MR2 Mk2: Turbo or V6?
Discussion
Right, I am fairly sure that my next car may well end up being a Mk2 MR2 - I do like the shape, and have heard good things about their blend of sportiness and comfort.
What I am not sure about however, is whether to go for a Turbo or a V6 engined car.
I'll have around £2.5K to spend. I've seen tidy Rev 3 Turbos go for that and also tidy V6s go for that (I'd be looking at a 3VZ-FE or whatever is the bog standard V6 engine).
With the V6, I'm guessing it would have the following advantages over the Turbo:-
I'd be after a relatively standard Rev 3 Turbo - I'm not confident about a lot of the modded ones I've seen, reliability is a must, and to be honest, I think people will soon be after relatively unabused ones, and it should hold its value... also I think 245 BHP is probably enough in a car like that - after all 0-60 in < 5.5 secs and 160+ is not too shabby!
Then again though, the allure of a V6 engine in a car like this is also difficult for me to ignore. It somehow seems purer to have a nice robust NA engine with plenty of ccs and cylinders to produce power. And again, I suspect ~ 200 bhp with a very wide power band and torque at nearly any point in the rev range is going to make for a fairly effortless, pleasing to drive car.
Over to you
What I am not sure about however, is whether to go for a Turbo or a V6 engined car.
I'll have around £2.5K to spend. I've seen tidy Rev 3 Turbos go for that and also tidy V6s go for that (I'd be looking at a 3VZ-FE or whatever is the bog standard V6 engine).
With the V6, I'm guessing it would have the following advantages over the Turbo:-
- More tractable at low revs
- Better sounding
- Better throttle response
- Smoother
- More reliable
- Slightly better on petrol
- Standard engine making for easier resale?
- More exciting when the turbo kicks in (more of a "shove")
- Faster acceleration and higher top speed
- Lighter kerb weight
I'd be after a relatively standard Rev 3 Turbo - I'm not confident about a lot of the modded ones I've seen, reliability is a must, and to be honest, I think people will soon be after relatively unabused ones, and it should hold its value... also I think 245 BHP is probably enough in a car like that - after all 0-60 in < 5.5 secs and 160+ is not too shabby!
Then again though, the allure of a V6 engine in a car like this is also difficult for me to ignore. It somehow seems purer to have a nice robust NA engine with plenty of ccs and cylinders to produce power. And again, I suspect ~ 200 bhp with a very wide power band and torque at nearly any point in the rev range is going to make for a fairly effortless, pleasing to drive car.
Over to you
Gaz. said:
How many V6's have you seen for £2.5k for sale?
How many rev3 Turbos have you seen for that matter.
Not a huge amount either way.... but they are out there.How many rev3 Turbos have you seen for that matter.
Examples:
Rev3 Turbo, standard, looks pretty tidy, £2400: http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1738355.htm
This V6 went for £2k, again looks pretty tidy: http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?16...
ETA: There are a fair few decent cars on the owners club forums too.
Also I wouldn't necessarily rule out a Rev2 Turbo either as long as it was minty, although I've heard these are a lot more fragile than the Rev3.
Edited by pbirkett on Saturday 21st August 14:48
Fragile?? The only part of the Rev 2 that is more "fragile" is the head gasket. The Rev 2 has a paper gasket as opposed to the Rev 3's steel item. However its still more than adequate to do the job. Other than that the Rev 3 has bigger fuel injectors (540cc as opposed to 440cc), a different turbo that is noted for its less aggressive power delivery, it also holds onto boost higher up the rev range, it has a map sensor rather than an air flow meter and slightly different profiled camshafts and a generally better flowing cylinder head design. Combined these changes made the Rev3 easier to modify more than anything else. The suspension and geometry and braking changes that made the SW20 more forgiveable came in the change from Rev1 to Rev2.
In terms of performance;
Rev2 Rev3
Power- 220bhp 241bhp
Torque- 220lb/ft 220lb/ft
0-60- 5.7sec 5.2sec
Top speed circa 160mph for both cars.
The Rev3 is better looking I think, I changed my Rev2 rear lights for JDM Rev3s.
You have to bear in mind that all Mk2 MR2s are old cars now, so you are far better off buying the best Mk2 that falls into your budget rather than ruling out certain revisions/models.
