After 3 Impreza Turbos, I bought a Seat Leon Cupra to save money. Each month I saved:

£8 - insurance
£26 - petrol (15K pa)
Zilch in Tyres
And servicing cost about the same. Add in all the pertol spent going to the dealers to get the bloody thing fixed, and it probably cost me money! Sold it after 9 months.

Face it; cars cost money. Want to save some? Don't own one...

 

Have to agree with Anon Bob Scoobynutta. My original post was that an MR2, turbo or not was a good cheap car to run. You seem to have turned it into a Vs thread. I completely agree with you about Scoobs, otherwise i wouldnt have been on here for 2 years.

But as a cheap performance car (IMHO) an MR2 cant be beaten: fact

Not that it matters anymore as Notorious is keeping his Scoob And Nutta, I will be buying one soon (as well as the MR though, not as a replacement)

 

i know one thing, MR2's make amazing banger racers.

 

£2000 insurance

£525

 

it was revs that stated 2000 for insurance... obviously you guys need to advise him on cheaper insurance!! I still say... Scooby too expensive?? Buy an MR2 turbo...

 

Every time I speak to LV they tell me I'm an undesirable. Thats what happens when you:

a) live in a crime-rich area
b) own a Jap import
c) have 6 points on your licence
d) have only 3 years NCB

Cheapest quote I've had is from Tesco's for £1600 fully comp. *******s.

 

fact:it wasnt me who started impreza versus mr2, it was the misguided sole who stated that the mr2 was a HIGH performance car, and was implying a standard car, not even a turbo model, in my books its a sports car, but obvioulsy not a HIGH performance car. It was then taken over from people from another bbs with 1 or 2 posts and somome who preferes to be anonymous, whos probably you.

 

oh, did the thread get taken over by people from other places? some of us were already here. We can be in more than one BBS, although i got in trouble for this thread in another place.
btw I like MR2's and scoobs.

 

Actually, I've deliberately kept out of the whole MR2/Scooby debate, but I'll say a couple of things:

I'm not going to find a car with Scoob performance thats cheaper to run, except maybe a Westy, so the suggestion of a slower car that's still fastish and handles well is a good one and I think the MR2 fits that bill, although I'd rather have a MK1 than a MK2, and I'd take the Fiat X1/9 over both of them if I could find one that hadn't rusted apart

Anyway, as stated earlier, I've decided to keep the Scoob, I think I just let my insurance frustrations get the better of me for a moment.

Thanks to all contributors to my longest ever thread

 

I found one!

Half price insurance, involving to drive, next to zero depriciation, is a great car as standard and £450 gets you a reliable 300bhp.

 

I assume from your 'from' text that you are referring to a 944 turbo?

I've not driven one, but I can't imagine it would be completely different in feel to a 944S, just more urge? Well, I road-tested a 944S back to back with the MR2 mk1 and that's when I bought the MR2. There was no contest!

 

944s - 190bhp
944s2 - 211bhp
944Turbo - 250bhp

...so yes i guess it does have a little bit more urge!

 

The point is, urge is not the criterion here! I was comparing 190bhp and 126bhp but 126bhp won hands down. Not on urge - on driver satisfaction.

 

The discussion was not even about 126bhp MR2's (that suffer hideous rust on the rear arches!) but similiar performance to a scoob for less money.

 

ive got my doubts,ive had 4 hondas,2 vtis,rev to 8300 no trouble,driven hard,still get 26,000 out of a set of tyres,always wanted a scooby but i think they are overrated,loyalty?honda never dropped £3000 on a current production model.will i buy another scooby?not if i want to get ripped off for 3 grand again