MotorWeek MR2 vs Fiero
 

MotorWeek 1988: Toyota MR2 Supercharged vs Pontiac Fiero Formula

That was interesting to watch. The later 1990 and up MR2's would be a great car to buy.

I'm still confused as to why Toyota hasn’t bothered making a proper MR2 today.

the same reason that Pontiac hasnt built a proper Fiero:hammer:

Which is?

Awful 80's interior design ! :laugh: But I like the draw of the Fiero ;-) Thanks dude. And I would also like to know why Pontiac hasn't built a proper Fiero ?:mrgreen:

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!

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...

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

Looks are in the eyes of the beholder. See the cost difference to the mx-5.

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!” :-)

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. :-)

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/wikipedi...azda_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.