What does the mr2 miss??

[1979scotte]

As others have said - it needs a bit more power. The 2ZZ conversion is where the car should have been out of the factory. That lack of power is what prevents the car being a modern classic.

Power doesn't make a modern classic, the early MX4+1 and MGF are already in that category and are similarly powered to the MR2, it is the appeal of the car to the classic buying public. For what it is worth, Practical Classics magazine have now listed the MR2 MK3 in their classic price guide, and in a comparison test between the MX, MG and MR2 recently in the magazine, the MR2 came 3rd, simply because of the lack of luggage space!

Great reason right there not to read that publication.
Why do you need your classic to be practical surely it is a vehicle for pure enjoyment.

[Joesson]

Not so long ago, or am I kidding myself with rear view vision, roof racks were popular. Before the current trend for roof boxes I made my own when our children were young and we went camping a few times. Extra space was required then because the frame tents were rather large.
I wonder if a roof rack for a 2 with hard top would be considered by those wishing to optimise the luggage capacity?
So, it would seem that whatever car was/ is the  chosen one there would often be something or some duty that it could not perform and that should include inducing a smile.

[SV-3]

Not so long ago, or am I kidding myself with rear view vision, roof racks were popular. Before the current trend for roof boxes I made my own when our children were young and we went camping a few times. Extra space was required then because the frame tents were rather large.
I wonder if a roof rack for a 2 with hard top would be considered by those wishing to optimise the luggage capacity?
So, it would seem that whatever car was/ is the  chosen one there would often be something or some duty that it could not perform and that should include inducing a smile.

@CB 1971 is already moving towards using their hardtop to carry speakers - sort of an inverted 'variation on a theme' (perhaps by Mozart, Beethoven and the other guys in the band?).

[McMr2]

Nothing. Jump in, roof down, drive. It's no Elise but it isn't priced like one either.

[Dev]

As others have said - it needs a bit more power. The 2ZZ conversion is where the car should have been out of the factory. That lack of power is what prevents the car being a modern classic.

Power doesn't make a modern classic, the early MX4+1 and MGF are already in that category and are similarly powered to the MR2, it is the appeal of the car to the classic buying public. For what it is worth, Practical Classics magazine have now listed the MR2 MK3 in their classic price guide, and in a comparison test between the MX, MG and MR2 recently in the magazine, the MR2 came 3rd, simply because of the lack of luggage space!

Great reason right there not to read that publication.
Why do you need your classic to be practical surely it is a vehicle for pure enjoyment.

  There was an article written about the MR-S development that is now gone from internets. This is where the infamous parts bin car reference was coined.  Im going off memory but from what I remember the engineers were working away from the rest of Toyota management as a project that had two objectives one of them being a replacement for the MK2. Toyota was trying to learn how to build cars of the future for an emerging market of a new generation of owners that are into customizing.  What they actually got was a chief engineer and their team build a focused sports car with lots of compromises one of them being luggage space and dumbed down performance to meet its marketing and price goals.  The parts bin reference is not accurate as the MR-S although uses commonly available parts just like any car including exotic cars however there are many unique parts that are specific for this car compared to the rest of the Toyota line up. Fortunately we can still get parts because Toyota is a large company that doesn't abandon their customers.

The chief engineer made drivers enjoyment the main focus of this iteration and I think the goal was over fulfilled. Those that want more paper number comparisons miss the point entirely because this is a road going car that was made to be enjoyed at slower speeds but if one wanted the potential is exponential  when the car is modified because the foundation is solid. This car has aged well and being underrated is what will be driving up prices in years to come. Even if they make a Mk4 it will be riddled with all sorts of complexity that comes out of regulation and with it a lot more weight and price point.

[steveash]

If you're offering, I'd like the soundtrack of a high revving V12 and perhaps a slightly more exotic badge (sorry Mr T), perhaps Lancia or Maserati but of course keeping the bomb-proof Toyota build.

[1979scotte]

If you're offering, I'd like the soundtrack of a high revving V12 and perhaps a slightly more exotic badge (sorry Mr T), perhaps Lancia or Maserati but of course keeping the bomb-proof Toyota build.

