[Mk2] [Turbo] When does a mr2 stop being a sports car and become a hypercar or something

[JeffD]

So are you saying that your modified rev 1 is a "supercar" then?

Not really sure what the point is your trying to make....?

[Super_red]

I've always argued that the MR2 is a border line super car but never a hyper car. I say border line as going by the definition posted it was highly priced, it was not released in Europe because after our duty's were applied Toyota thought no one would afford it. In 1989 it was also more powerfull and had more 'toys' than some cars being sold as super cars in Europe.

It was still never marketed or sold as a super car however so remains just a sports car.

[Kongaroo]

Jeff - I interpret those posts as more to pointing out that when the ferraris were limited to 300bhp there was no magical 'supercar handling characteristic' that would help it to win over a cheap modified production sports car like the MR2

I kind of see that as a significant point of the performance modifying scene. It's the whole spirit or ethos of the modified car enthusiast.

But yes, you're absolutely right the MR2 could never be called a supercar/hypercar

[Tsia]

Oh I agree an MR2 could keep up with one with the right work done to it, but a Rev 1 with bolt ons will still struggle/fail, surely? I'm prepared to be corrected if need be!

well then this is me correcting you.

D'aww.

rev 1 makes the samme power as a rev 3 once you go aftermarked turbo, headgasket, injektors and ecu

I'm sure there are differences in the head etc when it comes to flow between the different revisions? You would still need to rebuild the engine to achieve the same power (read : not bolt ons) as the Ferrari, or even the Rev 3 for that matter.


Edit : Part of the charm of the MR2 for me, is being close to these kind of cars in terms of speed, yet not actually being a 'supercar'.

[trd2000]

Oh I agree an MR2 could keep up with one with the right work done to it, but a Rev 1 with bolt ons will still struggle/fail, surely? I'm prepared to be corrected if need be!

well then this is me correcting you.

D'aww.

rev 1 makes the samme power as a rev 3 once you go aftermarked turbo, headgasket, injektors and ecu

I'm sure there are differences in the head etc when it comes to flow between the different revisions? You would still need to rebuild the engine to achieve the same power (read : not bolt ons) as the Ferrari, or even the Rev 3 for that matter.

There is minor differences in the head (rev 3 no tvis) and the manifold (rev 3 one more hole) straight throttle body on the rev 2+.
The intake cam is sligtly different (4º and +0,5 lift) on the rev 3.
compression sligtly different.
But no, once the headgasket,turbo,injektors and ecu are aftermarked,
there is nothing making the rev 3 more powerful.
Its just much cheaper to get there.
The engines are completely equal in terms of what power they will endure at this point, and for the most the breaking point is the pistons.
and as these are made of the same material for both rev 1,2,3,4 they will hold the same power.

try look at the 1/4 mile table also. the second fastest is a rev 1
http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/garage.php ... le&CID=921

for bolt ons, well all the mr 2 turbos in the US have rev 1 engine, no mather what revision/year they are from.
and here you have a few bolt on mods that will break the 300 hp range.

http://www.atsracing.net/Parts/Index/TURBOKITS

[JeffD]

Jeff - I interpret those posts as more to pointing out that when the ferraris were limited to 300bhp there was no magical 'supercar handling characteristic' that would help it to win over a cheap modified production sports car like the MR2 :oldtongue:

There was a bit more to it than that....

The JGTC ran a handicap system using weights so if you were winning extra weight would be added to your car to slow you down to try and make sure all the cars were as equal as they could be in performance - this helped make it a more interesting and exciting spectator sport as all the cars would be level pegging as it were. You can see the weight handicap shown as window stickers on the GT300 car in the pic here:



So using the JGTC as a guide to a cars true ability really isn't realistic - it was more about the drivers IMO. Also, as I've previously mentioned GT300 cars bore little resemblance to MR2s mechanicwise and as also mentioned they were never available for sale - the TRD2000GT is not the same as the GT300 cars - it was a bodykit + mild tuning/styling enhancements!!!!

TRD2000: The definition of a supercar isn't just about the speed, handling, looks etc - its more about the perception people have of them and that's something your never going to be able to change no matter how you modify your car. You can see a similar example of this in how Toyota wanted to enter the "luxury" car market but rather than release a new model under the Toyota brand they invented the Lexus brand even though we all know they're really Toyotas anyway.

[Kongaroo]

It's been a few of years since I looked at the GT300 info. but I was under the impression the GT300 rules were a lot stricter with regard to modifications than the GT500. So the cars in the GT300 were not so wildly different from the road going cars.

Also I recall reading that although power was capped to 300BHP some of the heavier cars were allowed larger air restrictors to make up for the power/weight disadvantage?

