1993 Toyota MR2 GTS Turbo 2.0

Summary:

Makes the standard MR2 seem like a slow, old diesel

Faults:

Nothing.

General Comments:

I've always had fast cars (cash permitting), but this is by far the fastest for the money that I've found thus far.

I test drove a standard MR2 and thought it was quite nippy, then drove a turbo - absolutely no comparison!

It pulls hard in every gear (0-60 in 4.9 seconds), and even skips from 80mph to 100mph in 5th like it's in 3rd.

My only criticisms of it are that it eats rear tyres (but it's bound to), drinks oil, it can be tail happy, the cabin gets very hot and long drives can be painful on your back.

Other than those points and the high insurance it's a car with super car performance for mondeo money.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 7th January, 2002

27th Dec 2004, 00:00

I own a 1993 gts also, but disagree that it drinks oil. This only shows incorrect mileage on the car.

21st Jan 2005, 10:47

She was actually leaking oil. A very slight drip from the sump!

22nd Jan 2005, 11:58

I'm buying one very soon!

Was getting INS quotes for a scooby and it was £1800 and the MR2 is only £1026!

Can't wait.

17th Feb 2005, 13:24

I have a 91 MR2 GTI T bar it is very fast and could not be confused with a diesel.

9th Mar 2005, 23:51

Hmmm, still shouldn't have drunk oil though. At one stage my gts had a main rear seal leak, and I still never had to top it up between changes!

28th Jun 2006, 14:56

Mine is a group A+ with 400 hp will take on most fast cars.

1993 Toyota MR2 GT T-Bar 2.0 petrol

Summary:

Fun when you're in the mood, no fun when you're not

Faults:

Radiator and fog-light got holed by a stone due to its exposed position, cost £250 to fix the radiator (didn't bother to fix the fog-light).

Replacement radiator leaked from a joint (mended under warranty).

Rear off-side bearing went, scoring the driveshaft, £600 to fix.

Front off-side caliper was binding, £440 to fix.

Roof panel leaks where it meets the window.

The alloys are losing their surface finish and are very pitted.

The tyres only last about 12,000 miles.

General Comments:

Despite the litany of faults I still like the car, after all, it is now 8 years old but has never left me stranded (touch wood!) - all faults were found during servicing and mended when convenient for me.

During the summer it is an ideal fun car, good (though not blistering) performance, good handling in the dry (but twitchy in the wet) and, most important, a seriously loud HiFi.

It is also reasonably practical as I can fit a weeks shopping in the boot, and it is comfortable enough to do a round trip from Southampton to Edinburgh (840 miles total) without leaving me needing an osteopath.

The only downside is that it can be noisy in the cabin and it's a bit unnerving on a wet motorway when overtaking lorries as your sitting 3" off the road, down amongst the spray and crap. But hey, that's just me getting old, sports cars are supposed to be an acquired taste.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 25th April, 2001

1993 Toyota MR2 GT T-Bar 2.0

Summary:

Best value fun on the road experience

Faults:

Power steering servo failed during very cold winter.

Exhaust cat shield rusted.

New battery at 27,000 miles.

General Comments:

Ideal, all weather open top car if, like me, you don't like convertibles.

Best driving experience ever since giving up motorbikes.

Totally reliable.

Survived some seriously scary moments in the wet.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 24th April, 2001

1993 Toyota MR2 T-Bar (UK car) 2.0

Summary:

Very disappointing

Faults:

Plenty went wrong in only 1.5 years of ownership (thought Toyotas were supposed to be reliable?).

Both times it needed new pads, the discs were 'scored' (400 quid) and a seized calipper made it 700.

Rusted heat shield on the catalyst.

Holed radiator - known design flaw (radiator grille is exposed).

Last straw was leaking power steering fluid - whole new steering rack - 1100 to fix.

Servicing costs OK (small 100/big 260) but only 6,000 mile intervals.

General Comments:

Basically a deeply disappointing ownership experience.

Very expensive to insure (group 18) and run (rear tyres 150 each - and they last 5 minutes).

Didn't feel 'fast' - no torque below 4,000rpm and didn't feel safe when I drove it fast - handling always felt 'twitchy'.

Noisy and unrelaxed on motorways.

Great fun for first couple of months - then the hard ride, noise, vibrations and cramped interior become a pain.

The leather seats felt great but gave me a bad back (bad driving position?)

Awful in winter - seals in the roof and doors go so the whole thing freezes solid, (including the locks) then it freezes up again while driving as the heat from the engine is lost from the rear of the car.

Was this a dodgy import? No! One owner, full history, sourced from a main dealer (Octagon, Bracknell) always serviced/repaired at a main dealer (Coxon, Henley).

I have repaced it with a Mondeo - the Ford is SO MUCH nicer to drive (honestly), quiet, smooth, as fast, reliable.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 20th November, 2000

20th Feb 2001, 08:42

Very shocked to hear of such low reliability.

The cramped cockpit, noise, and hard ride etc are to be expected from a mid-engined sports car, they're designed like that! Sports cars are supposed to be like that because they are about driving, rather than comfort.

Your happiness with the Mondeo (a fine car for what it is designed for), suggests that maybe you are more suited to this type of car than a sports car?