Choices Choices: 300zx Twin Turbo or MR-2 Turbo

Hey guys. Here's what's up. I definetely want a rwd car...i have been doing my research and have narrowed it down to two cars. The 300zx Twin Turbo and the MR-2 turbo. I know that an MR-2 would have better grip from a stop because the engine weight is over the wheels but 300zx's haul ass at high speeds. It's hard decision and i was hoping ya'll could chip in....peace

The MR2 Turbo is one hell of a car...if you're not a very experienced driver, you will spin it out like it's NOTHING. I'd go with the 300ZX Twin Turbo here.

300zx = headaches .... unless u have problems with the mid mount engine, get the MR2

Getting on the throttle too quickly and doing donuts is a pretty big headache too. :)

300zxtt = japanese supercar

I'd get it. it's a nissan, it has two turbo's, it's got better looks, serious sportscar, nicer back.

and I don't think an MR2t has fewer problems.

cu

Yea but the a good 300zxTT costs more then 6grand. Which MR2 is he thinking of getting?


Edit: Never mind must be the last generation.

Yea go with the MR2.

Hard to say no to any TT...but I don't know very much about the MR2 Its not available in Canada... ZX is alot of power, alot of torque, aggressive styling, and anybody who knows cars will be impressed

i got to say i love toyotas and i will take a sw20 over the z32 anyday

300zxtt = japanese supercar

I'd get it. it's a nissan, it has two turbo's, it's got better looks, serious sportscar, nicer back.

and I don't think an MR2t has fewer problems.

cu

1. We know its a Nissan
2. 2 Turbos isnt always > than one, ever hear of single turbo conversion Z32's or Supras or RX-7's?
3. Subjective, but i'd SERIOUSLY disagree
4. How is the MR2 not a more hardcore sportscar

and most importantly, the Z is NOT a Supercar, I hate how so many people on this board throws that word around.

/bias_off

There are MR2 Turbos all over Canada, you're thinking the MR-S.

Now, to answer that question, they are both great japanese sports cars with many strengths and weaknesses. Neither is better than the other, It really depends on what you plan on using the car for.

You mentioned the high speed potential of the Z, so i'd assume you were interested in either highway rolls or drag racing, if thats the case I'd recommend the Z, especially if you're a novice driver.

Well, all things equal...how about..
Get a twin turbo 300ZX,

aaand sell it to buy two MR2s.

Honestly, the MR2 is much closer to a true sports car than the 300ZX is. It's lighter, it uses a MR layout, and it has a smaller motor. The 300ZX is more of a grand tourer, whereas the MR2 is much edgier.

also if you get a Z be prepared to pay 1000's in maintainese charges since no body and i mean NO BODy wants to touch taht car. if you ever worked on one, you will know its a freakin nightmare to work on. plus most of them runs like shit since they're not exactly the most reliable cars. the MR2 is waaay more reliable then a twin turbo Z. and this comes from personaly experience. if you get a Z you should atleast have 5 G's for emergency repair and maintance money.

They are both extremely bad ass cars. It really depends on what you want to do with the car. I would test drive both cars and see what you like best.
Personaly, I would absolutly LOVE to have a 300zx. Fairly easty to make blistering quick but I would probly be more happy driving the mr2 since it is a lighter more responcive more go-karty car.

300ZX TT, 300HP>200HP and 295-307TQ>200TQ. I know the MR2 is lighter, but not enough to overcome the brute strength of the 300ZX. Plus the MR2 Turbos are really starting to look old these days, I don't think the look of the car will still look good to people as time continues to go on. (This is my opinion)

1. We know its a Nissan
2. 2 Turbos isnt always > than one, ever hear of single turbo conversion Z32's or Supras or RX-7's?
3. Subjective, but i'd SERIOUSLY disagree
4. How is the MR2 not a more hardcore sportscar


1. I know you know it's a Nissan smart ass, in case you didn't notice I remarked that as a tribute considering Nissan's image (before Renault came, sadly)
2. on the other hand, ever thought of the purpose by using two but one?
3. well who cares :dunno:
4. comes together with the looks, the Z's I saw were all very low and broad. the stock SW20 MR2 looks pretty nice, but a little toyish.
I've also seen them with nice side steps, wing removed and large rims. Very very nice.
But stock for stock, the whole low hatch concept of a ZX is just "unsheathing" to me.

no money: MR2
mo money: ZXTT
much mo money: MR2 + rims/tires, kit, hood, paintjob, suspension. Other option: really good shaped ZXTT + minor updates (bit lower, wing removed)

excuse wrong words! :smile:

There are MR2 Turbos all over Canada, you're thinking the MR-S.

