I seen this on crx uk what do you guys think?

Yesterday i suggested to someone that i thought the CRX was about the best performance per buck car that you could get. He dissagreed, and suggested the MR2. Just being open-minded, how do MR2s compare to the CRX.

At a guess, i suppose they may be faster than the CRX, but they are gonna be more expensive to (buy?) insure, maintain, run, etc. Much more weight, but a "proper" sports car - i guess the handling will be about as good if not better than the rex? But more sketchy on the road because its a MR setup.

 

I'm a huge 4th gen fan but id say mr2 is better.

It'll be hard to get unbiased here try GDD maybe.

 

If you are talking about the CRX vs the first-gen MR2, I'd give it to the CRX for all-around quality and benefits (I'm assuming thais is not just about drag racing potential, but overal satisfaction).

 

CRX imo.

 

what generation mr2? if youre talking about the first gen my buddy had one and while they werent the fastest in a straight line they definately can take a turn faster than a rex... theyre both good in my opinion and i wouldnt be able to decide... now if its a turbo 2nd gen then hands down to the mr2... i dont care what the cost
-Josh

 

Depends on what you plan on doing with the car.

 

have them both

mr2


edit: speaking about 2nd gen 90-95 mr2 and 2nd gen 88-91 crx

 

i think a 91 n up MR2 turbo would tear up a CRX stock for stock.. but if u talkin about the 1st gen MR2 vs CRX then thats good match up.. i wouldnt mind drivin in a 1st gen MR2 tho.. slammed on panasports hehe..

 

imo opinion its apples and oranges, performance for dollar crx but then theres the already sports car mr2 , really depends if you like modding **** or if youll be happy with a mr2 imo.

 

To have a really fair test you'd have to equip both cars with comparible tires and trim levels. Stock the MR2 will always win because it was designed as a sports car, the CRX as an eco car.

 

Most MR2s will be outcornered by a CRX. What do I mean by this?
The CRX will carry a higher cornering speed than the MR2.

Most MR2s come undertired and underpowered for thier weight.
So while they feel nimble and have RWD -- this does not turn
mean higher cornering speeds.

I've driven/owned many MR2s and Civic/CRX on road courses.
If you need more insight LMK.

 

I tend to think MR2's are a bit unstable at higher speeds. The MR platform doesn't always seem to work in it's advantage.

 

I'd say CRX
1. IMO its the perfect kit car, you build them exactly how you want them...and you porbably still won't be out all that much$$, still less than a turbo MR2

I've read up in the past, and came to the conclusion then that a CRX is capable of handling much better than the MR2

 

Both cars are good cars. Toyota quality and reliability is right up there with Honda. The 4A-GE engine in the 1st gens are screamers, as are the 3S-GTEs in the 2nd gen.
Like SomeDude said, it's apples and oranges. It's not so much a question of which one is the better car, it's a matter of which car is right for your driving style.

 

Both cars can be easily be made to perform very well in a number of specialized ways.

But...

You can only fit a Whirlpool dishwasher in the back of one of em.

 

I'd have to say the CR-X would probably handle better in corners, and it's so god damn light you can just throw the thing into the turns. The second gen MR2 will be much better for top end (booooooost) and probably handles quite well as it is an MR car, however they probably handle VERY different (FF all motor, understeer vs. MR turbo, oversteer). I do love both cars a lot, and the MR2 is one of the only cars I'd part with my CR-X for. If it were me, I'd want to get a non turbo t-tops second gen MR2, then swap in the 3S-GTE (I think third gen) from a JDM 96-98 MR2 GTS. They came with 245hp vs 200hp (GT/Turbo model). It's the same motor that comes in the Celica GT-Four.

 

Read this.










/thread

CRX Forum

 

Awesome find mike!

 

thats great info. i think that settles the dilema

 

neither. i'd take the pontiac ferio

 

come on guys. look at the review. the crx won the sex appeal category and thats all that counts!

CRX!!!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SETI20 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Awesome find mike!</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

I actually weighed this very decision in December of 1987 and that Car & Driver article helped make my decision. It wasn't until years later that I appreciated the other comment that you can only fit a whirlpool washing machine into one of them.
I still own my black 88 crx si, it was my first Honda and I still love it.

 

I must admit that I looked at the 1st gen MR2 at the same time I was looking at CRXs for a nice small 2 seater import sports car. I just didnt like the feel of the 1st gen MR2. It felt uneasy in corners even at slower speeds in comparision to the CRX which seemed to allow you to start off slow and just continue to have the hammer down and the car feels as stable as it did at the start of the corner. Also the CRX was just more comfortable to be in. It felt more like a drivers car when you wanted it to be and a fun car when you wanted it to be aswell. The MR2 seemed more of a fun car and was not nice to drive at slower city stop and go speeds. While the CRX was no problem. Im happy with my choice.

CRX Forum

 

Well if your talking about the 1st gen mr2 then I would take the CRX but if your talking about the 2ed gen turbo mr2 then that would be my choice.