2001 Toyota MR2 Roadster from UK and Ireland - Comments

None really, the roof on the passenger side has a slight problem, but that was probbaly me as I could not wait to get it down on a sunny day, should have read the manual.

Fantastic car, cheap to run, good build quality, useless as a family car, but who cares, its great as a second fun car.

Handles so well, and is a delight to drive, looks good too.

Much better dynamics than MX-5/MGF competition, have been told these are cars for hairdressers.

MR2 is a real drivers car, only the Elise is better.

So, what you are saying in essence is the MX-5 and MG-F are hairdressers cars and the MR2 somehow isn't. Can you back this up with anything resembling hard evidence?

And the MR2 ISN'T better dynamically than the MX-5. Truth is, they're much of a muchness. Both among the best handling cars on the road, and both capable of embarassing far more powerful machinery on twisty lanes. Having driven both cars (but not an MG-F so no comment there), my objective comments relative to each other would be:

MR2: A tad more grunt (8/10 quicker to 60), carries amazing corner speeds, better (awesome) brakes, looks better (imho)

MX-5 (1.8iS) : Sounds better (imho), slicker gearbox, more exploitable and controllable at the limit, sharper and better feeling steering.

In truth there's very little in it - both absolutely cracking cars. The hairdresser joke is akin to the Skoda joke incidentally. Total nonsense, 10 years out of date, and most often heard from people who rate pub banter over genuine experience. Mine's based on three hours with each car, plus 10,000 subsequent miles in an MX-5. It was a damn hard choice though.

Agree with the comment above - anyone who thinks an MR2 is a better handling car than the MX-5, or that the MX-5 is somehow dated dynamically is living in a dream world:

I quote What Car?: "More important, though, is that the MR2 fails to excite a driver like an MX-5 does. It's more expensive, too."

What would What Car know? OK, how about Autocar on the MX-5.

"Dynamically, everything from the gearbox to the steering is straight out of the top drawer: it's a Ferrari in miniature... Above all else it is the car's ability to involve the driver intimately in its every response that makes it a joy to drive. Few others, at any price, can offer so much. "

Or Auto Express:

"Its appeal has remained largely intact despite ever-growing competition, a result of Mazda keeping the formula simple, and providing a class leading driving experience. Add in a gearshift that's one of the best you're ever likely to experience, direct, communicative steering and tidy handling and its difficult not to be bowled over by the MX-5's abilities. Basic, functional and more practical than the majority of its intended competition, Mazda's current MX-5 remains the original modern roadster and also the best."

Dated...hairdresser car... get real.

Who cares if people call it a hairdresser's car? I own a mark 2 MR2 and I much prefer it's looks to the MX-5. Having not driven the MX-5 I can't compare how it drives. Handling-wise the MR2 is a split-personality for me, simply excellent in the dry, but rather wayward in the wet. Would like to test drive an MX-5 as it seems like a nice tight car to drive.

The MR2 and the MX-5 are quite different cars, they have one huge difference that affects handling greatly,- the engines are in different places. The MR2 is mid engined which everybody knows makes handling and cornering infinitely better than in a front engined car. Almost all thorough bred sport cars are mid engined for this reason. The MR2 really is much more fun to drive as its mid engined, and has very good breaks. In fact it takes 1 foot further to stop than a porsche boxter going from 60 mph to 0. Unfortunately the roadsters do have hairdressers reputations, however the MR2 with its history and mean looks is widely regarded as the least hairdresser like of the bunch. The top on the MR2 also has big advantages over the MX-5 and the MG TF in that it can be easily raised and lowered whilst in the car, it has no zips, poppers, velcro, it just folds back and clicks into place, and the release handle is positioned for easy reach. Another huge advantage is the fact that the MR2 has a glass rear window, with demisters which is rare in convertibles, this means not only is the car safer and more secure than the MX-5 / MG TF with there flimsy plastic screens, but you can actually see out of it on cold wet days. In short the MR2 is the best drivers car you'll get without buying a lotus Elise or a Boxter. The MR2 is 95% the fun of a Boxter and a third of the price.

The comment above betrays a staggering lack of knowledge.

"The MR2 is mid engined which everybody knows makes handling and cornering infinitely better than in a front engined car. Almost all thorough bred sport cars are mid engined for this reason."

Rubbish. A mid-engined layout makes it theoretically easier for designers to give a car a more even front to rear weight distribution. In addition to this, not having the engine up front allows for a lower "bonnet" and therefore gives the styling team more options. A 50/50 weight distribution is not the preserve of mid-engined cars however, and it can be achieved with a front engined car using careful design. The BMW 3-series manages it, as does the MX-5, Porsche 968 (the Club Sport model being widely regarded as one of the finest handling cars ever made), the Ferrari 550 Maranello, Caterham 7, original Lotus Elan - need I go on?. It is not "infinitely better". I doubt any keen driver on the planet who has driven any of the cars listed would rate anything else (mid-engined or otherwise) as infinitely better.

"The MR2 really is much more fun to drive as its mid engined, and has very good breaks. In fact it takes 1 foot further to stop than a porsche boxter going from 60 mph to 0. Unfortunately the roadsters do have hairdressers reputations, however the MR2 with its history and mean looks is widely regarded as the least hairdresser like of the bunch."

Is it? By whom? Again, your comment that it is better to drive because it is mid engined is nonsense, and can be disproved by looking through any handling competition in history where front engined, rear drivers are always well up there.

"The top on the MR2 also has big advantages over the MX-5 and the MG TF in that it can be easily raised and lowered whilst in the car, it has no zips, poppers, velcro, it just folds back and clicks into place, and the release handle is positioned for easy reach. Another huge advantage is the fact that the MR2 has a glass rear window, with demisters which is rare in convertibles, this means not only is the car safer and more secure than the MX-5 / MG TF with there flimsy plastic screens, but you can actually see out of it on cold wet days."

Again, nonsense. The MX-5 has had a glass rear screen since 1997, and the hood can be raised and lowered without a zip, popper or bit of velcro in sight. Perhaps you could also explain how, even if the MR2 did have these "advantages to itself (which it doesn't), it is safer or more secure? What good is a bit of glass in security terms when mounted in a mohair/canvas roof that can be opened with a Stanley knife in 10 seconds flat.

If you're going to make comments like this, at least do your research first. The MR2 is a great car, but to claim it is somehow superior for being mid-engined is misleading and in my opinion plain inaccurate.