2000 Honda S2000 vs. 2nd gen toyota mr2 turbo

overall comparisons.
I would say mr2.
Just because of the overall potential over the s2000.

S2000. It's faster and handles better. In my opinion, looks are about equal, but the MR2 Turbo is more exclusive.

I'll go with the MR2. The 3S-GTE has much more potential than the S2000's motor, not to mention a much wider usable power band. It's also lighter and probably more structurally rigid, since it's a coupe.

structural wise they are about hte same witht eh S2K being alittle stiffer, weight wise they both are identical at 2800 lbs. but the MR2 is much more comfortable of a car, and has more potential the S2K. the only way to get power out of a S2K would be to add forced induction.

the MR2 already comes turbo from the factory, and its very easy to make it a mid 13 second car on stock turbo.

The MR2 Turbo weighs 2800 lbs.? That's a LOT for an MR2...

I'd take a low mileage MR2 Turbo...if I couldnt find one...the S2k isnt that bad of a ride...

structural wise they are about hte same witht eh S2K being alittle stiffer, weight wise they both are identical at 2800 lbs. but the MR2 is much more comfortable of a car, and has more potential the S2K. the only way to get power out of a S2K would be to add forced induction.

the MR2 already comes turbo from the factory, and its very easy to make it a mid 13 second car on stock turbo.

the s2k can be made a mid 13 second car quite easily too ...

Looks: Always your opinion, i'd pick the MR2 over the S2k, especially the newer one

Performance: S2K is faster stock, but MR2's are rarely stock, and the 2 wins when it comes to potential per dollar.

Handling: 2 different schools of thought when it comes to handling. I'd say the S2000 would be more forgiving in the corners. Unless you have an experienced driver behind the wheel of the MR2, the S2K wins.

They're both good cars...

Well, I'm no big fan of the S2000 (mostly because I don't like waiting to shift that far into the redline on a six-speed box) but it is an excellent handling machine with good power.

However, the MR2 is also an excellent handling machine with good power.

The S2000's trunk space is compromised by its convertible top, but the MR2's trunk space is compromised by its engine.

Really, in this comparo it comes down to personal preference for styling (though styling is a little strong of a word for these cars. very bland looking in my eyes, not much "styling") and the question do you want a roadster or a hardtop, and do you want a turbo or not?

i prefer T TOP!

Ok to the person that said MR2's are more comfortable than S2K's. What kind of S2K did you drive? In the market I test drove both types of cars a lot, and when I drove turbo MR2's, they were REALLY small in the cabin. I felt like I was piloting an airplane more than driving a car. And despite the ragtop and loud high speed noise in the S2K's cabin, the MR2 was ridiculously loud at higher speeds, more so than the S2K.

Stock for stock, the S2K beats the MR2 by a handful. Looks stock for stock, the S2K has way more brownie points than an MR2. Comfort wise, the S2K is again, leaps beyond the MR2.

The thing that the MR2 has is this: The pricing on it, would be moderately 10,000$ difference between the two cars in good shape. With 10,000$, you can make the MR2 run 11's, and look like a Ferrari.

i have 2 best friends who owns both. i sit in their cars extensively and i've drove then quit a few times and i've beaten on them quit a few times, and trust me the S2K with the top up is no way roomy. and that blind spot is hugh!!! there is hardly any storage either. i esp don't like how the chassis actually protrudes into the passengers footwell. the S2K is definitly a really loud car stock. the engien sounds buzzy, and when it hits v-tec you can hear it from 2 blocks away. and i don't even liek the way the v-tec sounds on the S2K. i personally think a Type R's v-tec sounds better. the ride is also harsher then the MR2. my friend who owns the MR2 is 6 foot tall. the person who owned it before was my boss and hes 6'3" and he fits in the MR2 perfectly. non of my friends would ever own a S2K by choice. after my friend Dave got one, we realize how crappy of a daily driver it is. it really needs a roof. and in the winter forget about it. the roof does not seal in heat for shit. and the cabin takes forever to stay hot. and parallel parking is a bitch because you really can't see outside of the thing from behind. the MR2 wins hands down on everything. out of all my friends, Bry who owns a 04 EVO, John who owns a 04 STi, and me who drives a 95 turob 240. if we were to buy another used car, we would definitly pick the MR2, it has great looks, good bargin, and tons of potential. even if we had the money for a S2k we wouldn't even touch it. like i said we wouldn't buy the car by choice, but if it was given to us, only half of us would keep it. the rest of us would sell it to buy something better.

Well I'm 5'7 so I am known to be the best parallel parking person out of all my friends, so I guess I'm built for S2K's.

So if you're tall and can't parallel park for crap, avoid S2K's :D

yeah the loud VTEC was kind of a turn on for me and I didn't think the engine sounded that loud at low idle, but you can't say the MR2 doesn't sound really loud mid>high either. When I took it up to boost it was insane.

S2000 is my choice. It has the classic sports car ingredients, looks to die for, reliability, and is a hoot to drive. Not a fan of the MR2's looks. Seems to dated now.

well you can't say we can't parrallel park because we all live in NYC, and all of us has to parallel park cause thats the only kind of parking we have in nyc. the blindspot in the S2K is redicous. plus the spots are tighter in nyc. so it makes it harder. and looks wise. stock wise a S2K looks better. but hooked up wise i prefer the baby ferrari look. all you basically gotta do is put the 94+ OEM ferrari style tail lights, lowered and some nice rims and that car will look killer.

yeah the s2k get loud as hell. The blind spot you speak of..I didn't really notice it. The car that disappoints me with the blind spot is the 350z. (i'd still get one though :) )

I didn't notice it too much either... Well top up it was really hard to see beside you, because the top doesn't seem to be lean friendly, but I would probably rarely drive that car top up.

The MR2 had the same type of blind spot though, IMO.

All in all, I'd say engine loudness isn't really a variable in making a choice of this car type. If you can afford to insure either of these cars and you're going to run it stock, the s2000 is better. If you're going to mod up the wazool, then the MR2 is a much better choice.

The reason I say this is because the 3SGTE has been around for a while and is a "proven platform". (Meaning: People have modded it and it didn't explode on them, people have modded MR2's with over 150k miles that still run strong, there are so many mods for the car you could get it into 10's daily with not as much as it would cost for the S2000 and it would be reliable)

The engine in the S2000 hasn't been around long enough and it isn't even turbo out of factory so you have to lower compression. I believe it has 11:0 compression ratio?

All in all, I'd say engine loudness isn't really a variable in making a choice of this car type. If you can afford to insure either of these cars and you're going to run it stock, the s2000 is better. If you're going to mod up the wazool, then the MR2 is a much better choice.

The reason I say this is because the 3SGTE has been around for a while and is a "proven platform". (Meaning: People have modded it and it didn't explode on them, people have modded MR2's with over 150k miles that still run strong, there are so many mods for the car you could get it into 10's daily with not as much as it would cost for the S2000 and it would be reliable)

Thats the reason i want a mr2 over a sk2. And i think the s2k is basically a maxed out engine. I don't think it really reponds well to basic bolt ons. I'm pretty sure the only way to gain REAL power would be from FI.

Well yeah there's no argument there. S2K's only benefit from bolt on's is that it minimizes lack of performance time from driver error.

well we usually drive with the top up because it gets quit cold in nyc, on our winters it gets as low as 2 degrees celcius. we hardly ever ever drive that car with the top down. only on sunny days, but my friends sleeps in the day and comes out at night cause he has a really fucked up sleeping habit so we never see that car in the day time. so the top is hardly ever down. the S2K has a super small window in the back, and no 3/4 window. the MR2 has a much wider rear class, and has small windows behind the driver so if you look, you can still see cars in the corner of the car in the blind spot thru the side windows. you can't see it from outside the car becsaue it looks like black plastic, but its actually tinted glass from the driver/passenger window back to the back of the car.

if i had to choose between these two cars, i would definately pick the s2000. its a newer design, and more work has been put into designing it. i think the s2000 is a better car overall. i dont care if the mr2 has more potential with its turbocharged engine, the s2000 is just nicer to drive, and its nicer overall.

The turbo MR2 is 2800-3050 lbs stock.
I've seen 13.4 in an turbo MR2 with only intake/exhaust/donwpipe ... not even a boost controller.

$ per $, the MR2 will kill the S2000. There are plenty of "deals" on MR2s out there. Style there is no competition. The S2000 looks like a miata-made-into-a-bathtub IMO. The MR2 looks like the sexy mid-engine sports car that it is.

As for the MR2 cockpit feeling small ... not sure where that comes from. I am 6' 0" and a good friend of mine is just over 6' 2" and he owns two MKIIs as well. We have zero problems fitting.

MR2 blind spots? ... I've been driving them since 1989 and I have yet to find anything resemlbing a significant blind spot ... maybe I can't see it :D :D :D

The only reason I would pick the S2000 is if I was a dedicated autocrosser and could use that high RPM band.

The truth is: to each, their own
I would hate it if everyone was driving MR2s.
I am grateful for the many people that choose something else :)

supercharged S2000's are nothing to play with. on a budget i'd take a mr2, but if i had enough money i would get the S2000, i like the looks and the handling seems great.

And I figured YoungVR4 would pick the Turbo...

only cause its newer, though honestly i've never driven either one, so i honestly don't know

Aww you're slackin, if ya didnt live a light year away I'd let ya take her for a spin...

Are the cars jdm or usdm? Makes no difference to the s2k but a 45hp+ difference to the mr2. If it is jdm, the S2k is cooked! THe mr2 win hands down. Around a road track, drag strip or on your way to work.

I've driven both. I think the years difference is what made me dislike the MR2 though. The S2000 was only 8 months old and felt very stable. I guess maybe the MR2 wasn't taken care of so my opinion might be slightly biased.

Then again, I also don't notice things like blind spots, I just keep turning until I am satisfied with what I see lol

Couple of things to keep in mind:
Mr2 are definetely at least 6 years older. You will probably eventually have to deal with rust, burning oil, etc...

Parts are probably going to be easier to get for an S2000, since they basically stopped making the Mr2 in 95 (the new ones are not even close to being the same)

the mr 2 looks way better