RE: Shed Of The Week: Toyota MR2 GT
Discussion
kambites said:
Yes, I'm not denying it as such. I'm asking how it's possible. 
Because power to weight is only a fraction of information. Grip, gearing, power delivery, RPM, torque, aerodynamics, wheel size, there's so many things contributing to acceleration times. Max BHP and weight are only two of them.
One of my pet peeves was always those people that tuned their turbo's up to 600bhp and immediately thought it was better than a modern 600bhp supercar.
It's not because the MR2 Turbo with 600bhp cant control it, and it has that power from 6-8k rpm with little more than 200bhp before the enormous turbo kicks in at 5.5k rpm.
PHMatt said:
kambites said:
Yes, I'm not denying it as such. I'm asking how it's possible.
Because power to weight us only a fraction of information. Grip, gearing, power delivery, RPM, torque, aerodynamics, wheel size, there's so many things contributing to acceleration times. Max BHP and weight are only two of them.
It's a bit of an arse to find anything online about it because 99% of the information is about modified cars. The only proper road test I can find which tested the 0-100 time got 18 seconds: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/toyota-mr2-tur... but it doesn't give any indication as to the conditions of the test and anyway 18 sounds far too slow for the figures.
Edited by kambites on Monday 30th March 13:52
PHMatt said:
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....
PHMatt said:
kambites said:
Yes, I'm not denying it as such. I'm asking how it's possible.
Because power to weight is only a fraction of information. Grip, gearing, power delivery, RPM, torque, aerodynamics, wheel size, there's so many things contributing to acceleration times. Max BHP and weight are only two of them.
One of my pet peeves was always those people that tuned their turbo's up to 600bhp and immediately thought it was better than a modern 600bhp supercar.
It's not because the MR2 Turbo with 600bhp cant control it, and it has that power from 6-8k rpm with little more than 200bhp before the enormous turbo kicks in at 5.5k rpm.
That is a very good point and one that spans pretty much all of car enthusiasts world, I used to subscribe to the more always equalled better and it really doesn't work like that, manufacturers generally know what they are doing.
As a Mk2 owner for 12 years now some of the article needs explaining further:
My car used to be N/A until I dropped a turbo engine in. Apart from the fact that you will lose your license in it very quickly, it is infinitely more fun than the N/A engine.
The only places they rust are: The base of the doors where there is a seam fill (not behind the door cards), the rear arches (because there is sound deadening foam in the cavity that drops in and blocks the drains) and the rear wells of the rear arches in the boot (because the drain holes get blocked with crud from the wheels.
A couple of cheap mods and the handling is pin sharp with only the wheel base making it feel less nimble than others like the MX5, CRX & Mk1 MR2 etc.
These cars were hand assembled. The engines were made by Yamaha & the rest of the world regards them much more highly than the UK did for the sole reason that someone once called it a hairdressers car. They said the same about the MX5 and look how that's turned out!
Buy one - you will never regret it.
My car used to be N/A until I dropped a turbo engine in. Apart from the fact that you will lose your license in it very quickly, it is infinitely more fun than the N/A engine.
The only places they rust are: The base of the doors where there is a seam fill (not behind the door cards), the rear arches (because there is sound deadening foam in the cavity that drops in and blocks the drains) and the rear wells of the rear arches in the boot (because the drain holes get blocked with crud from the wheels.
A couple of cheap mods and the handling is pin sharp with only the wheel base making it feel less nimble than others like the MX5, CRX & Mk1 MR2 etc.
These cars were hand assembled. The engines were made by Yamaha & the rest of the world regards them much more highly than the UK did for the sole reason that someone once called it a hairdressers car. They said the same about the MX5 and look how that's turned out!
Buy one - you will never regret it.
Edited by Zircon on Monday 30th March 14:46
Had 2 of these rev3 turbos.
Good laugh, I sold my last one, which was a very good one for 3.8k 4 years ago, looks like that is still the going rate, but good ones seem to be few and far between.
I would have another for sure... As for comparing them to modern cars I am not sure where I stan, I have had E46 M3s, Z4Ms and other toys since, I do look back fondly but can't help but think they don't really compare to the modern stuff, but then I'm also comparing to 50k new cars.
As for q mile times, I drove a standard one at 13.5 in the dry and 14.2 in the rain.
Good laugh, I sold my last one, which was a very good one for 3.8k 4 years ago, looks like that is still the going rate, but good ones seem to be few and far between.
I would have another for sure... As for comparing them to modern cars I am not sure where I stan, I have had E46 M3s, Z4Ms and other toys since, I do look back fondly but can't help but think they don't really compare to the modern stuff, but then I'm also comparing to 50k new cars.
As for q mile times, I drove a standard one at 13.5 in the dry and 14.2 in the rain.
PHMatt said:
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....
http://www.celica-club.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Gen_5_...
The revision 1 and 2 MR2 Turbos made 220hp. This is the original Toyota promotional video for the MR2 Turbo. If you can bear the 80s cheesiness/brilliance, the specifications are quoted "225ps @ 6000rpm" so no it's not just "Internet know it alls"
http://youtu.be/WTpdWBNC48c
For what it's worth, when my car was standard it made exactly 220bhp, yours may have been down on power. It's also worth noting that there can be huge discrepancies between rolling road figures.
kambites said:
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
Certainly in my encounters with Elises the MR2 and Elise are very evenly matched in WOT through 2nd and most of 3rd, from the upper end of 3rd on the MR2 would pull a significant gap. Same story with the Honda S2000 and early Boxster S.
BTW I found 14sec quoted for the 111S 0-100.
Standard accepted norms:
Rev1/2 n/a ~ 155bhp
Rev1/2 turbo ~220bhp from the factory.
Rev3/4/5 n/a ~ 178bhp
Rev3/4/5 turbos - ~245Bhp from the factory.
Many owners add a few boltons and are up at 260-270bhp-ish.
Start looking at non standard turbos, fuelling and cooling and they're over 300. The stock fuelling system tops out at around 300bhp.
I would say anything under 300bhp will have a standing quarter in the mid to high 14s and you'll need some way over 300bhp to break into the 13s.
I would say 300bhp is about the sweet spot, much more than that and the chassis aint up to it.
Rev1/2 n/a ~ 155bhp
Rev1/2 turbo ~220bhp from the factory.
Rev3/4/5 n/a ~ 178bhp
Rev3/4/5 turbos - ~245Bhp from the factory.
Many owners add a few boltons and are up at 260-270bhp-ish.
Start looking at non standard turbos, fuelling and cooling and they're over 300. The stock fuelling system tops out at around 300bhp.
I would say anything under 300bhp will have a standing quarter in the mid to high 14s and you'll need some way over 300bhp to break into the 13s.
I would say 300bhp is about the sweet spot, much more than that and the chassis aint up to it.
The rev 3 N/A being most powerful was pretty much just on paper, the Rev 1 / 2 had a tiny bit lower grunt.
My 156bhp standard engine with a few choice mods got a flywheel dyno reading of 171bhp from a very well respected tuning garage with the following:
Exhaust
Air filter
Buddy Club ECU (swapped on the day between runs adding 9bhp instantly).
This was when the car was about 15 years old.
Dropped in a rev 3 turbo with some easy mods and have been enjoying the rocket ride ever since!
My 156bhp standard engine with a few choice mods got a flywheel dyno reading of 171bhp from a very well respected tuning garage with the following:
Exhaust
Air filter
Buddy Club ECU (swapped on the day between runs adding 9bhp instantly).
This was when the car was about 15 years old.
Dropped in a rev 3 turbo with some easy mods and have been enjoying the rocket ride ever since!
SonicShadow said:
FIREBIRDC9 said:
Pretty sure the Standard Rev 4 N/A was 168Bhp
The Japanese G-Limited (NA) was about the same as well I believe.
If I remember correctly the most powerful NA was the Rev 3
The most powerful NA was the JDM only Rev5 BEAMS with ~200bhp.The Japanese G-Limited (NA) was about the same as well I believe.
If I remember correctly the most powerful NA was the Rev 3
TheJimi said:
SonicShadow said:
FIREBIRDC9 said:
Pretty sure the Standard Rev 4 N/A was 168Bhp
The Japanese G-Limited (NA) was about the same as well I believe.
If I remember correctly the most powerful NA was the Rev 3
The most powerful NA was the JDM only Rev5 BEAMS with ~200bhp.The Japanese G-Limited (NA) was about the same as well I believe.
If I remember correctly the most powerful NA was the Rev 3
I'd be interested to know what the production numbers were. I've seen 2 or 3 for sale in the UK over as many years. I'd quite like to have a go in one.
PHMatt said:
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....
Well i've got a dyno printout of my recent Rev 2 turbo purchase. The print out is shortly after arrival in the UK in 2005, and the car was bone stock. It made 216bhp.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....
Besides this, you're right, I am only regurgitating what i've read online
ETA just seen Mikeys post.
Edited by danjama on Wednesday 8th April 23:00
I thought this was the same car until I checked:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1997-TOYOTA-MR2-SILVER-2...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1997-TOYOTA-MR2-SILVER-2...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff