I willing to bet that Toyota purposefully did not offer the 2ZZGE motor in the MR2 Spyder because it would have been too close in performance to the Lotus Elise, which at the time had that same motor in there. There must have been an agreement between the two car companies, where Toyota would not do that.
Lee, why does everybody go with the 2zz / turbo.... given the weight / restricted space, I'm sure a nice little supercharger would work better than a turbo and although not as much outright power, it should give some nice returns and keep similar driving dynamics with the progressive delivery.... but nobody seems to do them?!?
Chris Ralphs I see quite a few supercharger 2zz's but never really the 1zz. Not sure why as it would be nice to drive. The 2zz is the better engine though. I've stayed 1zz, as soon I'm going to build a spare engine and go for big power.
Mcperson strut suspension is no worse than double wishbone, when it's stiffened. Also double wishbone suspension is used mainly in heavier cars, because they have more body roll and the suspension arms itself are taking way more forces.
I'm going to comment as someone who has owned 4 of these: (1) bone stock brand new (2) used and upgraded to 2zz (Celica GTS engine), (3) more used and upgraded to 2zz and driven to 240k miles, (4) currently stock and driven to 150k miles. I've also ridden in one upgraded to a 2GR engine (Camry V6, RAV4 V6, Sienna). The bone stock car with no mods is super fun for driving curvy mountain roads such as the Tail of the Dragon in Tennessee. Switching to Tien S-Tech lowering springs and Koni adjustable shocks with the front shocks set to full hard and the rear shocks set to a 1/4 turn away from full hard makes for downright amazing curvy road handling. The 2zz engine from the Celica GT-S weighs the same as the stock 1zz so handling is not affected and original tire sizes are adequate and you get 40 (approx 30%) more HP. I'm aware of a number of successful turbo'd and supercharged 2zz engine producing up to 240 HP, 100 HP more than (almost twice) the stock 2zz engine. But enter the 2GR V6 engine. A bare minimum 2GR swap brings 275 HP into the picture, along with 150+ additional pounds. At this point you have to start relocating some weight to perpetuate the intended front/rear weight balance of the car, and of course, this much power requires some substantial tire size changes. But with a 0-60 time of 3.5 seconds and gobs of smooth torque available at just about any RPM point, a 2GR swapped MR2 Spyder is in a completely different class than the original design. Personally I have to give Kudos to Toyota for designing a mid engine car that was reasonably affordable and very fun in stock form, and as it turns out, very modifiable. Two companies in the U.S. successfully specialize in MR2 modifications: Monkey Wrench and DDPR. I'm more familiar with DDPR's work and can personally recommend them.
I have a Celica gts 6 speed and I just bought MR2 spyder!! I'm swapping the engine and transmission, engine is full N/A moded.. I also want to see if I can install the tein coilovers from the celica into the mr2 and other goodies like the short shifter, headlights and tires.. I've watched videos about the 2zz mr2 swap but no one really explains how fast is a 2zz mr2.. (faster than or compare to what other cars)
Bash Trifun ...I got rid of my stock ‘09 STI hatch with 305hp. I now have a (previously 1 owner) 32k miles all stock exterior; ‘ 2001 blue Spyder that came with 6spd tranny, headers, 2ZZ AND a Rotrex supercharger that the 1st owner had planned to race only(no Cat Convert). Dyno paperwork says it’s good for 294 Hp. I am now at the 6 month mark of familiarizing myself with how to drive it and I know not to mess with even a stock WRX. Maybe it’s me or I need to take it to a tuner shop, but I doubt that I am breaking 5 seconds before hitting 60. It’s blast on curves, but every stoplight opportunity has me quietly wishing I had a Toy V6, because 0-60 in 3.5 sounds more like it! Not to mention the reliability of a more modern higher displacement engine that would be easy to add a few more ponies. Oh ...and the previous owner had to buy another Supercharger ($3k)just prior to the sale because apparently they have a high failure rate.
Neg Ative except the turbo charged mk2’s sell for 10-20k used with lots of work needed . An mk3 can be had for 2000$ then the swap is about 3500 more assuming you do the installing yourself. You get a bad ass car for 5500
Raevenswood Just bought two turbo MKIIs for $3k. Put the good parts all one car, the shit parts on the other, sold it and made $1k back for the rolling shell. Put that $1k plus another into my car and BINGO - nearly perfect restoration for $4k (Tho the paint could be better)
In addition to your list, here's my 3 reasons: 1.) Competition did not improve the breed. Toyota tried to out-Miata the Miata, but on a shoestring budget. Miata was basically the sole competitor in a dying segment. 2.) Lack of commitment in marketing. Did you EVER see a commercial or an ad for the car? 3.) A new player changed the game! S2000 came out around the same time and completely overshadowed the Spyder.
