MotorWeek MR2 vs Fiero [Archive] - Sports Car Forum

r2r

12-17-2007, 01:13 AM

Simple reason: Sales.

The outgoing MR2 didn't sell at all. Mid engine=more expensive to build then front engine and historically the cheap ones just havent sold well enough to justify the extra cost.

The outgoing MR2 didn't succeed because it's complete rubbish and looks hideous, and not because of the extra cost involved in making one.

So yet again I'm curious to know as to why Toyota hasn't tried to make a decent MR2!

MidEngine4Life

12-17-2007, 03:12 AM

Yea I blame the failure of the MkIII on its hideous appearance

nthfinity

12-17-2007, 04:24 AM

Yea I blame the failure of the MkIII on its hideous appearance

It was much more expensive then a MX5, the looks were not very traditional MR2, but I didn't think it was that bad...

MidEngine4Life

12-17-2007, 05:14 AM

Sexy
http://steer.ru/archives/29050608.jpg
Not
http://www.4wdonline.com/Toyota/Cars/PiCs37/200012MR2.jpg

Was the second gen the most successful of the 3? I know the Fiero out sold the 1st gen MR2 for its entire production run

graywolf624

12-17-2007, 06:46 PM

The outgoing MR2 didn't succeed because it's complete rubbish and looks hideous, and not because of the extra cost involved in making one.
Looks are in the eyes of the beholder. See the cost difference to the mx-5.

r2r

12-18-2007, 02:02 AM

Looks are in the eyes of the beholder.....

I don't buy into the whole "beauty in the eye of the beholder" thing, as I think that's an easy way not having to explain yourself. I like to say...

...Beauty is not in the eye of the Beholder, but in the eye that understands it.

Anyway, my point is if you look at the comparison of pics that MidEngine4Life posted, you can clearly see that the two cars are made for different demographics just by how they look. The current MR2 clearly doesn't convey the sporty image the previous one did. To me that says “let’s make a reasonably affordable convertible that appeals to women!” :-)

graywolf624

12-18-2007, 07:11 PM

Anyway, my point is if you look at the comparison of pics that MidEngine4Life posted, you can clearly see that the two cars are made for different demographics just by how they look. The current MR2 clearly doesn't convey the sporty image the previous one did. To me that says “let’s make a reasonably affordable convertible that appeals to women!”
I beg to differ on two fronts:
a) watch the thread on car design, youll find each of our definitions of sporty is way different.
b) the mr2 stock was never much more then a reasonably affordable convertible. While I do prefer the older one, I also prefer older cars. That doesnt mean your statement holds. I can show you guys that love the pt cruiser where I think it looks like my neighbors dogs lunch revisted after hes puked. It really is a matter of the eye of the beholder.

r2r

12-18-2007, 11:46 PM

I beg to differ on two fronts:
a) watch the thread on car design, youll find each of our definitions of sporty is way different.
b) the mr2 stock was never much more then a reasonably affordable convertible. While I do prefer the older one, I also prefer older cars. That doesnt mean your statement holds. I can show you guys that love the pt cruiser where I think it looks like my neighbors dogs lunch revisted after hes puked. It really is a matter of the eye of the beholder.

Yeah, of course anything can be argued against if argued correctly, but that doesn't mean you would be right.

There are unarguable basics in design, and especially in the design of this MR2. First the proportions of the car don’t convey a sporty stance, because there isn’t enough pull of the cabin forward or back to give it direction. The most basic proportion of the wheels size to car ratio is wrong, giving the car a weak stance. Then there are major details like headlights and taillights that are flat and don’t give aggressive fast appearance a sports car needs, etc…

I'm not saying I know everything there is to know about looks, but what I'm saying is that the current MR2 is not successful because for one it doesn't convey the sporty image the older one did, in simplest term it's a bad design.

You have yet to point out any relevant arguments why current MR2 should have been successful or why it wasn't. So your either arguing for the sake of arguing or you work for Toyota. :-)

graywolf624

12-19-2007, 07:59 AM

You have yet to point out any relevant arguments why current MR2 should have been successful or why it wasn't. So your either arguing for the sake of arguing or you work for Toyota
I already pointed out why.. Cost.

