capacivic

I can't make up my mind.

2012 Civic Si (no navigation) or 1986 MR2 five-speed?

The MR2 has about 50,000 miles on it, and is selling for $7,000 and looks to be in good shape.

The Civic will be a bit more reliable and it has way more safety features but it costs $22,000.

The MR2 is cheaper, has no airbags, is much smaller (and thus probably much less safe in a crash) and parts may be difficult to find for it.

Any thoughts?

sdaidoji

iTrader: (1)

do what you fell like, but have spare cars for when something happens.
my stable includes 02 vic, 01 miata and 95 miata, but the only one running right now is the 95 :P

Stock 99

mr2 would be a toy not a daily driver like the Civic. So it ends up being what's best for what you need it for. Your not going to carry anything in an mr2 and the civic has actually quite a bit of storage space. Again what best for you?

On the other hand. I have a 1981 Kawasaki motorcycle and I have no problems getting OEM parts from the dealer and if I cared to I can still get much cheaper aftermarket parts online. I assume Toyota still supports that car. If it had the 22re that the 89 Celica has it would be a much better engine/car in the same time frame mr2 = 1.6l Celica = 2.4l. I was in one doing 100+ mph once and you could barely tell.

I like the MR2 I wouldn't buy one though. I'm not a big fan of the new Civics and I wouldn't buy one either. I was just sitting in a 2012 LX the other day and it didn't do anything for me at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_MR2

EDIT - I wouldn't under estimate Toyota for crash safety either. I swear Toyota is Japenese for 'over engineered' (in a good way)

labowsky

RWD or FWD?
i agree with stock though, the mr2 IS more of a fun car but can still be used as a DD just have to deal with how impractical it is.

also expect to fix things, and be very frustrated working on a mid-engine is a total PAIN!
i thought i could get away with a 240sx haha