The replacement for my MX5 NC, down to 2 options, which?
Discussion
For those who haven't read my last thread, I bought a MX5 NC as a weekend fun car and I'm not entirely happy. Mainly down to lack of power, unspecial engine and not loving the design enough to forgive the flaws.
I was originally looking for another lightweight, RWD, front engine, manual car. Preferably coupe and with more than 4 cylinders petrol. But given the lack of options, most being heavier or not ticking some of the other boxes, people started suggesting rear mid engine, in the form of the usual options, Elise, VX220, MR2 spyder and the wild card, MG TF.
I initially resisted, but thanks to people like s m, 300bhp/ton, romeodelta, Evil.soup etc, who managed to convince me to have another look at mid engine, I have now decided to give it a try. As I want something to trash and drive like I stole it, Elise and even VX220 are out. I want something cheaper to run, buy and fix. So this leaves the MR2 and MG TF
Each checks different boxes, but I know neither check all of my original boxes. I will need to compromise.
But, which one?
The internet would have you believe the MR2 is miles better and to stay away from the MG. I couldn't even find any serious reviews by any of the usual youtubers on the MG. MR2, of course they have many. Only MG TF review I found is an old and very biased review from 5th Gear from when the car came out. Hardly relevant today and maybe not even back then.
But to me honestly, I much prefer the MG for many reasons. It looks nicer, seems to have a nicer interior. The engine by all accounts seems to be more characterful. I also like that it has it's own original looks. Apparently there is an adapter to lower the seats, which seem to be a complain from taller drivers. I'm 6'.1"
What I don't like about the MR2 is the Porsche wannabe looks and the interior. I know the MG has the infamous head gasket problem. But the MR2 has the cat problem and by all accounts, the MG TFs which have survived this far have had this taken care of and once you installed the upgraded head gasket, it's no more prone to blow than any other similar engine. By what I hear, the MR2 cat problem is more worrying and more prone to repeat? And the engines are completely devoid of character.
This leaves the driving, the general reliability and maintenance costs as the other points to consider.
The driving most say MR2 is good. Many seem to be biased against the MG. But those who have owned them say they are great and fun.
As it turns out, a MG TF just turned up for sale not too far from me and if I am to get a MG TF, this example seems to be the perfect one. It's a 160, comes with the hardtop, full tan leather and not too many miles. Price seems fair. Maybe if I decide fast I could still manage to snap it. If I will take my time to drive both MR2 and MG etc, I might miss this one. But I will not hurry just for the sake of it.
So can we speak about MR2 vs MG TF 160? Some already shared the experience of each separately on the other thread. But what about comparisons? Thanks.
To me my likes and dislikes for each are as follow. MR2, dislike design, interior, cat problem and the engine, which has the rep of being Toyota's worst. I like, that it's a Toyota and that it is lighter. MG I like the design, the interior, that the engine seems to be revy and characterful, the heritage, that it seems to be a bit quicker. I dislike the head gasket problems and that it seems to need more aftermarket help to make it really sing.
I was originally looking for another lightweight, RWD, front engine, manual car. Preferably coupe and with more than 4 cylinders petrol. But given the lack of options, most being heavier or not ticking some of the other boxes, people started suggesting rear mid engine, in the form of the usual options, Elise, VX220, MR2 spyder and the wild card, MG TF.
I initially resisted, but thanks to people like s m, 300bhp/ton, romeodelta, Evil.soup etc, who managed to convince me to have another look at mid engine, I have now decided to give it a try. As I want something to trash and drive like I stole it, Elise and even VX220 are out. I want something cheaper to run, buy and fix. So this leaves the MR2 and MG TF
Each checks different boxes, but I know neither check all of my original boxes. I will need to compromise.
But, which one?
The internet would have you believe the MR2 is miles better and to stay away from the MG. I couldn't even find any serious reviews by any of the usual youtubers on the MG. MR2, of course they have many. Only MG TF review I found is an old and very biased review from 5th Gear from when the car came out. Hardly relevant today and maybe not even back then.
