No subject is as guaranteed to flood people's InBox's with mail than a good ol' Turbo vs NA debate. Seeing as these debates are the same people making the same points I thought it would be good to concentrate the main arguments and protagonists on the web site for anyone to look over if they wish.
From: LIsa Rea Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:03 pm Subject: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Hi again guys, i've had another look and drive in the turbocharged version of a t-bar mr2, and i have to admit i love it a lot, its looks gorgeous (as did the yellow non-turbo), but the interior is nicer, the wheels are much nicer, it really is an awful lot quicker and sounds much better, i think i will be tempted to spend the extra money on it, so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can you tell me all the down-sides, like how bad the fuel / tyre / insurance costs will be, the extra repair bills etc. i want to hear some sensible voices before i follow my heart rather than my head, thanks Lisa
From: "jonty_soper" Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:09 pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! > Hi again guys, 'ere she goes again... ;o) Just kiddin'... > i've had another look and drive in the turbocharged > version of a t-bar mr2, > > and i have to admit i love it a lot, its looks > gorgeous (as did the yellow non-turbo), but the > interior is nicer, the wheels are much nicer, it > really is an awful lot quicker and sounds much better, > > i think i will be tempted to spend the extra money on > it, so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can you tell me all the > down-sides, like how bad the fuel / tyre / insurance > costs will be, the extra repair bills etc. i want to > hear some sensible voices before i follow my heart > rather than my head, Nope - just GET IT girl and join the turbo'd club! > thanks > > Lisa
From: scottbarton Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! I bought an NA two yrs ago and then wished i had bought a turbo after a few months. Glad i never because owning the non-turbo put me in good stead for when i picked up my Turbo 3 weeks ago.....Owning the NA taught me how to respect and handle a rear wheel drive car with the engine behind you! especially having only owned front wheel drive cars before! Now i am a fully fledged Turbo owner and am VERY happy with it!!!! Scott 94 GTS T-Bar 92 GT T-Bar NA (For Sale)
From: "bobhattonuk" Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:15 pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! When it comes to a t-bar turbo you have to follow your heart, its the only way. Now go and buy it!!! Bob --- In imoc-uk@y..., LIsa Rea wrote: > Hi again guys, > > i've had another look and drive in the turbocharged > version of a t-bar mr2, > > and i have to admit i love it a lot, its looks > gorgeous (as did the yellow non-turbo), but the > interior is nicer, the wheels are much nicer, it > really is an awful lot quicker and sounds much better, > > i think i will be tempted to spend the extra money on > it, so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can you tell me all the > down-sides, like how bad the fuel / tyre / insurance > costs will be, the extra repair bills etc. i want to > hear some sensible voices before i follow my heart > rather than my head, > > thanks > > Lisa
From: Chunky Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:25pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Ok, The turbos cost more to insure, they use more fuel, the paint fades, they gearboxes die, the clutches go, the body flexes, they rust quicker, etc, etc..... Is that what you wanted to hear? Sorry but I have a NA and I wish i'd gone for the Turbo ;o)) Chunks -----Original Message----- From: bobhattonuk Sent: 19 June 2002 17:15 To: [email protected] Subject: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! When it comes to a t-bar turbo you have to follow your heart, its the only way. Now go and buy it!!! Bob
From: yogi_host Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:34pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! This reply may contain subliminal messages. More to run yes [TURBO]- but there is a very very [TURBO] good reason for this extra cost - and you can measure [TURBO] it in direct ratio to the smile on your face [TURBO](even more so if your Ex-B'friends car was an NA hehe)[TURBO] --- In imoc-uk@y..., LIsa Rea wrote: > Hi again guys, > > i've had another look and drive in the turbocharged > version of a t-bar mr2, > > and i have to admit i love it a lot, its looks > gorgeous (as did the yellow non-turbo), but the > interior is nicer, the wheels are much nicer, it > really is an awful lot quicker and sounds much better, > > i think i will be tempted to spend the extra money on > it, so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can you tell me all the > down-sides, like how bad the fuel / tyre / insurance > costs will be, the extra repair bills etc. i want to > hear some sensible voices before i follow my heart > rather than my head, > > thanks > > Lisa
From: ajh_feature Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:50pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! --- In imoc-uk@y..., LIsa Rea wrote: > Hi again guys, > > i've had another look and drive in the turbocharged > version of a t-bar mr2, > > and i have to admit i love it a lot, its looks > gorgeous (as did the yellow non-turbo), but the > interior is nicer, the wheels are much nicer, it > really is an awful lot quicker and sounds much better, > > i think i will be tempted to spend the extra money on > it, so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can you tell me all the > down-sides, like how bad the fuel / tyre / insurance > costs will be, the extra repair bills etc. i want to > hear some sensible voices before i follow my heart > rather than my head, > If you're going to buy one make sure you get the turbo checked out. These do have a limited lifespan and are expensive to replace. Of course when the stock turbo dies you just go off to Turbo Technics and get a hybrid for less than the price of the stock Toyota one but you're still looking at �500-ish when it goes. It will cost more to insure, and I think car insurance is already pretty expensive in NI isn't it? It will use more fuel, and will prefer to be run on Super Unleaded/Optimax which means you'll be using more of a more expensive fuel Will go through tyres quicker than an NA if driven hard with too many emergency starts away from the lights. Hard driving will also stress the gearbox/clutch more Can be a bit scary in the wet, but then that applies to most MR2 - its just that a turbo if not driven sensibly is more scary than an NA. Doesn't it rain a lot in NI? Of course you could always spend the money on a nice MK1 Supercharged which will give the stock turbo a run for its money and will be cheaper to insure and run, but then I'm biased against Mk2s in relation to Mk1s... alan '86 Red Mk1 NA, 246k(!)
From: wtfiirc Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 6:07pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! I have had a NA for 28 months and I thought, it's gotta go as in the current car market, this is not a fast car anymore. Did Bentwaters recently and was suprised how well I could keep with a Tubby, so I put the idea on ice for finantial reasons. But Went out in Scotts Rev 3 last night and @ 15psi boost it is insane! The nearest thing to a roller coaster when accelerating. Gotta get one.........soon! Pete Jones --- In imoc-uk@y..., scottbarton@a... wrote: > > I bought an NA two yrs ago and then wished i had bought a turbo after a few > months. Glad i never because owning the non-turbo put me in good stead for > when i picked up my Turbo 3 weeks ago.....Owning the NA taught me how to > respect and handle a rear wheel drive car with the engine behind you! > especially having only owned front wheel drive cars before! > Now i am a fully fledged Turbo owner and am VERY happy with it!!!! > Scott > 94 GTS T-Bar > 92 GT T-Bar NA (For Sale) >
From: James Matthews Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 6:48pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! > > Of course you could always spend the money on a nice > MK1 Supercharged > which will give the stock turbo a run for its money > and will be > cheaper to insure and run, but then I'm biased > against Mk2s in > relation to Mk1s... > As someone who owns a supercharger, I agree with the previous statment. In fact, at Bentwaters recently, my sc was easily being faster than tubby's around a track. Tubby's don't half go in a straight line, but do not ask them to turn ;-) ===== Jamie 87 SC T-bar White/Silver
From: Donald K Chalfant Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 6:52pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! The only way to truly tell is switch cars and drivers. A pro in an Anglia will make both look silly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Matthews" To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 12:48 PM Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! > > > > Of course you could always spend the money on a nice > > MK1 Supercharged > > which will give the stock turbo a run for its money > > and will be > > cheaper to insure and run, but then I'm biased > > against Mk2s in > > relation to Mk1s... > > > As someone who owns a supercharger, I agree with the > previous statment. In fact, at Bentwaters recently, my > sc was easily being faster than tubby's around a > track. Tubby's don't half go in a straight line, but > do not ask them to turn ;-) > > > > ===== > Jamie > 87 SC T-bar > White/Silver
From: kieronlunn Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 8:14pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Yawn. Just buy it, you've obviously done your homework but asking people to talk you out of it is a little crazy. A serious question - have you actually driven an MR2? Do you honestly think you can handle a turbo and learn to drive adequately a rear wheel mid engined supercar. I knew a guy on the list recently who lived near me - lovely red M reg turbo now in a breakers yard due to losing it on a corner. Lots of horror stories about the 2's handling - look at Jon Leech, spent a FORTUNE on his car then loses it due to ice on a corner and bang - car written off. I'm not being sexist, it took me a LONG time to learn how to drive my original 2 turbo, many times I lost it on roundabouts and in the ice conditions of winter, back twitching around from Nov to Feb. These are the SERIOUS choices you need to make, rather than "will it use more fuel" etc etc - if you can't afford the fuel then don't buy a mid-engined turbo charged car - go for a bog standard car. Sorry to be harsh but as they say "gotta be cruel to be kind". Good luck, let us know how you get on. Kieron 93T
From: Larry Gold Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 8:49pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Lisa, if that is your dream car get it, life is for living, I have brought all my cars with my heart and got done once, but I have never regretted it, I fall in love with cars and have to get them has got me into some trouble, and by the way I don't have a turbo, it was the insurance and if a turbo blows that put me off big time, but to be honest I am very happy with mine, I suppose if I had really wanted a turbo I would have got one. I waited 6 months before I got the car I wanted, and soon as I saw it, I wanted it and got it. Larry Gold ----- Original Message ----- From: "LIsa Rea" To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 5:03 PM Subject: [imoc-uk] Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! > Hi again guys, > > i've had another look and drive in the turbocharged > version of a t-bar mr2, > > and i have to admit i love it a lot, its looks > gorgeous (as did the yellow non-turbo), but the > interior is nicer, the wheels are much nicer, it > really is an awful lot quicker and sounds much better, > > i think i will be tempted to spend the extra money on > it, so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can you tell me all the > down-sides, like how bad the fuel / tyre / insurance > costs will be, the extra repair bills etc. i want to > hear some sensible voices before i follow my heart > rather than my head, > > thanks > > Lisa
From: jevmk2 Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 9:04pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! The tubby is a supercar 0-60 5.1 max speed 160 mph I've yet to demonstrate mine to a person who has not been blown away with the power of it. People don't expect mr2s to be fast. As for corners, well there are quicker cars for corners. But I don't think they do it with quite as much style. If you want me to put you of, here you go. Expensive on petrol (in relation to a ford fiesta) " " Parts " " " Tyres " " " Trackdays (unavoidable when you have such an awsome car) It's dangerous in the wet (this depends on how crazy you are) " dry " The infimous words 'HAIR DRESSER' (general mr2 prob) etc.etc Lise with all this attention your giving us, I hope your gonna turn up to an mr2 gathering. ;) --- In imoc-uk@y..., James Matthews wrote: > > > > Of course you could always spend the money on a nice > > MK1 Supercharged > > which will give the stock turbo a run for its money > > and will be > > cheaper to insure and run, but then I'm biased > > against Mk2s in > > relation to Mk1s... > > > As someone who owns a supercharger, I agree with the > previous statment. In fact, at Bentwaters recently, my > sc was easily being faster than tubby's around a > track. Tubby's don't half go in a straight line, but > do not ask them to turn ;-) > > > > ===== > Jamie > 87 SC T-bar > White/Silver >