Lotus Evora?

So no V12 but drivetrain is still Toyota and I think its a pretty prestigious badge.

[steveash]

If you're offering, I'd like the soundtrack of a high revving V12 and perhaps a slightly more exotic badge (sorry Mr T), perhaps Lancia or Maserati but of course keeping the bomb-proof Toyota build.

Lotus Evora?

So no V12 but drivetrain is still Toyota and I think its a pretty prestigious badge.

Sounds fair. Can you find me a good one for three grand then please?!

[shnazzle]

As others have said - it needs a bit more power. The 2ZZ conversion is where the car should have been out of the factory. That lack of power is what prevents the car being a modern classic.

Power doesn't make a modern classic, the early MX4+1 and MGF are already in that category and are similarly powered to the MR2, it is the appeal of the car to the classic buying public. For what it is worth, Practical Classics magazine have now listed the MR2 MK3 in their classic price guide, and in a comparison test between the MX, MG and MR2 recently in the magazine, the MR2 came 3rd, simply because of the lack of luggage space!

Great reason right there not to read that publication.
Why do you need your classic to be practical surely it is a vehicle for pure enjoyment.

  There was an article written about the MR-S development that is now gone from internets. This is where the infamous parts bin car reference was coined.  Im going off memory but from what I remember the engineers were working away from the rest of Toyota management as a project that had two objectives one of them being a replacement for the MK2. Toyota was trying to learn how to build cars of the future for an emerging market of a new generation of owners that are into customizing.  What they actually got was a chief engineer and their team build a focused sports car with lots of compromises one of them being luggage space and dumbed down performance to meet its marketing and price goals.  The parts bin reference is not accurate as the MR-S although uses commonly available parts just like any car including exotic cars however there are many unique parts that are specific for this car compared to the rest of the Toyota line up. Fortunately we can still get parts because Toyota is a large company that doesn't abandon their customers.

The chief engineer made drivers enjoyment the main focus of this iteration and I think the goal was over fulfilled. Those that want more paper number comparisons miss the point entirely because this is a road going car that was made to be enjoyed at slower speeds but if one wanted the potential is exponential  when the car is modified because the foundation is solid. This car has aged well and being underrated is what will be driving up prices in years to come. Even if they make a Mk4 it will be riddled with all sorts of complexity that comes out of regulation and with it a lot more weight and price point.

I remember that article actually. 

It was aimed at driving experience and efficiency.

[Karthoum]

The mid engine bit was not even on the radar as a consideration when I bought my 2.
Might start another thread. What are peoples top considerations when choosing a car. Sub heading? compromises prepared to make?

And for me the soft top was not the consideration when buying the car, if I still lived in the US I'd still have paid $2-3k for a hardtop to go permanent with it, luckily I've spent only £800 for 2 hardtops so far here in the UK. Which means despite it being a soft top car, I can resolve the issue quite easily (along with the full bracing on it).

Making a car mid engine however, not very likely with my skill level and even then it'd probably be a hatch with a shoddy wheelbase length.

[1979scotte]

If you're offering, I'd like the soundtrack of a high revving V12 and perhaps a slightly more exotic badge (sorry Mr T), perhaps Lancia or Maserati but of course keeping the bomb-proof Toyota build.

Lotus Evora?

So no V12 but drivetrain is still Toyota and I think its a pretty prestigious badge.

Sounds fair. Can you find me a good one for three grand then please?!

No problem just wait 10 years.

[Dev]

As others have said - it needs a bit more power. The 2ZZ conversion is where the car should have been out of the factory. That lack of power is what prevents the car being a modern classic.

Power doesn't make a modern classic, the early MX4+1 and MGF are already in that category and are similarly powered to the MR2, it is the appeal of the car to the classic buying public. For what it is worth, Practical Classics magazine have now listed the MR2 MK3 in their classic price guide, and in a comparison test between the MX, MG and MR2 recently in the magazine, the MR2 came 3rd, simply because of the lack of luggage space!