But to me honestly, I much prefer the MG for many reasons. It looks nicer, seems to have a nicer interior. The engine by all accounts seems to be more characterful. I also like that it has it's own original looks. Apparently there is an adapter to lower the seats, which seem to be a complain from taller drivers. I'm 6'.1"
What I don't like about the MR2 is the Porsche wannabe looks and the interior. I know the MG has the infamous head gasket problem. But the MR2 has the cat problem and by all accounts, the MG TFs which have survived this far have had this taken care of and once you installed the upgraded head gasket, it's no more prone to blow than any other similar engine. By what I hear, the MR2 cat problem is more worrying and more prone to repeat? And the engines are completely devoid of character.
This leaves the driving, the general reliability and maintenance costs as the other points to consider.
The driving most say MR2 is good. Many seem to be biased against the MG. But those who have owned them say they are great and fun.
As it turns out, a MG TF just turned up for sale not too far from me and if I am to get a MG TF, this example seems to be the perfect one. It's a 160, comes with the hardtop, full tan leather and not too many miles. Price seems fair. Maybe if I decide fast I could still manage to snap it. If I will take my time to drive both MR2 and MG etc, I might miss this one. But I will not hurry just for the sake of it.
So can we speak about MR2 vs MG TF 160? Some already shared the experience of each separately on the other thread. But what about comparisons? Thanks.
To me my likes and dislikes for each are as follow. MR2, dislike design, interior, cat problem and the engine, which has the rep of being Toyota's worst. I like, that it's a Toyota and that it is lighter. MG I like the design, the interior, that the engine seems to be revy and characterful, the heritage, that it seems to be a bit quicker. I dislike the head gasket problems and that it seems to need more aftermarket help to make it really sing.
Edited by TJveloce on Friday 26th August 20:15
I like the MR2. It is lighter and probably closer to an Elise in how it drives and handles. But it isn’t a looker and the interior is dull. The engine is less characterful and not immune to some rather major issues. But overall I think they are great. The real downer is a total lack of luggage space.
The TF I really like and keep looking at myself. I had 2 x MGF’s back in the day. My brother had a modded F about 10-12 years ago and last year bought an VVC one. It really is a riot on the roads. I’m sure the MR2 is sharper for track use. But B road use they are a lot closer IMO. The F and TF are also very practical with a boot big enough to fit Golf clubs or a guitar in. I’m sure owning an F or TF will be slightly more troublesome than an MR2. But for me it is the character of the MG that would offer the greater reward. The TF isn’t perfect, they ride a bit hard all said and done. But there are some good aftermarket suspension kits available. And on this note. It is worth mentioning that the F and TF are very well supported with parts and updated parts that improve on the original. They have a large owner’s community in the U.K. with a wealth of knowledge and most parts are very cheap and affordable.
The TF I really like and keep looking at myself. I had 2 x MGF’s back in the day. My brother had a modded F about 10-12 years ago and last year bought an VVC one. It really is a riot on the roads. I’m sure the MR2 is sharper for track use. But B road use they are a lot closer IMO. The F and TF are also very practical with a boot big enough to fit Golf clubs or a guitar in. I’m sure owning an F or TF will be slightly more troublesome than an MR2. But for me it is the character of the MG that would offer the greater reward. The TF isn’t perfect, they ride a bit hard all said and done. But there are some good aftermarket suspension kits available. And on this note. It is worth mentioning that the F and TF are very well supported with parts and updated parts that improve on the original. They have a large owner’s community in the U.K. with a wealth of knowledge and most parts are very cheap and affordable.
Clarkedontgo said:
350z , ok not lightweight but much more exciting than the other 2 cars
Faster, heavier and more GT like. Not sure I’d agree with the “exciting” bit. They should make a better noise granted. But I suspect would feel a bit underwhelming compared to the NC. If it is front engine rwd. Then a TVR Chimera would probably be the best most fun choice. But quite a bit more money these days. Suspect a 2.8 Z3 or 3.0 Z4 might not be a bad bet either.
I have a TF and have done a bit of driving in an MR2 in the past few days.
You have hit the nail on the head for me as to why I would keep the TF over the MR2. The Toyota is just visually dull inside and out, so dull it doesn’t make me want to jump in and drive. For me, the TF still looks great especially as a twenty year old plus design .
I hate the massive steering wheel on the MR (easily changed I guess) whereas the TF has a nice small one.
I’m not sure the K-Series is more characterful tbf, they’re both very good engines which like to rev. My TF has the MGOC backbox which gives it a nice bark.
The TF may not be quite as dynamically proficient as an MR2 or indeed an MX-5 but it’s still good enough to be fun at all speeds and has its own character so yeah, I’m a fan.
You have hit the nail on the head for me as to why I would keep the TF over the MR2. The Toyota is just visually dull inside and out, so dull it doesn’t make me want to jump in and drive. For me, the TF still looks great especially as a twenty year old plus design .
I hate the massive steering wheel on the MR (easily changed I guess) whereas the TF has a nice small one.
I’m not sure the K-Series is more characterful tbf, they’re both very good engines which like to rev. My TF has the MGOC backbox which gives it a nice bark.
The TF may not be quite as dynamically proficient as an MR2 or indeed an MX-5 but it’s still good enough to be fun at all speeds and has its own character so yeah, I’m a fan.
I enjoyed my MR2 roadster. But if you're not happy with the power of the mx5 (assume its 2.0?) Then the Toyota will be no better. I ran a Celica T sport at the same time and always wished that the MR2 had the 2zz engine from the Celica. Plenty of them have been converted so if you could find one of them then that'd be an option.
It also sounds like you're much more into the styling and character of the MG though in which case you may as well get that. As you said, I can't imagine there are any which haven't had the HG upgraded. Never driven one myself but the 160 is listed at 6.9 to 60 which beats both the Mazda and Toyota. Got to be fairly cheap too.
Other than that I'd go 6 pot Z4.
It also sounds like you're much more into the styling and character of the MG though in which case you may as well get that. As you said, I can't imagine there are any which haven't had the HG upgraded. Never driven one myself but the 160 is listed at 6.9 to 60 which beats both the Mazda and Toyota. Got to be fairly cheap too.
Other than that I'd go 6 pot Z4.
Had my tf for ten years as an accidental purchase. Been used for sunny weekends mainly.
Had no real issues with it, and parts are pretty reasonable and widely available.
Head gasket issues are well understood, and there are a number of cheapish preventative measures. If it all goes wrong there are a number of mobile specialists who’ll repair on your drive for a sensible cost.
Reasonable club scene.
There are a few upgrade options, like the VHS suspension, sports exhaust etc. plus they can be chipped by kmaps (ex rover engineer)
Sure it’s no boxter, but as a low cost bit of fun it’s pretty good.
Had no real issues with it, and parts are pretty reasonable and widely available.
Head gasket issues are well understood, and there are a number of cheapish preventative measures. If it all goes wrong there are a number of mobile specialists who’ll repair on your drive for a sensible cost.
Reasonable club scene.
There are a few upgrade options, like the VHS suspension, sports exhaust etc. plus they can be chipped by kmaps (ex rover engineer)
Sure it’s no boxter, but as a low cost bit of fun it’s pretty good.
Great find and nice review by VBH. Hard to believe that cost 30k back in 1996!
The interesting thing is if you look at the MGF on autotrader the majority of them are really nice cherished examples with around 50k miles on them, all priced at just £1-2k which seems a bargain. If you wanted to blow £5k there are a couple of Trophy's too.
Not quite the same but I saw a Dsihatsu Copen the other day. Just looked at them as well and surprised how much money they are. Must be fun though. 1.3 with just 86bhp but gets to 60 in 9.4 secs.
The interesting thing is if you look at the MGF on autotrader the majority of them are really nice cherished examples with around 50k miles on them, all priced at just £1-2k which seems a bargain. If you wanted to blow £5k there are a couple of Trophy's too.
Not quite the same but I saw a Dsihatsu Copen the other day. Just looked at them as well and surprised how much money they are. Must be fun though. 1.3 with just 86bhp but gets to 60 in 9.4 secs.
I keep an occasional eye on TFs. For some reason I like them! They don’t have the hydragas suspension of the F (which you probably know) and the engine albeit with its reputation is well liked for good reason. The 160 is surprisingly rare. Almost all the TFs that catch my eye in the classifieds are 135s. I’d go a take a look sharpish.
300bhp/ton said:
I like the MR2. It is lighter and probably closer to an Elise in how it drives and handles. But it isn’t a looker and the interior is dull. The engine is less characterful and not immune to some rather major issues. But overall I think they are great. The real downer is a total lack of luggage space.
