OT- Toyota MR-2 MK-1 experience?, how does it compare to the 914? Options

[wertygrog]

Hello, my friend has an '86 Toyota MR-2 MK-1 with the stock engine, no mods at all. Its a five speed. This car is fun to take rides in, as it handles great (IMO). Hoes does this small midengined car compare the the 2.0L 914 (w/ swaybars but otherwise stock). I like the looks and interior of the 914 better, but does it handle better?

Thanks,
Brent

[KaptKaos]

I don't have any significant seat time in one, but have driven a few and I like them. I would love to find one for a DD. Almost bought one 2 years ago, but the owner was clueless.

[okieflyr]

"Better" is always subjective to personal tastes. I've enjoyed the MK-1 and (MK-2 in turbo form) auto-xing.
The MR2 handling is "slightly" more refined out of the box, and the engines have a good reputation for reliability.

That said, because of the age of both cars, you'll face niggelling(?) issues with both, and can spend equal amounts of money on each to refine the handling to taste. But the 914 has more character and soul as a driving machine! (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/driving.gif)

Kevin(soon to be E-mod) Barnes

[Rand]

The MR2 rocks... But I like the Mark II's (1990-95).

Before I got into the 914, my plan was to get a nice MR2 MkII turbo T-top, do some minor mods, boost the PSI, get 300HP......

But then I got addicted to the 914... Largely because there are a lot less of them on the road, and I love the sleeper thing.

Bottom line: I love the MR2s. But, everything equal, I'd rather have the ultimate 914 than the ultimate MR2.

[Brett W]

The MK 2 cars have an excellent engine. They can be turbocharged and make close to 450 on the stock parts. You can also swap the 4AGE formula Atlantic motor into them for a really wild street ride. Can you say "revs to 11K"? (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif) Try that with a T4.
As far as handling they will be a refined version of the 914. If I remember right it has a strut suspension all the way around. It could be better but they are potent cars in any form of motorsports.

Tend to lack character though, but that can be changed.

[lapuwali]

I owned an '85 in the early 90s, and dated a girl that had a different '85 a few years later, and drove a couple of other Mk1s owned by friends. Most of them will require completely rebuilt suspension by this time. When the rear shocks go, the handling becomes quite scary. They're a lot more squirrely than a 914, and tend to lose the rear end a lot more easily. I tried a couple on AX courses, and thought they were OK in stock form (Stock class, so not much could be done to them), but nothing really special. The engine in the Mk1 is pretty torqueless. They're fairly heavy for their size and power (2500lbs, 115hp), and I'd expect a well set up 914 2.0 to whip one pretty easily at AX. It weighs less, and has a lot more torque, and I think the 914 handles quite a bit better.

I only drove one Mk2, a turbo, and was completely underwhelmed. Even heavier, with a really crappy shifter (even by 914 standards).

They're not bad cars, but I'd not buy another one.

[J P Stein]

My DD is a 93 Mr.2 Turbo.
Performance is adaquate. At 130k miles, the only parts that have replaced are one rear wheel bearing and both front calipers. Cam belts @ 72K was maintainance. Everything works, all the time. I think the O2 sensor is shot, tho. The 93 & newer are the ones to have. The earlier MkII had some interesting handling issues that were fixed in the later cars.

It is *not* a good AXer in the rain
I'll have to AX it in the dry some time.....if the shitbox would ever break. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)

[jhadler]

Having driven a prety well prepared one in the past, The MKI MR-2 can be a wicked fun car to autox if you invest the coin to make it work right. In stock form, even with everything is good working order, they can be fun, but squirley cars. Agile to be sure.

The interior I feel is a bit cramped, but some people really go for the fighter cockpit feel.

The motor is bulletproof. And with a few mods can make some really decent power. The torque is another matter. It's a free revving 1.6L, torque is not it's strong suit. And, the car is heavy. Like 2600 lbs.

All in all, if I had to pick one, I'd take the 914. A better history, better support (914Club), and better looking to boot... :-)

Then again, I think we're all a little biased here...

-Josh2

[Root_Werks]

I had one for about a year and sold it to my brother. Still runs great, hardly any troubles. Out of the box, a better car than a 914-4 2.0, but a 914 can be built to a better car. I would rather drive a MK-1 daily though. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/driving.gif) I think of the MR2 as more of a rear engine car than a mid engine car.

[jhadler]

QUOTE (Root_Werks @ Nov 30 2005, 10:51 AM)

I had one for about a year and sold it to my brother. Still runs great, hardly any troubles. Out of the box, a better car than a 914-4 2.0, but a 914 can be built to a better car. I would rather drive a MK-1 daily though. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/driving.gif) I think of the MR2 as more of a rear engine car than a mid engine car.

Well put. The MR-2's are all transverese mounted engines, and as such have a predominant rear-weight bias that is closer to that of a 911 than a 914...

-Josh2

[Andyrew]

How strong are the trani's? (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif)


Interesting possiblility for a daily driver....

*goes on ebay*

Hmm