Great reason right there not to read that publication.
Why do you need your classic to be practical surely it is a vehicle for pure enjoyment.

  There was an article written about the MR-S development that is now gone from internets. This is where the infamous parts bin car reference was coined.  Im going off memory but from what I remember the engineers were working away from the rest of Toyota management as a project that had two objectives one of them being a replacement for the MK2. Toyota was trying to learn how to build cars of the future for an emerging market of a new generation of owners that are into customizing.  What they actually got was a chief engineer and their team build a focused sports car with lots of compromises one of them being luggage space and dumbed down performance to meet its marketing and price goals.  The parts bin reference is not accurate as the MR-S although uses commonly available parts just like any car including exotic cars however there are many unique parts that are specific for this car compared to the rest of the Toyota line up. Fortunately we can still get parts because Toyota is a large company that doesn't abandon their customers.

The chief engineer made drivers enjoyment the main focus of this iteration and I think the goal was over fulfilled. Those that want more paper number comparisons miss the point entirely because this is a road going car that was made to be enjoyed at slower speeds but if one wanted the potential is exponential  when the car is modified because the foundation is solid. This car has aged well and being underrated is what will be driving up prices in years to come. Even if they make a Mk4 it will be riddled with all sorts of complexity that comes out of regulation and with it a lot more weight and price point.

I remember that article actually.

It was aimed at driving experience and efficiency.

 I just got done watching an informative send off video about the LFA that went into great detail about all of the components that went into its design. The primary goal of enjoyment was the same. Sure that car had the Nurburgring lap record for a short time but that was not what they were going for.  Its not a track car although they did make a variants that were, it is primarily a car for road enjoyment. 

 If you watch any of those youtube videos for our car you will find the reviewer discussing about all of the attributes  that are generally compared for other cars and they will tend to put the car in a negative light that its not powerful or doesn't have enough practicality but once they find themselves negotiating around some tight corners they shut up and lose themselves uncontrollably with so much joy on their faces. They will then change their vocabulary with adjectives . That is exactly the magic sauce you do not get with a more capable car. Toyota knows what is important better than the owners and critics that cant see past paper spec comparisons.

[1979scotte]

As others have said - it needs a bit more power. The 2ZZ conversion is where the car should have been out of the factory. That lack of power is what prevents the car being a modern classic.

Power doesn't make a modern classic, the early MX4+1 and MGF are already in that category and are similarly powered to the MR2, it is the appeal of the car to the classic buying public. For what it is worth, Practical Classics magazine have now listed the MR2 MK3 in their classic price guide, and in a comparison test between the MX, MG and MR2 recently in the magazine, the MR2 came 3rd, simply because of the lack of luggage space!

Great reason right there not to read that publication.
Why do you need your classic to be practical surely it is a vehicle for pure enjoyment.

  There was an article written about the MR-S development that is now gone from internets. This is where the infamous parts bin car reference was coined.  Im going off memory but from what I remember the engineers were working away from the rest of Toyota management as a project that had two objectives one of them being a replacement for the MK2. Toyota was trying to learn how to build cars of the future for an emerging market of a new generation of owners that are into customizing.  What they actually got was a chief engineer and their team build a focused sports car with lots of compromises one of them being luggage space and dumbed down performance to meet its marketing and price goals.  The parts bin reference is not accurate as the MR-S although uses commonly available parts just like any car including exotic cars however there are many unique parts that are specific for this car compared to the rest of the Toyota line up. Fortunately we can still get parts because Toyota is a large company that doesn't abandon their customers.

The chief engineer made drivers enjoyment the main focus of this iteration and I think the goal was over fulfilled. Those that want more paper number comparisons miss the point entirely because this is a road going car that was made to be enjoyed at slower speeds but if one wanted the potential is exponential  when the car is modified because the foundation is solid. This car has aged well and being underrated is what will be driving up prices in years to come. Even if they make a Mk4 it will be riddled with all sorts of complexity that comes out of regulation and with it a lot more weight and price point.

I remember that article actually.

