MK1 or MK2

[Justin Credible]

I'm looking to get back into an MR2 after a few years in Subarus.
I am extremely torn between two though.

1. A 1985 NA with 165,000 miles in pretty darn good shape. $1300.
2. A 1992 NA with 136,000 miles the engine is in good shape, but the interior is showing it's age and the exterior is 7.5/10. $3500
Honestly, I'd say both are in about the same shape.

I've had a 92 turbo, so I have a soft spot for the MK2, but I hear that the MK1 is more fun.

If put in the same position, which would you choose?

P.S. I'm looking for a nice weather DD as I have a gas guzzling Xterra for snow days and hauling stuff.

[como]

aw11 all the way, its cheaper, smaller, and better looking (IMO)

[muffinman]

I personally like the MK1 but if your torn between the two then i would say go with the one with the least issues. I would avoid t-tops since they can become a major hassle.

[mr2tim]

You might consider access to parts? in your decision process.

Down here in South Florida you'll never see a Mark 2 in the "Yards" or anywhere really.

I worked at a "imports only" yard for 3 years in that time we processed 6 Mark 1's and only 1 Mark 2.

Look at the Forums, all you see are posts with requests for parts for the Mark 2.

It appears that the Mark 2's are more costly to start with and the parts more costly as well. A plus, to me as a customizer, is that there are more exotic parts available to the Mark 2,...if you can afford the stiff prices...

BTW expect over 150,000+ miles on the life of a OEM Supercharger blower unit, not so with most turbo's right?.

Always tradeoffs eh....

[curvesrgood]

I'm a mk1 man myself... started looking for a mk2 N/A and ended up with a mk1 N/A and now I've got 3 of them out back. I came from modified Corvettes and Mustangs to these things and these little mk1's are the funnest cars I've owned. My buddies have mk2's, and I drive them fairly often but I'm not sold on them.

[te51levin]

Of the two you've looked at, the MkI is the better bargain. You've already experienced a MkII so this is a great opportunity to see how us poor folks live and try something new - well, actually something old, but new to you. And if you don't like it, you'll be in a good position to sell it and look for another MkII!

[traintech86]

for 1300$? omfg you can easily dump that for 1500 if you don't like it. if its lasted for 20 years i am sure you can get another 10 outa it easy with maintenance!

[LeePeyton]

I'm still trying to warm up to the look of the MK1 but I think the MK2 looks the best of all the mr2s. Technically I guess it would be 91-99. The 94+ tail lights look better.
I'm just trying like hell to like the MK1. I almost boughtt r a MK1 for 500 bucks a few years ago. Wish I would have so I would like it more. Regardless I think both have their up sides but I got a MK2 for a reason. I've wanted one for years and I love the way it looks. You get modern looks for a good price.

[te51levin]

Originally Posted by LeePeyton

I'm just trying like hell to like the MK1.

It's not for everybody. The MkI hasn't often been called beautiful, but then that's not the point of the car. MkIs really look best from behind the wheel; the beauty is in the driving, not the looking.

[David]

In your position, I would go for the MKI. I personally like the look of the MKII better, but that's because I have no money to make them go fast. But if you have the extra money, then start off with the lighter, better handling car, and work on better performance once you get it.

[mr3]

I love my mk1's but I wouldnt mind a mk2 for looks. After looking around seeing the numbers put out by the 5sfe, I'm not all that impressed. The mk1's power to weight seems better suited for zipping around. I think the mk2 would be great just to cruise around in though. 1300 is a pretty good deal for the mk1. I paid 1700 and have about 700 in it over the past year just fixing what went wrong from the previous owners mistakes. It's a great car, I drive it every day and get good gas milage.

[David]

Originally Posted by muffinman

I would avoid t-tops since they can become a major hassle.

I would go for the t-top. T-tops are an A/C's fail safe. The one thing I hated about my MR2 was that I was spending all day long at my dad's car lot in the baking Florida sun, just detailing it, waxing, vaccuming, etc, then driving home and looking up at the roof seeing the indent in the frame for the t-top, and kicking myself for buying a hardtop.