No I meant Toyota doesn't sell MR2 or MRS in Canada...if you dont believe me check their website

Now I wouldn't call the zx a supercar, but It was made in that small 90's era with a few TT cars with V6's making 300hp and of course the Rx-7... the zx has got to drop a couple pounds to be faster and thats where the MR has a great advantage...its easier to mod your engine than to lose serious weight

you guys all say Z for a alright reason. but i swear by this, if you own a Z, the cost to maintain will cost just as much as maintaining a RX-7. and reliability wise for that car is very very iffy. the engine bay is too tight and the twin turbos cook the whole engine bay, harnesses start to break from the heat, rubber hoses start to get hard and crack, vacuum lines start to break, and theres no room to reach any of it, you practically have to pull the whole engine out to do most kind of work to it.

honestly if you guys don't want to listen to practically reason. they by all means get the car, then sell it csaue you can't afford to get it to run right period, or keep it running right.

now i think the Z looks damn sexy, i was thinking about selling my car and saving up another 5K to get one in decent condition. but after working on them at work, i said fuck it. i don't want to deal with this shit. it will cost a fortune to maintain. i mean come on~!! 650 dollars to change injectors, and also while were we changin the injectors the harnesses were breaking, and rubber hoses were cracking. we had to change everything else and i mean everything else that we touch. the car is a nightmare, even worse then a RX-7. and this car was mint, it had only 50K miles and was bought from a old man in texas, and the guy was the second owner.

imy friend have personally never had problems with his MR2, and yes i know a stock mr2 turbo is pretty ugly. but get the 93 plus ones with the 4 ferrari like tail llights and get some nice rims and the car looks very sweet.

1. I know you know it's a Nissan smart ass, in case you didn't notice I remarked that as a tribute considering Nissan's image (before Renault came, sadly)
2. on the other hand, ever thought of the purpose by using two but one?
3. well who cares :dunno:


1. Better to be a smart ass than a dumb ass. But I wasnt the one to resort to name calling, read the AF rules slim. The Nissan name isnt a status symbol that is worth mentioning as if anything w/ the badging was a be all end all car. Nissan isnt Porsche, they're a great automotive manufacturer, but so is Toyota, so like i said, your point had no point.
2. Yes I do, if you didnt notice I said "isnt always", that leaves room for exceptions.
3. We're on this board to share opinions about cars, if you dont care to listen to the opinion of other board members thats your problem.

Chalk up another vote for the mr2.

this should really be a POLL... and from the looks of it, the MR2 would be winning.

btw, i know hardcore nissan lovers, and even they admit to the massive flaws of the 300zx. of all the z's (240z/260z/280z, z31, z32z z33/350z) the 32 is regarded as the worst in every aspect except that the z32 TT is the fastest z in a straight line ever, but thats if it manages not to break down on the way.

i think the 300zx looks better. handling wise, the mr2 will probably take tight corners better, and slalom better, like autocross style, while the 300zx might take wider turns better, like long sweepers at higher speeds. the 300zx should be more stable at higher speeds, the mr2 isnt considered a stable car.

To put it in JDM terms...MR2 = touge, 300ZX = wangan. Choose whichever one you like better.

Did you have to say "JDM terms"?

And I wouldnt say the MR2 is unstable at high speeds at all. Mine is perfectly stable at 120, never pushed it further than that... You must have a 91-92, the 93 lip helps tidy up the airflor so that the front doesnt feel so "light" at high speeds...

