MR2 vs MR2 vs MR-S? |
MR2 vs MR2 vs MR-S? |
Nov 13, 2009 - 7:58 AM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Mar 20, '07 From Bakersfield, CA Currently Offline Reputation: 10 (100%) |
Anyone have any insight on what is the best as far as what is considered the truest of a sports car? I know one of these threads of mine are floating around here somewhere, and I do not mean to post whore, however, I wanted to know if anyone had any experience with any or all three, to see which is the best as far as performance goes. I am starting to feel as if they are each individually special, pending on their usage, and the Toyotas MR vehicle, has never been a car to truly let anyone down or with a frown. Sure there are their favorites, as most guys who are into driving straight will prefer the earliest model due to cost and weight. The mid model do to looks and speed. Possibly the latest model for handling and weight (then I am starting to consider technology now, however looking back on other cars... Say like the RX7.. Totally out classes the newer RX8).
I keep going back and fourth with this because I do need and want another car while i fix this one up and once complete, thinking about the future if I want to dump any more money into this car once the conversion is complete. There is a good chance I could get an MR-S within budget, and I know nobody around where I live fixes those up. This post has been edited by Random_Stranger: Nov 13, 2009 - 8:29 AM -------------------- 91 MR2 Turbo SW20, 92 MR2 Turbo SW20, 95 Celica GT ST204
|
Nov 24, 2009 - 9:43 AM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Nov 10, '09 From Central NY Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
80s MR2s were around 2400 lbs
low on power, but the supercharged ones are supposed to be still pretty quick. Especially for a 1980s car. 90s MR2s were around 2600 lbs Fattest and considered to be the "worst handling" MR2 But the engine has the most potential for power. Pretty good size trunk, and more room in the front. 2000s MR2/MRs were around 2200 = lightest and most nimble, but the engine was very underpowered especially for its year and not a lot of power options without going forced induction or swap. Basically NO trunk/luggage space I own a 92 turbo and love it.. Dont be turned off by the label of the "worst handling" mr2, they all handle amazingly. What sold me on the 92s was their exterior design, and trunk space.. You can easily fit 2 sets of golf clubs, or weekend luggage, and get more room in the front without a spare tire. 94/95 there were very few made.. Maybe 500 tops each year in the US. If you want one of these in pristine condition with under 100k miles, you are looking at $10,000 or more. Especially the turbo models. |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: December 1st, 2024 - 11:24 PM |