It was aimed at driving experience and efficiency.

 I just got done watching an informative send off video about the LFA that went into great detail about all of the components that went into its design. The primary goal of enjoyment was the same. Sure that car had the Nurburgring lap record for a short time but that was not what they were going for.  Its not a track car although they did make a variants that were, it is primarily a car for road enjoyment. 

 If you watch any of those youtube videos for our car you will find the reviewer discussing about all of the attributes  that are generally compared for other cars and they will tend to put the car in a negative light that its not powerful or doesn't have enough practicality but once they find themselves negotiating around some tight corners they shut up and lose themselves uncontrollably with so much joy on their faces. They will then change their vocabulary with adjectives . That is exactly the magic sauce you do not get with a more capable car. Toyota knows what is important better than the owners and critics that cant see past paper spec comparisons.

I adore the LFA even get to see one on occasion as aguy around the corner always has the odd exotic parked on his drive in summer.
F40 and Carrera GT!
I think its part of a collection and they guy works there or something. You would not live around here if you had that sort of money.

[Dev]

As others have said - it needs a bit more power. The 2ZZ conversion is where the car should have been out of the factory. That lack of power is what prevents the car being a modern classic.

Power doesn't make a modern classic, the early MX4+1 and MGF are already in that category and are similarly powered to the MR2, it is the appeal of the car to the classic buying public. For what it is worth, Practical Classics magazine have now listed the MR2 MK3 in their classic price guide, and in a comparison test between the MX, MG and MR2 recently in the magazine, the MR2 came 3rd, simply because of the lack of luggage space!

Great reason right there not to read that publication.
Why do you need your classic to be practical surely it is a vehicle for pure enjoyment.

  There was an article written about the MR-S development that is now gone from internets. This is where the infamous parts bin car reference was coined.  Im going off memory but from what I remember the engineers were working away from the rest of Toyota management as a project that had two objectives one of them being a replacement for the MK2. Toyota was trying to learn how to build cars of the future for an emerging market of a new generation of owners that are into customizing.  What they actually got was a chief engineer and their team build a focused sports car with lots of compromises one of them being luggage space and dumbed down performance to meet its marketing and price goals.  The parts bin reference is not accurate as the MR-S although uses commonly available parts just like any car including exotic cars however there are many unique parts that are specific for this car compared to the rest of the Toyota line up. Fortunately we can still get parts because Toyota is a large company that doesn't abandon their customers.

The chief engineer made drivers enjoyment the main focus of this iteration and I think the goal was over fulfilled. Those that want more paper number comparisons miss the point entirely because this is a road going car that was made to be enjoyed at slower speeds but if one wanted the potential is exponential  when the car is modified because the foundation is solid. This car has aged well and being underrated is what will be driving up prices in years to come. Even if they make a Mk4 it will be riddled with all sorts of complexity that comes out of regulation and with it a lot more weight and price point.

I remember that article actually.

It was aimed at driving experience and efficiency.

 I just got done watching an informative send off video about the LFA that went into great detail about all of the components that went into its design. The primary goal of enjoyment was the same. Sure that car had the Nurburgring lap record for a short time but that was not what they were going for.  Its not a track car although they did make a variants that were, it is primarily a car for road enjoyment. 

 If you watch any of those youtube videos for our car you will find the reviewer discussing about all of the attributes  that are generally compared for other cars and they will tend to put the car in a negative light that its not powerful or doesn't have enough practicality but once they find themselves negotiating around some tight corners they shut up and lose themselves uncontrollably with so much joy on their faces. They will then change their vocabulary with adjectives . That is exactly the magic sauce you do not get with a more capable car. Toyota knows what is important better than the owners and critics that cant see past paper spec comparisons.

I adore the LFA even get to see one on occasion as aguy around the corner always has the odd exotic parked on his drive in summer.
F40 and Carrera GT!
I think its part of a collection and they guy works there or something. You would not live around here if you had that sort of money.