From: yogi_host Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 10:02pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Some good points there - my first Rear wheel drive car was an MX5 - totally different beast (RWD vs FWD) especially when the roads are wet (I span that a couple of times - once with almost very nasty results...(Was extremely lucky)) After a while of driving RWD - frontWD cars just won't do anymore! At the end of the day i'm glad I had the MX5 first so I could get used to RWD without too much power. Although last week I span my tubby! (Was late at night and no one was about - road was empty, bone dry and very wide (bend) - as soon as that back end lets go you can be in serious trouble! (The weight of the engine over the rear wheels acts as a pendulum once it gets going) - didn't hit anything and no harm done but it served as a reminder to me.... That's the trouble with the tubby - no matter how safe a driver you are - you'll find yourself in a couple of sticky situations (The gas pedal is too hard to resist sometimes) It needs ultimate respect in the wet (pushing the gas pedal in 2nd gear on a wet road can very easily lead to a car with swapped ends!) If you're ok with RWD cars then go for it! (carefully!) --- In imoc-uk@y..., "kieronlunn" wrote: > Yawn. > > Just buy it, you've obviously done your homework but asking people > to talk you out of it is a little crazy. > > A serious question - have you actually driven an MR2? > > Do you honestly think you can handle a turbo and learn to drive > adequately a rear wheel mid engined supercar. > > I knew a guy on the list recently who lived near me - lovely red M > reg turbo now in a breakers yard due to losing it on a corner. > > Lots of horror stories about the 2's handling - look at Jon Leech, > spent a FORTUNE on his car then loses it due to ice on a corner and > bang - car written off. > > I'm not being sexist, it took me a LONG time to learn how to drive > my original 2 turbo, many times I lost it on roundabouts and in the > ice conditions of winter, back twitching around from Nov to Feb. > > These are the SERIOUS choices you need to make, rather than "will it > use more fuel" etc etc - if you can't afford the fuel then don't buy > a mid-engined turbo charged car - go for a bog standard car. > > Sorry to be harsh but as they say "gotta be cruel to be kind". > > Good luck, let us know how you get on. > > Kieron > 93T
From: Leon Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 10:41pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Go for the turbo, just take it steady until you feel you've got used to driving it. It took me about 2 weeks (when I spun it) to get used to my mk1. I threw it into a tight corner at a stupid speed when the road was damp and within a few seconds I realised why you just can't drive them like FWD cars. Luckily nobody was hurt and I learned my lesson. If you're not used to RWD cars you could spin anything from a mk2 turbo to a 2.0 Capri laser! So I say go for the turbo and just take it steady (very steady in the wet) and save the speed for the straights! Tweety 89 Ford Fiesta [until November )c: ] 92 GT-Turbo [Incarcerated] 88 NA T-bar [For sale] ----- Original Message ----- From: "yogi_host" To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 10:02 PM Subject: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! > Some good points there - my first Rear wheel drive car was an MX5 - totally different beast (RWD vs FWD) especially when the roads are wet (I span that a couple of times - once with almost very nasty results...(Was extremely lucky)) After a while of driving RWD - frontWD cars just won't do anymore! At the end of the day i'm glad I had the MX5 first so I could get used to RWD without too much power. > > Although last week I span my tubby! (Was late at night and no one was about - road was empty, bone dry and very wide (bend) - as soon as that back end lets go you can be in serious trouble! (The weight of the engine over the rear wheels acts as a pendulum once it gets going) - didn't hit anything and no harm done but it served as a reminder to me.... > That's the trouble with the tubby - no matter how safe a driver you are - you'll find yourself in a couple of sticky situations (The gas pedal is too hard to resist sometimes) > It needs ultimate respect in the wet (pushing the gas pedal in 2nd gear on a wet road can very easily lead to a car with swapped ends!) > If you're ok with RWD cars then go for it! (carefully!) >
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 9:37am Subject: RE: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! On a track, me in my NA, you in your turbo, you in my rear view mirror....'nuff said. Fuel - about 20-25 mpg compared with about 25-30 for the NA Tyres - if you use the power then they'll last you a few thousand miles less Insurance - some companies will hammer you, some will give you a rather comparable quote Reliability - the same as the NA, there are more bits to fail but on the whole I doubt turbo owners pay any more to maintain their cars than NA drivers do. Driving - The NA is the better car to drive, easier to drive, better and smoother power delivery, just slightly slower in a straight line (about 200 yards behind in a 0-100 dash), on the track there is no difference between the two. If you want a car to beat people at the lights then get a turbo. If you want to get from A to B in fastest time it doesn't really matter what you get, but the NA will cost you less to run and comes with full-leather interior if you get the T-bar. The only "down side" to the turbo is the extra cost and the extra cost is just your day to day costs (petrol, tyres etc). But, to be honest, if less mpg and more tyre wear is putting you off the turbo then the MR2 (*any* MR2) isn't for you. These are not cheap 'n' cars. Aidy -----Original Message----- From: LIsa Rea Sent: 19 June 2002 17:04 To: [email protected] Subject: [imoc-uk] Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Hi again guys, i've had another look and drive in the turbocharged version of a t-bar mr2, and i have to admit i love it a lot, its looks gorgeous (as did the yellow non-turbo), but the interior is nicer, the wheels are much nicer, it really is an awful lot quicker and sounds much better, i think i will be tempted to spend the extra money on it, so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can you tell me all the down-sides, like how bad the fuel / tyre / insurance costs will be, the extra repair bills etc. i want to hear some sensible voices before i follow my heart rather than my head, thanks Lisa
From: yogi_host Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 7:59am Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! IMHO If you have 2 equally skilled drivers on a track - one in an n/a and one in a turbo - I cannot believe there will be no difference. --- In imoc-uk@y..., Aidy wrote: > On a track, me in my NA, you in your turbo, you in my rear view > mirror....'nuff said. > > Fuel - about 20-25 mpg compared with about 25-30 for the NA > > Tyres - if you use the power then they'll last you a few thousand miles less > > Insurance - some companies will hammer you, some will give you a rather > comparable quote > > Reliability - the same as the NA, there are more bits to fail but on the > whole I doubt turbo owners pay any more to maintain their cars than NA > drivers do. > > Driving - The NA is the better car to drive, easier to drive, better and > smoother power delivery, just slightly slower in a straight line (about 200 > yards behind in a 0-100 dash), on the track there is no difference between > the two. > > If you want a car to beat people at the lights then get a turbo. If you > want to get from A to B in fastest time it doesn't really matter what you > get, but the NA will cost you less to run and comes with full-leather > interior if you get the T-bar. The only "down side" to the turbo is the > extra cost and the extra cost is just your day to day costs (petrol, tyres > etc). > > But, to be honest, if less mpg and more tyre wear is putting you off the > turbo then the MR2 (*any* MR2) isn't for you. These are not cheap 'n' cars. > > Aidy
From: James Matthews Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 8:08am Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! But how often do we get 2 equally skilled drivers on the same ytrack. Not even in F1 are there two equal drivers, they are all different, although perhaps equally good, they will take different lines and speeds through corners. If you had equal drivers, then single series racing would be pointless. That said, it would be interesting to give an experienced driver(say Montoya!) a few laps in each variation of MR2 and see which was the fastest. Perhaps we could arrange that as an event, with a minor driving celeb? --- yogi_host wrote: > IMHO If you have 2 equally skilled drivers on a > track - one in an n/a and one in a turbo - I cannot > believe there will be no difference. >
From: yogi_host Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 8:12am Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! I know you don't get "equal" drivers - that was my point! I just don't believe the N/A is as quick as the turbo on a track. (and of course - it has to be assumed the cars are STANDARD or the comparisons are pointless (ie normal intake,exhaust & no unichip!)) --- In imoc-uk@y..., James Matthews wrote: > But how often do we get 2 equally skilled drivers on > the same ytrack. Not even in F1 are there two equal > drivers, they are all different, although perhaps > equally good, they will take different lines and > speeds through corners. > > If you had equal drivers, then single series racing > would be pointless. That said, it would be interesting > to give an experienced driver(say Montoya!) a few laps > in each variation of MR2 and see which was the > fastest. Perhaps we could arrange that as an event, > with a minor driving celeb?
From: Dino Date: Wed Jun 19, 2002 3:57pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! I agree that SCs can be VERY quick cars, but I think you are dreaming about them being quicker than the tubbies. For example, I'd put my head on the block and say that the fastest MR2 there was the Mk2 tubby of Mr Lambert. He was doing a GREAT job of staying with Adrian's Fensport Corolla, and that was due to his ability to make the car corner. I think the SCs are great, but they're not a patch, on most circuits, on a good, well-driven tubby... Regards, Dino -----Original Message----- From: James Matthews To: ajh_feature; [email protected] Date: 19 June 2002 18:48 Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! > > >> Of course you could always spend the money on a nice >> MK1 Supercharged >> which will give the stock turbo a run for its money >> and will be >> cheaper to insure and run, but then I'm biased >> against Mk2s in >> relation to Mk1s... >> >As someone who owns a supercharger, I agree with the >previous statment. In fact, at Bentwaters recently, my >sc was easily being faster than tubby's around a >track. Tubby's don't half go in a straight line, but >do not ask them to turn ;-) > > > >===== >Jamie >87 SC T-bar >White/Silver
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 8:14am Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > IMHO If you have 2 equally skilled drivers on a track - one in an n/a > and one in a turbo - I cannot believe there will be no difference. Specifically I said "On a track, me in my NA, you in your turbo". But in general, no there won't be much difference even with a skilled driver. Higher performing cars tend to do better on a track than lower performing ones due to the general design of the two cars. ie a Scooby (for example, but insert any modern high-performance vehicle such as an RX7/Ferarri/Cat7/911) will make mincemeat out of you (*please* no vs debates :)) as it has more power, superior brakes, superior suspension and superior transmission. However all the tubby really has over the NA is the increase in power. And what do you do with that extra speed when you hit a corner? You use the same brakes to slow you down that I have on my NA only you are using them for longer. Result? Yours cook, mine don't, your car is more unbalanced, mine isn't. That is on the straights, through the corners we carry the same speed. The turbo doesn't have the ability to make any real gain on the straights, probably loses ground under braking, and nothing on the corners so where does the turbo gain the ground you all think it will? These factors all go to even out the performance in all but the most skilled of drivers, and it certainly evens out the performance between 98% of drivers on this list (with the obvious exception of Peter Laborne ;)) It's a debate we have had a million times on this list already and will no doubt have a million times in the future. If you want proof, sign up on a trackday and see for yourself. As they say, when the flag drops, the bull**** stops.
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 8:16am Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > I just don't believe the N/A is as quick as the turbo on a track. Seeing is believing....get yourself on an airfield day. In the right hands the turbo probably will be marginally faster, likewise on the road it will be marginally faster. Just not as fast as everyone seems to think it is. Certainly not as fast as the 100 BHP difference would make you think it was.
From: yogi_host Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 8:17am Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! "On a track, me in my NA, you in your turbo, you in my rear view mirror....'nuff said." Ok - to look at it another way - put you in my Rev3 Turbo - me in your n/a - would you then be in my rear view mirror?