*shrug* Most people outside of Japan don't know what those two are :)

you guys are saying the z is unreliable ? i have 135k miles on my z and the only thing that has gone wrong in the past 6 months is the alternator and belt. the motor is good for up to 200k miles. and yes, for a mechanically declined person, the z is hard to work on, but after you start breaking it down, the z really isn't THAT hard to work on. i wouldn't say all this but you guys are bashing the z sooo much on reliability, but to all his own.

if you want "the whole package", get the z, if you don't want "the whole package" because of lack of funds, get the mr-2.

p.s. now don't get me wrong, i like the mr-2, but in this thread you guys are making the z look like a piece of crap car.

you have a n/a Z. its totally different. we're not saying the engine isn't reliable. we're saying all the other stuff that goes with the turbo is unrealiable. your engine bay is no where near being cooked as bad as a turbo engine is. i've worked on n/a Z's. those are not too bad. but with the turbos there, it elimated any room you have on the side of the engine. along with the front corners were the intercooler pipes go.

seriously i'm not biased at all. i'm a hugh nissan fan. like i said i seriously was considering buyin a Z. but there is sooo much problems with that car. its not even worth it. ( the twin turbo ones ) and i wouldn't even bother with a n/a one cuase i'll be stepping back in performance.

The problem with the 300ZX's "reliability" is that it's been out of production for eight years, and sports cars tend to be abused more than most cars, so of course a lot of them are going to have problems. That said, the twin turbo does have a quite a few quirks, and yeah, I've heard it's a nightmare to work on.

Did you have to say "JDM terms"?

And I wouldnt say the MR2 is unstable at high speeds at all. Mine is perfectly stable at 120, never pushed it further than that... You must have a 91-92, the 93 lip helps tidy up the airflor so that the front doesnt feel so "light" at high speeds...

not saying the mr2 sucks at high speeds, but midengined cars are generally known to be unstable, which usually means it can slalom really good, and the mr2 has a short wheelbase, shorter the wheelbase, the less stable it usually is. the main difference between those yr mr2s is the rear suspension, which im sure you know about. the older mr2s would toe out when cornering hard, which made it spin out or oversteer more, kinda like unwanted rearwheel steering. so toyota revised it by relocating the arm, making it toe out less. you can swap those suspension pieces to the 91/92 mr2. the oversteer characteristic of the 91/92 can be good for autox though, since there are tight corners to go around. i think toyota should of just used multilink, instead of chapman struts. would of been easier to improve, or modify, and it usually performs better.

I'm not really going to get into this since I can't really be objective other than to say you have two very different cars up on the board and I think you need to define what it is you want to do with the car. But I would just like to bring up the subjective measure of "high speeds".

120 is with in the realm of just about any one with a halfway sporty car. Hell my 240SX has 200k miles and probably about half the compression it should have and it will still pull 110. Where as a 300ZX Twin Turbo with the electronic speed limiter (still at 155) removed can hit upwards of 170mph in otherwise stock trim. With a bit more power and some room to fly you can redline it in 5th gear which will get you to the bottom end of the 190s. That is high speed.

Now I wouldn't call the zx a supercar, but It was made in that small 90's era with a few TT cars with V6's making 300hp and of course the Rx-7... the zx has got to drop a couple pounds to be faster and thats where the MR has a great advantage...its easier to mod your engine than to lose serious weight

WTF are you talking about??? no car has to drop a couple of pounds to be faster. yes the 300zx is realtively heavy but if you have driven a z32TT you would realize that the car handles its weight as if it wasnt there. you can get a TT running mid 12's with a little over $1000.

Honestly, the MR2 is much closer to a true sports car than the 300ZX is. It's lighter, it uses a MR layout, and it has a smaller motor. The 300ZX is more of a grand tourer, whereas the MR2 is much edgier.

How do you figure??? so becasue the z32 doesnt have a MR layout and it has more HP and has a 3.0 V6 in it, that makes it less of a sports car. the only factor i can agree with you there is the MR layout. most of your true sports car have an MR layout but that doesnt mean a z32 is any less of a sports car. your true sports care put up big HP numbers and haev bigger engines. ferrari didnt get its sports car reputation from building 4 cylinder turbos, nor did lamborghini, or the corvette.