The TF I really like and keep looking at myself. I had 2 x MGF’s back in the day. My brother had a modded F about 10-12 years ago and last year bought an VVC one. It really is a riot on the roads. I’m sure the MR2 is sharper for track use. But B road use they are a lot closer IMO. The F and TF are also very practical with a boot big enough to fit Golf clubs or a guitar in. I’m sure owning an F or TF will be slightly more troublesome than an MR2. But for me it is the character of the MG that would offer the greater reward. The TF isn’t perfect, they ride a bit hard all said and done. But there are some good aftermarket suspension kits available. And on this note. It is worth mentioning that the F and TF are very well supported with parts and updated parts that improve on the original. They have a large owner’s community in the U.K. with a wealth of knowledge and most parts are very cheap and affordable.
Thanks. The part of owning a TF being more troublesome than owning a MR2 is my only real reservation or hesitation with the MG. The harder ride doesn't bother me at all. This is to be a fun weekend car. So I think if the harder ride means better handling, less body roll etc, it's a good thing.The TF I really like and keep looking at myself. I had 2 x MGF’s back in the day. My brother had a modded F about 10-12 years ago and last year bought an VVC one. It really is a riot on the roads. I’m sure the MR2 is sharper for track use. But B road use they are a lot closer IMO. The F and TF are also very practical with a boot big enough to fit Golf clubs or a guitar in. I’m sure owning an F or TF will be slightly more troublesome than an MR2. But for me it is the character of the MG that would offer the greater reward. The TF isn’t perfect, they ride a bit hard all said and done. But there are some good aftermarket suspension kits available. And on this note. It is worth mentioning that the F and TF are very well supported with parts and updated parts that improve on the original. They have a large owner’s community in the U.K. with a wealth of knowledge and most parts are very cheap and affordable.
In which way it would be more troublesome? The TF is supposed to be pretty reliable once you are past the head gasket issue, or so I read? It is also better in the rust end than the MR2 and miles better than a MX5. Again, so I read?
Nickp82 said:
I have a TF and have done a bit of driving in an MR2 in the past few days.
You have hit the nail on the head for me as to why I would keep the TF over the MR2. The Toyota is just visually dull inside and out, so dull it doesn’t make me want to jump in and drive. For me, the TF still looks great especially as a twenty year old plus design .
I hate the massive steering wheel on the MR (easily changed I guess) whereas the TF has a nice small one.
I’m not sure the K-Series is more characterful tbf, they’re both very good engines which like to rev. My TF has the MGOC backbox which gives it a nice bark.
The TF may not be quite as dynamically proficient as an MR2 or indeed an MX-5 but it’s still good enough to be fun at all speeds and has its own character so yeah, I’m a fan.
Yes, absolutely agree on the looks front. What kills the MR2 for me is the knock off Porsche look. I'm not a body kit person and prefer my cars to be as original as possible on the looks. But I took a look to see if there were any body kits which made the MR2 look less of a cut price Boxer and to my surprise, the body kits I saw are to make it even more like a Porsche! You have hit the nail on the head for me as to why I would keep the TF over the MR2. The Toyota is just visually dull inside and out, so dull it doesn’t make me want to jump in and drive. For me, the TF still looks great especially as a twenty year old plus design .
I hate the massive steering wheel on the MR (easily changed I guess) whereas the TF has a nice small one.
I’m not sure the K-Series is more characterful tbf, they’re both very good engines which like to rev. My TF has the MGOC backbox which gives it a nice bark.
The TF may not be quite as dynamically proficient as an MR2 or indeed an MX-5 but it’s still good enough to be fun at all speeds and has its own character so yeah, I’m a fan.
In which way would you say the TF is not quite as dynamically proficient as an MR2?
TJveloce said:
Thanks. The part of owning a TF being more troublesome than owning a MR2 is my only real reservation or hesitation with the MG. The harder ride doesn't bother me at all. This is to be a fun weekend car. So I think if the harder ride means better handling, less body roll etc, it's a good thing.
In which way it would be more troublesome? The TF is supposed to be pretty reliable once you are past the head gasket issue, or so I read? It is also better in the rust end than the MR2 and miles better than a MX5. Again, so I read?
I don't think an F/TF should be much trouble really. But I'd suspect you'd have more little niggly things that would come up from time to time. I don't believe Toyota's are immune from issues either.In which way it would be more troublesome? The TF is supposed to be pretty reliable once you are past the head gasket issue, or so I read? It is also better in the rust end than the MR2 and miles better than a MX5. Again, so I read?
