MR2 vs. MX5 vs. Z3

[Anonymous]

Hi to one and all!

I've just joined the forum so do go easy on me!  s;-) ;-) s;-)

I'm considering buying a new "toy" for the summer (and many summers more I hope!) and after trying motorbiking, I am thinking about a roadster instead.

I'm probably going to have up to £9K to spend and wondered what you guys thought would be the best bang-for-buck at that sort of price?

I am thinking of either a MR2, MX5 or Z3.  Obviously I'd expect this forum to be biased, and I have to say, the MR2 is my personal fave (from reviews) but I've not actually tried any of them yet.

I'd appreciate any buying advice, hints 'n' tips or anything other things you think might be worth looking out for.

Looks a great site and forum anyway - best regards to all.

One Team

[Anonymous]

Hi and welcome!   s:D s:D  

Unless you're solely interested in posing value (and, admittedly, arguably stronger residuals) then I wouldn't bother with the Z3. Personally, I found it sluggish and uncomfortable. And it's quite fugly (IMHO   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  ).

Which leaves the '2 and the '5. As far as driving experiences go, you won't go wrong with either of them: they're both fantastic machines. There's only two things I can really see that seperate them, and that's the fact that the MX-5 is really common, and looks a bit 'girly' compared to the meaner lines of the MR2.

I went for the '2 mainly for it's looks, and I'm happy with that decision: I've never had so much fun driving or owning a car before, and I'd make the same choice again if I had to. Realistically though, the MX-5 can be brought for less and may be better bang-for-your-buck on that account.


Like you say, I'm biased, but I still feel the '2 is the better driver's plaything. If you can live with the lack of space (and if you've had a bike I'm presuming you can!), then that's the one I'd go for.

[GSB]

The Z3 is a hugely flawed machine, built to cash on on the Roadster market and sold on the back of its badge rather than its abilities. For the money you're talking about I'd have thought that you would be looking at the 1.9 litre models, which are dog slow as well...

Of the other two, Its down to your own preferences. The MR2 is the better drivers car, with scalpel sharp handling and poise. Thats not to say the MX5 is a bad car though, its actually one of the best budget money sportcars you can get, its just not quite as driver oriented as the MR2.  Arguably the MX5 is the more "practical" option, but you can fit a lot more gear than you'd think in the MR2, so dont discount it just because of its percieved lack of space.. Also look at the number of MR2's sold as opposed to the number of MX5's. The '2 is by far the more exlusive of the two, with its relative rarity.

Test drive both, and I'll bet that you find the MR2 is the one that really gets your juices flowing. But od course thats just my opinion! I'm sure that the MX5 Owners Club feel very differently.  s:D s:D  

One thing I was glad to note, is that you have already discounted the MG-F, which is a good thing, as its utter crap.  s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

[loadswine]

Hi matey! The other thing that often gets missed is driver comfort. The seats and legroom on the 2 are excellent, not so with an MX5 whenever I've sat in one. If you are anywhere near, or above the 6 foot mark you may find that you can't actually fit into an MX5 at all well.

[Anonymous]

Agree with loadswine, if you are sizeable (in any proportion  s;) s;)  ), you will appreciate the extra cabin space in the '2. I'm 6'1" and found that in the '5, my direct line of sight was right at the bottom of the sunvisor....when it was UP! I found the '2 also had a little extra room width ways, and I'm only 12 and a half stone, so not overly bloaty   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

Try them both, then make your choice, both are fantastic cars, but one will feel more right than the other.

[Bongo]

I have an MR2, my mate has an 04 MX-5 and my mum has a z3 1.9.

I wouldn't get the Z3, it's not a sports car and it's a lot slower than both the MR2 and MX-5.

Like others I had problems with space in the MX-5 (head rubbed on roof when up) so I got the MR2 - both are great fun cars though.

[Anonymous]

TBH i didn't even consider anything else. I always wanted the MR2 as it was different - that's one of the things which make it special.

The 1.9 would always make you wish you had the Z3M IMHO or it would me.

Sure the MX-5 has a little more room but the '2 is deceptive and with the hood up you even get a parcel shelf!!

Let us know what you decide buddy

[Tem]

I am thinking of either a MR2, MX5 or Z3.  Obviously I'd expect this forum to be biased, and I have to say, the MR2 is my personal fave (from reviews) but I've not actually tried any of them yet.

I made my choice between those three (well, actually a few more) and the Z3 wasn't even a competition. It feels like a bus compared to the other two and it costs a small fortune to get a model that's faster than a bus.

About the MR2 and MX-5, I'd say it's really a matter of opinion. Go drive both! Obviously most people here ended up with the MR2, like I did. The difference really isn't that huge though, so I won't be saying MR2 is better for someone I don't know  s8) s8)

[heathstimpson]

I have to agree with above. My uncle has the M version Z3 which I have driven and even with all the power I thinks its crap. The 2 is a better sports car in my opinion than the 5 and looks more like a proper sports car. The 5 is more practical, very reliable, common, but smaller and cheaper to pick up on the 2nd hand market as they have been around for sixteen years. As Grant says the MGF is terrible. My brother had one blew the engine within three months like most do, had it rebuilt and ended up trading it in for with a massive loss as nobody wanted to buy it on the 2nd hand market. They are a nightmare  s:? :? s:?

[Anonymous]

WOW!!!

My post is only 12 hours old and you guys have replied big style!

Thanks every so much - really appreciate the feedback!

Sounds like its only worth considering the '5 or the '2 then (see, I'm getting the slang already!) in that case.

I'm 6' and 12 stone myself so it also sounds the '5 will be a squeeze.

I know from reviews the '2 often comes out on top but I did wonder whether there are any pitfalls with it.  Do bits fall off?  Whats the build quality like?

Do you think I am being realistic in getting one for £9K tops?

Any ideas what sort of reg/spec/miles I could get for that?

Thanks again for all your help - great forum!  I may well be sticking aroun d if I end up with a '2!

  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

One Team

[Tem]

I know from reviews the '2 often comes out on top but I did wonder whether there are any pitfalls with it.  Do bits fall off?  Whats the build quality like?

The '2 has its issues, like rattling and blowing engines. I know it sounds bad, but it isn't that common. You should browse the Maintenance area a bit to see the most common issues  s8) s8)

I'm sure the MX-5 has some issues as well, but most of us probably don't have any idea about those.

[Anonymous]

Like most people here, we debated long and hard between the MR2 and the MX5 (the Z3 wasn't really a consideration, as I don't like the look of them, plus we would only have been able to afford a 1.9).  Many of the reviews I read seemed to rate the '5 more highly, usually because of the better storage space (which wasn't an issue for us) and because of it being more of a "driver's car".

I've always preferred the looks of the '2, and at just under 6'6" tall, I barely fitted in the '5 (same went for the Celica when I was looking at that as a replacement for my car). In the '2 I have quite a bit of space, and in the year that we've had it I've grown to love it more and more.  It's definitely the only car I've ever bought where I've never regretted it for an instant.  When my H&S exhaust arrives, I'll have spent nearly £1000 on mod's for it, something I've never bothered doing with other cars. It's also nice that people often don't realise what type of car it is, and I often catch people stood looking at it in car parks...

The biggest disadvantage for me is the very rattly nature of the '2 - it seems to have got even worse of late, probably since fitting the style bars.  Also, I disliked the amount of cheap looking black plastic on the pre-facelift '2 (side vents, grilles), but these can easily be replaced.  Also, you should expect corroded alloys unless they've been replaced under warranty - this particularly annoyed me as my Lexus also suffered from the same problem   s:evil: :evil: s:evil:  

One thing I would add (and no doubt other people would disagree) is that I wouldn't be without the hard top. Although the car is garaged and not used in bad weather, I've found it makes the car much comfier in the winter, and also looks much better than when the soft top's up (of course it looks even better with no top at all).

Any ideas what sort of reg/spec/miles I could get for that?

For £9K I would have thought that you'd be looking at a 2000 reg (W or X), basic spec (ie no hard top or A/C) and average-to-highish mileage, if buying from a dealer.  If buying privately, you'll probably be able to get a 2001, better spec and lower mileage.

[Anonymous]

Im gona be controversial and say that the MX5 is the weakest of the three - I am all for handling rather than power but the MX5 is way too slow and the styling doesnt cut it for me either.

I have owned two Z3 2.8s, I really liked them - much more powerful than an MR2 and great for cruising on the motorway.  It doesnt handle great, relying more on awesome grip from its 245 rears!  If you cant get a 2.8 dont get one though!

What sold me on the MR2 this time was that I test drove it back to back with an Elise - the MR2 is often quoted as an Elise that you can live with every day - I would agree.

All I will say is drive a 2.8 Z3 and an MR2 and you will know which one you want - they are COMPLETELY different!

[Bongo]

The MX-5 is no slower than an MR2, I know i've tried catching one   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

[Anonymous]

The MX-5 is no slower than an MR2, I know i've tried catching one   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

stats would say otherwise surely...8.5 secs v 7.8secs - its quite a difference

[Bongo]

I think that's because the MX-5 has to shift to 3rd to hit 60, in the real world they're very close.