The problem with the 300ZX's "reliability" is that it's been out of production for eight years, and sports cars tend to be abused more than most cars, so of course a lot of them are going to have problems. That said, the twin turbo does have a quite a few quirks, and yeah, I've heard it's a nightmare to work on.

this right here is the reasoning for your "cooked" engine bays. people just beat the shit out of them. its a freaking 15 year old Twin turbocharged engine pushing 300hp. you have to take care of them and do preventive maintnance just like with any 15 year old car. you take care of it and it will last 200,000 miles easy.

you guys all say Z for a alright reason. but i swear by this, if you own a Z, the cost to maintain will cost just as much as maintaining a RX-7. and reliability wise for that car is very very iffy. the engine bay is too tight and the twin turbos cook the whole engine bay, harnesses start to break from the heat, rubber hoses start to get hard and crack, vacuum lines start to break, and theres no room to reach any of it, you practically have to pull the whole engine out to do most kind of work to it.


the owners of your z's must be some real stupid people. thats all i have to say.

this was not to diss the mr2. great car. i was thinking about getting one before my z. i still want one. this was to get another voice about the z32 that says that it isnt that horrible of a car that some of you claim it be.

Well, if you look at the original definition for a sports car, you have rear-wheel-drive, a manual transmission, and a small, lightweight design. I think we can all agree that the MR2 is smaller and nimbler than the 300ZX, and with proper suspension, tires, brakes, and a good driver, it'll outhandle almost anything. Sports cars aren't about power, they're about handling, and as good as the 300ZX is, the MR2 is ultimately better.

And yeah, I have no reason to doubt the reliability of the 300ZX. All the other Nissans from that era - the Altima, the Maxima, the 240SX, the Sentra - were notoriously reliable, and I have had first-hand experience with most of them. They hold up incredibly well, so I don't see why the 300ZX shouldn't. But when you have a sports car more than ten years old, a bucketload of problems is inevitable.

have any of you guys who says the mr-2 outhandles the 300zx have any proof? and like k3 said, yeah, the z is a little bit on the heavy side, but it handles it's weight very very well.

I'm sure I could find some. Yeah, I'll admit that the 300ZX has excellent handling for a car it's size, but I don't think it can top a lightweight MR, seeing as how (correct me if I'm wrong) MR is the lay-out they use in F1 racing, it's also the one most commonly used by supercars, and the MR2 weighs nearly 500 pounds less than the 300ZX.

im not gonan argue with you about the mr2's handling. it is very impresssive but i think the 3400 lb 300zx can very well holds it own against it in that department.

i think the definition of a sports car has evolved since the early days. now most of your high end sports car consists of 2 seats, engine wherever is needed, v-8 and up. 400hp and up so i think sports car has evolved into a different set-up. with newer technology, car engineers didnt have to put the engine in the rear to make it a quick and very responsive car. nissan's concept of the 300zx was to have the engine in the rear. it was called a mid-4. but then a nissan engineer created HICAS which is a 4 wheel steering system. it ables the car to handle at high speeds just as well as it 20 mph. there was no need to put the engine in the back.

me personally if im looking for a sports car, i want something with pure power for the straight aways and somethings that will handle with the nimblest of cars on the turns. i feel that the 300zx is one of a few cars that can do that.

Wow, this poll has become a debate:

And although im an MR2 owner I really dont like alot of the things being said about the Z. The MR2 being MR doesnt make the 300Z any less of a sports car. Sports cars arent exclusively MR.

Most people keep talking about how the Z cant handle well or only on a much wider track. I've driven the Z and I can tell you firsthand that its easier to drive fast in corners than the MR2. It would take a well trained driver who is familiar w/ the MR layout to drive the MR2 better than an intermediate driver in the Z.

And to the person who said the MR2 not being as much of a sports car because it was a 4 cyl turbo, has a pretty narrow definition of a sports car. I guess the Lotus Elan, Elise and Exige were grocery getters because they were 4 cyls?

Can we just leave it at this, they are two great cars with different goals and excell at different motorsports?

I understand there are some Z Turbo horror stories but for the most part, a car is only as reliable as the man who maintains it.

They are both good cars...

And although im an MR2 owner I really dont like alot of the things being said about the Z. The MR2 being MR doesnt make the 300Z any less of a sports car. Sports cars arent exclusively MR.