Also true. I think Toyota was using the sales results from the MK1 GTI as a base to mold this car. "If we take an economy car, change the styling, and give it 15%-20% more power, we'll have a sales leader." Sadly, they forgot to bump the power... and the 2000s automotive world was a total NUMBERS GAME. Miata pulled the grandfathering card and was mostly exempt from that, but new faces had to play by the new rules. And the MR2 Spyder was too much of a departure from the SW20 to retain many previous MR2 customers; at the same time, it wasn't enticing enough to convince new ones, either.
Yeah sucks.. it was pretty much s2000 vs MR-S vs NB Miata. The s2000 beat all these cars stock easily. Better suspension, better engine, etc, but with money modified to each car. The 1.8l Miata in this day and age has supercharger and turbocharger kits that bring it well over s2000s 220hp. Swapping the MR-S 1zz for a supercharged 2zz from the lotus Exige gives the MR-S 240hp making it actually superior to the s2000 being 600lbs lighter. I bought an MR-S recently just to challenge the s2000s on the track. Love this car
As you say, the car wasn't designed for racing, the name is a bit of a giveaway, 'Runabout'. The car also wasn't designed to "out-Miata the Miata", it was a continution of a series that goes back to the 80s. The designer of the Spyder has said that his inspiration for the car was the Formula 2 racing cars, and that was obvious in the first model in 2001, the different sized wheels, lighter weight, electronic clutch and flappy paddles, etc. But he wanted to build a cheap to build, cheap to run, FUN CAR TO DRIVE. The main reason the car failed here in Australia was the weak Aussie dollar against the strong Yen and the fact that it then qualified as a 'luxury' car and attracted even more tax, which made it unaffordable new.
Actually the mr2s is way batter car then a mx5. Theres a special way to drive the mr2 hard... i owned every mr2 there is and to me is one of the best cheap sports car ever... YES, the mrs suspension needs improvements big time and also need wider tires. But other than that is a very very good car..
Isn't the Miata suspension architecture way better and then the aftermarket support is bigger. There are potentially many more engine options possible in the Miata easier.
Other than lack of trunk/storage space, which wasn't mentioned in the video-- funny that a lot of the downfalls you mention are addressed in the Lotus Elise: double wishbone suspension, roll bar, Toyota/Yamaha 2ZZGE engine (w/supercharged option)... Too bad the 3rd generation MR2 is the most unloved generation, but the handling/weight is the best of all 3 gens-- it had so much potential... [I have owned all 3 generations of MR2s plus a Lotus Exige S]
Had my 2001 (black/tan top ) since 2002 with an initial 12k miles.. now 85k miles (garaged 6-9 mos a year up until 2018.. drive as a dsily mainly due to how fuel fficient it is.. biggest draw back is during rain, i keep it under 60 mph and maintain distance and complete and total awareness..
Its a super fun car to drive even as stock. Have had a lot of fun in mine, especially thouse nice summer days on twisting roads. The only bad thing is there is no trunk, they really screwed the pooch on that one. But yeah, Toyota thought they could compete with the Miata, that nobody ever could, so they lost, like everybody else, and pissed the original MR2 fans off in the process. Toyota raced the car i belive.
Corrrectamundo, went well too! In one promotion for the series, all the major competitors did a lap of the Japanese track, and the MR2 driver had to STOP and wait for the others to catch up so that they could show a 'tight finish' down the home straight.
Great video, as a 3rd gen Mr2 owner I agree with a lot of things you say. I'm currently doing a K20 swap on mine! Stock is a bit under powered but you hardly notice because of the weight.
Well I’m glad calling it a 2nd gen mr2 was just a slip at 00:57 :) I was worried you didn’t know there were 3 generations. :). Not a bad review . I’ll comment that the reason Toyota never put a 2zz in these is because that engine was already licensed to lotus for the Elise and Toyota has a non compete contract with lotus. That said the 2zz swap makes these mr2’s bad ass.
A few things worth pointing out: - My guess as to why Toyota did not include a roll over bar is due to the car's very low center of gravity. On a track, it would be very difficult to roll this car. - You should have mentioned that the car has provisions for aftermarket chassis bracing built in to the frame. Just adding the front, rear and mid braces changes the car a lot. - The decision to go with MacPherson struts was most likely due to the increase in cabin space over double wishbone, which would have made it smaller like a Miata. Otherwise, good video. I own a 2ZZ MR-S myself and with a long list of suspension mods it can hold its own with the best of them. If you go search for Best Motoring videos featuring this car, you'll see that it was a solid performer out of the box and especially modified, it just came out a little too soon for its own good and stubbornly remained a monospec car in the face of evolving competition.
I agree with your points. My guess with the no roll over bar is due to weight and costs. I'd assume Toyota is expecting buyers to add them in if needed, hence you're mentioning of provisions for it (I'd agree it would stiffen the car up nicely). I'm not sure if any tracks would allow an MR2 Spyder on since it doesn't have a rollover bar standard because that would be a liability issue if something happened. Let me know if you were able to without one. Yes, McPherson is simpler, cheaper$ and easier to package compared to independent/double wishbone which allow more leg space, but wouldn't be inferior but only at the highest level of competition. (I'd think the MR2's weight and engine layout plays a nice role in how the car's able to function well without being independent. Sounds like a very nice car you have there. Not doubting the MR2's performance as it has a lot of potential.
Surely the windscreen acts as a rollover? I can't believe they would have been allowed to sell the car without strenghening the screen so that it could support the weight?
Good video but left out a few key points. The MR2 Spyder had more driver room than the Miata. I'm 6' tall and had a 99 Miata. Every dimension was about 1/2" too short. I drove it for two years and finally had to give up because of back problems I was developing from the tight area. I've driven a few of the Spyders and they were very comfortable, in comparison. Handling on both was great, but the MIata had the traditional look, access, and better storage. The general public doesn't appreciate a mid-engine car design.
Toyota has made some serious blunders since they discontinued the Supra. They sold their souls in favour of market share. Now all they have are bland mass market cars.
@Thomas Headley sports cars allow engineers to push boundaries and exercise their mechanical understanding. without sports cars in your company, your product becomes weak on frail hollow bones. You NEED to be able to implement a higher understanding of performance to have a superior pedestrian product.
@Thomas Headley Sounds like GM philosophy. But you'd still be wrong on the technological front. You might not keep up with Motorsport, but car manufacturers are in it full swing. even the ones who you might have never seen a single sports car from in awhile. trickle down technology is heavily used and relied upon to meet ever tightening standards. even more so today than ever in the 90s. lots of A to B cars utilizing underbody aerodynamics, diffusers, lift reduction. decreased frontal area and drag coefficients in our crap mobiles running circles around even decade old purpose built racecars. The body design on some of these pedestrian vehicles - if fitted with the power - would be much more stable well in excess of 200mph than the cars that were meant to do it in the early 90s. regular cars have dual, 4, and 6 piston calipers with ceramic pads as standard. and things keep getting faster and better as the expectations of regulations increase. Yes race/performance stuff. because it is these things in and of it's very essence that sports cars were MADE to be and do; be the BEST at moving through a space in the least amount of time.
@Thomas Headley And before you mention the bean counters, that's even more of a reason the engineers need to come up with mind-bending tech. because half the battle is releasing a new design that surpasses an older product in performance, AND does it cheaper. right now, with small displacement turbo engines (nothing new, japan already figured this out.) you get a give and take of reliability and performance greater per liter than larger engines. but as time goes by they will either get that polished, greatly reduce the cost of vehicles, or supersede ICE entirely as EVs are starting to show.
@Thomas Headley ??? are you even listening? you simply can't compare the driving forces of military needs and airplanes to the driving forces behind personal vehicle development, the entire structure as high and far as the arms race down to the commercial marketing is entirely different. SUVs and sub compacts are BOTH using more and more technology taken and developed in and originally FOR racing. I'll say it again, racing - in it's essence - is a pursuit of creating the best transport and all that it implies with battling physics on earth. this DIRECTLY gets looked towards for everyday car development. Cars need to be LIGHTER, they need to be SAFER, they need to get better MPG while being more POWERFUL. Materials like aluminium, carbon fiber, shit even the monococue design itself! All solutions found in RACING because they already did what needed to be done. Obviously they aren't putting high compression 2 liter 1000hp 4 bangers into cars, but thats not looking at the whole picture. With that said, the cheaper the car, the less they care to implement, but the wider the production, the more common knowledge gets implemented from the get go in cheaper vehicles. in case you haven't realized, Motorsport is more than just formula one and endurance racing. Everything you see from low profile tires with reduced sidewall flex and less rotational resistance to under body channels used in your so-thought "non-race tech using" SUVs and magnetic ride stability. Off road vehicles use technology trickled down from manufacturers R&D in - where??? - their off road RACING development teams where they compete. If you're stuck thinking of a Ford f150 and why it doesn't seem to fit what i'm saying, a car like that did it's own research with the sheer history laid out over 70 years. but dig deeper and you'll still find modern tech - again, developed and sought via racing - forever being implemented. Extreme mechanical demand reveals mechanical limits. They develop this so you can sit there and not think about it while you mosey around at 65mph safely for years on end in all conditions better and better. The cars they currently make from India and maybe even lower "they dgaf" models like the 10,000 dollar mitsubishi mirage being sold are the exception. NOT the norm. and the survivability of said cars in a crash/let alone their ability/inability to avoid one will speak this in volumes.
If the MRS failed, it wasn't because of the product, but because of the market - Toyota made a great car that no one was looking for. The market now is all about paper-stats with big numbers... the MRS suffers a similar issue the GT86 does, small numbers on the states page aren't appealing - even if they car is the beautifully balanced, sweet handling sportscar that it is, people just wanted a big turbo to boost.
The only part that matters about this video is the reasons why people would buy it. It's quite underrated, even with the 1ZZ, since it's not meant to be fast. It's a cornering car, take it to the mountain pass and you'll see how good it is. I also think Toyota didn't put the 2ZZ in because people would literally kill themselves from not knowing how to control the power in a rear engine car.
I have an 05 automatic and I love it.a dealership ruined the motor misdiagnosed the problem only a bad pcv valve hose and not the rear seal a bad pcv will cause seal to leak no nothing about cars.
i own 1, and find it is perfect: 1. ok for normal road driving, since power is higher up rev range. 2. perfect for high speed, since poweris at higher rev range needed for overtaking. so I can drive sedate like any small car in local roads and like a supercar on highways. also the fuel economy is good for local driving, as it drives like a small car. toyota's claim a best of worlds is achieved, a perfect little car. if it had all the things you suggest, it would be expensive to run and insure also.
I think there is another reason entirely that caused Toyota to put the axe to this: the economic environment! I think that is the greatest factor. MacPherson strut systems are not as sophisticated, yes, but it isn't a difference that "driver mod" can't fix. In other words, the strut system doesn't make the car so bad that you couldn't outperform the guy in the S2000 in front of you. It really depends more on the driver than anything else. It takes a lot of HP to overcome bad driving.
Because of how light it is, I wanna try seeing if I could mod the DDR miami body kit on it... An tuned MRS with a beastly 2GR could make a great supercar... We'll have to see
Honest review. They are a blast to drive. Love mine. Spent a load on it. Love the Lancia Stratos and original Lotus Europa so got this. Cheap, reliable and relatively rare. Too many MX5's in the world. Yawn.
I LOVE mine is dark green. The reason it failed was beacause of the very weak engine 1ZZ when Toyota had the 2ZZ on hand. The reason this happened is because Toyota made a deal with Lotus to use the 2ZZ in the exige/elise. So if Toyota put the 2ZZ on the spyder it would be extremely close to the Lotus for 1/3rd the cost. Toyota also made a couple more mistakes (That are easily fixable) like the pre-cat issue, Not including the hard roof in America, and no sports options like LSD or body kit to help with the roundish look. Another reason it failed is because the Spyder is a succesor to the MK1 not the SW20 (MK2) and a lot of MR2 fans didn't like that. For me I'm more of a fan of the light weight MK1 than the MK2 and I owned both. TL;DR Toyota F*ed up some things but they're fixable with some mods. This is an excellent sports car, light weight, economic, with an unique configuration. I think a lot of people are sleeping on this car.
They couldn’t put the 2zz in it cos they had an agreement with lotus that they wouldn’t as part of the deal of providing them with the 2zz for the Elise and exige. If the mr2 came with the 2zz less people would have bought the elise😉
Mid engine budget car, for daily and fun. If you want sth strong buy Z4, mr2 gives a little fun with acceptable fuel economy and looks better live then on pics. I think that for any trackdays , best solution to make it more agile is weight reduction and i/h/e, any turbo kit make it more thirsty and it's not the way.
You forgot some wording off your title. "TOYOTA MR2 SPYDER : Why it FAILED as a competitive car :/" I love my mr2 and it gets plenty of attention from plenty of fans and mine is pure stock.
Hello GT Content, While not popular in the USA, the MR2/S is very race worthy. I have a 2001 with 1zz engine that failed. It burns oil related to catalytic converter failure on exhaust manifold....So much for Toyota reliability......did not cover this KNOWN issue for owners. Good news is I will replace with 2zz-fe engine. P
The video makes the mistake of, having introduced the Mk3 MR2, going straight to the Mk2 and ignoring the Mk1. The Mk1 is THE MR2. Introduced in 1984/1985, 5 years before the Miata/MX5, it blew away the competition (Fiero, CRX and ageing X1/9) and was a revelation, a stunning cheap-ish car that was compact, handled brilliantly in a relatively lightweight design with the fantastic revving 4A-GE engine. Press and public loved it. I loved it and drove 80,000 wonderful, hassle free miles in sun, snow and rain in the late 1980's. It never let me down. The Mk1 sat below the Celica in the Toyota range. The template was there in the Mk1 and if Toyota had taken the runabout go-kart premise of the Mk1, restyled but rounded, perhaps then a targa rather than tbar, the MR2 could have been the natural competitor to the Miata. Unfortunately, Toyota tried to go upmarket with the heavier Mk2, giving it Celica engines and more of a GT feel. The Mk2 ended up then competing against the Celica, using the same engines and both being GT cars, albeit one mid engined and one front engined. The Mk2 didn't really sit below the Celica in the Toyota range anymore - both cars really sat alongside each other. Whereas the Miata/MX5 went for evolution in each NA, NB, NC and ND iteration with buyers knowing what they were basically getting, Toyota completely changed the ethos of the MR2 between the go-kart Mk1 and GT Mk2. On release, the handling of the Mk2 was panned, leading to magazine headlines such as "Has Toyota ruined the MR2?". The Mk2 Turbo is the fastest MR2 but it is a more expensive niche product with limited appeal in the general market which loved the Miata in the same way the general market loved the Mk1 MR2. By the time the Mk3 MR2 was released, it was too late for the MR2 - the Miata/MX5 had the small cheap sportscar market wrapped up, even though the Mk3 MR2 was a much better drivers car than the Miata at the time. Also, by the time the Mk3 MR2 was released, the Elise had been released, which is such a stunning car, whether S1, S2 or S3 and as a serious driver's car, the Elise unbeatable. The underrated and underappreciated Mk3 MR2 was the spiritual successor to the Mk1 MR2, but, for the reasons above, didn't stand a chance in the general market. Having owned all 3 iterations in the order they were brought to market and done significant mileage in them, the Mk1 MR2 is the best but the Mk2 was the biggest disappointment. The Mk3 ultimately failed therefore because the Elise was so brilliant, the Miata was by then the goto runabout sports car in the general market and because the Mk2 MR2 tried to go upmarket but was not as good to drive as the Mk1 and the Mk2 is really a different type of car to the Mk1/Mk3. The zero boot space Mk3 is often highlighted as a problem, and was continually highlighted by the press with some justification which i'm sure would have hurt sales, but in the real world, those who have owned a Mk3 know the storage pods behind the seats are actually really good. I never once (when i owned a Mk3) thought about not having a boot and found the storage pods to be excellent. In connection with the Mk2 Turbo, a faster car is not necessarily a better car.
Another short coming of the MR2 is luggage space. Especially compared to the miata. At least you can fit enough luggage in the back of the miata for a weekend getaway. The MR2 has nothing. The Pontiac Solstice with the top down is also a complete failure for luggage storage.
Mr2 Spyder is no joke even in stock form. It’s not fast, but it’s QUICK. It can shame many other cars on the backroads with a competent driver. Only issue I’ve seen is that a Miata has a halfway decent trunk that can be lived with. Essentially zero storage on a spyder. Just not viable for 99% of people other than as a toy with excess money
its actually a very god tuning base, watch best motoring hot version touge battle, the technopro spirit MRS still marks the top 3 best section of all time
IMHO, I think this is the perfect racer car project. Suspension can be tuned already to handle bestmotoring touge challenge such as the pro spirit MRS. Techno pro also achieve the under 1 min on tsukuba TT with just a 2L NA engine. The potential is already there. So the car truly has all the potential of lotus elise just add 300+ pounds and under 1/8 of the price. Sure double wishbone would have been over-kill but Mac-pherson is also optimal on the perfect tarmac and much lighter. Not to mention, the genius behind the design, you can literally put any FF 2L engines if you had the right resources. Top engine used to be 2zz but now people are putting K20 and 2GRFE (you can make a lighter car than lotus evora!!!) I just think, the MRS was made ahead of its time, you can't produce MR cars this cheap and efficient. Toyota had the right recipe just didn't have enough of budget or market demand. In my opinion, the MRS would have never succeed. I mean can you imagine the carnage on the street with MRS with 180hp stock, and most likely to be tuned to hell. The MR franchise is dead because of its liability issues with accidents, it wasn't just safe on the rain or snow. So it never had a purpose, unlike a miata whose philosophy was making the perfect roadster with "50/50" motto by design. MRS was either a roadster or race car, nothing conventional for the consumer market. MRS was a double edge sword, the potential is still there but I honestly believe it just too dangerous to put too much power on the MRS for average drivers. It would have been a decent track car had it come out with a 2zz or supercharger-package. Maybe toyota didn't want to ruin their partnership with Lotus as their engine supplier. I mean, people would have just bough a 2zz MRS rather than a Lotus Elise, wouldn't you?
You have some recommendation about the power, but did not mention how to improve the suspension and reduce body roll. What is your opinions/suggestions of that?
+Zixiao Zhao The suspension is ok stock as you'll only notice it's weakness in competition. But to improve it, I'd suggest the below. To improve handling: Coilovers/Better spring and shock combination. Lighter wheels and stickier tires. To improve torsional rigidity: Larger front and rear anti-roll bar. To increase stiffness: Roll bar/rollcage, strut tower bracing
Two Questions for all of You: 1. Is this car going to appreciate in value as the years go by? 2. Would you buy a 2003 Spyder with 49k miles at $7,000? Thanks.
1. No. Unless numbers drop and it becomes a rarity. There wasn't anything really special about this car stock that would cause demand over it. 2. That is only a question you can answer since it's based on your value and plans for the car.
This is REALLY amusing to read two years later in March of 2022! I hope you bought that 2003 at $7K. Today the median MR2 Spider price is around $15K and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for sale under $10K
Yea a 2zz would of made the power to weight ratio dangerous for average people. Then again this is not a car for average people.lol. Very good points, awesome videos
Yeah the 2ZZ would have made the car more accident prone was my original theory also. The Real reason is that Lotus made Toyota sign an agreement to not put the 2ZZ in any mid engine RWD vehicles. They didnt want anything to screw up sales of the Exige and Elise.
I''d say it was the ugly headlights, lack of t-tops, when you drop the top the rear pillars disappear, when it's up they're not all that sharp and angular. More Porsche Boxster looking than Ferrari, so it was meh to more people. SMG was auto based right? So there was mtx and mtx which wasn't clearly understood. Why Toyota and Mazda were lusting after the hairdresser market is beyond me. There was no V6, no 4AGE, no supercharger, no awesome heritage reasons connecting to the Mk1 and Mk2. The answer to a question very few people were asking.
I just think that this car is doing very well despite what you so called inferior front end suspension setup, even for the track. The whole car is light, engine is in the back so obviously it does not have lots of load on the front of the car. Just wondering if you ever watch the mr2 Spyder touge video. Just type "zzw30 mr2 best motoring." But, thank you for give this car such underrated review so that the price is not goes up high. I want to get one of this spyder when my 2nd gen mr2 dies out.
+GTR Wendy Not this year. I had a great experience at the meet last year though. You get a good sense of camaraderie with other GTR owners and also a chance to see some pretty nice modified ones.
I OWN ONE and its a great small sports car .The Mazda mx5 is a hairdresser's car by comparison.THe MR2 outperforms it easily.IT'S an enthusiast's car and you can get in and go and extremely forgiving with its great handling a mini Porsche
Spot on, I've owned mine for 14 years and cannot see the point in replacing it with anything comparable or in a similar price bracket, e.g. the MX5 which I have spent a reasonable amount of time in, enough time to know that the MR-S is a superior car in every area except storage space. The MX5 may have been more popular, but I don't believe it was a better car. Plus the MX5 runs a timing belt (up until the current generation) as opposed to a timing chain, so added unnecessary and expensive maintenance.
I think you are wrong about the suspension, double wishbone is over rated and most people in the know comment about how it is one of the best handling cars they have ever driven.
