Newbie Thinking About Getting Corrado

[jamzontoast 0]

hey.

 

im about to get a new car, and for a while now ive been thinking about getting a toyota mr mk2 NA.

 

but after thinking about it, and looking at my mates G60 (shilakadaddy) ive been thinking about which to get: an mr2 or a G60. and i cant make my mind up. just wondering whether anyone has had any experience with an mr2., not the tubo mind. cant afford that. any help appreciated

 

Jamz

[chrishill 0]

in my totally unbias opinion....get the g60 ;)

[Danr 0]

I used to have mk1 mr2 t-bar which my dad now has but the impraticalites of it as a main car got on my nerves afer 6 month but it was definately quicker than my g60 and handled better as well imho but id only have one as a second car.

[jamzontoast 0]

surprisingly enough all the peeps on the mr2 forum sed get the mr2....interesting.....

 

actually, one guy sed get the G60 and a couple told me to get the VR6...(but i cant afford one of those bad boys :lol: )

[CazzaVR 0]

Get the G60. Not worth getting the MR2 unless you go for a turbo imho. G60 is rarer, superb tuning potential and you'll never be accused of being a hairdresser :wink: :lol:

[jamzontoast 0]

i like the fact the G60 is quite and i love the looks. very ... brutish. :D

 

and the tuning potential is a good point....

 

its just the way the mr2 and G60 are completely different cars.

 

the up points of the mr2 is that its RWD and mid engined.....but there are a lot of em about...i suppose it may be more reliable too (no offense)

 

a few people told me that the 2 is faster. its 7.2 0-60mph. with 154bhp standard...whats 0-60of the G60?

 

hmm... *ponders*

[g60_Pete 0]

the mr2 is just boring to drive aswell ;)

i just got a g60. its rocks people loko at the car and you can see it ont heir faces "wtf is THAT" also amusing people try and smoke you in a 1.0 205 too ;)

[CazzaVR 0]

The MR2 has a faster 0-60mph on paper.

 

This is mainly due to the G60's ratios- you can't get to 60mph in second. In gear, and through the gears I would think that the G60 is considerably quicker due to having a fair bit more torque.

 

Get it chipped and pulleyed, and it would be in a different league to the MR2.

[g60_Pete 0]

really? im sure the 2.0 16v mr2 on papaer was only 9.5 0-60... certainly feels that slow when i drove one..

meh still a big hair dresser car. doesnt have a filthy charger whining under the bonnet now does it? plus how annyoing would it be trying to service it yourself? climing into the enginebay silly mid engined car!

[Walesy 0]

the mr2 is just boring to drive aswell

 

i disagree....i had a mr2 before my corrado...and it wasnt half the car that a raddo is dont get me wrong!!!!....but......it was a real good laugh to drive....mid engined rear wheel drive is fun.......just hasnt got the refinement of a corrado...

[Danr 0]

The mk2 mr2 wasnt a patch on the mk1 to drive and u can always get a superchrged mr2 if its the noise your after might take a while to find one though lol. But they are totally different cars ones a 2 seater sports car and the other is 4 seater coupe i could understad a decison between a celica and rado and id say g60 every time unles it was gt4 celica.

[Walesy 0]

yeah mine was a mk1...not the charged one though...i bet thats fun!!!...only imports though me thinks???

 

overall its gotta be a raddo every time!! at the end of the day the mr2 is gonna get u branded a hairdresser no matter what u do to it :-P

[Kevin Bacon 5]

I agree with PeteJ, MR2s are boring to drive, especially the MK2. The only one that has anything remotely interesting to offer by way of driver involvement is the current MK3 MR2, but it looks sh1t and girly....but dynamically it p1sses all over the previous models.

 

The MK1 looks ancient now and never looked particularly good when new either. Styling wise, the MK2 is spot on, a great looking car.

 

And why do people automatically think RWD or Mid engine, or both equals great handling? In the MK2's case it doesn't.

 

I'm not a fan of the G60 engine, but I'd still take it over any of the 3 MR2s!

[Walesy 0]

And why do people automatically think RWD or Mid engine, or both equals great handling? In the MK2's case it doesn't.

 

i dunno....mine handled like a go-kart....like said before the cars arent really comparable...it didnt handle anything like the raddo....totaly different....but i wouldnt describe the handling as "boring" ...try driving a corsa or a fiesta or sumthin....they :) 're borin!!!

[bcstudent 0]

I spent a fair amount of time behind the 'wheel of my mate's G-plate, 34k mile, Mk.1 MR2. From what I can remember of it, it was slow, uninspiring and didn't handle particularly well - especially in the wet. It was complete arse and a waste of good fuel. I have no experience of the G60 what-so-ever so can't comment on them.

[jamzontoast 0]

im sure the 2.0 16v mr2 on papaer was only 9.5 0-60...

 

the early mk2's are 7.2 0-60 (154bhp), the later more powerful mk2's are 7.7 0-60. (173bhp) even though there more powerful they didnt have toyota TVIS system. there was also an early mk2 with only 119bhp, that may be the one u drove :S

 

anyhow, cheers for the replies. stil cant decide, but i think the corrado is ahead, mainly cos my mate has one, and it be cool (or a bit sad) if we had similar cars :lol:

[Kevin Bacon 5]

...try driving a corsa or a fiesta or sumthin....they :) 're borin!!!

 

LOL, yeah you're right. I think a MK2 Vectra is among the dullest cars I've ever driven!

[g60_Pete 0]

i dunno drove a fair few mk2's look alot better than the mk1 but less fun.

depends if your familiar with rwd or not, i know if i jumped into a rwd car after not driving one everday i'd probably end up chucking it into a hedge

[CazzaVR 0]

It was the 119 BHP model that was 9.5 0-60mph.

 

What was the turbo? Sub-6 seconds?

[g60_Pete 0]

fast enough, well over 200bhp in standard trim. i tihnk about 5.5 ish dunno

man i love your avatar. fruity strom trooper. sod mr2 get a speeder bike or an imperial star destroyer. thats where its at these days

[jamzontoast 0]

early mk2 mr2 turbos are 5.7 and later ones are 5.2.

 

although that might be the wrong way round.

[CazzaVR 0]

man i love your avatar. fruity strom trooper. sod mr2 get a speeder bike or an imperial star destroyer. thats where its at these days

 

Thanks! :lol: Would have to be the Falcon :wink: 8)

[Shilakadaddy 0]

with your hair... I'd say get the mr2... or get a hair cut and then your allowed to get a Corrado :wink: :lol:

 

seriously tho.. munkay is the guy to ask for this one... he used to have a G60, and now has a mr2 turbo - not really a fair comparisson, but he may be able to offer a better insight than the rest of us :)

[Phil K 0]

The real question is do you want hairdresser or future classic?

 

If you're planning to modify the new car or want to play with the engine then the G60 will give you more potential than the normally aspirated 2.0 MR2... I considered going for a MR before I got the C but in the end I decided that German bomb proof design far out weighed the potential of a hairdresser rice rocket 8)

[coolrado 0]

i went from a G reg mk1 mr2 t-bar to the g60 and have never looked back

the mr2 was only any good in the summer and was pretty damn slow really, getting the arse end out was fun to start with but the novellty soon wore off, and they eat rear tyres

when i was looking at getting the mr2 i originally wanted a mk2 na but after driving a few decided against it as they where just plain boring and felt souless to drive the mk1 was more fun to drive but rusted so quickly it was unbelievable and was very expensive to repair and i also couldnt fit much audio in it, i managed to fit in two 8" subs in though

 

i would definately go for the rado if i where you, great looks, great to drive, future classic allready collectable and rellatively cheap to maintain in comparrison to an mr2

 

oh and they had to change the name of the mr2 in france to the aw11 as mr2 sounds like sh!t in french :lol: