'02 Miata or '02 Muatang

You apparently have never driven an MR2 and would rather talk out your ass.

Not if you know how to drive

Mustang GT 0-60

6 sec.

MR2 0-60

6.5 sec.

Not a hell of a lot of difference.

It's not how much HP, it's HP to weight ratio, and how you implement that power to the road.

And as to real driving - not a straight line drag, that MR2 won't even be able to see you in it's rearview mirror after a few good turns.

I loved my litle 1987 NA MR2, but a big Lincoln driven by an elderly fellow (with his wife as a passenger) blew me away when I attempted to get by him at a traffic light on a rural two-lane (they provide an extra lane on the right which merges fairly quickly into the main lane so you can get around the dump trucks, etc., which frequently travel these roads).

That MR2 was quick, but no match for that big Lincoln engine. If I'd been driving my Mustang, he would have been in my rear-view mirror.

I still loved that MR2, though. Quick handling and the twisties would have left both the Lincoln and the Mustang in it's rear-view mirror.

Even with the mid-engine, it was worse in the snow than the Mustang, hard as that may be to believe. Too light, I guess.

doc

Miatas are for women. My neighbor (a man, sort of) drives a Miata, and he's the laughing stock.

Does not mean you know anything about the 2002. That was 16 years ago, technology is a little different.

I'll just tell you that if you truly think horsepower tells the story of a car, then you are an idiot.

Your statements show an igorance of cars, or at least how to use what the car has. That's not opinion, that's fact.

Check out some autocross times for current cars, results are not hard to find on the internet. MR2's (current ones) are a full 8-10 seconds faster on a 1 minute autocross course than GT's and faster than Cobra's as well.

Is it faster than a Mustang GT? Not in a straight line, but you come up to my area, and try a Mustang on the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Keep in mind everyone, I am not denigrating the Mustang at all. I think it is a great car, but to judge a car like the MR2 on HP alone, and call it's drivetrain "awfully dull, in reality" is plain ignorance.

OK, we all agree that a 4 cylinder normally aspirated 4banger 138 hp japper is totally superior to any Mustang ever produced.

Hey, RICE RULES. Time to fold up this newsgroup and everybody go home now.

John

Yeah, he really should try to be more like you.

To whom are you responding?

Quoting a line or two will help a lot...

Oh, you don't have to tell me about the MR2, I had an 88 supercharged that I drove off the lot, and owned for 195,000 miles.

Good car, but don't tell me that 138 hp MRS is anything to get excited about.

John

No, John, he's right. Everyone knows that a Mustang driver would have to stand on the brakes, just to turn the steering wheel one way or the other. Mustangs weren't built to turn at all, but only to go in a straight line. And even if the Mustang COULD turn, Mustang drivers don't know how.

While he's sitting there trying to figure out what to do, the MR2 scoots right on by.

Another underpowered magic machine that beats performance automobiles in a parking lot.

dwight

Not anything like I said, but go ahead and try to mask your ignorance with sarcasam. Implying that I said Mustang's were inferior is the way to go on this group.

If you want to join John in his sarcastic ignorance that's fine. Whether you like it or not performance has more to it than pure HP, and your discounting the MR2 as a performance car in your post is just laughable.

You see, unlike you and John, I'm not discounting anything the Mustang can do. I know it's more powerful, I know it has very good handling. But there's other ways of acheiving very good performance.

Power to weight ratio - the MR2 only has 138 HP, but it also weighs

600-800 pounds less.

Gear Ratios

MR2 :

1st 1:3.166 2nd 1:1.904 3rd 1:1.392 4th 1:1.031 5th 1:0.815

Mustang GT:

1st 1:3.37 2nd 1:1.99 3rd 1:1.33 4th 1:1.00 5th 1:0.67

MR2 Quarter Mile Time

15.1 at 89MPH

Mustang GT Quarter Mile Time

14.7 (did not say speed) this was also tested on a coupe only, as convertibles outweigh coupes by 200+ pounds, and have different aerodynamics, the convertible is definately going to be slower.

Even if Convertible GT was as fast as the Coupe GT, .4 sec WOW, the Mustang is a real MR2 killer isn't it. Hell, .4 seconds, that would just about come down to reaction time.

There's alot more I could go into. Car people no matter what their brand loyalty and their feelings about ricers will readily admit the MR2 IS a performance car. Others on the other hand, that barely know their dick from a gear shift will continue to live in ignorance.

Not mine. I go to Heartland Park in Topeka and run the road courses in my 86 Vert, and have kicked all kinds of MR2, BMW, and Porche butt in the last couple of years. There are LOTS of Mustangs that come to these events, and other than the rare factory sponsored Audi SR6 (?) station wagon with twin turbos, Porche brakes and rotors, pushing close to 600 horses, the Mustangs usually run WAY ahead of everything else. Granted, it's not a real tight road course, but it still has plenty of turns depending on which way the track is configured!

Steve

Vert, and have kicked

LOTS of Mustangs that

station wagon with twin

usually run WAY ahead of

plenty of turns

Well, first your post is a little unclear. No indications of whether your Mustang is anywhere near stock. You can modify a mustang so easily to perform better. The subject started with stock, and that's where I've stayed. In that area, the MR2 (2002) is very comprable performance wise to a Mustang GT (2002) - look at my numbers in another post.

As to SCCA numbers for autocross - well, they tell a different story than you do. Then again, autocross is different - very different - than a road course. Still put two equal drivers on that Road course one in an MR2 and one in a GT and you will not have one far and away better than the other. I won't say the MR2 would win, because honestly, I don't know. I am in no way denigrating the way a Mustang handles, but answering idiotic claims that the MR2 is not a performance car, and is vastly outclassed by the GT, something which is wholly untrue.

You know as well as I do, there have been cars on that road course that should beat you, and haven't. In amateur races like that the driver has more to do with the times than does the car. That said, I turly doubt unmodified current GT's are beating unmodified current MR2's wholesale.

Your magazine racing, a Mustang GT will run .5 to 1 sec faster than what you posted. It will run the quarter between 98 and 100 mph. You will never convince anyone here that an MR2 is nothing more than a toy, including me.

The MR2 speeds are magazine speeds as well, so must be just as accurate ;)

That's exactly what the MR2 is, a toy. So is the Mustang. I'm not trying to convince anyone the MR2 is better. Just saying despite what any idiot believes, it is a true performance vehicle.

You and few others seem to have your lips so tightly puckered on a brand ass, that you fail to recognize simple truth.

Go back all the way to the original question. I answered with 5 convertibles that I had checked out personally as possibilities in the persons price range.

The way the MR2 and Mustang argument got started was not because I or anyone else claimed the Toyota was superior, but because the MR2 was being discounted as a performance car entirely based on it's HP. If you discount a car automatically because of it's HP, then you are as big an idiot as the others that responded.

And if a stock 2002 Mustang GT Convertible 5 speed will run below a

5.5 0-60 consistently then I'll kiss your ass myself.

Seriously, does anyone ever even read all the posts anymore, and try to understand what something is about before they go and shove their foot in their mouth.

Wow, talking about a 17 year old car when we are referring to 2002 models. What an ingenious comparison.

The current MR2 Spyder is less than a second off of the Mustang GT

0-60 time.

Not hard to believe at all when looking at the whole setup of the car.

The Mustang GT and MR2 are apples and oranges. Since you calld me an idiot I'll say what I really wanted to say. The MR2 is a damn go-kart. I have driven a go-kart that is faster and handles better than an MR2. Does that make the go-kart a performance vehicle? No, it's a go-kart, a toy.

Not brand loyal but there is nothing else to really compare with the Mustang GT. Sure a Mustang V6 can be compared to other V6 coupes but there is no other 2+2 RWD V8's being produced. I don't see anyone looking to buy a Mustang GT vert also looking at an MR2, same thing the other way. Two completely different vehicles.

There are motorcycles with more HP than that, would I compare them to a Mustrang? No. I didn't say the Mustang was superior, I said the MR2 was a toy and you'd never convince anyone here any different.

The vert will not with out modification but the coupe will, and does.

I didn't put my foot in my mouth. The MR2 can't be compared to the Mustang. If it was a decision between the MR2 and a Celica or a Miata then have at it, but they are all toy's to owners of a V8 with good handling.

No I didn't. If you think the shoe fits, that's your perogative, but I never called YOU an idiot personally.

Actually yes it is a performance vehicle. Performance car no. I'd definately say those karts that are built for racing are performance oriented.

I'm looking at both. Actually several convertibles. They have their strengths and weaknesses.

The Mustang is a toy too. All performance cars are. If we didn't want toys we'd all be driving econoboxes.

Well, the whole argument was about convertibles, which I have never deviated from. Still I doubt you or anyone on this board is consistently getting a full half to second better than professional drivers.

And it still leaves the idea that if they are that wrong on the GT, they must also be equally wrong on the MR2.

Wasn't comparing them. I certainly agree that they are apples and oranges. But to say that the MR2 is not a performance vehicle based merely on HP is stupid. That's the entire point, not to prove that the MR2 is superior. I never even insinuated the MR2 was superior. I said that it could do certain things better than the GT, but also acknowledged within the same breath that the GT could do certain things better than the MR2.

Again, I can't stress enough how much people need to read and understand whole threads before they comment. The original poster asked about a Miata and Mustang. I broke down 5 cars for him. The MR2, Sebring, Solara, Mustang, and Miata. IMO.

If the poster that was especially ignorant had just said that he didn't like the MR2, I would have kept quiet. His opinion is his opinion. But to discount a car as a performance car entirely based on HP, is ignorant.

I'm really glad that a V-8 makes your dick feel bigger, but there are other ways of achieving speed/performance than by tossing the biggest engine you can find in a car.

Personally I don't have an MR2 or a Mustang. I currently have a 91

300ZX Twin Turbo. I am getting rid of the car and buying a convertible. I have been in this board asking questions precisely because the Mustang is one of my choices. The MR2 is another. I thought I'd share some of the insight I gained from the tests in answer to the original question. I took exception at some obviously ignorant posts about the MR2, because numbers and feel in the drive show me, they are not that far off performance wise. If HP was the meter, then my Sedan would be a performance car. It's not. It beats the GT in HP, but other factors relegate it to a different class.

Looks like it from here, you called me and anyone else that thinks an MR2 is a toy an idiot.

The Mustang's not a toy becuse I can use it every day. I have a trunk big enough to go grocery shopping, I can put 2 adults and 2 chirldren in it and still have room for luggage to drive x-country. I can use it as a toy at the track but the Mustang can be, and is used every day by people that need an every day car. Why do you think so many V6 Mustangs are sold every year?

Not usually, most of the magazine testers can't launch a RWD V8 correctly.

The Sebring, Solara, and Mustang are a similar class of car. I still don't see why a person looking at these would want a MR2 or Miata. I didn't respont to the original post becuse there is no simularties between the Mustang and Miata other than the drop top and 4 wheels.

Sorry but I don't need a V8 to make my dick bigger. If you have a small dick and use this excuse for not buying a V8 that's your problem. Oh, and don't tell an AC Cobra or Viper owner that, I'm sure you'd end up with a foot in your mouth and it wouldn't be yours.

A 300Z is a better comparison to a Mustang GT than an MR2. I don't think you'd be happy with a Mustang any way, so go ahead and get that MR2 and find a news group where others will appreciate it like you do.