Theres a very real arguement that throws your "it doesnt look sporty" out the window... The original MX-5... A guy couldnt look more gay in a car if it was pink... But it sold fantastic due to its dynamics and cost. Prove the car below looks sporty, and I'll drop my arguement.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/1st_Mazda_Miata.jpg/250px-1st_Mazda_Miata.jpg

The mid engine is simply more expensive to make. GM, for example, is on record that one of the reasons the Corvette is still not MR is due to the costs involved. Given GM made the Fiero at the begining of this thread thats even more relevancy.

r2r

12-19-2007, 09:30 PM

^
MX-5 are bought by a different crowd for the most part, therefore it is bought for a different purpose.(that purpose being more of weekend driving car rather then a car that has presence which is the MR2 for the younger crowd) Most MR2 (MKII) buyers will not consider an MX-5 and vice versa.

As far as design, that MX-5 has sleek simple forms that don’t conflict with it’s purpose. I personally don’t like the design, for the same reasons you mentioned that it’s a very feminine car, but for those buyer of the MX-5 that is not a big issue.

graywolf624

12-19-2007, 10:31 PM

MX-5 are bought by a different crowd for the most part, therefore it is bought for a different purpose.(that purpose being more of weekend driving car rather then a car that has presence which is the MR2 for the younger crowd) Most MR2 (MKII) buyers will not consider an MX-5 and vice versa.

As far as design, that MX-5 has sleek simple forms that don’t conflict with it’s purpose. I personally don’t like the design, for the same reasons you mentioned that it’s a very feminine car, but for those buyer of the MX-5 that is not a big issue.
Your assuming that the point of the MKIII was to sell to that demographic. The reality is, the demographic you describe couldnt afford a new MKIII even if it had been marketed to them. That MX-5 crowd is where the money is. If Toyota wasn;t marketing it to the crowd you just described, which ironically is the market that would buy the design you described so they obviously were, the car would go away anyway. They marketed as such but their price point was too high.

In other words, your arguing its different from the MX-5 based on what you view as the point of the car... Not what Toyota nor the general populace felt it was or should have been.

Never forget, us call nuts are a niche. For every V8 mustang theres 2 v6s... For every corvette theres millions of carrolas.

r2r

12-19-2007, 11:34 PM

^
Exactly. Toyota made a mistake as to who the MR2 was marked for.

If Toyota made a proper successor to the MR2 with a proper design it would have sold a proper amount, just like the Evo’s and WRX’s are selling to the younger crowd even though they are in the 40k range. Sure it could have turned out to be a failure but at least they would have put a proper effort into it.

Bad Design + wrong demographic = Failure

Proper Design + right demographic = Possible success (no matter if the cost is a bit high)

RC45

12-19-2007, 11:35 PM

0-60 was a very fast 6.5s ;)

hehe

he said very fast

hehe

;)

MidEngine4Life

12-20-2007, 07:18 AM

0-60 was a very fast 6.5s ;)

hehe

he said very fast

hehe

;)

lol yea but 2 decades ago, that was pretty impressive. Still isnt slow even to todays standards

sentra_dude

12-20-2007, 11:35 AM

Ahh, good old MotorWeek! :) This is a nice test. Its hard to decide which to car to pick; V6 grunt or s/c I4... Its surprising how well the Fiero's exterior styling has aged. If I had to decide on one of these I'd take a nice mid-90s MR2 turbo instead! :-D Thanks for the find.

graywolf624

12-20-2007, 05:32 PM

If Toyota made a proper successor to the MR2 with a proper design it would have sold a proper amount, just like the Evo’s and WRX’s are selling to the younger crowd even though they are in the 40k range.
Uhh.. the evos and wrxs werent in the 40k range, at least here in the states, until this latest sti.. Notice in that thread a bunch of us started to laugh and say they wont sell any of them.

Bad Design + wrong demographic = Failure
Toyota didnt make a mistake and it wasnt a bad design.. IT was the right design for the demographic they were going for. The 40k range young guy market is virtually non existant. Thats what you seem to be missing. When I went in and bought my 40k car.. My brand new corvette (which lets be honest the mr2 is not in the same league and never was with the vette, 3 series, boxster, or z4) .. I was told flat out its so refreshing to sell a new one to a young guy. It wasnt cause all corvette owners are old men.. Its because 40k for someone under 30 is a shit load of money. These are mass produced vehicles we are talking about.. If you believe there are 80000 single under 30 males looking for a 40000 dollar sports car well thats some fantasy world you live in.

r2r

12-20-2007, 09:35 PM

Uhh.. the evos and wrxs werent in the 40k range, at least here in the states, until this latest sti.. Notice in that thread a bunch of us started to laugh and say they wont sell any of them.