 In that case let me share this with you and everyone else. Probably the best car documentary I have seen all year. It gives you a glimpse into Toyotas philosophy of building sports cars. I would say it gets really good around the 10 minute mark. 
 A couple of interesting things to note. The car uses monotube KYB struts with external oil reservoirs. The oil pump scavenging is unique in that it makes sure to not reduce oil pressure when using an oil cooler.  For our cars I have mentioned this many times to not use an external oil cooler unless its absolutely necessary because it is a double edged sword. Most people don't need an external oil cooler or an aluminum sump for the street which is prone to damage especially if the car is lowered.

 Enjoy.

 

[Ardent]

Chap at work sent me that a couple of weeks back. Gobsmacked.

[BahnStormer]

Other than Pat are many using theirs as a daily then?

@BahnStormer and @jvanzyl i think use theirs to commute and maybe @StuC .
Certainly did before covid

I used mine for a commuting every day for nearly 3 years.... most of the time it was a 55mile round-trip, mostly on free-flowing B-roads, so was definitely a LOT better for that route than the 2 tonne snotwagon... lighter on fuel, more fun and better for squeezing down narrow lanes... that stopped in late 2019 (new job), but I still use it 95% of the time I need a car... the Audi only comes out when I need to take more than one of the kids somewhere...

[BahnStormer]

and they're not bad in the snow either... I pulled over for a selfie just after scooching past a Range Rover that was being winched out of a ditch... I stopped to check everybody was okay and confirmed with the rescue truck: "Busy day winching SUV's on summer tyres?".... the answer was affirmative, but expletive-laden    

[1979scotte]

and they're not bad in the snow either... I pulled over for a selfie just after scooching past a Range Rover that was being winched out of a ditch... I stopped to check everybody was okay and confirmed with the rescue truck: "Busy day winching SUV's on summer tyres?".... the answer was affirmative, but expletive-laden    

They think they're invincible don't they.

The other week when it snowed it was traction control that stopped me getting up the hill. Can't turn it off on the focus.

[BahnStormer]

and they're not bad in the snow either... I pulled over for a selfie just after scooching past a Range Rover that was being winched out of a ditch... I stopped to check everybody was okay and confirmed with the rescue truck: "Busy day winching SUV's on summer tyres?".... the answer was affirmative, but expletive-laden    

They think they're invincible don't they.

The other week when it snowed it was traction control that stopped me getting up the hill. Can't turn it off on the focus.

The only wheel-spin I had y'day was intentional.... power over-steer on command in a stock 1ZZ

[1979scotte]

and they're not bad in the snow either... I pulled over for a selfie just after scooching past a Range Rover that was being winched out of a ditch... I stopped to check everybody was okay and confirmed with the rescue truck: "Busy day winching SUV's on summer tyres?".... the answer was affirmative, but expletive-laden    

They think they're invincible don't they.

The other week when it snowed it was traction control that stopped me getting up the hill. Can't turn it off on the focus.

The only wheel-spin I had y'day was intentional.... power over-steer on command in a stock 1ZZ

You showoffs with your winter tyres.

[BahnStormer]

...and to answer the original question... the only things I'd really want to change on mine now:

1) better+prettier proper quality headlights -miracle in some Elise S2/Rennen GT please!!
(the murky, crazed plastics are just an embarrassment)

2) lack of heated wing mirrors were a pain when I was dailying mine

3) about 80bhp + 80lb/ft (i.e. 2 extra cylinders or a supercharger)

[1979scotte]

...and to answer the original question... the only things I'd really want to change on mine now:


3) about 80bhp + 80lb/ft (i.e. 2 extra cylinders or a supercharger)

Why not both and an extra 140?

[BahnStormer]

...and to answer the original question... the only things I'd really want to change on mine now:


3) about 80bhp + 80lb/ft (i.e. 2 extra cylinders or a supercharger)

Why not both and an extra 140?

was trying to be sensible... if it was properly money-no-object project car, I'd love the idea of trying a 4GR-FSE (the 2.5l) with a Rotrex.... 2GR obviously the bigger block, but it would have a nice mix of low-end torque + modern engine + lightweight + serious power... would be way over 300bhp though!