^
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.

^
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)

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

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.

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.

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!

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 ;-)

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?>

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!

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.

Yet again.. that mr2 wasnt cost competitive back then either. It was way more expensive then most cars.. and they didnt sell too well.

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

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?

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..