General Comments:
I bought my 1991 MR2 (2.2NA: non-turbo) in 1996 with 30,000 original miles. It now has 211,708. It is by far the most reliable and fun car I have ever owned. And I'm 50.
I drive a lot of twisty-windy two-lane highways for work. The MR2 is absolutely ideal for one person with a computer bag and overnight luggage. Fast and furious. It's O.K. for two people if they don't need to carry anything in the passenger compartment.
In 180,000 miles worth of driving, the extremely few repairs are amazing (and I don't treat my MR2 gently). I replaced valve guides at 168,000, since it was blowing a little smoke at start-up after sitting overnight. I also had all wheel bearings and seals replaced as a precaution. I replaced the factory stereo and separate CD with a seven-speaker Nakamichi/Infinity/Bazooka setup only because I wanted to, not because it needed it. The original Toyota plastic radiator finally leaked at 180,000. I replaced it with a metal radiator out of a Buick Riviera. That's it. No other repairs. Just normal oil-plugs-belts-brakes-tires-clutch maintenance. It even still has perfect original factory paint - and I live in Phoenix and have parked the car outside most of its life.
I own an 11-year-old MR2 with over 200,000 on it. People at gas stations ask where they can get one. It has a timeless style. It looks more "today" than most 2002 offerings from any manufacturer. The fact that there are not many MR2's around just makes it that much more exclusive to own one. It's a great ego boost.
And you can find one for less than $10,000 in perfect condition with less than 75,000 miles. The only drawback is the cost of insurance. It's a two-seater mid-engined car. I have no tickets or accidents in 16 years, but my Pathfinder is much, much cheaper to insure. But the insurance costs are more than offset by the low maintenance costs.
Great, great car.
2nd Nov 2010, 12:01
My friend has a GSX and it feels cheap compared to the MR2. I'd rather stick to the MR2. Quality always comes first.