I own a Rev2 GT, when it was still pretty standard I took it along to a dyno-day arranged through an owners club. Around 15-20 cars turned up, my car produced bang on standard figures and in the words of the dyno-operator was "the best car they'd had all day" he said it was far healthier than all the Rev3+ motors that turned up, most of which over fueled horrendously.
If you plan to leave things standard there's very little reason to discount the Rev2.
As for V6 conversions, not my cup of tea, too slow in my opinion.
As for the sound, both sound good but the V6 maybe has the edge.
V6- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAVYM7Fwx5Y
Turbo- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZnqxpTx1NA
In terms of performance;
Rev2 Rev3
Power- 220bhp 241bhp
Torque- 220lb/ft 220lb/ft
0-60- 5.7sec 5.2sec
Top speed circa 160mph for both cars.
The Rev3 is better looking I think, I changed my Rev2 rear lights for JDM Rev3s.
You have to bear in mind that all Mk2 MR2s are old cars now, so you are far better off buying the best Mk2 that falls into your budget rather than ruling out certain revisions/models.
I own a Rev2 GT, when it was still pretty standard I took it along to a dyno-day arranged through an owners club. Around 15-20 cars turned up, my car produced bang on standard figures and in the words of the dyno-operator was "the best car they'd had all day" he said it was far healthier than all the Rev3+ motors that turned up, most of which over fueled horrendously.
If you plan to leave things standard there's very little reason to discount the Rev2.
As for V6 conversions, not my cup of tea, too slow in my opinion.
As for the sound, both sound good but the V6 maybe has the edge.
V6- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAVYM7Fwx5Y
Turbo- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZnqxpTx1NA
Mike, Gaz, cheers for the comments, thats what I like about PH, I can link to something, and people will let me know if it looks an OK car.
I might be prepared to go for a Rev 2 if it had maybe some mild tuning (maybe 250+ BHP) and it was a nice example. I agree, buy on condition above all else.
I might be prepared to go for a Rev 2 if it had maybe some mild tuning (maybe 250+ BHP) and it was a nice example. I agree, buy on condition above all else.
pbirkett said:
What about this?
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1844500.htm
Couple of concerns with that, firstly its got a Rev1 front lip, why? might have had a prang? might actually be a Rev1 thats been incorrectly registered. Also it says that the standard ECU has been remapped, the Rev1/2 ECU cant be remapped, perhaps its got a piggyback chip?http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1844500.htm
MikeyMike said:
pbirkett said:
What about this?
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1844500.htm
Couple of concerns with that, firstly its got a Rev1 front lip, why? might have had a prang? might actually be a Rev1 thats been incorrectly registered. Also it says that the standard ECU has been remapped, the Rev1/2 ECU cant be remapped, perhaps its got a piggyback chip?http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1844500.htm
Damage doesnt tend to be severe (there isnt much to break up front apart from the radiator and bumper, so long as you dont bend the suspension / steering components) but a CLEAR sign is a mismatched front end
A VZ Mk2 can get down the 1/4 mile in 14.5 secs compared to my 15psi boosted Rev2 which did it in 14.2. Overtaking ability is lower in the V6 as it lacks the top end of the turbo's. But real world difference isn't as massive as some would suggest.
Driveability is completely different. Dependant on your driving style the V6 is smoother waftier and much more relaxed. The turbo you have to work to keep it on the boil. Again horses for courses on that one.
Of course there is the noise which can make such a big difference to a car of this sort. A sunny day with the t-bars off and a V6 bellow behind you makes for a great sense of occasion.
I think your budget for either version is pretty much spot on as the MR2 market is on its arse right now.As mentioned above, they are all old cars so I would buy with condition as utmost priority as opposed to the revision. Just be prepared to wait for the V6 as they don't pop up quite as often as the turbo versions.
Driveability is completely different. Dependant on your driving style the V6 is smoother waftier and much more relaxed. The turbo you have to work to keep it on the boil. Again horses for courses on that one.
Of course there is the noise which can make such a big difference to a car of this sort. A sunny day with the t-bars off and a V6 bellow behind you makes for a great sense of occasion.
I think your budget for either version is pretty much spot on as the MR2 market is on its arse right now.As mentioned above, they are all old cars so I would buy with condition as utmost priority as opposed to the revision. Just be prepared to wait for the V6 as they don't pop up quite as often as the turbo versions.
Thanks for the input.
Must admit, I always thought the Turbo would also be quite effortless in its own way, but from what you say its quite laggy? To be honest, I'd really rather like to get away from "highly strung" cars now, my last 3 cars, including my current Eunos, all needed to be worked hard to get any performance... though I still assume that a Turbo would still be a more effortless drive than the high revving NA screamers I'm trying to move on from?
I can and will be patient to get a decent car... to be honest, I'm maybe not as hung up on whether its a Turbo or V6 now, I think I'll just buy, as you all say, on condition. Nice to see my budget should allow me to find a decent car - and I think the MX5 market seems to be as much on its arse as the MR2 market, so I may even have to be patient just to sell the car I've got!
Must admit, I always thought the Turbo would also be quite effortless in its own way, but from what you say its quite laggy? To be honest, I'd really rather like to get away from "highly strung" cars now, my last 3 cars, including my current Eunos, all needed to be worked hard to get any performance... though I still assume that a Turbo would still be a more effortless drive than the high revving NA screamers I'm trying to move on from?
I can and will be patient to get a decent car... to be honest, I'm maybe not as hung up on whether its a Turbo or V6 now, I think I'll just buy, as you all say, on condition. Nice to see my budget should allow me to find a decent car - and I think the MX5 market seems to be as much on its arse as the MR2 market, so I may even have to be patient just to sell the car I've got!
a stock rev3 turbo isnt laggy at all - you are on good boost by 3000rpm and then it just pulls strongly to redline. If you swap in bigger turbos etc yes it gets laggy but its very progressive when stock.
V6s are obviously smoother, its a 3L V6! but they dont feel that quick unless you get a very expensive 2GR engine (Evora V6). Nearly all V6 conversions have Camry engines which are a bit slower and less dramatic than a turbo. As others have said, more of a cruiser.
V6s are obviously smoother, its a 3L V6! but they dont feel that quick unless you get a very expensive 2GR engine (Evora V6). Nearly all V6 conversions have Camry engines which are a bit slower and less dramatic than a turbo. As others have said, more of a cruiser.
MikeyMike said:
MR2 Turbo power delivery is very progressive in comparison with many of its contemporaries. Installing a bigger intercooler increased lag more than I expected it to though. Can be both entertaining and frustrating in equal measure.
I'd be after all round drivability, which is what swayed my decision towards the V6, but not so sure now...Still half considering an E36 328 but would prefer an M3 3.0 but at this price, surely be a bit s
te... as such I'd make do with a nice clean MR2T... or a V6 provided it could be proved to be a reliable / well converted car.pbirkett said:
MikeyMike said:
MR2 Turbo power delivery is very progressive in comparison with many of its contemporaries. Installing a bigger intercooler increased lag more than I expected it to though. Can be both entertaining and frustrating in equal measure.
I'd be after all round drivability, which is what swayed my decision towards the V6, but not so sure now...Still half considering an E36 328 but would prefer an M3 3.0 but at this price, surely be a bit s
te... as such I'd make do with a nice clean MR2T... or a V6 provided it could be proved to be a reliable / well converted car.If the OP is interested in a V6 MR2 he's in the right part of the UK for a face-to-face discussion.
http://www.woodsport.org/joomla/
At the end of the day the only way to decide which is best for you is to drive both types.
The engine characteristics are very different. Depends on your preferred driving style.
V6 = lots of torque from low in the rev range.
Turbo = the kick in the back when it spools up.
You don't have to drive a turbo like your pants are on fire.
If you don't mash the go pedal all the time they will return decent mpg - probably better than the V6.
http://www.woodsport.org/joomla/
At the end of the day the only way to decide which is best for you is to drive both types.
The engine characteristics are very different. Depends on your preferred driving style.
V6 = lots of torque from low in the rev range.
Turbo = the kick in the back when it spools up.
You don't have to drive a turbo like your pants are on fire.
If you don't mash the go pedal all the time they will return decent mpg - probably better than the V6.
Message Board | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff