Buying advice

[kendoskeg]

Evening all.

I am hoping to get back into the MR2 fold soon. I have a good budget (max £3000) to spend and need some buying advice.

How much would I look to pay for a decent, relatively low mileage Rev4 or Rev5 N/A?

Would I be able to get a turbo for the same amount of money?

Or in your opinions should I just go for something totally different? GTS Skyline or Impreza or something along those lines?

I appreciate any advice!

[jasongtr]

you can buy a turbo but expect to pay more on top sorting a few things out

[Gullzter]

At 3k your looking at a rev3 turbo that might or might not need a few things depending on when you go for it, this time of the year seems to be a good time to buy one.

[jasongtr]

also like any other single make forum i doubt you will get a huge response about other cars although a few might pitch in

[MR2 Rich]

Don't think you'll get a skyline for 3k? Depends if you want to keep standard, as the Turbo 2000 Imprezas are hard to tune, but the import STI's are a lot easier, and quicker to start with. Rev3 turbo for 3k is a good amount, finding a good one will take a bit of time though.

[Tedtiler]

Skyline needs shares in bp, imprezas silly cheap these days, you'd get a real good one for 3k. And you can use it in the wet.

A rev3 turbo mr2 with no rust is a great choice too but find one with clutch /turbo and timing belt already done.

[Marmalade]

To give you a very recent example, I too have rejoined the MR2 fold after quite a few years away.

Three weeks ago I bought a '94 Rev 3 GT Turbo for £1,900 after a bit of haggling and I am spending about another £800 sorting a few things and a full cambelt service + water pump and altenator belt.

[kendoskeg]

Was looking at a Skyline GTS, plenty about for under 3k but none good enough so those are ruled out.

Insurance on Imprezas is absolutely disgraceful, 3 times as much as my last MR2 so there's no way I'll be bothering with them.

For some bizarre reason an FTO would be £120 a month, more than big twin turbo monsters, very strange. But that's them ruled out.

I was thinking TT or 3 series coupe, but they just don't excite me enough.

How about a Supra non turbo, found a few reasonably priced and in pretty good nick, as we are a Toyota forum has anybody any experience of a Supra?

I am finding myself being drawn closer to getting another MR2 though!

[kendoskeg]

Thanks for the advice so far as well guys, appreciate it

[RikH77]

Good looking white rev3 with toms kit on here

[KarlBristol]

Just spotted this on eBay and thought that it might interest you (it's nothing to do with me I might add)


http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TOYOTA-MR2-GT ... 417737382a

Seems like a healthy rev3 tubby at a reasonable price

[trackdayturbo]

For that money I would be looking for a decent turbo. 20 year old plus cars have lower insurance as they are treated as classics by some insurance companies. I bought a rev 1 turbo for £750 and it had 8 months tax! £200 / year for insurance. I previously had an n/a and I prefer the power of the turbo but both are great. For the money you want to pay, you should be able to find a well looked after, rust free car which you could really enjoy.

[kendoskeg]

Thanks Rik, Pm'd the guy 5 minutes ago, yeah I was looking at that one too Karl got it saved in my watch list, looks really really good.

What are Turbos like for running costs, obviously lots more to go round but is there an absolutely massive difference in fuel consumption (if driven in the same style etc)?

Cheers

[trackdayturbo]

My turbo is better on fuel than the n/a if driven like any other day to day car. 30 mpg plus. If driven quickly on A and B roads at similar speeds to the n/a, the turbo is about the same, low 20's mpg. I think this is because you don't have to rev the turbo as high. In the n/a I would rev to 7200 rpm but in the turbo 6000 is sufficient to get the most out of it. On track however, both drop to about 10 mpg, so I wouldn't worry too much about the running costs. Hope this helps.

[Gullzter]

My turbo is better on fuel than the n/a if driven like any other day to day car. 30 mpg plus. If driven quickly on A and B roads at similar speeds to the n/a, the turbo is about the same, low 20's mpg. I think this is because you don't have to rev the turbo as high. In the n/a I would rev to 7200 rpm but in the turbo 6000 is sufficient to get the most out of it. On track however, both drop to about 10 mpg, so I wouldn't worry too much about the running costs. Hope this helps.

The running costs are decent for a tubby but we just had 2 turbos and a beams n/a out at the weekend, turbos on a-b roads use twice the amount of fuel as the n/a.
Its probably as good as n/a's as long as not on boost but as soon as the turbo kicks in it drinks petrol, so i dont see how the theory about a n/a revving higher using more petrol than a turbo on boost at slightly lower revs could be true?

[kendoskeg]

So basically as I thought, drive it like I stole it and the fuel consumption will really vary between na and turbo, but drive it sensibly around town and should be relatively similar?

Speaking of turbos, does anyone know this car?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331017486960? ... 1423.l2649

Seems very cheap for a low miler???

[trackdayturbo]

My turbo is better on fuel than the n/a if driven like any other day to day car. 30 mpg plus. If driven quickly on A and B roads at similar speeds to the n/a, the turbo is about the same, low 20's mpg. I think this is because you don't have to rev the turbo as high. In the n/a I would rev to 7200 rpm but in the turbo 6000 is sufficient to get the most out of it. On track however, both drop to about 10 mpg, so I wouldn't worry too much about the running costs. Hope this helps.

The running costs are decent for a tubby but we just had 2 turbos and a beams n/a out at the weekend, turbos on a-b roads use twice the amount of fuel as the n/a.
Its probably as good as n/a's as long as not on boost but as soon as the turbo kicks in it drinks petrol, so i dont see how the theory about a n/a revving higher using more petrol than a turbo on boost at slightly lower revs could be true?

I said at similar speeds to the n/a. Even if you drive the turbo on full boost as much as you can it won't use twice as much fuel as this would take in down to 10 to 12 mpg. Even on track where you drive much quicker than on road it will be about this.
This is my experience and was different to yours but you will are one of those types that picks holes in everything and mainly why I avoid forums.

[Gullzter]

So basically as I thought, drive it like I stole it and the fuel consumption will really vary between na and turbo, but drive it sensibly around town and should be relatively similar?

Speaking of turbos, does anyone know this car?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331017486960? ... 1423.l2649

Seems very cheap for a low miler???

Exactly, I use mines at weekends mainly so i can live with the turbo. Drive it normal and it shouldnt vary much. Also insurance will be a bit more for a turbo than n/a.

Never seen that, seems a decent price!

[Gullzter]

My turbo is better on fuel than the n/a if driven like any other day to day car. 30 mpg plus. If driven quickly on A and B roads at similar speeds to the n/a, the turbo is about the same, low 20's mpg. I think this is because you don't have to rev the turbo as high. In the n/a I would rev to 7200 rpm but in the turbo 6000 is sufficient to get the most out of it. On track however, both drop to about 10 mpg, so I wouldn't worry too much about the running costs. Hope this helps.

The running costs are decent for a tubby but we just had 2 turbos and a beams n/a out at the weekend, turbos on a-b roads use twice the amount of fuel as the n/a.
Its probably as good as n/a's as long as not on boost but as soon as the turbo kicks in it drinks petrol, so i dont see how the theory about a n/a revving higher using more petrol than a turbo on boost at slightly lower revs could be true?

I said at similar speeds to the n/a. Even if you drive the turbo on full boost as much as you can it won't use twice as much fuel as this would take in down to 10 to 12 mpg. Even on track where you drive much quicker than on road it will be about this.
This is my experience and was different to yours but you will are one of those types that picks holes in everything and mainly why I avoid forums.

We all started with full tanks and were all driving approx same speed as we went a 200mile drive following one another and close to the end the n/a had over half a tank, 1 tubby had well below quarter and 1 had to get some more petrol put in to get home so yes it can easily take alot more than n/a's at same speed when turbo is on boost.

[synXero]

I was out on the drive with Gullzter keeping up with the two turbos in a Beams N/A rev5. Both Gullz and glen n (also on here) used approx. twice as much fuel as me, glen n a bit less I think.

Beams ftw!