mr2 2.0 vs 172

[mach10]

one of my brothers has a mr2 2.0 non turbo, the old shape, m reg. i drive it sometimes and it feels quite nippy not much different to my 172 ph1. the noise is better too, i love the 2 seats and arm rest and quick shift! but what will win in a race? knowing its rwd i dont bother do corners like id have guts to do in my clio though. personal opinions?

 

[SBV116]

I would say the clio, my mate had the same type MR2, and i had a VTS, and there was nothing in it!, VTS was fairly modded though, cams etc!

 

[JR]

A Non turbo 2 did not stand well with me the other night.

 

[mach10]

ah so its just the noise that makes me think im fast :rasp: nice to drive though

 

[benhwolves]

they are quick and i'd guess very little in it

 

[bass_direct]

that's my old one ^^

they're definately slower than a 172.. they are about level with a valver. not far from a 172 defo a little bit slower.. they do sound nice though, with a little vvti kick at 5.5k

 

[mach10]

that's my old one ^^

they're definately slower than a 172.. they are about level with a valver. not far from a 172 defo a little bit slower.. they do sound nice though, with a little vvti kick at 5.5k

indeed, im driving a red one today lol was blastin through a tunnel :star:

 

[FlameR]

I would say the clio, my mate had the same type MR2, and i had a VTS, and there was nothing in it!, VTS was fairly modded though, cams etc!

I would have thought a vts with cams and breather mods would be slightly quicker than a 172?

 

[Eckascliovalver]

my mate had a rev 3 mr2 at 187bhp and that was a dead match with my old valver , i think the 172 might just edge it providing its not shagged

 

[superbenji88]

i beat a new shape celica 1.8 vvti in my 1.6 rsi

 

[The Seer]

I had a N/A 2.0 GTi a fair few years back. I wouldn't say it's quite as quick as my 182 Cup, not too far off though.

Grip and balance was pretty good when I opted for Koni dampers. Tended to swap ends when right at the limit before the upgrade. Grip and traction was good otherwise, but my friend's 205 1.9 GTi used to obliterate it in the corners.

I'd say there closer to being a rear engined car than mid-engined. Would never bother with a turbo version, unwanted torque mid corner....:S.

 

[Gaz_]

I would say the clio, my mate had the same type MR2, and i had a VTS, and there was nothing in it!, VTS was fairly modded though, cams etc!

I would have thought a vts with cams and breather mods would be slightly quicker than a 172?

Only a dick hair slower than my 172 cup. Maybe quicker than a FF

 

[SBV116]

I would say the clio, my mate had the same type MR2, and i had a VTS, and there was nothing in it!, VTS was fairly modded though, cams etc!

I would have thought a vts with cams and breather mods would be slightly quicker than a 172?

Not really! 120BHP as standard, so you need a lot of mods to get a lot out of them! it was quick enough, and more importantly it spat flames!

 

[Gaz_]

wasn't far off though kev........!

 

[SBV116]

Dimelows was the one in question! nothing in it off the jockey roundabout into town! Hence he went and traded the MR2 for a VTS!

 

[Gaz_]

You'd have owned that after a ton anyway, jap import with a limiter iirc?!!!

 

[SBV116]

I think it did actually! Was a hairdressers car anyway!

 

[Toypop]

My mate had one of the later Mk2 MR2's - the one with just over 170bhp. I read a review that said it wasn't as good as the earlier 150ish hp models and I'd have to agree with what they said about the engine. The powerband is very narrow, it seems gutless until you get a kick at the end like you do with the 172/182. However where as you get about 2500rpm of post-kick power on the 1*2 you only seemed to get about 1000rpm on the MR2. I think Toyota changed the cams or something to get the extra 20hp but in the process totally screwed up the motor.

It was also carrying a few hundred kg's over the Clio so it definitely felt slower. I took my mate out in the Vectra SRi 150 that I had about 5 years ago and he even admitted that it felt as quick as his MR2 even though he hates Vauxhalls. For my money the Vectra always felt quicker as the mid range was just huge compared to the MR2.

The handling of the MR2 must be pretty crap because he spun it loads of times on roundabouts whilst we were quite comfortably sitting behind him in family saloons! I know someone else that spun one and they claimed they weren't exactly pushing it. Indeed more people seem to spin those old MR2's than they do the far more powerful S2000.

So I'd have to say 172 FTW. It is quicker on all the 0-100 and quarter mile figures I have seen so that confirms what I experienced. If you do a rolling start at 100 though I doubt you will see much in it.

The MR2 does look good in a pub carpark. He also totally abused it for years, ran it on a shoe string budget with a total lack of maintenance and yet it never let him down. Obviously reliable cars.

 

[bass_direct]

I found mine handled pretty good, it was on aftermarket suspension though and had eagle f1's all round...

All the imports were 168bhp regardless of year..

the UK ones were 152, and 168bhp for the later ones, something like that apparantly