Toyota didnt make a mistake and it wasnt a bad design.. IT was the right design for the demographic they were going for. The 40k range young guy market is virtually non existant. Thats what you seem to be missing. When I went in and bought my 40k car.. My brand new corvette (which lets be honest the mr2 is not in the same league and never was with the vette, 3 series, boxster, or z4) .. I was told flat out its so refreshing to sell a new one to a young guy. It wasnt cause all corvette owners are old men.. Its because 40k for someone under 30 is a shit load of money. These are mass produced vehicles we are talking about.. If you believe there are 80000 single under 30 males looking for a 40000 dollar sports car well thats some fantasy world you live in.

Ok, if you want to get technical. Mustang GT's, WRX's, Evo's, SRT-4's, 350Z's... all in 30k range, and to my knowledge MR2 mkIII was in the 25k range at most. (so there is a market for it) So yet again like I said earlier...

>>> TOYOTA DID MAKE A MISTAKE, AS SHOWN WITH THE POOR SALES OF THE CURRENT MR2!!!

Now if Toyota produced a proper MR2 successor then they might have succeeded. End of story.

graywolf624

12-20-2007, 09:49 PM

That proper mr2 your describing isn't 25k.. thats what your missing.. The 25k car had no balls at all to meet the 25k price. To get real power out of it it would have been 40.
Performance wise the mkIII was on scale with the base miata.. Compare the prices. As much as it pains you to hear, they are the same buyers!

r2r

12-20-2007, 09:57 PM

graywolf624

12-20-2007, 10:07 PM

If Subaru, Mitsubishi and even Ford can do it, are you seriously saying that if Toyota wanted to, they couldn't make a proper mid engine two seater in 30k range?
Not a one of the cars you mentioned is mid engined. In fact.. Not a one of those cars is a 2 seater either. Which means your in an even smaller market.

Mid engine costs significantly more to produce then rear or front.. front is cheaper then both and why most economy cars are front.

The mkII was actually quite pricey in its time as the article at the front of this post points out. The fiero was frankensteins monster. Neither sold too well.
Theres a reason the elise is over 40k.. It isnt because lotus is price gouging. Just like the mr2 sitting alone in the under 40k mid engine marketplace wasnt because mid engines dont sell.. Its cause their pricier. Dont you think someone else would sell an mr for that price if it was profitable.. at very least to ape of ferraris use of it?>

r2r

12-20-2007, 10:25 PM

Neither one of us is knowledgeable enough to know how much money it would cost for Toyota to make a decent MR2 (or at least I admit I'm not knowledgeable enough) Lotus has other factors that we are probably overlooking so I'm not in the position to argue there.

The fast is Toyota has done it in the past with the MR2 mkII, and with modern technology it can do it in the present. All it needs to do is bring a good design in the same package as good performance.

If making a mid engine car is as horribly terrifyingly expensive as you seem to indicate constantly then Toyota would have never made a 20-25k current MR2!

graywolf624

12-20-2007, 10:46 PM

Neither one of us is knowledgeable enough to know how much money it would cost for Toyota to make a decent MR2 (or at least I admit I'm not knowledgeable enough) Lotus has other factors that we are probably overlooking so I'm not in the position to argue there.
I know enough about production costs of cars to tell you with 100 percent certainty that there is a significant cost premium for mr cars.

The fast is Toyota has done it in the past with the MR2 mkII, and with modern technology it can do it in the present. All it needs to do is bring a good design in the same package as good performance.
Yet again.. that mr2 wasnt cost competitive back then either. It was way more expensive then most cars.. and they didnt sell too well.

If making a mid engine car is as horribly terrifyingly expensive as you seem to indicate constantly then Toyota would have never made a 20-25k current MR2!
They made a 20-25k mid engine girl car.. as you pointed out.. The same car in front engine form, as is obvious from its direct competitors (miata), would have been in the teens. The premium is visible even in the last gen car, you just dont want to see it. If it was cheaper someone, anyone, would have stayed in this market. Car manufactuers are out to make money.. Hell BMW is out to fill every niche imaginable.. Theres a reason they havent filled this one.. its because its a niche with almost no one in it at a viable price point.

You see the 15 year old mr2.. and think its a bargain. I see the 15 year old mr2 and remember it cost 17000 for a base with a supercharger in 1988. By comparison a new vette only cost 29k, a 300zx with a turbo was only 24k. Both of those cars were a whole other league to the mr2. The mr2 was never a bargain

r2r

12-20-2007, 11:11 PM

Now your comparing cars that are non-mid engined. And the price difference you mentioned would be much greater now

But no, I don't see the last generation MR2 mkII as a bargain at all, as a matter of fast I heard Toyota lost some money on that MR2, but that was 15 years ago. This is now.

Lets take current MR2 in 20-25k range, give Toyota 10k to beef up power brakes and tranny. Are you saying that's impossible? Let's estimate the cost of that car being 30-35k that's exactly where all the other sports cars fall into.

Or are you saying that to make a mid-engine car you have to be in the 40k range like Lotus and nothing less?

graywolf624

12-20-2007, 11:26 PM

Lets take current MR2 in 20-25k range, give Toyota 10k to beef up power brakes and tranny. Are you saying that's impossible? Let's estimate the cost of that car being 30-35k that's exactly where all the other sports cars fall into.

Or are you saying that to make a mid-engine car you have to be in the 40k range like Lotus and nothing less?
Not that much greater.. the 350z is only 35k.. The vette only 45k (40 after discounts).. thats a minor increase.

What Im telling you is that the mr2 needs alot more then 10k to be anything more then a unique car. The last gen wasnt anywhere even approaching sporty..

r2r

12-21-2007, 03:33 AM

^
As mentioned before…

Performance: We already know Toyota can make a 25k MR2, and don’t tell me you need more then 5-10k to have a reasonable performance upgrade from a manufacturer, because you don’t.

Design: Good design doesn’t cost anything!

“Uniqueness” (whatever that means): We end up in the same price range as lets say a 350Z. Which means it’s going to compete with it. And I don’t know about you but in terms of picking a Sports car, a Mid-Engine Two Seat Rear Wheel Drive sounds much more Appealing and Unique to me then a 350Z!

Maybe the real reason you don’t see a proper mid-engine affordable sports car is because other companies make the same stupid mistakes like Toyota did thinking their new 25k MR2 should appeal and sold to the female buyers.

nthfinity

12-21-2007, 04:08 AM

Come on, this is Toyota we are talking about.

If Subaru, Mitsubishi and even Ford can do it, are you seriously saying that if Toyota wanted to, they couldn't make a proper mid engine two seater in 30k range?

Really think about what your saying. They have done it with the MR2 mkII before ;-)

Mustang GT is 26k Base....
WRX is/was 26k base
Evo is/was 29k base
STi was 31k base ( now 39kbase) WTF
350 Z 33k base

The final MR2 looked ok, and stood out, but its performance was not far off of a well equiped MX 5 (the only competition in the US in its class.... however, for its price, there is much stiffer competition in the "new car" class alone.... not including the "used car" category.

It failed because it was too expensive for what it did. In the opposite way why the corvette does so well for its price.... it does an awful lot.

Look at the next Skyline.... it looks ugly as fuck, and I'm sure it will sell well because of its performance.

On the same token, lets look at typical Alfa Romeo's from the last decade... people onlly buy them for the sound, and looks... performance vs every car in the same class is totally, and completely lackluster... yet they continue to sell.... they look fantastic. (in general)

Bah... i was going to think of something else, but I ran out of thought late at night... maybe you get my point :P

r2r

12-21-2007, 04:28 AM

How about having a mix of both, performance and looks!

The MR2 doesn’t have to and shouldn’t stay in the MX-5 category. It should climb up to the 350Z territory and use that extra money to upgrade the performance. Sure the mid-engine platform can decrease it’s performance a bit over the 350Z because of the extra cost involved in the mid engine platform, but like you said about Alfa's, It could appeal to buyers for it’s looks and mid engine proportions and even out the demand.

MidEngine4Life

12-21-2007, 07:16 AM

Look at the next Skyline.... it looks ugly as fuck, and I'm sure it will sell well because of its performance.

lol I dont think it looks that bad. I think it looks a lot better than the Z.

graywolf624

12-21-2007, 01:21 PM

Performance: We already know Toyota can make a 25k MR2, and don’t tell me you need more then 5-10k to have a reasonable performance upgrade from a manufacturer, because you don’t.
It might keep up with the 350z but that still wouldnt be a performance car market(the 350zs inadequacies being a subject for another time). That enters the emotional weekend gt market. Which raises a concern the 350z handles way better then the mr2... Luggage space. Could it compete there? Im not really sure.. But thats still different then the market you first described.

It won't compete with the like of the WRX, Evo, etc. How do I know? Look at the aftermarket. Notice those used miatas go racing. Very few people track mr2s of any generation. 9x out of 10 a individual can tune a car to be way faster from the factory for cheaper because they can make their own compromises. So what does that tell you.

Anyway, I think your starting to see my point so Ill stop now. Though I am enjoying this as I find the different auto niches fascinating.