RE: Shed Of The Week: Toyota MR2 GT

[danjama]

TheJimi said:

So, what "modern supercars" have you driven? and by driven, I mean, properly driven.

Here's a GTR, which, while not a "supercar" per-se, a lot of people think it that the "car does almost everything by itself" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgtBEoDXGuE

Still think so?

Have a look at the recent LaFerrari vs 918 at Spa, which still didn't have all safety systems turned off, and tell me that the car did eveything by itself.

EDIT: LaF vid - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVy6tPGVRUI

and that's WITH wide parameters left in the systems.

Yep, car practically drove itself

Edited by TheJimi on Saturday 28th March 12:00

HOLD ON a moment. He said modern performance cars, not modern supercars, as you've somehow misquoted.

In which case I would agree with him. Many/most modern performance cars ARE point and squirt!

[TheJimi]

danjama said:

TheJimi said:

So, what "modern supercars" have you driven? and by driven, I mean, properly driven.

Here's a GTR, which, while not a "supercar" per-se, a lot of people think it that the "car does almost everything by itself" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgtBEoDXGuE

Still think so?

Have a look at the recent LaFerrari vs 918 at Spa, which still didn't have all safety systems turned off, and tell me that the car did eveything by itself.

EDIT: LaF vid - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVy6tPGVRUI

and that's WITH wide parameters left in the systems.

Yep, car practically drove itself

Edited by TheJimi on Saturday 28th March 12:00

HOLD ON a moment. He said modern performance cars, not modern supercars, as you've somehow misquoted.

In which case I would agree with him. Many/most modern performance cars ARE point and squirt!

LasseV said:

daytona365 said:

Why buy a McLaren when these are available for less than a set of wheel nuts ?

Edited by daytona365 on Friday 27th March 15:54

And i bet that mr2 is more fun and challenging car to drive than any moden supercar.

Best shed this year. I need more mr2 in my life.

[japaneseskoda]

dlockhart said:

Due to the rust? ;)

Not a bargain at all, it's a rust bucket and will get worse. Much better with an earlier mk2, they were made of better metal. Yamaha the sub contractor started using cheaper materials towards the end of mk2 production including body panels. Get a rev 3 or earlier forget about this one

[LasseV]

TheJimi said:

Yup yup. st got real. Of course i did exaggerate little bit in the first place, but after that when things did get serious i said performance cars. MR2 was performance car in its time and we should compare it against modern performance cars. I bet that Mclaren was a joke and i just did continue it. But i still think that real drivers car from yesteryear are more challenging to drive fast. And for me, it's not about the speed what you get but it is that sensation that I did drive this corner with my car without any help from electronic brains.

Someone did post LaFerrari track driving vid. It was a very nice, fast and skillful piece of driving and i did enjoy a lot when i watched it. However it did look a lot easier than driving in this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAE1SFjNgwQ

That is a very fast car without any electronic driving aids. I would probably get killed instantly if i tried to drive that fast in that car. However, this doesn't mean that i think that old cheapo coupe is in the same level than LaFerrari as an car or as an status symbol. I never meant that. I just speak from driving point of view from my perspective.

Of course we all have a different taste, but i prefer cars what i can control by myself. And it really doesn't matter if i'm slower than someone else... Of course most people think differently.

[DaveCWK]

I've had 2 - a rev2 n/a in blue which was nice enough, and certainly a good buy for shed money, and a rev3 turbo. I can't believe some have driven a turbo in fine fettle and felt it to not be that fast. Mine had the obligatory boost controller set to 1bar'ish, decat and a chargecooler, and the acceleration in 1st/2nd gear was brutal.

Iirc I paid £2500 back In 2009. Unbeatable blend of speed / excitement / usability for the money.

[Mubble]

Here's mine. Been driving these for almost a decade. It's almost time to move on to something more sensible (and economical) now I'm in my mid 30s, but just know I'll regret selling it.

[slipstream 1985]

kambites said:

MikeyMike said:

14 seconds for the 0-100 is the accepted figure.

If true, that's astonishingly fast for such a heavy car with that power output; even one with a significantly rear-biased weight distribution. Can it do 100 in third?

Or were they putting out well over the quoted power figure in practice?

Edited by kambites on Saturday 28th March 11:43

Yes most of them were. Mine only had a blitz nur spec exhaust (very expensive) and I wiped the floor of an evo 8 mr 260 on the 1/4mile. It is a 150 (shakey) mph car.