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 8:26am Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! I don't know anything about your Rev3 turbo or your driving skills. -----Original Message----- From: yogi_host Sent: 20 June 2002 11:18 To: [email protected] Subject: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! "On a track, me in my NA, you in your turbo, you in my rear view mirror....'nuff said." Ok - to look at it another way - put you in my Rev3 Turbo - me in your n/a - would you then be in my rear view mirror?
From: yogi_host Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 8:28am Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! That's my point - we are meant to be comparing the cars - not driving abilities. - and if we do make generic comparisons (T vs n/a) it must be assumed the cars are standard. --- In imoc-uk@y..., Aidy wrote: > I don't know anything about your Rev3 turbo or your driving skills. >
From: Chunky Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 8:31am Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Bear in mind that Adrian's Corolla wasn't running full boost and only two of the laps (that I went on) he really put him foot down because the car wasn't up to temp and the tyres/brakes weren't sticky enough. On those two laps nothing came close and I came off the track dizzy as I think i'd lots the blood from my head! That car is seriously quick! Chunks -----Original Message----- From: Dino Sent: 19 June 2002 18:58 To: ajh_feature; [email protected]; James Matthews Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! I agree that SCs can be VERY quick cars, but I think you are dreaming about them being quicker than the tubbies. For example, I'd put my head on the block and say that the fastest MR2 there was the Mk2 tubby of Mr Lambert. He was doing a GREAT job of staying with Adrian's Fensport Corolla, and that was due to his ability to make the car corner. I think the SCs are great, but they're not a patch, on most circuits, on a good, well-driven tubby... Regards, Dino
From: Crabbe, David Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 8:38am Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Surely it's the case that no matter what type of car you have there is always something 'better' than it... As long as you are happy with *your* car, what does it matter? :) Dave. '95 GT-S happy with his '2 -----Original Message----- From: Chunky Sent: 20 June 2002 11:32 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Bear in mind that Adrian's Corolla wasn't running full boost and only two of the laps (that I went on) he really put him foot down because the car wasn't up to temp and the tyres/brakes weren't sticky enough. On those two laps nothing came close and I came off the track dizzy as I think i'd lots the blood from my head! That car is seriously quick! Chunks
From: Marc Thomas Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:34am Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Can we stop this boring my cars faster than your cars thread just go into the toilets to find out whose cock is biggest and let that be an end to it ! Marc
From: si.cook Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:41am Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Chunks, I was treated to a full session in that Corolla. He warmed it up and then had a few fast laps. I was stunned by its performance but the thing that really stood out for me was how well it turned into the corners. By the end of that session my neck and shoulders were aching. How much of that was driver skill and how much was the rubber they were running on I don't know, but forget better acceleration, firmer braking, etc if I could carry that kind of speed into a corner and come out of it pointing in the same direction I wouldn't need huge acceleration or braking. There were corners where he was going faster than I was on some of the straight sections! Cheers, Si. (90 Tubby).
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:42am Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Ok, if you want to compare two standard cars of the same revision I'll re-quote and add to what I posted before. Higher performing cars tend to do better on a track than lower performing ones due to the general design of the two cars. ie a Scooby (for example, but insert any modern high-performance vehicle such as an RX7/Ferarri/Cat7/911) will make mincemeat out of you (*please* no vs debates :)) as it has more power, superior brakes, superior suspension and superior transmission. However all the tubby really has over the NA is the increase in power. And what do you do with that extra speed when you hit a corner? You use the same brakes to slow you down that I have on my NA only you are using them for longer. Result? Yours cook, mine don't, your car is more unbalanced, mine isn't. That is on the straights, through the corners we carry the same speed. The turbo doesn't have the ability to make any real gain on the straights, probably loses ground under braking, and nothing on the corners so where does the turbo gain the ground you all think it will? To add to that, the biggest performance advantage the turbo has over the NA is at low rev-ranges and low speed. On the track speeds tend to be higher than that which slims any straight-line advantage it has. So to sum up; On the straights Turbo: a few yards gained if the straight is medium, more if longer Under braking: NA can brake harder and later and for a shorter time due to slightly lower entrance speed Under cornering: The same but the NA has less chance of spinning off due to less torque at the wheels (although strictly that comes down to the driver) Accelerating out: Same as above So where does the turbo gain its ground on the track? If you think the turbo leaves the NA behind on the straights (esp at 60/70/80+) you are, to be frank, sadly mistaken. The turbo is not as fast over the NA as everyone thinks. And modified ones suffer *more* on the track as any additional gains in speed all need to be scrubbed off for the next corner. The result: the turbo will probably come out in front at the end of the race but not by a large margin and it depends largely on the circuit. I eagerly await your reply :) -----Original Message----- From: yogi_host Sent: 20 June 2002 11:29 To: [email protected] Subject: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! That's my point - we are meant to be comparing the cars - not driving abilities. - and if we do make generic comparisons (T vs n/a) it must be assumed the cars are standard.
From: yogi_host Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:54am Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! No, what you are saying is fine (Remember I said IMHO - I was querying what you were saying - not telling you you were wrong) - and in fact I agree with you on most of that below. The fact you said "On a track, me in my NA, you in your turbo, you in my rear view mirror....'nuff said." just got me - that sort of statement is a bit of a nonsense IMO ! (Is based on driver skills etc over and above the cars) (On a different point - do the turbos really have the same brakes as n/a? I assumed they would be bigger/better at dissipating heat) --- In imoc-uk@y..., Aidy wrote: > Ok, if you want to compare two standard cars of the same revision I'll > re-quote and add to what I posted before. > > Higher performing cars tend to do better on a track than lower > performing ones due to the general design of the two cars. ie a Scooby (for > example, but insert any modern high-performance vehicle such as an > RX7/Ferarri/Cat7/911) will make mincemeat out of you (*please* no vs debates > :)) as it has more power, superior brakes, superior suspension and superior > transmission. However all the tubby really has over the NA is the increase > in power. And what do you do with that extra speed when you hit a corner? > You use the same brakes to slow you down that I have on my NA only you are > using them for longer. Result? Yours cook, mine don't, your car is more > unbalanced, mine isn't. That is on the straights, through the corners we > carry the same speed. The turbo doesn't have the ability to make any real > gain on the straights, probably loses ground under braking, and nothing on > the corners so where does the turbo gain the ground you all think it will? > > To add to that, the biggest performance advantage the turbo has over the NA > is at low rev-ranges and low speed. On the track speeds tend to be higher > than that which slims any straight-line advantage it has. > > So to sum up; > > On the straights > Turbo: a few yards gained if the straight is medium, more if longer > > Under braking: > NA can brake harder and later and for a shorter time due to slightly lower > entrance speed > > Under cornering: > The same but the NA has less chance of spinning off due to less torque at > the wheels (although strictly that comes down to the driver) > > Accelerating out: > Same as above > > So where does the turbo gain its ground on the track? If you think the > turbo leaves the NA behind on the straights (esp at 60/70/80+) you are, to > be frank, sadly mistaken. The turbo is not as fast over the NA as everyone > thinks. And modified ones suffer *more* on the track as any additional > gains in speed all need to be scrubbed off for the next corner. The result: > the turbo will probably come out in front at the end of the race but not by > a large margin and it depends largely on the circuit. > > I eagerly await your reply :)
From: adefadero Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:55am Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! How inevitable is it that the relative merits of an N/A v a Tubby around a track will rear it's head when this topic comes up! Personally I don't think this should be a major consideration when buying an MR2 since, in all likelihood, 99.9% of it time is going to be spent on the ROAD. Just take what ever car you have on a track day and enjoy it for what it is!
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:56am Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > do the turbos really have the same brakes as n/a? Yes. > I assumed they would be bigger/better at dissipating heat) Nope. There are some other differences in suspension between the NA and turbo but they are largely the same car underneath.
From: p_hornsey Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 0:02pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! so basically when in a turbo you accelerate faster down the straight why not slow just slightly earlier nothing too aggressive down to the same speed you can reach in your n/a. That way brakes dont heat up much more than yours so no advantage gained for you on braking. Then on any point on the track where you accelerate you loose out, which i would guess is quite a lot of points on the track. so i dont see any advantage a na has over a turbo and cant see how you would keep up. unless like what has been stated before you are just a better driver. paul > So to sum up; > > On the straights > Turbo: a few yards gained if the straight is medium, more if longer > > Under braking: > NA can brake harder and later and for a shorter time due to slightly lower > entrance speed > > Under cornering: > The same but the NA has less chance of spinning off due to less torque at > the wheels (although strictly that comes down to the driver) > > Accelerating out: > Same as above > > So where does the turbo gain its ground on the track? If you think the > turbo leaves the NA behind on the straights (esp at 60/70/80+) you are, to > be frank, sadly mistaken. The turbo is not as fast over the NA as everyone > thinks. And modified ones suffer *more* on the track as any additional > gains in speed all need to be scrubbed off for the next corner. The result: > the turbo will probably come out in front at the end of the race but not by > a large margin and it depends largely on the circuit. > > I eagerly await your reply :) >
From: yogi_host
Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 0:06pm
Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! !
Toyota obviously fitted very efficient brakes to the MR2 then!
If I took my car to Mr T and asked for new brakes to be fitted
I bet I wouldn't get UK prices! ("Sorry sir - because it's an import....")
(I bought an oil filter for the 3sGTE (with the valve) and I didn't
get club discount on it because it was an "import part" - then I found
out the UK Celica uses the very same part! Swines)
--- In imoc-uk@y..., Aidy wrote:
> > do the turbos really have the same brakes as n/a?
>
> Yes.
>
> > I assumed they would be bigger/better at dissipating heat)
>
> Nope. There are some other differences in suspension between the NA and
> turbo but they are largely the same car underneath.
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 0:09pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > so basically when in a turbo you accelerate faster down the straight > why not slow just slightly earlier nothing too aggressive down to the > same speed you can reach in your n/a. That would give you almost no advantage at all. I didn't say the NA had any particular advantage over the turbo, just that the turbo isn't really any faster from A to B. You could certainly make it faster by sorting out its brakes, I'd have no issue with that. If you could accelerate harder, brake harder and corner the same as an NA then you're quids in.
From: Dino Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:47am Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! In that case, I'd say that Adrian at Fensport has the longest, but Graham Lambert has the largest cojones! ;-) Largish Cojone prize also goes to Aidy for fighting the NA v Tubby debate again! :-D Regards, Dino -----Original Message----- From: Marc Thomas To: [email protected] Date: 20 June 2002 11:39 Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! >Can we stop this boring my cars faster than your cars thread >just go into the toilets to find out whose cock is biggest and let that be >an end to it ! > >Marc
From: LIsa Rea Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 0:30pm Subject: You guys sure are competive! Hi guys I;m sure all your cars are equally as fast and that you are all great drivers, but all i wanted to know was should i buy a turbo, and would it be harder to own one of these, I am a bit wiser i think! And you mostly seem to be like me and think just go for it! i have only one other girl-friend who is as passionate about cars as me, so i know its mostly a guy thing and i hope you dont mind me getting involved here, to kiern (i think it was you), well i have driven my ex boyfriends Mr2 quite a lot, it was not a turbo though, i found the RWD not a problem, actually much more natural feeling, i do like driving quickly, but would be careful in the wet and not reckless on corners i think, i have not owned a RWD car, just shared my ex's Mr2, i have recently had a 16v Clio, i have had a golf Gti 16v and a honda civic vti in the past 4 years so i am used to quite quick cars, just i love the mr2 looks, driving position, t-bar etc etc! and if i buy i;m would love to meet up if you dont mind, but do you have much happening in NI? thanks again Lisa
From: Dino Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:57am Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Aidy and all, Are we SURE that, if comparing stock tubby to stock NA that they indeed DO have the same chassis? I'm pretty sure the dampers are different on later models (not so with Rev1s I seem to remember), as may be the springs. What about the ARBs? Are they the same? If so, why do Fensport have bushes for different diameter ARBs? Also, a few people think that the brake pads, although of the same shape and size, may be of a different compound, hence probably provide marginally better braking? Just a few things to consider when comparing stock for stock... regards, Dino
From: jevmk2 Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 0:37pm Subject: Re: You guys sure are competive! At the end of the day, it's your choice and you have to live with it. Consider peoples opinions but make you own mind up. All I will say at this point is, the turbo is a seriously powerfull car that needs a fair bit of attention. --- In imoc-uk@y..., LIsa Rea wrote: > Hi guys > > I;m sure all your cars are equally as fast and that > you are all great drivers, but all i wanted to know > was should i buy a turbo, and would it be harder to > own one of these, I am a bit wiser i think! And you > mostly seem to be like me and think just go for it! > > i have only one other girl-friend who is as passionate > about cars as me, so i know its mostly a guy thing and > i hope you dont mind me getting involved here, > > to kiern (i think it was you), well i have driven my > ex boyfriends Mr2 quite a lot, it was not a turbo > though, i found the RWD not a problem, actually much > more natural feeling, i do like driving quickly, but > would be careful in the wet and not reckless on > corners i think, > > i have not owned a RWD car, just shared my ex's Mr2, i > have recently had a 16v Clio, i have had a golf Gti > 16v and a honda civic vti in the past 4 years so i am > used to quite quick cars, just i love the mr2 looks, > driving position, t-bar etc etc! > > and if i buy i;m would love to meet up if you dont > mind, but do you have much happening in NI? > > thanks again > > Lisa
From: jevmk2 Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 0:43pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Bit OT this but.. the rev 5 in Japan had the option of a 200bhp Beams VVTI version of the 3SGE, now that might be able to keep up with a tubby a bit more. But the standard 3SGE is no match for a tubby on a normal sized track(stock for stock, year for year) --- In imoc-uk@y..., "yogi_host" wrote: > I know you don't get "equal" drivers - that was my point! > > I just don't believe the N/A is as quick as the turbo on a track. > (and of course - it has to be assumed the cars are STANDARD or the comparisons are pointless (ie normal intake,exhaust & no unichip!))
From: muhsin_3sgte Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 0:45pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! How many Turbo owners have actually driven an NA? I've owned both over the past year, and i can genuinely say that the difference between the NA and Turbo is marginal. Ok, in a straightline its no comparison, other then that, there is very little in it. Muhsin
From: Dino Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:36am Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Yeah, but he was running on SLICKS most of the day! Graham Lambert was is a BONE STOCK Mk2 Tubby, a Rev2 at that! Regards, Dino -----Original Message----- From: Chunky To: [email protected] Date: 20 June 2002 11:31 Subject: RE: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! >Bear in mind that Adrian's Corolla wasn't running full boost and only two of >the laps (that I went on) he really put him foot down because the car wasn't >up to temp and the tyres/brakes weren't sticky enough. >On those two laps nothing came close and I came off the track dizzy as I >think i'd lots the blood from my head! >That car is seriously quick! >Chunks
From: mr2rogue Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:00pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > How many Turbo owners have actually driven an NA? I've owned one n/a and two turbos > I've owned both over the past year, and i can genuinely say that > the difference between the NA and Turbo is marginal. To an extent, I would agree with that. My first turbo was a real disappointment and I genuinely regretted parting with my n/a. So I put in an order for a rev5 VVTi for Japland and flogged my tubby in the meantime. Once it became apparent that the VVTi was not going to be found anytime soon, I bought another turbo to tide me over. THIS one was a whole different ball-game though! It out-does my previous cars in every respect. The acceleration is quicker and smoother, and was improved by gutting the cat, fitting a Departure exhaust and upping the boost a couple of PSI (still below fuel cut) with a Paul Port G-Valve. The handling was already sorted before I got it (KYB shocks all round (unknown springs)), and the braking had been looked at with TRD hoses and grooved disks. 5.1 fluid is on the way, as I think I boiled the dot 3 a few times on the coast-to-coast run. But anyway, All are pretty standard mods for a tubby, and equivalent to the mods I made on my n/a, which was a fairly well sorted car. Run the two side by side and there would be no question which car would be the quicker - either around a track or in a straight line. I'm sufficiently satisfied that the turbo version of the MR2 is significantly better than it's normally aspirated counterpart in virtually every respect. The n/a is a much more forgiving car in terms of gear changes and getting the revs right. I'm considering changing my order for a '98 VVTi to a '98 Turbo... Rogue
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:07pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > But the standard 3SGE is no match for a tubby on a normal > sized track(stock for stock, year for year) Care to back that opinion up with at least a hypothesis? I have been offering reasons why the NA is no slower in real terms and I have backed that up on the track as well. Yet all we hear from turbo owners are vague, empty statements with no real backing. If I hadn't beaten almost every turbo I've met on the track I might believe your statement. I listed a comprehensive list of performance factors on the track and I will list it again; On the straights Turbo: a few yards gained if the straight is medium, more if longer Under braking: NA can brake harder and later and for a shorter time due to slightly lower entrance speed Under cornering: The same but the NA has less chance of spinning off due to less torque at the wheels (although strictly that comes down to the driver) Accelerating out: Same as above I have asked the question yet no-one has answered so I ask the question again: "Where on a track does the turbo gain significant ground over the NA?" I say we all meet on a track and settle it once and for all }:) Aidy
From: pmarsden Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:07pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > Are we SURE that, if comparing stock tubby to stock NA that they > indeed DO have the same chassis? I'm pretty sure the dampers are > different on later models (not so with Rev1s I seem to remember), > as may be the springs. Hang on, what about the different revisions? Wouldn't a Rev5 NA beat a Rev3 NA easily? Does that mean mine's the fastest of all? ;) Paul. SW20 Rev5 Tbar UK-NA
From: Paul Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:15pm Subject: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! hmm ok.. MK1 SUPERCHARGER - nuff said. oh sorry you don`t care for the `looks`.. its your choice then really!!! Good Luck PaulT _____________________ 88SC Manual (Jap AW11 )
From: Michael Canny Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:20pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! I wasn't going to reply as I'm as bored of this one as everyone else but my lunch is taking ages to microwave......... The only MR2 I've yet to drive is an SC (passenger only so far) and I know *I* can get from point to point faster in my Turbo than the other cars and I've driven the same roads in a MK1, MK2 NA and Turbo and a MK3. Why is this? I know my car and I know how to drive it to get the best out if. The argument of which is better is pointless as there is no way of comparing the two and taking every factor into account for every driver and every driving style. Everyone is different. When I was in the US I went to a San Jose IMOC meet in where all versions of the cars were present, I got a passenger ride in two MK3s and can honestly say they were quicker than the other cars (modded SC's and Turbos included) *in that environment*. Why was this? Well both drivers knew the roads and both drivers knew the limits of their cars on those roads. There was a mixture of mountain twisties through woodland, wet areas, dry areas, mad cambers and then some long long straights. The question isn't so much which car is faster, it's more a case of which car is best suited to the environment and the driver it is in the hands of. Put me on one road I know and drive a lot and no doubt I'll be heaps faster than someone else, I've raced 911's, EVOs and Scoobies that are supposed to be much more superior to my car along the A65 and A59 and left them in the distance. Put me on a road I don't know against a Saxo VTS driver that knows the road and the limits of his car around it and I'll probably end up in tears. I've also raced (and properly raced) a friend who had a 91 NA along the A59 Skipton to Harrogate - I arrived 5 minutes before him, why was this? Who knows, maybe I drive that road better, maybe my car is faster, maybe, maybe, maybe......... all I know is that when he arrived he wanted to buy a Turbo. Yes putting the two cars on a track does even this out a little but again you still have to take into account driving style and driver skill. You would also have to have two drivers of the same skill (how do you measure this?) on a track that neither of them knew. Take one F1 driver out of his car and put him in his team mates, he'll usually lap slower - it's about know how to drive a specific machine and being confident to do so. But we don't drive on tracks on a day to day basis, my car lives on the road as do most cars 99.9% of the time - the MR2 was designed to be a roadcar afterall. This argument can go on forever and probably will but it's silly, Mr NA might know how to get the best out of his car and drive accordingly, does this mean that if he overtakes a Ferrari F40 driver who is getting to grips with a road and car that the NA is faster and better? I'm bored now and my lunch has beeeeeeeeped, I've probably said nothing that will change anyone's mind, that's not what I'm trying to do, lets just all realise that in the "mines better than yours" threads nobody ever backs down and says they were wrong ;-) I like *my* MR2 and for me that's what matters - if yours is faster then so be it, I'm still having fun and looking good while I do it! Michael 91T GT T-Bar ----- Original Message ----- From: "muhsin_3sgte" To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 12:45 PM Subject: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > How many Turbo owners have actually driven an NA? > > I've owned both over the past year, and i can genuinely say that the > difference between the NA and Turbo is marginal. > > Ok, in a straightline its no comparison, other then that, there is > very little in it. > > Muhsin
From: James Matthews Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:25pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! I have to back Paul up here, the supercharger is the most fun of all the MR2's to own. I don't wish to upset anyone, all mr2's are fun, but for the best combination of costs, fuel, speed, handling and fun, IMHO the SC is best! I don't want to start any argument along the lines of mk1 v mk2 or NA v turbo v sc, all mr2's are amzing fun so just choose the one you want and go for it. I am sure all people on the list will agree with that! Jamie --- Paul wrote: > hmm ok.. MK1 SUPERCHARGER - nuff said. > > oh sorry you don`t care for the `looks`.. its your > choice then really!!! > > > Good Luck > > > PaulT > > _____________________ > 88SC Manual (Jap AW11 ) >
From: Michael Canny Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:28pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! OK Paul, James - yes the SC is a fine car but how do *you* know which is best - have you tried all the versions? And Paul, "nuff said" doesn't really give you much of a balanced case ;-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Matthews" To: "Paul"; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! > I have to back Paul up here, the supercharger is the > most fun of all the MR2's to own. I don't wish to > upset anyone, all mr2's are fun, but for the best > combination of costs, fuel, speed, handling and fun, > IMHO the SC is best! > > I don't want to start any argument along the lines of > mk1 v mk2 or NA v turbo v sc, all mr2's are amzing fun > so just choose the one you want and go for it. I am > sure all people on the list will agree with that! > > Jamie