[Tem]

in the real world they're very close.

I agree.

Also, on a track, the MR2 feels a lot faster than it actually is. Maybe because you're sitting so low, maybe cause of something totally else. But even when you're doing equal times with both, the '2 feels a lot faster.

So if you're after a fast feeling, '2 wins hands down  s8) s8)  If you're after a fast time, you should consider both.

[Anonymous]

Thats interesting.  Certainly the lower seating position in the mr2 and the rear engine made it feel/handle much differently to the mx5.  i think anyone who drives both cars will quickly decide which they prefer.

Col

[Anonymous]

in the real world they're very close.

I agree.

Also, on a track, the MR2 feels a lot faster than it actually is. Maybe because you're sitting so low, maybe cause of something totally else. But even when you're doing equal times with both, the '2 feels a lot faster.

So if you're after a fast feeling, '2 wins hands down  s8) s8)  If you're after a fast time, you should consider both.

Not knocking your knowledge here Tem, but Evo themselves did a test on the 2, the 5 and the original Lotus Elan back to back on (of memory serves me correctly) both road and track. The MX5 was by far the slowest of the three (and they were all on a par with power, spec and so on, so evenly matched). I can't remember where they did the track test, but the 5 was a just over one second slower around the track than the 2. Doesn't sound a lot, but on track, that is. Real world may be different as they did say that the 2 FELT faster, but in real terms the margin was much closer.

But by far the quickest was the Elan!!! At least another second quicker still than the 2!!

That Colin Chapman.......WHAT a genius........a 30 year old car STILL kicking the butt of modern Japanese automobilia..........nice  s8) s8)

[Tem]

Not knocking your knowledge here Tem, but Evo themselves did a test on the 2, the 5 and the original Lotus Elan back to back on both road and track.

Sorry, should've said that neither were stock  s:? :? s:?

I meant that between equally fast (modified) '2 and '5, the '2 felt a lot faster.

[Anonymous]

Ahh.....fair enough. Makes sense!  s:D s:D

[Anonymous]

I agree with just about all that has been posted so far, in particular about the Z3 and also about headroom issues in and MX5.  At 6'2" and long in the leg I can only just fit my head in a '5 with the hood up.  

One point is the difference between mid and front engine layout.  The '2 has far traction and stronger rear end grip than the MX5, which is a good thing for getting the power down and accellerating out of corners.  It also means that the '5 lets go earlier and therefore more slowly,** which is enjoyable in a different way.

Also in my opinion, if you do chose an MX5, for goodness sake get a 1.8iS, not a pov spec 1.8 or underpowered 1.6.  That said, the early, light, high power 1.6's were fine.  Loads of info on the web about '5 specs and I 'm going to shut up before I get banned permanently for rattling on about the competition!

** re-read this and noticed it's not all that clear.  I mean the '5 loses grip at the back under acceleration more easily than the '2.

[Tem]

One point is the difference between mid and front engine layout.  The '2 has far traction and stronger rear end grip than the MX5, which is a good thing for getting the power down and accellerating out of corners.  It also means that the '5 lets go earlier and therefore more slowly, which is enjoyable in a different way.

Then again, it also means the '2 doesn't have that much grip in front, which makes cornering a bit different from the '5. The 50/50 distribution of the '5 isn't bad at all either  s;) s;)

(I think I'll shut up too, before anyone thinks I prefer the '5  s:lol: :lol: s:lol: )

[juansolo]

...but Evo themselves did a test on the 2, the 5 and the original Lotus Elan back to back on (of memory serves me correctly) both road and track. The MX5 was by far the slowest of the three

Evo's figures seem to match whatever conclusion they decide to draw upon that particular issue...

FWIW there is bugger all in it on track between the 5 and the 2 (as I've said before, 0-60 times are irrelevant on a circuit).

[Anonymous]

...but Evo themselves did a test on the 2, the 5 and the original Lotus Elan back to back on (of memory serves me correctly) both road and track. The MX5 was by far the slowest of the three

Evo's figures seem to match whatever conclusion they decide to draw upon that particular issue...

FWIW there is bugger all in it on track between the 5 and the 2 (as I've said before, 0-60 times are irrelevant on a circuit).

Yep, fair point. I just remember them saying that on one lap the Elan was the fastest (can't remember track or time), the 2 one second behind and then the 5 just over as econd beyond that. I think it probably depends on the driver too I suppose..................  s:? :? s:?