Help me decide on a new car!!

[Niall]

I don't share the same opinion as piggy at all. Personally they do look a bit girly for my liking but I know from the reputation they have that they are a very capable car.
Seeing as you seem to have a blatant problem with this forum of late, either stop moaning about it every 5 minutes or PM me.

[Piggy]

Didnt mean to start an argument. I just think they look too girly for a guy to own one. Too midlife crisis buy too.

The ones I have driven were all too soft and lacking for my liking, just my opinion. I know the newer one has vastly improved mind.

[Kezzieboy]

Although you're a moany bastard, I agree with almost everything you say, Curt. I think the issue probably arises on every forum though, in that people tend to be quite precious about their cars. I'm happy to admit mine is pretty shit in the grand scheme of things, it's just that there's nothing that'll give me 70+mpg and 125bhp, and handle so well for the same money.

I shall be taking you advice in the immediate future, now that I have DOC on my insurance, and be test driving anything and everything I can get my hands on. MX-5 is probably top of the list at the moment, but also looking at Saab 900 turbos, and various other classics to run as a project/second car.


On topic, in terms of bang for buck, it's hard to look past an MX-5 really, they're so cheap and get SUCH good reviews from literally everyone (except Piggy ) that it seems like one of those cars you just have to own at some point in your life.

All I know about S2000s is their propensity towards snap oversteer, and killing people.

Dad has an E46 330d touring, with a remap, the way it pulls past illegal speeds is bonkers, but you're in license losing territory so fast that I'm not sure I'd want one. Also, it's not very economical, he's never even got close to 50MPG, but I suppose that can be forgiven given that it has circa 200bhp and 400lbft IIRC.

Never been in an Audi of any sort as far as I remember, so can't comment on that one, but they just don't do it for me. The 2.0 turbo lump seems pretty win though.

[DavidA]

Every car is likely to have a stereotype of some type attached to it - BMW drivers being arrogant tw*ts for example - but it doesn't mean that it's true and it's all down to your own personal perception.

I've had an MGTF which is a small convertible like the MX5 but I never felt inferior driving one. I've also had a BMW but didn't drive it like I owned the road...

The only Audi A4 I've been in was an RS4 in Germany and that was seriously rapid but would be wasted over here.

If rules are made to be broken then so are stereotypes.

[jammapic]

Compared to thr S2000 its just too floppy, too soft, too much chassis flex. Ive seen a lot of older mx5s with glass stress damage on the windscreen due to the whole chassis flopping round for years.

My god, you are talking the biggest load of bollocks I've ever heard on this forum... and that's saying something.

You don't like the car, we get it. Just stop throwing things out their like they're "facts" when they are purely your opinion. Floppy? That just proves to me you have absolutely no clue.

Also, no Niall, I don't need to lighten up. I'm just sick of stereotypes of all kinds, not just because I have one. I know you share Piggy's opinion of them, I was simply stating that stereotypes are completely pointless. If you won't drive a car because of what people may think of you, it's ridiculous.

The OP wants opinions of cars he may be interested in, so obviously just stating why you don't personally like that car, is pointless.

Rant over.

Callum, get yourself onto MX5Nutz if you are interested enough, and see if you can blag a passenger seat in a turbo/SC'd Eunos/MX-5. It may just make your mind up. After being in Fozzy's it just puts a constant smile on your face, and for me, what more could you want from a fun car? It makes me sad I had to stop building mine.

I agree with what's been said about it being a second car though... I drove one daily and I can't recommend it massively. Great fun, but can get tiresome.

Piggy - sometimes I just have this imagine of you as a little girl stamping her feet trying to get her point across.

MX-5 is floppy and underpowered. Right. Yeah.

We have a MK1 Eunos 1.8, on coilovers and wheels (that's it!) which my missus uses daily, she loves it. Despite the stiff suspension she has no issues with it, oh and it will outhandle my 306 on pretty much every single road there is. With the only exception being a full on race track / Nurburgring.

Stock MX5 vs £2500 worth of 306 suspension upgrades and the stock mx-5 is easily on par.

Underpowered, yeah ok. It'll sit on the back bumper of my mates Clio 172 and Leon Cupra TDi (mapped, running 190hp) no problem. Sure, it hasn't got enough to get by. But it's only 130hp!!

I am currently building a supercharged setup for it, and I feel that it's so good as it is, the brakes / suspension / drivetrain do not need upgrading AT ALL, to take the next 50hp I'll throw at it.

I love my 306, don't get me wrong. However, they are not the greatest thing on the road and there are other cars that are much better.

Girly? That's just said by people who haven't had / owned / driven one properly. I have to admit, that used to be my opinion. Then we got ours and after taking it for a long drive my opinion completely changed... Even with the pink tow strap and hello kitty on it (her choice, not mine) I don't mind driving it about. I get people saying "lovely car mate" all the time.

Back to the OP's question...

My choice would be BMW 330d Estate, mapped, nice wheels and used as a cruiser. But, I am an old man.

JP

[THE_Liam]

but also looking at Saab 900 turbos, and various other classics to run as a project/second car.

This is an epic idea. The classic shape pre-GM 900 is one of the best cars I've ever driven. Epic build quality, lovely interior, really airy with loads of glass, quirky and interesting, and proper old-skool turbo, as in nothing, nothing, nothing..... ALL THE BOOST!!!

Great cars, the baulky gearbox and steering that doesn't self-centre take some getting used to though.

[Dum-Dum]

You can't really compare an MX5 and an S2000, completely different leagues. An MX5 is a small engined, economical, soft top sunday driver. An S2000 is an all out powerhouse that is extremely quick and thirsty. You can't compare the two bar the fact they're both 2 seater convertibles.

Yeah definitely in different leagues (and for arguments sake I'm going to compare a 2l mx5 to a S2000)

The S2000 is c. £27,000 new, Front 2.0 16v engine, rear wheel drive via a 6 speed manual. 1260kg, average 28mpg, 240bhp, 0-60 in 6.0 seconds, 150mph top speed
The MX5 is c. £20,000 new, Front 2.0 16v engine, rear wheel drive via a 6 speed manual. 1132kg, average 36mpg, 156bhp, 0-60 in 7.6 seconds, 136mph top speed

They are also similar size both inside and out.

So yeah totally different cars.


I still stand by my remarks that the MX5 would be a great car if the S2000 didnt exist and the S2000 is the car the MX5 wishes it was

[1616six]

You can't really compare an MX5 and an S2000, completely different leagues. An MX5 is a small engined, economical, soft top sunday driver. An S2000 is an all out powerhouse that is extremely quick and thirsty. You can't compare the two bar the fact they're both 2 seater convertibles.

Yeah definitely in different leagues (and for arguments sake I'm going to compare a 2l mx5 to a S2000)

The S2000 is c. £27,000 new, Front 2.0 16v engine, rear wheel drive via a 6 speed manual. 1260kg, average 28mpg, 240bhp, 0-60 in 6.0 seconds, 150mph top speed
The MX5 is c. £20,000 new, Front 2.0 16v engine, rear wheel drive via a 6 speed manual. 1132kg, average 36mpg, 156bhp, 0-60 in 7.6 seconds, 136mph top speed

They are also similar size both inside and out.

So yeah totally different cars.


I still stand by my remarks that the MX5 would be a great car if the S2000 didnt exist and the S2000 is the car the MX5 wishes it was

They maybe similar on paper but Chris you've obviously not had any real experience of the two? They are very different cars in many aspects, regardless of what you're gonna reply with.

[Dum-Dum]

I have personal experience of the S2000, I was an apprentice mechanic at Honda. The MX5 I can only go on what I'm told and the facts regarding the spec as I don't actually fit in one.

They aren't as different as you are trying to say. Its like trying to compare a Vectra VXR and a BMW M3 both very capable big 4 door saloons aimed at the same sort of market. One is good, the other is brilliant.

[Pebbles167]

Having driven an S2000 and an MX-5, I can honestly say, for the best drive the mk3 MR2 trumps them both.

[Dum-Dum]

Having driven an S2000 and an MX-5, I can honestly say, for the best drive the mk3 MR2 trumps them both.

Really? Now that surprises me. I take it the mk3 is the one that was called the MR-S?

[C.A.R.]

I used to do 45 miles a day in a mk1 mx5 and I was happy as a pig in shit. They're fantastic, but don't just read the online bullshit, go out and test drive one, if it's anything like my first test drive you will be turned.

I've looked at the A4 TDi as a next family car, but have decided that unless it's a very well kept 'Sport' spec then I'd rather keep looking for a 320d Sport. Boring I know, but I need something I won't be tempted to fiddle with and that can transport my family in comfort and take me to work happy.

[Pebbles167]

Having driven an S2000 and an MX-5, I can honestly say, for the best drive the mk3 MR2 trumps them both.

Really? Now that surprises me. I take it the mk3 is the one that was called the MR-S?

Yeah I'm serious. Its the best handling car I've ever driven. With the 2zz 190bhp lift engine from the corolla/celica it would be an absolute dream car and an elise beater.

Even standard 140bhp non lift engine is great (read up on various problems)

Try driving one, you'll be amazed.

[Dum-Dum]

Having driven an S2000 and an MX-5, I can honestly say, for the best drive the mk3 MR2 trumps them both.

Really? Now that surprises me. I take it the mk3 is the one that was called the MR-S?

Yeah I'm serious. Its the best handling car I've ever driven. With the 2zz 190bhp lift engine from the corolla/celica it would be an absolute dream car and an elise beater.

Even standard 140bhp non lift engine is great (read up on various problems)

Try driving one, you'll be amazed.

Now I know you can't be serious as my mate who has one is looking to sell it to get another elise. He's a man with good taste in cars too, his fleet is the MR-S, a mini cooper S, a 5 series touring and a series 1 land rover.

[Alan_M]

Its like trying to compare a Vectra VXR and a BMW M3 both very capable big 4 door saloons aimed at the same sort of market. One is good, the other is brilliant.

One has a good engine with a chassis made of bog roll tube and sellotape, the other is excellent in every way.

Having driven an S2000 and an MX-5, I can honestly say, for the best drive the mk3 MR2 trumps them both.

Really? Now that surprises me. I take it the mk3 is the one that was called the MR-S?

Yeah I'm serious. Its the best handling car I've ever driven. With the 2zz 190bhp lift engine from the corolla/celica it would be an absolute dream car and an elise beater.

Even standard 140bhp non lift engine is great (read up on various problems)

Try driving one, you'll be amazed.

That's quite a claim over an Elise. Probably the only realistically affordable car I'd sell my 205 for. I'm sure Anthony (powerandtorque off here) had a mk3 MR2 and whilst entertaining, it certainly wasn't up to an Elise.

[Tom]

I have just lol'd at this entire thread, lots of sound advice, but lots of choice remarks also

I think you should choose 2 of your criteria and aim for them, i cant think of much thats fits the power, comfort and fun criteria without costing big bucks Im definately wrong and theres loads but i cant think of any for the minute. I call fun something ridiculously uncomfortable that terrifies you everytime you touch a pedal, thats when i have a smile on my face...

[Toms306]

I call fun something ridiculously uncomfortable that terrifies you everytime you touch a pedal, thats when i have a smile on my face...

Complete opposite of me lol, big comfy cruiser with effortless but stable overtaking power is more my thing. But I think that's the point people seem to be missing....everyones different, everyone will have different views even on the same cars... I agree with Curt (as usual tbf...) in that Callum needs to try these cars for himself, forget the paper stats and forget other peoples views...

[jammapic]

Having driven an S2000 and an MX-5, I can honestly say, for the best drive the mk3 MR2 trumps them both.

Really? Now that surprises me. I take it the mk3 is the one that was called the MR-S?

Yeah I'm serious. Its the best handling car I've ever driven. With the 2zz 190bhp lift engine from the corolla/celica it would be an absolute dream car and an elise beater.

Even standard 140bhp non lift engine is great (read up on various problems)

Try driving one, you'll be amazed.

They are f*cking good with a 2zz in. My missus had a Mk3 when I met her, all the mods, and it was a beauty. If she hadn't bought the 350z, I'd have turbo'd it. 270hp in a car like that would be bananas!!

JP

[Pebbles167]

Really? Now that surprises me. I take it the mk3 is the one that was called the MR-S?

Yeah I'm serious. Its the best handling car I've ever driven. With the 2zz 190bhp lift engine from the corolla/celica it would be an absolute dream car and an elise beater.

Even standard 140bhp non lift engine is great (read up on various problems)

Try driving one, you'll be amazed.

They are f*cking good with a 2zz in. My missus had a Mk3 when I met her, all the mods, and it was a beauty. If she hadn't bought the 350z, I'd have turbo'd it. 270hp in a car like that would be bananas!!

JP

Glad someone else has seen them

The point about the 2zz is something others seem to have missed.

I'm not saying its better than an elise, but ive known people who prefer them. With 190bhp it might even be a close race! Remember, the Exige is the proper quick one.

[jammapic]

My missus mum (of all people) has a Corrola T-Sport, had it since new, all the toys, suede interior etc etc... but that engine - it's a peach.

6000rpm, and bang. V-tec on steroids!

[C.A.R.]

You guys are aware the Elise 190 was a 2zz engine right? Just slightly tweaked for a longer lift duration I believe.

The MR2 is a good chassis no doubt, but I couldn't live with those girly looks. It's certainly going to be a better chassis than an MX5, it's a newer design for a start. I just think I'd rather have a turbo'd MK1 MX5. Cheaper, faster and better looking!

[Pebbles167]

Yeah I'm aware of that. Earlier elises such as the 111s used a rover K series 1.8 though, with around 120bhp. The later one is quicker and I wouldn't suggest it was slower than a 2ZZ MR2 as the elise weighs less.

I'm not a massive fan of the looks of the MR2, and its massively impractical. Nearly as bad as a motorbike. Plus the standard engine is pretty sweaty and boring. For these faults id have an MX-5. But as a drivers car which delivers the most bang for buck, I'd choose the MR2 every time.