From: muhsin_3sgte Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:29pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Stock for stock it is marginal...should've stated that! You can't compare a modded NA to a modded Turbo, simply because the the Turbo responds to the same mods better, well any turbocraged car repsonds to mods better! Muhsin --- In imoc-uk@y..., "mr2rogue" wrote: > > How many Turbo owners have actually driven an NA? > > I've owned one n/a and two turbos > > > I've owned both over the past year, and i can genuinely say that > > the difference between the NA and Turbo is marginal. > > To an extent, I would agree with that. My first turbo was a real > disappointment and I genuinely regretted parting with my n/a. So I > put in an order for a rev5 VVTi for Japland and flogged my tubby in > the meantime. Once it became apparent that the VVTi was not going to > be found anytime soon, I bought another turbo to tide me over. THIS > one was a whole different ball-game though! It out-does my previous > cars in every respect. The acceleration is quicker and smoother, and > was improved by gutting the cat, fitting a Departure exhaust and > upping the boost a couple of PSI (still below fuel cut) with a Paul > Port G-Valve. The handling was already sorted before I got it (KYB > shocks all round (unknown springs)), and the braking had been looked > at with TRD hoses and grooved disks. 5.1 fluid is on the way, as I > think I boiled the dot 3 a few times on the coast-to-coast run. > > But anyway, All are pretty standard mods for a tubby, and equivalent > to the mods I made on my n/a, which was a fairly well sorted car. Run > the two side by side and there would be no question which car would > be the quicker - either around a track or in a straight line. > > I'm sufficiently satisfied that the turbo version of the MR2 is > significantly better than it's normally aspirated counterpart in > virtually every respect. The n/a is a much more forgiving car in > terms of gear changes and getting the revs right. > > I'm considering changing my order for a '98 VVTi to a '98 Turbo... > > Rogue
From: Paul Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:31pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! "> I don't want to start any argument along the lines of > mk1 v mk2 or NA v turbo v sc, all mr2's are amzing fun " Thats right! There have been *too* many of those arguments on this list and as its mostly populated by MK2 owners we rarely win an argument ;) PaulT _____________________ 88SC Manual (Jap AW11 )
From: Paul Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:32pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! should say though really if it was me and I HAD to choose between an NA mk2 and a TURBO mk2 - id obviously go for the TUBBY - faster (backs up its looks), more fun, rarer etc --- but only if your budget allows (more for tyres, fuel, insurance etc) PaulT (mk1 supercharger for life!!) _____________________ 88SC Manual (Jap AW11 ) ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Matthews" To: "Paul"; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! > I have to back Paul up here, the supercharger is the > most fun of all the MR2's to own. I don't wish to > upset anyone, all mr2's are fun, but for the best > combination of costs, fuel, speed, handling and fun, > IMHO the SC is best! > > I don't want to start any argument along the lines of > mk1 v mk2 or NA v turbo v sc, all mr2's are amzing fun > so just choose the one you want and go for it. I am > sure all people on the list will agree with that! > > Jamie >
From: Dino Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:19pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Aidy, I'll now revert someone else's question back to you in reverse. Have you DRIVEN a turbo? Have you driven a well MODDED turbo? ;-) Regards, Dino -----Original Message----- From: Aidy To: [email protected] Date: 20 June 2002 13:07 Subject: RE: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! >> But the standard 3SGE is no match for a tubby on a normal >> sized track(stock for stock, year for year) > >Care to back that opinion up with at least a hypothesis? I have been >offering reasons why the NA is no slower in real terms and I have backed >that up on the track as well. Yet all we hear from turbo owners are vague, >empty statements with no real backing. If I hadn't beaten almost every >turbo I've met on the track I might believe your statement. > >I listed a comprehensive list of performance factors on the track and I will >list it again; > >On the straights >Turbo: a few yards gained if the straight is medium, more if longer > >Under braking: >NA can brake harder and later and for a shorter time due to slightly lower >entrance speed > >Under cornering: >The same but the NA has less chance of spinning off due to less torque at >the wheels (although strictly that comes down to the driver) > >Accelerating out: >Same as above > >I have asked the question yet no-one has answered so I ask the question >again: "Where on a track does the turbo gain significant ground over the >NA?" > >I say we all meet on a track and settle it once and for all }:) > >Aidy
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:35pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! I appreciate what you're saying but driving on the road has so many variables that it isn't worth discussing. On an airfield day there is no traffic, no danger and everyone is on the same track, learns the track, and can really go for it and stretch their car's proverbial legs. You could come up with a million road-based scenarios about when X is faster that Y and few would be down to the car's relative abilities. But if you get cars on an airfield then that is about the best indication of car vs car performance that you'll get, all other things being equal. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Canny Sent: 20 June 2002 13:21 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! I wasn't going to reply as I'm as bored of this one as everyone else but my lunch is taking ages to microwave.........
From: Ben Bibbings Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:36pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! But this is not what the original poster asked .. it was a question about a Mk2 NA or a Mk2 Turbo. She wanted to know about the costs/performance etc .. she didn't ask for details on every variation of MR2. At the end of the day we will all probably say that the car we currently have is the best. If I didn't want the car I've got, why did I buy the thing. And in response to the origional post. I've had both an NA and a Turbo .. I think the turbo is a better overall car. But that could be a rev1 vs rev2 thing or a stock vs modded thing .. drive both, look at your finances and then buy the turbo :-) ---------- >From: "Paul" >Sent: Thu 20/06/2002 13:31 >To: "James Matthews", [email protected] >Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! > >"> I don't want to start any argument along the lines of >> mk1 v mk2 or NA v turbo v sc, all mr2's are amzing fun >" > >Thats right! There have been *too* many of those arguments on this list and >as its >mostly populated by MK2 owners we rarely win an argument ;) >
From: Ben Formesyn Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:38pm Subject: RE: You guys sure are competive! Lisa, To answer your question ;) Yes a turbo is more expensive to run than a NA - Fuel, Insurance (have you got quotes?) parts that wear out (eg Distributor cap) and then there's always the slippery slope of modifications for even more power... I'd go with what you feel - both are good fun cars, but the Turbo puts a bigger smile on my face. Cheers, Ben. 93T > -----Original Message----- > From: LIsa Rea > Sent: 20 June 2002 12:31 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [imoc-uk] You guys sure are competive! > > > Hi guys > > I;m sure all your cars are equally as fast and that > you are all great drivers, but all i wanted to know > was should i buy a turbo, and would it be harder to > own one of these, I am a bit wiser i think! And you > mostly seem to be like me and think just go for it! > > i have only one other girl-friend who is as passionate > about cars as me, so i know its mostly a guy thing and > i hope you dont mind me getting involved here, > > to kiern (i think it was you), well i have driven my > ex boyfriends Mr2 quite a lot, it was not a turbo > though, i found the RWD not a problem, actually much > more natural feeling, i do like driving quickly, but > would be careful in the wet and not reckless on > corners i think, > > i have not owned a RWD car, just shared my ex's Mr2, i > have recently had a 16v Clio, i have had a golf Gti > 16v and a honda civic vti in the past 4 years so i am > used to quite quick cars, just i love the mr2 looks, > driving position, t-bar etc etc! > > and if i buy i;m would love to meet up if you dont > mind, but do you have much happening in NI? > > thanks again > > Lisa
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:40pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Answering a question with a question is not a valid argument :) But, no, I haven't driven a turbo and I'll wager that the people on this list that say the NA is "no match" for the turbo have never driven one for any length of time (certainly not on a track) and have never been in a serious race with one. So that also answers your question about a well modded one. Now....have you ever driven a well modded NA? Ever raced one on the track? -----Original Message----- From: Dino Sent: 20 June 2002 13:19 To: [email protected]; Aidy Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! Aidy, I'll now revert someone else's question back to you in reverse. Have you DRIVEN a turbo? Have you driven a well MODDED turbo? ;-) Regards,
From: Dino Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 0:54pm Subject: Re: You guys sure are competive! Hi Lisa, First things first, both MR2s (both NA and Turbo) have BULLET proof engines, ie that don't mean you can shoot at the car, but it means that they've been well proven in World Rally (well, the turbo has, in the form of a Celica GT4) to be very reliable. All hi-performance cars tend to be quite expensive to run, though. Here's some general service things that you should consider: Cambelt change (every 60k miles) can cost between �250-400 depending on the garage Clutch change (again, about every 60k miles, but varies on driving style) can cost �400-800 depending on garage Shock Absorbers (every 50-70k miles) can cost �400-600 These prices will be roughly the same for both NA and Turbo. Parts may be slightly cheaper for the NA, but the extensive labour for things like a clutch change are the same for both NA and Turbo. Turbos needing to be replaced are NOT a common occurrence, and the chaps that _I_ know that have needed to replace them are nutters in their cars, both on track and on road (yes, that's YOU Mr Formesyn, and Mr A Hughes!!! ;-)) Oil changes are more frequent on turbos, and ideally need doing no later than every 4000miles (not sure what the interval is for an NA!). My changes, using Toyota oil filter and Mobil 1 Motorsport oil cost me �40 in just parts alone! But, it's worth the extra protection that it gives my engine. Tyres DO wear quicker in a turbo. Using Bridgestone S02s on my older Rev1 turbo, I only managed to get just under 6k miles out of them before they were slicks on the back. On the front, they lasted about 10k miles. With Bridgestone S03s though (their latest pattern), they've lasted me 10k miles with a lot more power going through them! Bear one thing in mind with the MR2. Don't skimp on tyres and brakes, and that will stand you in good stead safety wise! A lot of the scare stories spoken about the MR2's handling, especially in the wet, are caused by cheap tyres and little respect for the power of the car. In everyday driving, the Turbo can't be beaten. Picture a picturesque country line that curves all around the place, and the tubby will be a joy to drive, especially the earlier Rev1/2 cars with their lower down torque. You'll be able to drive briskly without even trying. By demonstrating this to an ex-member of this list that was UNBEATABLE in an NA, he went out and bought a tubby too! ;-) Hope this helps, Lisa. Regards, Dino -----Original Message----- From: LIsa Rea To: [email protected] Date: 20 June 2002 12:31 Subject: [imoc-uk] You guys sure are competive! >Hi guys > >I;m sure all your cars are equally as fast and that >you are all great drivers, but all i wanted to know >was should i buy a turbo, and would it be harder to >own one of these, I am a bit wiser i think! And you >mostly seem to be like me and think just go for it! > >i have only one other girl-friend who is as passionate >about cars as me, so i know its mostly a guy thing and >i hope you dont mind me getting involved here, > >to kiern (i think it was you), well i have driven my >ex boyfriends Mr2 quite a lot, it was not a turbo >though, i found the RWD not a problem, actually much >more natural feeling, i do like driving quickly, but >would be careful in the wet and not reckless on >corners i think, > >i have not owned a RWD car, just shared my ex's Mr2, i >have recently had a 16v Clio, i have had a golf Gti >16v and a honda civic vti in the past 4 years so i am >used to quite quick cars, just i love the mr2 looks, >driving position, t-bar etc etc! > >and if i buy i;m would love to meet up if you dont >mind, but do you have much happening in NI? > >thanks again > >Lisa >
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 2:02pm Subject: RE: You guys sure are competive! > You'll be able to drive briskly without even trying. By demonstrating this > to an ex-member of this list that was UNBEATABLE in an NA, he went out > and bought a tubby too! ;-) That'll also be the man whose turbo I followed in my NA and afterwards expressed surprise at the extent that I could keep up ;)
From: Dino Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:47pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! >So that also answers your question about a well modded one. Now....have you >ever driven a well modded NA? Ever raced one on the track? With MY car, do I REALLY need to??? ;-) Now, I just need to get this wedding outta the way so that I can thrash my car on track and see how scary she REALLY is.... Regards, Dino
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 2:16pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > > Ever raced one on the track? > With MY car, do I REALLY need to??? ;-) If you want to back up everything you're saying about your car, then yes. A car that is substantially faster in a straight line (and I *do* mean *substantially* faster which yours probably is) shouldn't have a problem gradually pulling away from an NA. But up to now all we have on how fast your car is on the track is your say so. Given your car probably has double my (old) NAs BHP then if we were both on the track you'd no doubt win but you'd probably be surprised by the margin (depending on the track of course, a really fast one would aid the turbo even more). My NA against any stock Rev2 or Rev3 turbo on a reasonable track is a challenge I'd happily accept from anyone.