[angelicupstarts]

LasseV said:

TheJimi said:

Yup yup. st got real. Of course i did exaggerate little bit in the first place, but after that when things did get serious i said performance cars. MR2 was performance car in its time and we should compare it against modern performance cars. I bet that Mclaren was a joke and i just did continue it. But i still think that real drivers car from yesteryear are more challenging to drive fast. And for me, it's not about the speed what you get but it is that sensation that I did drive this corner with my car without any help from electronic brains.

Someone did post LaFerrari track driving vid. It was a very nice, fast and skillful piece of driving and i did enjoy a lot when i watched it. However it did look a lot easier than driving in this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAE1SFjNgwQ

That is a very fast car without any electronic driving aids. I would probably get killed instantly if i tried to drive that fast in that car. However, this doesn't mean that i think that old cheapo coupe is in the same level than LaFerrari as an car or as an status symbol. I never meant that. I just speak from driving point of view from my perspective.

Of course we all have a different taste, but i prefer cars what i can control by myself. And it really doesn't matter if i'm slower than someone else... Of course most people think differently.

would have to agree , i loved my old mk1 mr2 ... not fast , not really ..never was .
i loved my pug's 205 gti that i owned ..fast ..well almost isn ?
even my mgf vvi 7 sec to 60 fast ...not today , quite often out excellerated by todays sub 7 4x4 's
my old mini cooper s .. not fast
but all the above cars .. just loved the basic , know what everything is doing feel one got through the wheel and seat of your pants .
mgf has a habit of kicking out on roundabouts ..but you learn to point it in well ..and then rev that nice little vvi right up to 7000 + rpm ...and you can feel it is mid engined pushing you .
the pug ..nothing more fun in corners lifting back wheel
old minis ..handbrake fun ..used to steer the car
mk1 mr2 ... little go kart grip and square so easy to place on the road .
all these cars have character ..so much more then speed matters .. the learning of how to use a car
i learnt to drive many years ago in a spitfire mk1 ...... spinning out on a wide sweeping motorway 2 x 360 spins ...learning the hard way about how these cars jacked the rear wheels under then bounced ..not nice ..but respect
my mustang 350 fastback clone .. can still catch me out sometimes ...never really feel like its tamed
but some of the modern cars I've driven are fantastic of course ..but they do seem to lack that little bit of character , for example audi tt .. fast , competent , comfortable and safe ..but i never , ever feel like I'm having fun ..not like my mgf vvi that i picked up for £350 ...and this mr2 for less then a grand ..hell why not !
sorry ramble over

[angelicupstarts]

just as afterthought , I've only ever seen one mk1 mr2 that was supercharged not turbo ? in dark navy blue . has anyone else seen any of these ..were they rare ? fast ?

Edited by angelicupstarts on Sunday 29th March 13:40

[s m]

angelicupstarts said:

just as afterthought , I've only ever seen one mk1 mr2 that was supercharged not turbo ? in dark navy blue . has anyone else seen any of these ..were they rare ? fast ?

Edited by angelicupstarts on Sunday 29th March 13:40

They were 145bhp
0-60 in 6.5
0-100 in 19.7

Ss1/4 15.0 @ 91

Import only over here which probably explains rarity

[paulg390]

Just bought a one owner Rev 5 T-bar one of these as the run around / school run car and love it after a recommendation from friend who has had his Rev 4 since new in 1997 Not particulary fast in this day and age, but great fun to drive with decent gearbox, reasonable performance with a good mix of ride and handling, and well equipped and solidly built interior.. The T-bar roof is bonus when the sun is out and the T-bars come with leather and aircon too. Definitely worth a look at these...

Edited by paulg390 on Sunday 29th March 22:35

Edited by paulg390 on Sunday 29th March 22:43

[MikeyMike]

kambites said:

MikeyMike said:

14 seconds for the 0-100 is the accepted figure.

If true, that's astonishingly fast for such a heavy car with that power output; even one with a significantly rear-biased weight distribution. Can it do 100 in third?

Or were they putting out well over the quoted power figure in practice?

Edited by kambites on Saturday 28th March 11:43

Not really, I've owned my MR2 for 11 years and have never been aware of them making more power than quoted as standard. Just a result of the benefits of a mid-rear layout and a decent motor.

It's hard to get stats on the Turbo's performance figures, the top speed varies hugely from 145-165mph. These are links from a quick Google search for performance figures (0-60 on both sites is wrong, it's 5.2 for the rev3+ but it gives you an idea).

http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=341

http://www.supercarworld.com/cgi-bin/showgeneral.c...

[BlueMR2]

I really liked my MR2 but it was just to small so had to go, still have the t bar glass panels and rear lights/ central part.

The n/a was feeling abit slow after a year or 2, so a turbo would have been interesting, a V6 would have been more likely though, nicer sound and more low down torque which it really lacked.

[PHMatt]

angelicupstarts said:

just as afterthought , I've only ever seen one mk1 mr2 that was supercharged not turbo ? in dark navy blue . has anyone else seen any of these ..were they rare ? fast ?

Edited by angelicupstarts on Sunday 29th March 13:40

Mk1's were all NA in the UK and there was a ltd edition supercharger in Jap/Overseas.
Never a turbo mk1 though.

[PHMatt]

MikeyMike said:

kambites said:

MikeyMike said:

14 seconds for the 0-100 is the accepted figure.

If true, that's astonishingly fast for such a heavy car with that power output; even one with a significantly rear-biased weight distribution. Can it do 100 in third?

Or were they putting out well over the quoted power figure in practice?

Edited by kambites on Saturday 28th March 11:43

Not really, I've owned my MR2 for 11 years and have never been aware of them making more power than quoted as standard. Just a result of the benefits of a mid-rear layout and a decent motor.

It's hard to get stats on the Turbo's performance figures, the top speed varies hugely from 145-165mph. These are links from a quick Google search for performance figures (0-60 on both sites is wrong, it's 5.2 for the rev3+ but it gives you an idea).

http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=341

http://www.supercarworld.com/cgi-bin/showgeneral.c...

My standard (when bought) Rev 2 made 205bhp which is about what the pop up light Celica GT4 made (ST185?)
I think the rev 3 made 245bhp, which, coincidentally is what the ST205 GT4 made.

I think some people focus on power to weight too much and forget gearing and torque.

My wife has a 1.7 Puma - 125bhp and around 1.035kg
I have a 330 convertible with 230bhp and about 1.7t
Power to weight not miles apart 121bhp per ton / 135bhp per ton

I drive both regularly and mine would spank hers everywhere except tight twisty bits. It's so far apart in acceleration after about 30 that you'd think they came from different planets.
And, as a previous Mr2 Turbo owner, I can tell you that would have trounced my BMW easily.

[kambites]

MikeyMike said:

Not really, I've owned my MR2 for 11 years and have never been aware of them making more power than quoted as standard. Just a result of the benefits of a mid-rear layout and a decent motor.

Well yes, but if those figures are true the thing gets from 60-100 almost two seconds faster than my car which has an extra ~30bhp/tonne. Yes, the MR2 will have a higher power to drag ratio so I'd expect it to be a little quicker, but not that much quicker! Even if there's one less gear change, two seconds is still an awful lot.

I wouldn't expect even a 4wd car with only 170bhp/tonne to manage 100 in <15 seconds.

Edited by kambites on Monday 30th March 12:29

[danjama]

Rev 2 were 220bhp from factory.

[SonicShadow]

kambites said:

Well yes, but if those figures are true the thing gets from 60-100 almost two seconds faster than my car which has an extra ~30bhp/tonne. Yes, the MR2 will have a higher power to drag ratio so I'd expect it to be a little quicker, but not that much quicker! Even if there's one less gear change, two seconds is still an awful lot.

I wouldn't expect even a 4wd car with only 170bhp/tonne to manage 100 in <15 seconds.

Edited by kambites on Monday 30th March 12:29

if you look on YouTube, there's many examples of MR2 Turbos stock or with minor upgrades (exhaust, aftermarket intercooler for example) running 1/4 miles in the 13s range with a ~100MPH trap speed. I think the 'official' 0-60mph for them is quite conservative. With good tyres and a dry, grippy surface they can launch very hard indeed, if your clutch is up to it.

[PHMatt]

danjama said:

Rev 2 were 220bhp from factory.

Says who though?

It's usually internet "know it alls"
You wont find anything official from Toyota.

The only real comparison is the GT4 which had the same engines. They never came with 220bhp....

[kambites]

SonicShadow said:

if you look on YouTube, there's many examples of MR2 Turbos stock or with minor upgrades (exhaust, aftermarket intercooler for example) running 1/4 miles in the 13s range with a ~100MPH trap speed. I think the 'official' 0-60mph for them is quite conservative. With good tyres and a dry, grippy surface they can launch very hard indeed, if your clutch is up to it.

Yes, I'm not denying it as such. I'm asking how it's possible.