget to do so when coming to a dead stop and you're in higher than 2nd gear. The only similar gearbox to this one you can find on the production market is in the Ferrari 360 Modena F1, and for the price of that you can probably buy 20 MR2s :cool:

The MK3(MRS) comes with a manual gearbox as standard. That means that it has a clutch pedal a brake pedal and a throttle pedal. ;)
There is also the SMT version with does not match the manual in performace(with good driver)

Also the MK3 handles better than the MK2 but has less power. Some of it can be made with a turbo or by changing to the 2ZZGE engine. It will probably never be able to match the MK2 in power when both are tuned but it was never intended to with an all aluminium engine. The MK3 was made as a lightweight roadster and when you see one live you will see that it looks much better than in pics. Personally having driven both I like the MK3 best even though it is less powerful but it is more fun to drive of technical tracks and twisty road. :)

http://www.tp-spirit.co.jp/images/mr-s.jpg

CIN

im still in wonder
why is it called MR2 in north america????
i know in asia its called MRS because they still sell MR2's....i think. not really sure presently.
but still why MR2 in america? why not name it MRS??

Personally, I love the MKII. I've wanted one ever since the first time I saw it (I was about 6 or 7), and thankfully, I was able to get one as my first car. Don't get me wrong, I like the MKI and MKIII, but I would never buy one, I just don't think they offer the same package as the MKII.

I've HEARD that the MKII, was available at the end of 1989, and that when the turbo came out, it was the fastest Japanese Production Car (for a short time only).

Is it true that the MKII was available with a 5S-FE (from the Camry) in America? Because the N/A version was sold with a 3S-GE in Australia.

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/85888894mr2turbo.jpg

Here's my baby!!!
1994 MR2 GTS TURBO (imported from Japan in 1999)
I've added a Blitz Turbo and a few other goodies

94mr2turbo, you're right on about the us na's coming with the 5sfe. a shame, really.

stock for stock, the spyder is lighter and quicker than the 2nd generation, but definitely not faster, as MRYasir pointed out. it is also the best handler of the three generations.

the autostick is available in europe, apparently. so far, us only has 5spd manual. i thought the original post meant that the clutch was really light (like the honda clutches and the new celica) and was as if it weren't there; i've said that about my friend's civic a lot! i am partial to the relatively heavy clutch of the 2nd gen mr2's.

as far as naming convention, i would guess that they called it the mr2 to build on the solid, sporty reputation of the prior generations. besides, it's the same concept in that it is a mid-engined (midship) rear-wheel (runabout) 2 seater. besides that, it's more in line with the original model (small, light, not very powerful, but handles extremely well; all with an exotic layout)

I chose the MK I because its the cheapest of the three and I really want to get an MR2 now. I do like the styling of the MK II and the MK III, but they are more expensive and harder to find (especially the MK III due to its newness :)). Hopefully I will be driving an MR2 MKI by the end of this year :D.

Of the three generations, the MK2 is really the odd man out. the original concept behind the mr2 was to have a lightweight car with decent horsepower and excellent handling. The MK1 and MK3 stayed true to this design. The MK2 got a little bloated and although it got a turbo motor producing anywhere from 200-245hp depending on engine generation, it still didn't have the go-kart feel that the other two generations have. If I was going to get a car that was a serious blast to drive, I'd look for an MK3 (or a new miata) or the MK1. If power was my thing, I'd get an MK2 or even the MK1 with a supercharger or with the 20v head.

I'm all about the MKI. What can I say? It's light, it's agile, and the styling...? I'm old school. Heck, I drive a 2nd Gen Pulsar NX. 'Nuff said.

94MR2TURBO... I think your idea that the MR2 Turbo was the fastest Japanese production car in '89 is a little off. Think Fairlady Z (300ZX)Twin Turbo. Think R32 Skyline GT-R (Godzilla, the car that destroyed Group A). But, yeah, pretty good for its time.:smoker2:

mk2 all the way the turbo one at any rate

Originally posted by Holyterror
I'm all about the MKI. What can I say? It's light, it's agile, and the styling...? I'm old school. Heck, I drive a 2nd Gen Pulsar NX. 'Nuff said.

94MR2TURBO... I think your idea that the MR2 Turbo was the fastest Japanese production car in '89 is a little off. Think Fairlady Z (300ZX)Twin Turbo. Think R32 Skyline GT-R (Godzilla, the car that destroyed Group A). But, yeah, pretty good for its time.:smoker2:


I agree with you there, I don't really believe that it was the fastest either. I'm just saying that I heard on a video called "High Octane" that it was the fastest in '89, when it was released.


http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/85888894mr2turbo.jpg

mkII all the way.

I would believe that it was the fastest in 89. those other cars didn't come out until something like 91 I think. 300zx at least.

and damn i need to get myself a mr2 turbo

I apologize in advance for knit-picking, but...

The 1990 300ZX TT went on sale in September of '89.
The 1989 Skyline GT-R was slightly faster than the MR2 Turbo. Fast enough to win all 29 Group A races that year, leading to the demise of Group A (because nobody wants to race the GT-R).

Again, it was a pretty fast car, even beating out Toyota's own Supra Turbo that year. It just wasn't the fastest. Maybe they did say that in High Octane, just don't believe everything you hear.

Supposedly someone in The Fast And The Furious says a Maxima will run 9s. If that were true, the Maxima would be the performance bargain of the century (and I would have one). So really, don't believe anything in a movie.

Originally posted by Holyterror
I apologize in advance for knit-picking, but...

The 1990 300ZX TT went on sale in September of '89.
The 1989 Skyline GT-R was slightly faster than the MR2 Turbo. Fast enough to win all 29 Group A races that year, leading to the demise of Group A (because nobody wants to race the GT-R).

Again, it was a pretty fast car, even beating out Toyota's own Supra Turbo that year. It just wasn't the fastest. Maybe they did say that in High Octane, just don't believe everything you hear.

Supposedly someone in The Fast And The Furious says a Maxima will run 9s. If that were true, the Maxima would be the performance bargain of the century (and I would have one). So really, don't believe anything in a movie.


In actuality, "High Octane" isn't a movie. It's just a video showing New Zealand's modified car scene. I heart it when they were doing a review of the MR2 Turbo. BTW, everybody knows that TFATF is full of bullshit.

It's still remotely possible that the MR2 Turbo was the fastest, because if it was the first to come out of the three (Fairlady Z, GTR R32, MR2), it would've been the fastest, just not for long. I already said that I didn't really believe it, I was merely quoting what I had HEARD, so read my posts more carefully next time to avoid any misunderstandings.


http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/85888894mr2turbo.jpg

MKI
Because it's light, cheap and has a roof.

I like the MKI style much more....sure, its not as sporty looking as the MKII, but it's a load of fun to drive, and it's a nice little small car....but then again I can't really compare it to a MKII in performance because I've never driven one before, only rode in an MKII

MK2 is probably the nicest...the MK3 IMO should come with a spoiler...

Best lines, nicest design. I get people today that ask me if it is a 2002 and what is it?

I would have to sy that the Mark 1 is the better of the 3 .... I dont like the looks of the Spyder and the mark 2's are just too bulky for my taste..... My husband and I both drive 1986 mk1's his black and mine white! I just love my car

white86MR2:alien:

MKI. I've got my 86 N/A awaiting a 4agze swap, just need to find a motor. I also plan on getting a MKII turbo this summer; however, they are more a luxury sports car - I like the bare bones, everything-for-performance feel of the mki.

Well, the Mk1 had a t-top, so there is a part roof. But mainly, it s cheap and honest. And it is much faster than the mk3, even though the Supercharged version only has 7 more hp. And the weight is similiar. Also, the looks of the mk1 are much more, err, honest, and ungimiky, as the mk3. The mk2 was the fastest, but I would prefer the mk1 (partly because it will probably be my first mid-engined car)

before i name my answer, know now that styling means nothing to me

the Mk I would be my first pick because it had the highest fun-to-drive rating and most tossable chassis

the Mk III would be second for the same reasons as the MkI, just to a lesser degree

and the Mk II is a distant third, because the only thing it really has going for it over the Mk I and Mk III is engine power, and if youre an MR2 owner you probably dont pride power above handling . . its chassis geometry and driving feel made it feel MUCH more sedate than either the Mk I and Mk III . . . with those two, you KNOW it when youre going fast, but with the Mk II the only people who will notice are people watching you zoom by, and im not out to impress others or get timeslips, i bought my Mk I MR2 because it was a fun car that made my daily commute to work an adventure that put a smile on my face and made me want to take the long route home

i love mr2s a little more than how i love toyota in general even. my favorite is the mk 1 or as it should be named the mk 1000. they drive me nuts. it pains me to see most of the ones i find rusting at the seems. some people dont like the angular look but the way i see it add jet wings and two laser blasters and youre flying through space as the universe's only hope. the only time i got to sit in one is when i go through junkyards looking for parts not suprising most of their engines are gone. im 6 feet tall so its kinda small but small is just an aspect and an asset of the car. if i had cash id own one of these id probably own two if i had a choice. there is no other car like it . not even the other generations are like it all that much except in general ideas and concepts. the mk 2 was advancement but also deviation basically making everything bigger power and size alike but this left honda crx to coincidently morph into the del sol and look more like the new mr2 than the mr2. the mrS is a sweet looking car. the first thing i noticed was that it looks angry from the front and looks angry from the back but i hate soft top convertibles. it does come with a hard top but its not the space ship i think of when someone says mr2 and i quickly turn around and say "what where!"

Originally posted by igor@af
I hate the new MR2.
MKII is my favorite one.

http://www.blueyabby.com/cars/images/Toyota-2-Large_small.jpg

What is to hate about this!