From: behaved_badly Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 2:47pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! OHHHHH GOWDDD!!!! You know what you've done now don't you!! I'm waiting for it..... =) Cheers, Matt Sapphire Cosworth 90GT & 93GT (SOLD) --- In imoc-uk@y..., Aidy wrote: > > > Ever raced one on the track? > > > With MY car, do I REALLY need to??? ;-) > > If you want to back up everything you're saying about your car, then yes. A > car that is substantially faster in a straight line (and I *do* mean > *substantially* faster which yours probably is) shouldn't have a problem > gradually pulling away from an NA. But up to now all we have on how fast > your car is on the track is your say so. > > Given your car probably has double my (old) NAs BHP then if we were both on > the track you'd no doubt win but you'd probably be surprised by the margin > (depending on the track of course, a really fast one would aid the turbo > even more). My NA against any stock Rev2 or Rev3 turbo on a reasonable > track is a challenge I'd happily accept from anyone.
From: si.cook Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 2:55pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Mr T told me they couldn't do a four wheel alignment on my tubby without the figures. I said "...erm, it's an MR2..." to which they said nope, the chassis is different and the wheel base is longer on a Turbo than a NA. I fell around laughing and asked around and to my astonishment a few others siad that was the case, the Turbo wheel base is longer than a NA - I still don't know if this is true or not, but a number of people/companies have said as much. Cheers, Si.
From: fotoman Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 2:56pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! > > With MY car, do I REALLY need to??? ;-) > > Now, I just need to get this wedding outta the way so that I can thrash my > car on track and see how scary she REALLY is.... I hope your talking about the car here!! not your wife to be once your married.... > Regards, > Dino > OK OK bad joke but i kinda read it that way at first! :oD Dave H > >
From: Michael Canny Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 2:59pm Subject: My Car is better than yours (was - Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!!) <SNIP> > Given your car probably has double my (old) NAs BHP then if we were both on > the track you'd no doubt win but you'd probably be surprised by the margin > (depending on the track of course, a really fast one would aid the turbo > even more). My NA against any stock Rev2 or Rev3 turbo on a reasonable > track is a challenge I'd happily accept from anyone. It doesn't work like that Aidy - revert yours back to stock or allow the Turbo owner to spend the same amount as you have on mods or at least change the same parts. ;-) Standard vs Standard or Modded vs Modded And what about REV1 Turbos Aidy, scared of those? It would be fun to see this one put to bed though - 5 Turbos, 5 NA's, 5 MK3's 5 MK1s and 5 SC's all on one track, qualifying the lot. Shame it'll never happen. I do remember the Best Motoring vid with the Beams NA '2 up against it's "rivals" - "needs more power" seemed to be the conclusion.......
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 3:07pm Subject: RE: My Car is better than yours (was - Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!!) > It doesn't work like that Aidy - revert yours back to stock or allow > the Turbo owner to spend the same amount as you have on mods > or at least change the same parts. ;-) My car only has about an extra 30 BHP over stock, if that....so a turbo should run scared if it is 240 BHP vs 180 BHP as opposed to 240 BHP vs 150 BHP? As for the suspension mods they just bring it in line with the stiffness of the turbo. Remember Mitch, the turbo isn't just marginally better, there is "no comparison", the NA is "no match", the turbo "blows the NA out of the water". Are turbo owners scared to race against an NA just cos of some minor performance and suspension mods? > And what about REV1 Turbos Aidy, scared of those? I didn't include Rev1s as mine is a Rev2 so a comparison with a Rev1 isn't as fair or "even". Seems like you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't :) > It would be fun to see this one put to bed though It certainly would :) But until then I have to go on my real world experiences and nothing a turbo owner says about the estimated performance of his car will sway me from the *known* performance of mine.
From: behaved_badly Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 3:13pm Subject: Re: My Car is better than yours (was - Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!!) I knew it would happen!!! I can see the future you see =) --- In imoc-uk@y..., "Michael Canny" wrote: > <SNIP> > > > Given your car probably has double my (old) NAs BHP then if we were both > on > > the track you'd no doubt win but you'd probably be surprised by the margin > > (depending on the track of course, a really fast one would aid the turbo > > even more). My NA against any stock Rev2 or Rev3 turbo on a reasonable > > track is a challenge I'd happily accept from anyone. > > > It doesn't work like that Aidy - revert yours back to stock or allow the > Turbo owner to spend the same amount as you have on mods or at least change > the same parts. ;-) > > Standard vs Standard or Modded vs Modded > > And what about REV1 Turbos Aidy, scared of those? > > It would be fun to see this one put to bed though - 5 Turbos, 5 NA's, 5 > MK3's 5 MK1s and 5 SC's all on one track, qualifying the lot. Shame it'll > never happen. > > I do remember the Best Motoring vid with the Beams NA '2 up against it's > "rivals" - "needs more power" seemed to be the conclusion.......
From: fastna2 Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 3:16pm Subject: Fwd: RE: You guys sure are competive! That'll be the guy who you were following to an impromptu meet and I didn't want to lose you Aidy... Any time, any track, any car ;-) (and that includes my NA vs your new Evo 6 around Castle Combe) Cheers, Ad. --- In imoc-uk@y..., Aidy wrote: > You'll be able to drive briskly without even trying. By demonstrating this > to an ex-member of this list that was UNBEATABLE in an NA, he went out > and bought a tubby too! ;-) That'll also be the man whose turbo I followed in my NA and afterwards expressed surprise at the extent that I could keep up ;)
From: Michael Canny Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 3:21pm Subject: Re: My Car is better than yours (was - Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!!) > > It doesn't work like that Aidy - revert yours back to stock or allow > > the Turbo owner to spend the same amount as you have on mods > > or at least change the same parts. ;-) > > My car only has about an extra 30 BHP over stock, if that....so a turbo > should run scared if it is 240 BHP vs 180 BHP as opposed to 240 BHP vs 150 > BHP? As for the suspension mods they just bring it in line with the > stiffness of the turbo. Remember Mitch, the turbo isn't just marginally > better, there is "no comparison", the NA is "no match", the turbo "blows the > NA out of the water". Are turbo owners scared to race against an NA just > cos of some minor performance and suspension mods? My point was that we are comparing Mr Toyota's MR2s not ones that have been changed by us. You modified your suspension to make it stiffer and on a par with the Turbo, therefore your car vs a standard NA wouldn't be a fair comparison either. Would you want to race a standard NA against a Turbo that has uprated suspension and an extra 30bhp? My car has an extra 40bhp over standard and uprated suspension and brakes, similar mods to yours I guess Aidy but it's not a fair comparison between the two cars. I'm not saying that the "no comparison" and "no match" quotes are right but by modifying your own car you have moved the goalposts a little and brought your car nearer to the performance of a *standard* Turbo. So yes maybe *your* car is a comparison for a standard REV 2 under the same conditions and with drivers of equal skill but his isn't the case for all NA's and I think the question that started this thread off again was asking for feedback on standard cars. I have nothing to prove and I'm not arguing the case for either car, just trying to offer some balanced feedback amongst the testosterone-fuelled mess we seem to be in again ;-) Michael 91T GT T-Bar
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 3:28pm Subject: RE: RE: You guys sure are competive! > That'll be the guy who you were following to an impromptu meet and > I didn't want to lose you Aidy... You turbo owners, always with the excuses ;) Like I've said before, it's how you drive on the track that's the only real comparison. > Any time, any track, any car ;-) (and that includes my NA vs > your new Evo 6 around Castle Combe) Your NA vs my EVO? If your point is that the MR2 Turbo is faster than the MR2 NA why are you suggesting that the NA is any match for an EVO 6? It seems that you're arguing against yourself. But if you want to get it on at a track we know equally well (never done Coomb) then you're more than welcome to try.
