8 replies to this topic

[speedyK]

The August issue of "Sport Auto" has performed a comparison between the Opel Speedster N/A and the Toyota MR2.

They rated them in 6 areas, each with a maximum of 10 points:

Hockenheim lap time, small track:
N/A 1.19,5min = 5 points
MR2 1.23,8min = 2 points

Slalom (18 m):
N/A 67.2kmh = 8 points
MR2 62.1kmh = 3 points

0-100km/h:
N/A 6.7s = 5 points
MR2 8.8s = 3 points

100-0km/h:
N/A 34.6m = 9 points
MR2 36.4m = 7 points

Power/weight:
N/A 6.0kg/bhp = 5 points
MR2 7.4kg/bhp = 2 points

Price/power:
N/A 220 Euro/bhp = 7 points
MR2 189 Euro/bhp = 8 points

Total N/A = 39:D
Total MR2 = 25

Summary:
Can an Opel Speedster justify its existence? It costs nearly 35,000 Euro, offers no comforts whatsoever and is anything but a practical everyday car.
On the other hand, it offers an unsullied driving experience, quasi unplugged. Thanks to the low weight, the torquey fourcylinder from Vectra & Co. delivers good performance with reasonable consumption – it doesn't necessarily have to be the turbo.

With the setup of the Speedster, followers of the fun-generation can cope even if they haven't grown up with spinning 911's. The limit can only be reached on public roads through stupidity or after alcohol consumption.

That applies just as much for the Toyota MR2 . In addition the japanese car is less irritating, in the morning when you have to go to the baker and newspaper kiosk. You can also get in effortlessly when the hood is up. In other ways too it seems far more prepared to compromise than the Opel – but exactly because of this, also more boring. On the theme of the half-automatic SMT transmission, only this: leave it out, then in this case the restrictive VSC is left out too. But even with manual gearchange the MR2 couldn't offer the addictive potential that the Speedster does.

On the positive side are low consumption, lively motor and effective brakes. Nevertheless, the MR2 can't win this comparison, because the Speedster – as "Sport-Auto"-car leaves a more positive impression. Even though it has the bigger boot.

[Dan G]

There is no contest...having driven an MR2 new and old they are just like driving a normal sporty drop top...but the VX is in a whole new ball park!

[Mike9009]

I used to own a Mk1 MR2 until five weeks ago. I would never slate that car but there is no point in comparing the two cars ( even the mk3 MR2) with a VX. The MR2 has always been driver orientated but has never offered outstanding straight line performance. Even the mk1 supercharged model (not offered in the UK as standard) could not compete with the stripped out standard VX. Each car has their own market ... It is not even worth a comparison in performance/ handling stakes. All IMHO. Mike

[Dave]

MR2 = A Bus VX = Sports Car Nothing else to say

[Vespillo]

lol

[Purebob]

Its an unfair test. the Mr2 is a smashing roadster, and a much better ownership proposition than the VX but theres no way it can provide driver focus like the VX.Its like comparing a VX with a Caterfield. No point IMO.

[BradW]

'Better ownership proposition'??? Not sure to what extent this is true. IMO the MR2 is impractical enough to be considered impractical...and on that basis it can and should be compared to the VX. The MR2 has better reliability I would assume and a few more luxuries inside, but there is still no space in it and it is supposed to be fast and sporty. My gf would frown at me getting either, but I'm opting VX and booking the gf in for plastic surgery to remove the frown.

[mart356]

The MR2 looks like a car designed for big ears and noddy - pure toy town. the only good things are that it's made out of metal and has Jap reliability, it's an option for hairdressers, women and children characters! mart

[Purebob]

The MR2 is a quiet as, and rides as well as a Yaris. It has electric everything , a working heater and aircon option and power steering. The only practical item missing is luggage space, but overall its far easier to own car than a VX imo. Its only impractical if any 2 seater is impractical IMO.