[Sh0ty]

The T tops are fun, but I really wish the car was a targa. The black on top of the car doesn't look great IMO, and there's just a certain appeal to targa roofs. That said, the T bar aids in chassis stiffness, the glass panes fit on the ledges behind the seats (by design) and chicks dig looking at the sky through a glass roof.

I'd like a hardtop car for tracking though, the T tops just aren't stiff enough

[Justin Credible]

OK, after extensively checking out both I am leaning towards the AW11, but it has a little rust on the body (middle of the front lip, bottom corners of the rear), the hand brake is not working (big surprise), and the wheels/tires need to be replaced.
Is it worth repairing/replacing these things?

Also, a '93 turbo has just come on the market for $5300 (he has to sell quick because he lost his job). He says the paint is fading and the seats are worn, but it runs great.
If what he says is true it's a great deal IMO. What specifically should I look for when I go check it out tomorrow?

If the '93 turns out to be pretty much how he described, should I go for the '93 or stick with the '85?

Sorry for all the questions, I just like to know exacly what to expect when I buy a car, no matter what the cost.

[RePete]

Don't know how useful my post here is but (in this case specifically) you're talking about an 8 year difference between those cars - and one of them is rusty (which only gets worse). I think the choice is obvious (especially considering how rare & collectible '93 turbos are becoming).

[te51levin]

If you can be certain that the rust is only on the surface, it's easily dealt with.

The parking brake failure is almost certainly seized cables, which are around $55 each with the MR2 discount we offer.

P186/60R14 tires are cheap. Wheels aren't too expensive either if you can find something you like that doesn't have excessive (Honda style) offset.

Pete mentioned the eight year age difference, but I think that's typically made up for by the complexity of turbo cars and the likelihood that they've been owned by squirrelly kids, modified, raced, patently abused, or all of the above. The MkI is older, but far harder to kill.

For a fun (spirited) daily driver, I'm still voting MkI.

[lsgheero]

My vote is for the mk1, however I have never ridden in nor driven any other mr2 (mk3 or spyder).

Really its all a matter of personal preference....

Personally I enjoy the mk1 I like the look but I am partial to 80s cars lol. Every car I have owned was from the 80's.

As for rust, etc. If you really enjoy/like your car have knowledge or desire to learn and the tools you can restore anything. I am in the process of removing all my interior, stripping it of the original vinyl and recovering it.

As Aaron mentioned surface rust is easily dealt with, just sand it down to metal again and primer/paint. If your really adventurous you could buy the car, strip it down and por15 it, pricey but you are almost guaranteed it will never rust again lol. I know I will be doing this if I ever move someplace that it snows.

As for power... want more that's easy there are tons of engine swaps that can be done for a good boost in power while maintaining a unmolested engine. the stock 80's 4age is weak (115 hpish) compared to most engines of today (145-160ish for most 4 cyls on the road). However a 20v (150-165) isn't too bad for those wanting to stay NA, not have a difficult swap, and just want a boost in power.

[YellowJacket]

85 was not available with t-tops as an option. ttops started in 87
Its most likely a sunroof car.... rarer would be a hard top.

Interesting to me is you have a $1300 mk1 car and then you mention a $5300 mk2 turbo car that you are going between. Thats a $4k difference and not to mention the boost factor. They are two totally different choices.

If you put that $4k right off the bat into the mechanics and suspension of the AW11 then you would have a really really fun and nice solid mk1. Ongoing, parts and upgrades are cheaper... .but you will most likely NEVER get that money back... Its always gonna be a $1500 car.

If you buy the turbo mk2, you will need a lot more money on the long term. The mk2 is gonna bleed you in bigger chunks of money over time but if its ready to roll now, you may be able to minimize your loss more than a Mk1 when it comes time to sell.

[Justin Credible]

The MK1 is a hard top.
I am leaning towards the MK1, simply because I can buy and restore it for probably less than just buying the MK2.
As I said in the 1st post, I've owned a '92 turbo before and loved it, so I'm partial to the MK2s, but I was impressed after driving the MK1, so unless the '93 wows me tomorrow I will probably be picking up th '85.

[mr.asian.m2]

get both since they are both cheap