I take that back, as long as a car is RWD, that's good enough. I hear you on the MR2 being really hard to control, but I think that if you can do it properly, it'll ultimately show more potential in the twisties than the Z.

Lachean summed it up pretty well. the horror stories you hear about a z's reliablility are from owners who don't take care of their cars. good post lachean.

i find this funny becuase this is all coming from people who owns non turbo Z's. even just doing your routine maintainese will cost you a fortune. so you gotta pay alot more to maintain the car, and when something does break, its goin to cost you a fortune^10.

i find this funny becuase this is all coming from people who owns non turbo Z's. even just doing your routine maintainese will cost you a fortune. so you gotta pay alot more to maintain the car, and when something does break, its goin to cost you a fortune^10.

ok...routine maitenance on a n/a is that same as on the twin turbo. yes when something breaks on a z32 it is going to cost more than a more average car. as for it costing a fortune. basic things are all the same price. i dont know where you guys get this info. basic things break on n/a's just as much as on TT's. just because it has two turbo's strapped to the back of the engine, doesnt make it more expensive to fix a blown headgasket. broke as ****, who posted earlier can vouch for the Z and he owns a TT.

both great cars, but dont say that the Z sucks because it has maitenance issues. we all know, the more engine equals the more problems. mustang 5.0's break down alot, not becasue they are shitty and require alot of maitenance, its because previous owners tear the shit out of them.

like i said before, i love the mr2 but im tired of people dissing the z32 (specifically in reliability) and they dont even know the car. i have 95,000 miles on my z and the only thing ever to go out was the starter. talk about reliability. you know why, because it was well taken care of. it isnt pussied around either. every scheduled maitenance has been performed and eveything is checked on a regular basis. thats key to a car of a higher caliber. not saying the mr2 isnt a higher caliber.

so what you are saying is just becuase we own a n/a means we know nothing about the TT? the only different thing that can go wrong between the two are the turbos. and the vg was built as such a strong motor, that the turbos really don't put much stress on the engine. in another point, the more stress that the engine gets from having turbos is contradicted in the n/a by the n/a having a higher compression ratio.

alright, to set a few misconceptions straight here... first: the n/a and tt engines on the z32 are the same engine, only with different pistons, different exhaust system(obviously) some beefier injectors, a different ecu, and a few more vacuum lines.
second: z cars are not unreliable. they require the same routine maintinence(sp?) as any other high end car. timing belts are recommended to be changed every 60k miles, and when that 60k comes you can replace it with a different compound that lasts for a much much longer time. turbo's are not unreliable (not mentioned yet in this thread) they can last anywhere from 120k miles to ??? miles if they're taken care of properly. i currently have 259, 000 k on my car and it runs as if she came off the lot yesterday.

now onto looks... in my eyes, the z's are prettymuch unrivaled unless the car's got a 6 figure price tag, call me bias, but just keep in mind i owned a honda before owning my z and i spent months of looking at different cars and the one car that really caught my eye was the Z.

don't get me wrong, i'm not dissing the mr2 in any way, i think it's a pretty cool car, i'm just too captivated by the legacy of the Z to even think of owning another car for performance purposes.

well first of all... i think that mr2s are more rare on the streets then 300zx's... i see 300zx's all the time but see mr2's maybe a couple times a week...

mr2's are known to last arround 200k and will last even longer if taken care of properly without any major maintenence problems...

i think overall the mr2 probably does have less maintenance problems then the 300zx but both are pretty comprable in reliability...

my choice would be the mr2 though

must be area. because in my area, i am 1 of 2 people that own 300zx's. and i see mr2's almost daily. as for reliability, i have to agree with you. both are really reliable cars as long as they are taken care of properly. 200,000 miles plus, is no porblems for either car.

People really dont tend to go single turbo on the Z32 though...reason being...the Supra is an inline 6...while the Z32 is a V6...so it pretty much has two of everything already so they keep w/that and go w/two bigger, better turbos rather than going w/one...

usually...plus a few more things have to be customized on a 300zx beings it has dual throttle bodies and what not. joel grannas for example. go to http://z32power.com/ that is his own personal web site. he did a single turbo conversion on an n/a convertible.