From: Dino Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 2:58pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! >> You'll be able to drive briskly without even trying. By demonstrating this >> to an ex-member of this list that was UNBEATABLE in an NA, he went out >> and bought a tubby too! ;-) >That'll also be the man whose turbo I followed in my NA and afterwards >expressed surprise at the extent that I could keep up ;) Aide, now you're saying that your as good a driver (or maybe better?) than Ad Hughes, the ORIGINAL tubby beater when he was in his NA?? For your information, his suspension was SH*GGED (I know, I helped him replace all the balljoints recently which were SHOT!). That's a different argument, and he ain't on list to defend himself! >> > Ever raced one on the track? > >> With MY car, do I REALLY need to??? ;-) > >If you want to back up everything you're saying about your car, then yes. A >car that is substantially faster in a straight line (and I *do* mean >*substantially* faster which yours probably is) shouldn't have a problem >gradually pulling away from an NA. But up to now all we have on how fast >your car is on the track is your say so. As I've said before, I'm NOT going to put my wedding car at risk just to prove a point. After the wedding, we're also going for a honeymoon to the South of France, so that's a LOT to risk just to prove a point against an NA! You KNOW how fast the car is in a straight line from the published figures in Banzai (in fact it's a little quicker than that now thanks to more power and a clutch that can handle it). A couple on list have driven it (ie John Helps and Ben Formesyn) and they probably are still grinning. Muhsin too has been out it briefly. In fact (sorry to do this Ben!) but Ben's words were "Jeez, there's as much difference between this and my turbo in a straight line as there is between mine and a stock NA!". That's a LOT of straight line speed difference, Aide! The only thing you can dispute is how it'll handle. I'm also getting to the bottom of my handling problems, bit by bit, but I have to admit that I don't know how it will fair until I take it out on track. > >Given your car probably has double my (old) NAs BHP then if we were both on >the track you'd no doubt win but you'd probably be surprised by the margin >(depending on the track of course, a really fast one would aid the turbo >even more). My NA against any stock Rev2 or Rev3 turbo on a reasonable >track is a challenge I'd happily accept from anyone. I understand there isn't MUCH of a margin, but on a track where there are some straights, there WILL be a small margin. Otherwise, there'd be no point to it. But, I'd be worried if I were you, if Graham Lambert were to take up your challenge. The guy is AWESOMELY fast in his stock Rev2 tubby! Regards, Dino
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 3:51pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > Aide, now you're saying that your as good a driver (or maybe > better?) than Ad Hughes I never said that. If you note I said to the extent that I kept up and I worded that very carefully. > the ORIGINAL tubby beater when he was in his NA?? So now you admit that an NA can beat a turbo? > For your information, his suspension was SH*GGED. That's a different > argument, and he ain't on list to defend himself! He doesn't have to defend himself, I'm not "attacking" him. You attempted to use his reputation to bolster your argument and I simply did the same. Ad will be the first to defend the relative performance of the NA vs the turbo and, as you have said, seeing as he is no longer on the list I guess someone has to "fill his shoes" in that regard and stick up for the NA. Reading this list you'd think the MR2T was the be-all-end-all and the other MR2s either didn't exist or just "aren't worthy". This list is for *all* MR2s and if I want to stick up for the NA then that's fine, I'll do that. If I'm the *only* person willing to do that and I alone get all the flack then that is fine also, my shoulders are broad enough to take it. > I'm NOT going to put my wedding car at risk just to prove a point Fine, as long as everyone is aware of that. > but I have to admit that I don't know how it will fair until I > take it out on track. Fine. I'm sure everyone is bored to death of the arguments. I should collect them all and stick them on the website to provide a link any time someone brings the subject up :)
From: Michael Canny Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 3:54pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! <SNIP> > I'm sure everyone is bored to death of the arguments. I should collect them > all and stick them on the website to provide a link any time someone brings > the subject up :) That's actually a very good idea! The mailing list welcome note could also include a link to it ;-)
From: Dino Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 1:22pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! I don't know about the NAs, but for the tubbies, there was VERY LITTLE difference between Rev3 and Rev5. In fact, I think they were ALL aesthetic changes. The big changes from tubbies came from Rev1 to Rev2. Then there were a few more minor changes to the chassis from Rev2 to Rev3. I'm pretty sure that the Rev3 turbo had different dampers, springs and ARBs to even the later NAs. And I think the pads are MARGINALLY better too. I agree though that the VVTi may be a DAMN quick circuit car in the right hands. Regards, Dino -----Original Message----- From: pmarsden To: [email protected] Date: 20 June 2002 13:08 Subject: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > >> Are we SURE that, if comparing stock tubby to stock NA that they >> indeed DO have the same chassis? I'm pretty sure the dampers are >> different on later models (not so with Rev1s I seem to remember), >> as may be the springs. > >Hang on, what about the different revisions? Wouldn't a Rev5 NA beat >a Rev3 NA easily? Does that mean mine's the fastest of all? ;) > >Paul. >SW20 Rev5 Tbar UK-NA > >
From: Evan Rowlands Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:44am Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! A Supercharger's power is always there, a Turbo has to be wound up. For instant punch out of corners, I feel a Supercharger generally wins. You have to look at the spread of power, not just peak. I can beat Scooby WRX's running off roundabouts up to about 90mph, but then the brute power takes over. On twisty circuits I think the SC would stand a good chance. Evan 86 SC 86 NA -----Original Message----- From: Dino Sent: 19 June 2002 18:58 To: ajh_feature; [email protected]; James Matthews Subject: Re: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!! I agree that SCs can be VERY quick cars, but I think you are dreaming about them being quicker than the tubbies. For example, I'd put my head on the block and say that the fastest MR2 there was the Mk2 tubby of Mr Lambert. He was doing a GREAT job of staying with Adrian's Fensport Corolla, and that was due to his ability to make the car corner. I think the SCs are great, but they're not a patch, on most circuits, on a good, well-driven tubby... Regards, Dino
From: fastna2 Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 6:02pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! The suspension revisions are the same dates for turbo and NA. The main complaint I heard from the track test of the VVTi was the gearing wasn't ideal for track use - certainly no grumbles about 200bhp from a NA car... straight line for a VVTi and a stock turbo didn't differ much until you got into three figures as the NA pulled so well off the line and was longer geared in the first two ratios meaning more speed and less time changing gear to get it. Cheers, Adam. --- In imoc-uk@y..., "Dino" wrote: > I don't know about the NAs, but for the tubbies, there was VERY LITTLE > difference between Rev3 and Rev5. In fact, I think they were ALL aesthetic > changes. > > The big changes from tubbies came from Rev1 to Rev2. Then there were a few > more minor changes to the chassis from Rev2 to Rev3. I'm pretty sure that > the Rev3 turbo had different dampers, springs and ARBs to even the later > NAs. And I think the pads are MARGINALLY better too. > > I agree though that the VVTi may be a DAMN quick circuit car in the right > hands. > > Regards, > Dino
From: LIsa Rea Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 6:13pm Subject: sorry guys! Hi guys Sorry for starting this, i didnt realize it would sorta spiral like this, Once i get my car i promise to ask more sensible questions, Thanks Lisa
From: Graham Shrol Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 6:14pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Might as well add my 2p in... (as if reading from a script though, cos this argument's never dies!) I've owned both a REV1 NA and REV1 Turbo. Aidy, for god's sake, go and drive a turbo and then make your mind up. The Tubby is a MUCH nicer drive day to day due to the fantastic drivable torque you get in any gear, and its feels more relaxed... knowing there's power there with a dab of the throttle. All I know about whichever is quicker is that on the same bits of road, following my mate in his 911 3.6, the NA got eaten, and the Tubby keeps up. And to sum it up? Hands up who drives a NA and would rather drive a Turbo.. * [everyone] ...and hands up who drives a Turbo but would prefer a NA... [er...anyone???] * Not you Aidy... we all know you like the Turbo really but will never admit it ;-) Laters peeps... Graham
From: Jon Leech Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 6:39pm Subject: RE: My Car is better than yours (was - Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!!!) Do any of the NA's have LSD's?? Surely a tubby with a limited slip diff will be able to put down (even) more power coming out of the apex, giving an advantage ?? Get an NA and a tubby, decent springs/shocks on both, GOOD set of pads and a 2 pro drivers, the tubby will win hands down, no question. Cheers, Jon Ps - I don't really give a hoot which is quicker... my mk1 turbo will whoop you all ;)
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 6:43pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > Aidy, for god's sake, go and drive a turbo and then make your > mind up. The Tubby is a MUCH nicer drive day to > day due to the fantastic drivable torque you get in any gear, and > its feels more relaxed... knowing there's power there with a dab of > the throttle. And you drive my NA and discover that the engine just keeps on pulling all the way through the rev range....no lag or flat spots. Keep her in the sweet zone and she is always "on power". NAs are always better to drive than turbos (power notwithstanding of course). Likewise SCs are even *better* to drive. The power is again always "on" plus there is more of it. Of all aspirations the turbocharged engine is the *worst* to drive and, yes, that is a commonly held belief. Granted when it comes down to a 100 BHP NA vs a 300 BHP turbo then people will go for the turbo cos it has more power. But if you've experienced a 300 BHP NA vs a 300 BHP turbo I know which engine you'd prefer the most. > All I know about whichever is quicker is that on the same bits of > road, following my mate in his 911 3.6, the NA got eaten, and > the Tubby keeps up. All I know is that on the track I eat up most turbos. I'm not even talking about "on the road" though, there are too many other factors involved. For example, "on the road" two weeks back I beat a Rev3 tubby in my g/fs R19. Because the R19 is better? Faster? Handles better? Of course not, that's just silly. On the track there is almost no difference between the two and if you want to take up my track challenge with your Rev1 turbo you're more than welcome to find that out for yourself. If you're not prepared to take up the challenge then you can't really boast about how much faster your turbo is. > And to sum it up? Hands up who drives a NA and would rather drive a > Turbo..* [everyone] ...and hands up who drives a Turbo but would prefer > a NA...[er...anyone???] Hands up everyone who would rather have the power of the MR2 turbo over the power of a BMW M3? > Not you Aidy... we all know you like the Turbo really but will > never admit it ;-) Why would *I* want an MR2 turbo? ;) Aidy
From: Rob Barnes Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 6:46pm Subject: Re: sorry guys! This happens every month or so. I wouldnt worry about it. :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "LIsa Rea" To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:13 PM Subject: [imoc-uk] sorry guys! > Hi guys > > Sorry for starting this, i didnt realize it would > sorta spiral like this, > > Once i get my car i promise to ask more sensible > questions, > > Thanks > > Lisa
From: NickM Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 6:59pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Ahhh so the Shrollski does speak on list!!! This man even convinced me to get a MR2 Turbo, the great man Julian will be finding me one for delivery in Oct/Nov time, hopefully (would have been earlier but family problems have put all plans back) :( I must add I have been in both cars and driven a mates turbo and there is no comparison at all. Get a Turbo if you can afford the running and insurance and you don't need to rag the t*t's off it all the time now do you? Regards, NickM -----Original Message----- From: Graham Shroll Sent: 20 June 2002 18:14 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Might as well add my 2p in... (as if reading from a script though, cos this argument's never dies!) I've owned both a REV1 NA and REV1 Turbo. Aidy, for god's sake, go and drive a turbo and then make your mind up. The Tubby is a MUCH nicer drive day to day due to the fantastic drivable torque you get in any gear, and its feels more relaxed... knowing there's power there with a dab of the throttle. All I know about whichever is quicker is that on the same bits of road, following my mate in his 911 3.6, the NA got eaten, and the Tubby keeps up. And to sum it up? Hands up who drives a NA and would rather drive a Turbo.. * [everyone] ...and hands up who drives a Turbo but would prefer a NA... [er...anyone???] * Not you Aidy... we all know you like the Turbo really but will never admit it ;-) Laters peeps... Graham
From: Julian Alison Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 7:04pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! And I am that great man! Ha ahah ahahha! Nick - as a customer of mine - and a thoroughly nice chap - may I just warn you how these threads end up becoming total farce. Let's all have a discussion about why I think Carmen Electra is foxier than Pamela Anderson. Much more interesting. Maybe the ladies would like to discuss Angel vs Colin Firth. I don't know - but I've had a very hard day sorting out shippers etc - and n eed some light relief. I go to my e-mail and what do I find - you lot squabling about the cars you love! Leave it to the Nova and Saxo brigade to compare dick-size - the MR2 is abov e that! Now - let's have a group hug. Kindest Regards Julian Alison
