I'm getting severely bored and annoyed with trying to find a decent Rev 3 turbo so have obviously been looking elsewhere (even to Germany ahhh!!)
I can't help but notice how cheap the mk3 is. The problem is I haven't even bothered driving one as after owning two Mk2 turbos both with just over 250bhp I can't help but think I'd be massively disappointed with the performance? 140bhp is not a lot at all really.
Anyone driven / own both and can shed some light?
Engine swaps are a no go.
Is the Mk3 underpowered?
Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
Depends on YOUR definition of quick and what you use the car for / how you drive. If your after a powerful RWD Japanese car with mile munching capabilities along the lines of a RX7, 200SX, supra etc. then I'd say the mk3 isn't for you. The mk3 is a MX-5 competitor in that respect.
In direct comparison to a Rev 3 turbo it will feel relatively slow in a straight line, even when stretched. Noisier and a bit bussier at speed (although a longish 5th gear means its better on the m'way than a mk1 or NA mk2 I think). Even though it weighs ~250kg less in standard form, it has about half the torque over a much smaller part of the rev range.
If you are preparred to use what performance it has, it will still cover ground quickly, and over your typical B-road, there probably wouldn't be much in it given the Mk3's superior handling, balance and steering as standard. It has plenty performance for the road
The 1ZZ-FE (mk3 engine) isn't the more charismatic, but does the job IMO. You said engine swaps are a no-no, but seriously, a 2ZZ-GE engine conversion will give you MR2 Turbo performance, but retain the primary characteristics of the car (apparently - I cannot attest to having tried one) and look / drive alomost factory production car like, and is a fairly straight forward (for an engine swap) conversion, being pretty much bolt-in with the right parts.
In direct comparison to a Rev 3 turbo it will feel relatively slow in a straight line, even when stretched. Noisier and a bit bussier at speed (although a longish 5th gear means its better on the m'way than a mk1 or NA mk2 I think). Even though it weighs ~250kg less in standard form, it has about half the torque over a much smaller part of the rev range.
If you are preparred to use what performance it has, it will still cover ground quickly, and over your typical B-road, there probably wouldn't be much in it given the Mk3's superior handling, balance and steering as standard. It has plenty performance for the road
The 1ZZ-FE (mk3 engine) isn't the more charismatic, but does the job IMO. You said engine swaps are a no-no, but seriously, a 2ZZ-GE engine conversion will give you MR2 Turbo performance, but retain the primary characteristics of the car (apparently - I cannot attest to having tried one) and look / drive alomost factory production car like, and is a fairly straight forward (for an engine swap) conversion, being pretty much bolt-in with the right parts.
-
- IMOC Moderator
- Posts: 10902
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:32 pm
- Location: Bonnie Dundee
- Contact:
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
i think toyota made a bit of a lemon with the mk3, horrible looks and a rubbish engine with no turbo/supercharged option, total rubbish, the mr2 ended with the mk2.
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
sheppy wrote:i think toyota made a bit of a lemon with the mk3, horrible looks and a rubbish engine with no turbo/supercharged option, total rubbish, the mr2 ended with the mk2.
Clearly haven't driven one...
-
- IMOC Moderator
- Posts: 10902
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:32 pm
- Location: Bonnie Dundee
- Contact:
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
Rosssco wrote:sheppy wrote:i think toyota made a bit of a lemon with the mk3, horrible looks and a rubbish engine with no turbo/supercharged option, total rubbish, the mr2 ended with the mk2.
Clearly haven't driven one...
i have driven one, they are pants. and severely underpowered.
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
Looks and raw power aside, the mk3 is an impressive platform- they drive really nicely, and love to be thrown around the twisty stuff. Put a mk2 turbo vs a mk3 on typical UK b-roads and I think you'd be surprised at how well the mk3 would hold up, sure the mk2 would eat the straights, but I think the mk3 would claw it back through the corners!
I do have to agree on the looks though- certainly not to everyone's taste!
Given the cost of a decent mk3 shell these days, a v6 transplant is a very very tempting proposition...
I do have to agree on the looks though- certainly not to everyone's taste!
Given the cost of a decent mk3 shell these days, a v6 transplant is a very very tempting proposition...
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
Mk3 is a much, much better handling car than either of the two before it. But if you like a kick in the pants from a turbo, then no it is not for you.
-
- Posts: 7642
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:40 pm
- Location: durham
- Contact:
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
I would remove both of the "muches" from that last post when it comes to comparing it to a Mk1 handling though, better but only marginally.
Underpowered, most definitely, i'm using one as a daily driver right now and it's enjoyable but slow.
Underpowered, most definitely, i'm using one as a daily driver right now and it's enjoyable but slow.
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
I wouldn't
Having raced both it'd be MK3 each and every time for me now. Indeed I am looking at my Mk1 with very different eyes.....
Having raced both it'd be MK3 each and every time for me now. Indeed I am looking at my Mk1 with very different eyes.....
-
- Posts: 7642
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:40 pm
- Location: durham
- Contact:
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
I am agreeing with you that the Mk3 is better handling, but it's not much much better, only marginally, i too have raced both, maybe it's down to the driver
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
Definitely preference is a big factor
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
In real life driving there isn't much difference really. A few of us on mr2oc do a scottish highland drive once a year and there is normally a range of mk's and models with different modifications and no-one seems to struggle to keep up with anyone else
I went from a rev2 tubby to a mk3 n/a then I had the chance to turbo my mk3 so I went that way for a couple of years. Buying a turbo kit specifically for the mk3 is no where near like doing an engine transplant so maybe thats the way to go if you like boost
Mine was running around 220bhp and it was as quick (if not quicker) as a 340bhp rev3 tubby
I went from a rev2 tubby to a mk3 n/a then I had the chance to turbo my mk3 so I went that way for a couple of years. Buying a turbo kit specifically for the mk3 is no where near like doing an engine transplant so maybe thats the way to go if you like boost
Mine was running around 220bhp and it was as quick (if not quicker) as a 340bhp rev3 tubby
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
YES...YES...YES..!
Best handling MR2, easily (but you would expect that with 15 years R+D?)
Nice that Toyota got back on track with the MR2 after losing the plot a little with the Mk2...?
...but, having siad that, you would have thought they'd learn a little and have offered the Mk3 with a 2ZZ or a 3SGTE in at least a flagship model...?!
I know they were restricted by incoming emissions / safety regs, but still.......
...and where's the f***in' MK4, then....!??!!
Best handling MR2, easily (but you would expect that with 15 years R+D?)
Nice that Toyota got back on track with the MR2 after losing the plot a little with the Mk2...?
...but, having siad that, you would have thought they'd learn a little and have offered the Mk3 with a 2ZZ or a 3SGTE in at least a flagship model...?!
I know they were restricted by incoming emissions / safety regs, but still.......
...and where's the f***in' MK4, then....!??!!
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
No-one bought the mk3, why bother with a mk4?
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
Ekona wrote:No-one bought the mk3, why bother with a mk4?
Exactly, and so move over the MR series to make way for the GT86 (with a caveat that they might revisit the MR platform with an electric engine instead)....either way the MR2 is dead
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
Just shows what the world has come to......
So you're saying no-one wants a mid-engined, 2 seater sports car anymore.....!?!?
The GT86 is a REPLACEMENT...!?? Ha Ha Ha!
GT-86 is dead in the water....was before it had even been launched....trust me....!
So you're saying no-one wants a mid-engined, 2 seater sports car anymore.....!?!?
The GT86 is a REPLACEMENT...!?? Ha Ha Ha!
GT-86 is dead in the water....was before it had even been launched....trust me....!
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
greglebon wrote:So you're saying no-one wants a mid-engined, 2 seater sports car anymore.....!?!?
People probably do want a mid-engined sports car, just not the mk3 MR2.
Face facts, Toyota ballsed it up.
It's not very pretty, and has almost zero luggage space.
It may handle brilliantly, but due to the above it's already too late.
I spent a week or so working at Toyota, the sales people all complained they just couldn't get rid of them.
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
Has anyone fitted a mk2 Turbo engine to one of these yet, I did a search but couldn't find any. Maybe I just missed them all!
Re: Is the Mk3 underpowered?
Mike N wrote:Has anyone fitted a mk2 Turbo engine to one of these yet, I did a search but couldn't find any. Maybe I just missed them all!
looking at doing the same to mine