ADUK Archive

Personally the last thing I would buy would be an ex cop car. I would be interested to hear what others in the proffesion think about this...

James wrote:That would make a 94 M plate MR2 quicker to 60 than a current 343BHP BMW M3?

With a bit of searching I found ...

Current M3 - 343 bhp, kerb weight 1760 kg, 0..62 in 5.5 seconds

Mk2 MR2 turbo '94-on - 241 bhp, kerb weight up to 1015 kg, 0..60 under 5.3 seconds

The power to weight ratio says a bit, but really it would depend on the gearing.

I hadnt realised the car was that much lighter. Makes sense so I stand corrected. A driver of an MR2 was extremely rude to me at work once. He would not speak to me, only to the unmarked traffic car who had stopped him originally. (I had seen them try to catch up with him and joined in).

Gareth, I think you're mixing your Mk's of mr2 up. The Mk1 and Mk2 are around 1000kg, but the Mk2 is about 1250kg depending on which spec you've got. The MR2 being mid engined is incredibly good at launching fast because the back end just grips with the weight of the engine over it. The turbo engine is also fairly torquey which helps too. As for the gearing, 2nd tops out at just over 60mph at 7000rpm. Basic tuning (ie increased boost) can easily see the car up to 270-280bhp, and there are a few 350+bhp cars around. I've not had mine rolling roaded, but there are rumours around that the later revisions were often more powerful out of the factory, but Toyota didn't want to jeopardize their Supra sales.

They do surprise a lot of people with their level of performance - and that often includes new owners of the car. I'd be happy to take you for a ride James if we ever find a meet we are both going to!

Jon

Yes indeed, although I personally think between the two of our cars there would not be much difference, other than the RWD/FWD thing...

my few pen'th

Amazing how much performance you can still buy for £2k? Looking at http://www.autotrader.co.uk

If a v6 is still flavoursome for you then plenty of '97-'99 V6 Vectras & Mondeos (even ST-24) around. Not neccesarily stellar mileage either.

The odd '98 Volvo S40 t4 (200hp) around.

MkIII '96-'98 VW Golf GTIs/VR6's

Some alarmingly low prices on Saab9-3s. '99-'00 Turbos with quite low miles around. Well within budget.

Yep, Peugeot 306s well within budget and don't discount the XSi. Brother in-law had one, didn't go wrong much and quite swift.

But may I recommend something you maybe hadn't thought of? One of the best cars I owned (until a drunk driver wrote it off whilst parked outside our house) was a Nissan Almera GTI. The GTI isn't as pig ugly as the other versions and was a great GTI in the late '90s. Same 2.0 engine (although normally aspirated version) as in Sunny GTiR, S14 200sx etc. Absolutely bullet proof. About 145bhp 0-60 8 secs. Roomy in the back, aircon, abs etc. But the best thing is the handling, get the tyre set up right and they are fabulous. Really neutral. Plus they'll do mid 30s mpg if driven carefully. Think cd player with steering wheel controls was standard too. My wife drove it everyday after I bought an Alfa and she loved it too. They are a bit scarce...But potentially worth the search. Same engine in the Primera GT also a good car & in budget...

Forgot to add that Alfa 156's (as recent as '01) are well within budget v6 & 2.0 (the lighter 4cyl engine is lighter and gives better handling.) Just buy a good one...running them can be pricey.

Happy shopping!

jont wrote:

Tomasz wrote:I've looked at the MR2... a bit slow and a bit ugly for my liking.

Slow? Go and find a turbo (grey import only). 220bhp in the early form, 240bhp in the 1994 model revision onwards. If 0-60 in 5.3s and a top speed of 160+ is slow I'd love to know what you think quick is

Sounds good, but I'm guessing the insurance is a bit of a nightmare on an import go fast model? And I can't see a mk3 import, the mk2 is a big eightees for my liking!

As for Fiat coupe's, aren't they even more unreliable than Alfa's? I've heard some real horror stories about maintenance on that Fiat engine (isn't it the one out of the Lancia delta turbo?).

I've not heard anything too nasty, but they're not bullet proof. For that price range I think it's a case of pretty, quick, reliable, pick two!!

Tomasz wrote:

jont wrote:

Tomasz wrote:I've looked at the MR2... a bit slow and a bit ugly for my liking.

Slow? Go and find a turbo (grey import only). 220bhp in the early form, 240bhp in the 1994 model revision onwards. If 0-60 in 5.3s and a top speed of 160+ is slow I'd love to know what you think quick is

Sounds good, but I'm guessing the insurance is a bit of a nightmare on an import go fast model? And I can't see a mk3 import, the mk2 is a big eightees for my liking!

Just to be clear, are we talking about the same Mks?

Mk1: (1984-1989)


Mk2: (1990-1999)


Mk3 (with half a Mk2 on the LHS) (2000-2006)


Mk1 was available as a 1.6 normally aspirated car (N/A) and a 1.6 supercharged version.
Mk2 was available as a 2.0 N/A and a 2.0 turbo (turbo was Japan only)
Mk3 was a 1.8 N/A only, but there are bolt on turbo kits, including a Toyota approved one that doesn't void any warranty. Again, quite a few Japanese ones have been imported.

As for insurance, shopping around pays. When I was looking, the Mk2 turbo, although group 20 was half the cost of the Impreza (for example). Most people on the forums I use seem to pay under £500, obviously depending hugely on age/location etc.

jont wrote:Mk1: (1984-1989)


Mk1 was available as a 1.6 normally aspirated car (N/A) and a 1.6 supercharged version.

I was lucky enough to be allowed to drive a normally aspirated Mk1 late last year, and my initial impression was that it was a bit under powered, relative to the chassis and brakes. However the acceleration seemed to go on forever, and make a wonderful sound part way through the rev range, (where in another car you might expect some more power to develop, but in this car, the same amount of power just seemed to continue all the way to maximum revs).

My overall assessment was that it was hugely fun, and I would recommend one to anybody who is a keen driver.

i know the general concensus is the smaller the better but....

http://atsearch.autotrader.co.uk/www/ca ... h_full.y=0

Gareth wrote:

James wrote:That would make a 94 M plate MR2 quicker to 60 than a current 343BHP BMW M3?

With a bit of searching I found ...

Current M3 - 343 bhp, kerb weight 1760 kg, 0..62 in 5.5 seconds

Mk2 MR2 turbo '94-on - 241 bhp, kerb weight up to 1015 kg, 0..60 under 5.3 seconds

The power to weight ratio says a bit, but really it would depend on the gearing.

i wonder how that compares to the e36 m3 evo @ 321 bhp / 1530kg

If thats the one before the last (the M to around T reg) then - different. I drove the penultimate M3 a while back. It was - good, but not inspirational. Don't get me wrong it was more than enough power to be getting on with, but, it lacked finesse and passion. It was/is dated.