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 7:39pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > And to sum it up? Hands up who drives a NA and would rather drive a > Turbo.. BTW, why would people drive the car they drive if it *wasn't* largely from choice? Surely if people wanted a turbo they would drive one? After all, they cost the same to buy and roughly the same the run (unless you have very high insurance). The way you talk its as if people have to "lump" with the NA for some reason and that we all aspire to drive MR2 turbos. Maybe people only *think* they would rather drive a turbo cos they hear so much misinformation about their performance on this list and forums like it? When I was moving on from my NA I didn't chose to buy a turbo cos I genuinely thought the difference in straight-line performance wasn't worth going through the hassle of selling my NA for. Aidy
From: Graham Shroll Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 7:54pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! I will drop it soon... I promise... > Of all aspirations the turbocharged engine is the *worst* to > drive and, yes, > that is a commonly held belief. I agree to a point, and one's driving style changes to accomodate this with the turbo, but I found my tubby's off boost cruising performance much the same as the NA, with the added bonus of a [fairly] lag free turbo. Its easier/nicer to drive from the standpoint that the turbo will pull from around 2000rpm, and therefore makes its impression felt whenever you push the throttle (ie. less of a need to drop a cog). Now, I'm willing to bow down to your track experience in the NA for the next point, but: oversteer... I always found that if you got the NA sideways it was more 'hang on' than control, whereas the turbo has a massive torque differencial between on and off boost. (a double edged sword I know) This always allows me to lift off and tuck the rear back in with much more confidence in the Tubby. >And you drive my NA and discover that the engine just keeps >on pulling all the way through the rev range.... I know youre NA is modified, (as was mine in the later stages) and I've no doubt its a solid, hefty performer. (as all MR2s are!) The thing is, there's just nothing like the massive surge of torque from the turbo that's just nowhere to be found on the NA. As you said yourself, "keep it in the sweetspot"... Well do the same for the Turbo and you never need let that torque drop off. As a side note, if the Rev1/2 Tubby kept its midrange torque through to 5000rpm the power would be closer to 270bhp... which demonstrates the scale of the torque available lower down. > But if you've experienced a 300 BHP NA vs a 300 BHP turbo I know which engine you'd prefer the most. Aidy, I agree, but where's this 300BHP NA MR2...? If there was one, I'd buy it. Tomorrow. (funds permitting) I feel this is getting into the realms of unknown-modification vs unknown-modification though... > All I know is that on the track I eat up most turbos. But that's not a level playing field. I said that following the same bloke in the same porsche, on the same road, my rev1 tubby is able to keep up with the porsche better than the Rev1 NA. To me that's a fairly solid indicator as to the quicker car. like I said, take a turbo round the same track and follow those same tubbies you ate, and you'd eat them even bigger style! ;-) > I'm not even talking about "on the road" though, there are too many other > factors involved. For example, "on the road" two weeks back I beat a Rev3 > tubby in my g/fs R19. Because the R19 is better? Faster? > Handles better? > Of course not, that's just silly. But there are sections of road that myself and the Porka driver know well (as Mitch mentioned being a strong factor) so [law permitting] this is a 'similar' situation to a track. The Porsche driver will testify to that too, and maybe I'll be in the situation where we can both take our cars to a track, and I can borrow a NA for a couple of laps to prove the point! > On the track there is almost no difference between the two and if you want > to take up my track challenge with your Rev1 turbo you're more > than welcome > to find that out for yourself. If you're not prepared to take up the > challenge then you can't really boast about how much faster your turbo is. Aidy, I really do see where you're coming from, but can I put a twist on it? If I come to a track and lend you my tubby to slay a few cars for a few laps I'm sure you'll change your mind. From your kill stories you obviously know your tracks, and I don't doubt that your driving ability is better than many fast car drivers... so I wont accept a straight race because I know my own driving isn't up to it. Does that mean my car isn't as fast? I CAN still say my Turbo is faster than my NA because I've owned and lived with them both. Question is, can you really discount the Turbo? > > And to sum it up? Hands up who drives a NA and would rather drive a > > Turbo..* [everyone] ...and hands up who drives a Turbo but would prefer > > a NA...[er...anyone???] > > Hands up everyone who would rather have the power of the MR2 > turbo over the > power of a BMW M3? Now you're just going off on a tangent me old pal! I'll have the M3 of course... but I'll sure as hell miss the modifyability of the MR2. (Hey, I'm going off on a tangent too... and making up words!) > > Not you Aidy... we all know you like the Turbo really but will > > never admit it ;-) > > Why would *I* want an MR2 turbo? ;) You know its true mate... you're just getting the Evo so you don't have to admit to everyone you were wrong! ;-) (and yes, I'd have the Evo over the MR2 Turbo too, but not on my pocket money!) Whoa, look at how much I've typed! That's what happens when you come into an arguement late! Graham
From: Graham Shroll Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 8:05pm Subject: RE: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > BTW, why would people drive the car they drive if it *wasn't* largely from > choice? Surely if people wanted a turbo they would drive one? After all, > they cost the same to buy and roughly the same the run (unless > you have very > high insurance). The way you talk its as if people have to > "lump" with the > NA for some reason and that we all aspire to drive MR2 turbos. Yeah, fair play mate... what I meant was those NA drivers who have either had their car for a couple of years and thinking about moving on, or those who were just plain impressed with a ride in someone elses turbo. I bought my NA because I knew it was a very capable car. I also knew that the power would be most acceptable compared to my last car, a Hyundai Lantra 1.5. After a year, I had 'grown out' of the NA's performance, and the Turbo was the obvious candidate (the best bits from the NA plus more go). Don't get me wrong, the NA was great fun - but my point was that I definitly don't aspire to driving one as a replacement for the Turbo. > Maybe people only *think* they would rather drive a turbo cos they hear so > much misinformation about their performance on this list and > forums like it? Agreed, Propaganda isn't useful, but then these people take a test drive in a turbo, see for themselves, and come back with their best cheque-signing pen. > When I was moving on from my NA I didn't chose to buy a turbo cos I > genuinely thought the difference in straight-line performance wasn't worth > going through the hassle of selling my NA for. Each to his own. I, on the other hand, thought it was well worth it... and don't have the money to even consider faster, newer, rally bred alternatives.
From: yogi_host Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 9:42pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! I know a couple of people who own MR2's and never knew the tubby even existed (I didn't either until about 2 years ago) - their eyes turned very green when they saw my car ;-) I guess people go shopping for an MR2 without doing lots of research and go straight to a UK Toyota dealer after spying a nice MR2 on the forecourt - p/x their other car - a few weeks later join an MR2 forum and find out there is such a thing as a turbo model! > BTW, why would people drive the car they drive if it *wasn't* largely from > choice? Surely if people wanted a turbo they would drive one? After all, > they cost the same to buy and roughly the same the run (unless you have very > high insurance). The way you talk its as if people have to "lump" with the > NA for some reason and that we all aspire to drive MR2 turbos. > > Maybe people only *think* they would rather drive a turbo cos they hear so > much misinformation about their performance on this list and forums like it? > > When I was moving on from my NA I didn't chose to buy a turbo cos I > genuinely thought the difference in straight-line performance wasn't worth > going through the hassle of selling my NA for. > > Aidy
From: Leon Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 9:50pm Subject: Re: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! Exactly. I don't see how you can say that the NA could be better than a turbo on the track- the turbo being a lot faster isn't in any way a disadvantage, it's a huge advantage. If you were to get in a stock NA and drive a 5 lap time-trial (for example) and then get in a stock turbo and do the same, the turbo would be the one getting the better time- every time you accelerated in the tubby you'd be knocking more and more off the NA's time because it accelerates faster. For every straight you'd knock even more off due to acceleration speed and also the shorter time it would take to reach a considerably higher speed before you had to start braking for the next corner. You wouldn't need to cook the brakes etc as the extra speed of the tubby would allow for braking a little sooner before corners and accelerating a little later exiting corners, if required. The tubby is much faster than the NA, and extra speed isn't a disadvantage when racing, it's a big advantage! Just my �6 worth Tweety 89 Ford Fiesta [until November )c: ] 92 GT-Turbo [Incarcerated] 88 NA T-bar [For sale] ----- Original Message ----- From: "p_hornsey" To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 12:02 PM Subject: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > so basically when in a turbo you accelerate faster down the straight > why not slow just slightly earlier nothing too aggressive down to the > same speed you can reach in your n/a. That way brakes dont heat up > much more than yours so no advantage gained for you on braking. Then > on any point on the track where you accelerate you loose out, which i > would guess is quite a lot of points on the track. so i dont see any > advantage a na has over a turbo and cant see how you would keep up. > unless like what has been stated before you are just a better driver. > > paul
From: Aidy Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 9:40pm Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > I always found that if you got the NA sideways The NA is quite hard to get sideways I've found. > Aidy, I agree, but where's this 300BHP NA MR2...? If there was one it would be undriveable unless it was an engine transplant. You were talking about the merits of a turbo charged engine over an NA one. I didn't want to say that the NA was better than the turbo without making the point that I was meaning power for power. ie NA "technology" gives a better drive than turbo "technology". >> All I know is that on the track I eat up most turbos. > But that's not a level playing field. I said track but I meant airfield. You are right in that someone who goes to the same track all the time has an advantage, but airfields usually change quite regularly. I meant on a circuit that both of you are knew to and where you could chuck it around in relative safety (unlike the roads). > But there are sections of road that myself and the Porka driver > know well (as Mitch mentioned being a strong factor) so [law > permitting] this is a 'similar' situation to a track. The road is *nothing* like a track and if you think it is you are just kidding yourself. On the track you can drive 10/10 knowing that you're not about to meet an unseen hazard or have to swerve to avoid something suddenly. The roads are hazardous, dangerous places. The track isn't. > Question is, can you really discount the Turbo? I'm not discounting it, I'm not even saying the NA is as fast or faster. What I am saying is that the turbo is only marginally faster, not this rocket ship that people make it out to be.
From: Aidy Date: Fri Jun 21, 2002 0:00am Subject: Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! > Exactly. I don't see how you can say that the NA could be better > than a turbo on the track- the turbo being a lot faster isn't in > any way a disadvantage, it's a huge advantage. If you were to > get in a stock NA and drive a 5 lap time-trial (for example) and > then get in a stock turbo and do the same, the turbo would be the > one getting the better time- every time you accelerated in the > tubby you'd be knocking more and more off the NA's time > because it accelerates faster. For every straight you'd knock even > more off due to acceleration speed and also the shorter time it > would take to reach a considerably higher speed before you had to > start braking for the next corner. You wouldn't need to cook the > brakes etc as the extra speed of the tubby would allow for braking > a little sooner before corners and accelerating a little later > exiting corners, if required. The tubby is much faster than the NA, > and extra speed isn't a disadvantage when racing, it's a big > advantage! > Just my �6 worth > Tweety It just doesn't work like that and you have fallen into a major trap...the turbo is *not* "much faster than the NA" and it will gain a mere yards on some straights, more so on longer ones.
From: "Ben Formesyn" Date: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:57 pm Subject: RE: [imoc-uk] Re: Please talk me out of buying a turbo Mr2!!!!!!! ! <snip> > dampers, springs and ARBs to even the later NAs. And I think > the pads are MARGINALLY better too. I think Paul Port did some sleuthing and worked out that the different part code they use for Japanese Turbo pads just relates to a local supplier of brake pads - they aren't 'higher performance' pads. So using UK MK2 NA pads in a Turbo is fine - after all the turbo isn't much heavier, but just picks up speed more rapidly.. Cheers, Ben. 93T