I would say, anything on an F/TF is likely pretty easy and cheap to sort however. As a family we've own and bought/sold lots and lots of Rover products over the years. Nearly all of them have been great and mostly little trouble.
300bhp/ton said:
Not a TF. But showing a bit more passion and enthusiasm for the platform than some of the other reviews.
Thanks for posting that! I actually really like the looks of the MG F as well. What puts me off a bit is the hydrogas and the reports that the TF is a much better steer and sports car. But both F and TF still look lovely today and way better than many of their counterparts from the same time.griffter said:
I keep an occasional eye on TFs. For some reason I like them! They don’t have the hydragas suspension of the F (which you probably know) and the engine albeit with its reputation is well liked for good reason. The 160 is surprisingly rare. Almost all the TFs that catch my eye in the classifieds are 135s. I’d go a take a look sharpish.
I had no idea the 160 was rare. So maybe I should indeed jump on this one. Only thing I'm not 100% happy is the colour. I would prefer something brighter and if dark, at least the dark green they had. But this car is black. Apart from that, the rest is perfect.TJveloce said:
Thanks for posting that! I actually really like the looks of the MG F as well. What puts me off a bit is the hydrogas and the reports that the TF is a much better steer and sports car. But both F and TF still look lovely today and way better than many of their counterparts from the same time.
I can see the appeal of the TF (I keep looking at them too 
). A TF will do everything an F does, just a slightly stiffer chassis. Some cost cutting measures, but also some better options and more stock power. And the ride/handling balance is a bit different due to the lack of hydrogas.300bhp/ton said:
TJveloce said:
Thanks for posting that! I actually really like the looks of the MG F as well. What puts me off a bit is the hydrogas and the reports that the TF is a much better steer and sports car. But both F and TF still look lovely today and way better than many of their counterparts from the same time.
I can see the appeal of the TF (I keep looking at them too ). A TF will do everything an F does, just a slightly stiffer chassis. Some cost cutting measures, but also some better options and more stock power. And the ride/handling balance is a bit different due to the lack of hydrogas.300bhp/ton said:
TJveloce said:
Thanks. The part of owning a TF being more troublesome than owning a MR2 is my only real reservation or hesitation with the MG. The harder ride doesn't bother me at all. This is to be a fun weekend car. So I think if the harder ride means better handling, less body roll etc, it's a good thing.
In which way it would be more troublesome? The TF is supposed to be pretty reliable once you are past the head gasket issue, or so I read? It is also better in the rust end than the MR2 and miles better than a MX5. Again, so I read?
I don't think an F/TF should be much trouble really. But I'd suspect you'd have more little niggly things that would come up from time to time. I don't believe Toyota's are immune from issues either.In which way it would be more troublesome? The TF is supposed to be pretty reliable once you are past the head gasket issue, or so I read? It is also better in the rust end than the MR2 and miles better than a MX5. Again, so I read?
I would say, anything on an F/TF is likely pretty easy and cheap to sort however. As a family we've own and bought/sold lots and lots of Rover products over the years. Nearly all of them have been great and mostly little trouble.
TJveloce said:
This is what got me fed up with my Alfas(s). The little niggly things. Things that don't necessarily get you stranded, but are annoying and detract from the full enjoyment of the car. Is this what you mean?
I think maybe I'm being overly hard on the MG in this regard. I honestly doubt they'd be any more trouble than anything else of similar age & ilk.If you don't like the NC because of the lack of power and characterless engine then I really wouldn't be considering the MR2 as it has the exact same flaws.
Both engines are genuinely the least inspiring of any cars I've owned, the MR2's I'd say is slightly worse because it seeks to have an awkward flat spot early in the rev range
As for power, they are almost exactly the same bhp/tonne
MX5 NC - 143
MR3 mk3 - 144
I imagine the MG is very similar aswell so I'm not sure that would be a great choice power wise.
Out of the two options though it sounds like the TF is the better option for you
Both engines are genuinely the least inspiring of any cars I've owned, the MR2's I'd say is slightly worse because it seeks to have an awkward flat spot early in the rev range
As for power, they are almost exactly the same bhp/tonne
MX5 NC - 143
MR3 mk3 - 144
I imagine the MG is very similar aswell so I'm not sure that would be a great choice power wise.
Out of the two options though it sounds like the TF is the better option for you
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff