vader1

The engine is built like a brick sh*thouse and can handle putting out 600 hp. Transmission is very strong. Strong stock clutch can be even stronger with aftermarket.

Common problems are cracked ehaust manifold studs, various oil leaks, blown turbos, hose from hell, hose from hell on earth, and at this juncture...head gaskets.

Other than that car is VERY solid. Everthing on that car is over engineered. Steering will feel numb and heavy compared to S2000, handling very reassuring but snap oversteer is nasty.

Dolemike

Being a previous owner of an MR2 Turbo... i can say this much... if its NA... dont get it. If its turbo.. its worth getting... the cars are hard to find and will probably be a collectors car (if its not considered one already). The engines are reliable as hell and as solid as a tank, take good care of them and theyll take good care of you. Just dont wreck it as they are easier to do than the s2000 is. The MR2 is a sleeping giant that is capable of taking out much much more powerful cars. Ferrari F355 spider, BMW M3, and a couple C5 vettes here n there are a few of the cars Ive managed to take out when I had one.

tunerjetta29

Only get a Hartop MR2 turbo. They are hard to find, but worth it. Those T-tops suck, they leak, and they are ugly. The hardtop is more rigid and looks better. It took me a few months to find mine, but it was worth it in the long run.

Dolemike

i never had problems with my t-tops leaking. the ht is more rigid but i still favored the t-tops.

Gink5

I remember some guy in a black MR2 coming on one of our s2k meets, he pulled on us pretty hard.(had a turbo) I've heard they have some serious oversteer. All and all, one of my favorite cars from the 90's.

brent_strong

This is the car I'm considering getting. Sounds like I really do need to drive an MR2 though. The opinions have been pretty good, so I guess it's worth checking out.

http://www.scottbarton.net/MR2/

http://www.scottbarton.net/MR2/ForSale.html

Christople

1993-1995 are the years where they worked the suspension

PoweredByCamry

'93+ turbos are hard to find, '94-'95 especially. Current value of a pristine '95 is pretty ridiculous, far, far above the $6k quoted. There just weren't a lot of these sold here, remember that was when the yen was going crazy and the Turbo was a very, very expensive car for what you got.

Forget about finding a '93+ turbo hardtop, there were I believe 16 of them sold here and about 11 left. In '93 all MR2s got the rear suspension changes (relocated trailing arm mounts for more benign dynamic toe curve), 15" wheels, slightly lower ride height, and trim/color changes. In '94 they got the 1 piece rear wing, new tail lights and front airdam, different upholstery, etc. They also got dual airbags, but the weight was reportedly offset by a lighter, more integral side impact structure in the doors.

I had a '93 N/A, which yes was laughably slow on the street but made an awesome E Stock autocross car. The evil snap oversteer is so overhyped on these cars- stick a $120 front swaybar and some konis, and a proper alignment on there and it handles like an absolute pussycat compared with the S2000. A properly setup MR2 is much easier to read at the limit than the S2000, and it will always put down power better due to the engine hanging over the drive wheels.

As you mentioned, they are amazingly overbuilt. Toyota seems to waver back and forth between overbuilding and underbuilding, but this generation was a tank. I also love how Toyotas of that generation were put together, very easy to work on. The feel is very different from the S2000 though. As others have mentioned, the steering is heavy and slow and the controls don't have the same light, tight, short throw feeling as the S2000. It is a great car, just different. There is no way they are objectively worth what people are paying for them now, but hey that's what they are going for.

Peter

Dolemike

To me the 91-92 models are the only ones really worth having. The changes they made in the 93+ models took away too much from the mid-engine handling characteristics of the car... made it handle more like a FWD (made the handling more tame for those who cant drive). However the 91-92 models are notorious for the oversteer they have, one minute your facing forwards... next second youre facing backwards. I think they handle almost as good as the S2000, ive taken some very tight corners at insane speeds in my 91 MKII-T, much faster than I have in my s2000 but there again... I dont feel like wrecking another car. With the correct suspension setup the oversteer can be adjusted so that its not so tail happy.... MUCH wider tires in the rear and stiffer suspension being 2 prime mods to do for that. I'd love to have a 95 model MKII-T (from a collectors perspective), its gotta be one of the hardest cars out there to find.

PoweredByCamry

So the '91-'92 handles better because it can spin without warning

I guess it is a matter of preference, but I disagree with everything you said. The rear suspension geometry was altered to change the dynamic toe curve. You can make a '93+ as loose as you want by dialing out static toe-in on the rear.

It's a common belief for several popular japanese sports cars that they were "ruined" once the manufacturer made them less snap happy. The 2nd gen CRX, the Mk2 MR2, and the S2000 all come to mind. The funny thing is people racing these cars in real timed competition (road race, autox) dial in massive static toe-in to alleviate this behavior. With the revised cars, they can achieve the same or better balance merely by running less static toe-in. I have autoxed both a '92 MR2 and a '93 MR2 and can attest that they can both have similar balance with no more than a minor change in alignment. I also currently autox a FWD car and can assure you that a '93 MR2 is completely the opposite of that!

I also believe the drift culture has caused people to fantasize about the heroism of being sideways, and living on the edge of spinning. These are often people who don't actually compete in any kind of event, even drifting. Real racers know that going fast requires trust in a car. When I autocross I want a car that rotates within the preferred slip angle of the tires, but is very stable in transitions and predictable in breakaway (the opposite of the snappy behavior you define as the hallmark of a good sports car).

Even drifters want these characteristics. I remember reading an article about the drift Pontiac GTO where C&D remarked how surprised they were that the car was actually a lot more stable than the stock version. The driver explained that they prefer a very stable car so that when they induce oversteer thru driving techniques, the car can be held in a smooth, controllable drift.

Why you would want to drive a car on the road that can flip you into the weeds any any moment without warning is beyond me. To each his own though, it is all personal preference.

Peter