Is an MR2 right for me???

[KaisenH]

Im getting my drivers license soon and i need to start looking for a car. I have narrowed it down to a 95 240sx or a mk2 MR2. I like the looks of the MR2 more and im pretty sure it has all around better stats. There are a few things i want to know though. Is it hard to work on an MR2 since the engines in the back? Im a pretty good hands on guy and i can do most the work that is outside the engine. (exhaust, wheels, suspension, battery, starter and a few other things). Ive never done things like timing belts and water pumps though, and ive heard its expensive to have this done on your mr2 if you need these kind of repairs. Is this true? Also what is the stock quaret mile time for a mk2 mr2? Ive heard the handleing is better than a 95 240 but is that also true? Just let me know what you think, is the mr2 right for me? Also wich year a 91-92 or 93-95. Ive heard each has better things, one has better suspension, one has better brakes???

thanx

[TRD2000]

I honestly dont think i'd get an MR2 as a first car. "Handling" is a relative term, it depends what you like and how you drive, The MR2's handling is a lot less forgiving than most cars, meaning it doesn't give you time to learn, it just wraps you round a pole if you do the wrong thing. MR2's are GREAT cars and i really recommend them as a must have for a 2nd or third car, but not a first. go with the 240 it will give you heaps of fun and lots of good practice for that MR2 later.

they got faster as they went. suspension brakes and engine were revised in 93.

[drazhartd]

Originally Posted by KaisenH

Im getting my drivers license soon and i need to start looking for a car. I have narrowed it down to a 95 240sx or a mk2 MR2. I like the looks of the MR2 more and im pretty sure it has all around better stats. There are a few things i want to know though. Is it hard to work on an MR2 since the engines in the back? Im a pretty good hands on guy and i can do most the work that is outside the engine. (exhaust, wheels, suspension, battery, starter and a few other things). Ive never done things like timing belts and water pumps though, and ive heard its expensive to have this done on your mr2 if you need these kind of repairs. Is this true? Also what is the stock quaret mile time for a mk2 mr2? Ive heard the handleing is better than a 95 240 but is that also true? Just let me know what you think, is the mr2 right for me? Also wich year a 91-92 or 93-95. Ive heard each has better things, one has better suspension, one has better brakes???

thanx

first, sign up here: www.mr2oc.com

Read up for weeks.... then decide for yourself.

MR2 will cost you more money than a 240sx overall, because labor can be a little more on fixing things you can't do yourself (which happens rarely enough) AND because it's so hard to resist tricking out the mr2 It's best to have an experienced mechanic-friend that can help you with the hard stuff.

Stock quarter mile times:

91 NA - ~16.3
91T - ~14.7

With minimal mods (like a boost controller) you can bring the turbo to 13s np. The turbo motor (called the 3sgte) responds wonderfully to mods, and has handled over 750hp on stock rods.

The NA isn't the best in a straight line, but is FANTASTIC in its autocross class. I suggest you read up on how a midengine car handles. It's dramatically different from FR or FF cars especially. In the right hands, the MR2 out-handles most of the competition out there. If you're new to MR, I suggest getting the NA first, which is still a daily blast.

In 1993 the suspension was modified on the mr2 to be more "user-friendly" but many enthusiasts prefer the older suspension (including myself).

Also in 1993, LSD came out on the turbos, and the brakes were improved even though the 91-92 brakes still ROCK.

The only things that would put the 240 over the mr2... backseats, and it's easier to drift, if that's what you're into. (shrugs)

As a first car, I can't recommend the mr2. I drove FF for 2 years before picking up my 91 NA MR2, and I'm glad I did so.

[TRD2000]

Hey Draz, do you know HOW they changed the rear suspension? (I know it was cause people had trouble driving them) I have the old one too and it's twitchy but awesome fun, think FR experience comes in handy though. Can't agree on the old brakes, I find that they give up too easily, nothing worse than having to slow down cause your brakes have "melted" and won't pull you up anymore! They aren't bad, they could just be better (keep in mind i'm not used to heavy american cars) gonna upgrade at some stage.

[drazhartd]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

Hey Draz, do you know HOW they changed the rear suspension? (I know it was cause people had trouble driving them) I have the old one too and it's twitchy but awesome fun, think FR experience comes in handy though. Can't agree on the old brakes, I find that they give up too easily, nothing worse than having to slow down cause your brakes have "melted" and won't pull you up anymore! They aren't bad, they could just be better (keep in mind i'm not used to heavy american cars) gonna upgrade at some stage.

Well I totally just spaced the name of it... but the rear 'thing' was made wider, along with a 1" drop from different springs.

Jekyl will know...

[JekylandHyde]

After '93, the trailing arms are slightly different and the car is lowered.
All this did was bring the car a little more nuetral from oversteer.

There is nothing wrong with oversteer if you know how to drive it. In fact, the 91/92 suspension set up is faster and prefered by racers.

[TRD2000]

thanks...

[MR2Driver]

These threads all look the same to me...