The weight handicap system is also used in other racing series to negate the advantage of gaining pole position/even out the cars. But as there is no way to know what car added weight or which driver was having a good or bad day at the time, I would just sit back and enjoy the MR2's success back then

[JeffD]

Wildly different from a road going car.... :-)

http://trd2000gt.forumotion.com/t123-gt ... nal-photos

Not denying the success of MR2s - just think its ridiculous when people think they own a supercar just because they've fitted an air filter and big exhaust then tear round like a loon on public roads harassing more expensive cars ;-') LOL

[Steve-O 2007]

When does a mr2 stop being a sports car and become a hypercar or something

when you win the lottery and sell it for a Lambo

[Kongaroo]

It's beautiful... I have to say much more beautiful than the TRD tribute body kitted cars although I can't quite seem to put my finger on why. Maybe it's all the aero and the very low ride height.

It doesn't look like the length of the wheel base front to rear has been altered though going by the side by side photo with the red SW20 in that link?

A lot of the changes appear to be for aero and then safety+stripping out. But then my definition of 'wildly different' to the road going cars is probably different to yours Interesting to see all the weight penalty stickers on the side window. They must have had a degree of success to justify that then...

Also the engine sounds intimidating with 608PS but remember most forged builds for the 400bhp+ level are going to be similar with the turbo size being the main deciding factor for the headline power figure.

The photo of the engine placard states that the engine is in fact only a 2140cc 3SGTE which suggests the engine may be running a modified 5SFE type crankshaft with 3SGTE block bored out for 86.5mm pistons.

A lot of stroker builds undertaken nowadays will be 2189cc using a 5SFE block for strength (like my own car). ATS Racing in America now also have a 2.3L option too

[JeffD]

I absolutely love the GT300's but TBH they are not "supercars" - they are racing cars.

In my mind the best way to define a supercar is the sort of car you'd buy if money were no object. Sure you could make a lesser car perform the same but why bother when there is some really cool stuff out there. I don't believe for one moment that most of us here wouldn't swap to something more exotic if they woke up one morning with a bazillion quid in your bank account! LOL

Are you sure you wouldnt swap for any of the below....? ;-')

Ferrari
Lamborghini
Maserati
Mclaren
Bugatti
Aston Martin
Porsche
Pagani
Ford GT40
Koenigsegg

[Super_red]

Is the cylinder head on back to front on that race car? it looks like the turbo is in the boot and the inlet is on the normal exhaust side.

The suspension is massivly different, probably compleatly different pick up points and looking at the towers I would imagine the struts are not there and have been replaced by a top and bottom arm setup. This makes it a drasticly different car and not a modified MR2, more a race car built into and MR2 silhouette.

[ashley]

When does a mr2 stop being a sports car and become a hypercar or something

It doesn't.

[Kongaroo]

I absolutely love the GT300's but TBH they are not "supercars" - they are racing cars.

In my mind the best way to define a supercar is the sort of car you'd buy if money were no object. Sure you could make a lesser car perform the same but why bother when there is some really cool stuff out there. I don't believe for one moment that most of us here wouldn't swap to something more exotic if they woke up one morning with a bazillion quid in your bank account! LOL

Are you sure you wouldnt swap for any of the below....? ;-')

Ferrari
Lamborghini
Maserati
Mclaren
Bugatti
Aston Martin
Porsche
Pagani
Ford GT40
Koenigsegg

Lol, of course. I'm not disagreeing with you there mate. As said before it will never be a supercar

Super_red - it would be interesting to know exactly what has been done to that GT300 car. But it's impossible to make any assumption on the suspension just from looking at those photos.

You can however be sure that the engine is nothing out of this world when compared to what is available now for the 3SGTE as things have moved on quite a bit in terms of available chargecoolers, cams, intake manifolds and blocks.

In any case, regardless of what suspension changes it has undergone I would have no problem considering it a heavily modified MR2 (because that is exactly what it is). Indeed it was classed as such for the races it entered

[Super_red]

I absolutely love the GT300's but TBH they are not "supercars" - they are racing cars.

In my mind the best way to define a supercar is the sort of car you'd buy if money were no object. Sure you could make a lesser car perform the same but why bother when there is some really cool stuff out there. I don't believe for one moment that most of us here wouldn't swap to something more exotic if they woke up one morning with a bazillion quid in your bank account! LOL

Are you sure you wouldnt swap for any of the below....? ;-')

Ferrari
Lamborghini
Maserati
Mclaren
Bugatti
Aston Martin
Porsche
Pagani
Ford GT40
Koenigsegg

Lol, of course. I'm not disagreeing with you there mate. As said before it will never be a supercar

Super_red - it would be interesting to know exactly what has been done to that GT300 car. But it's impossible to make any assumption on the suspension just from looking at those photos.

You can however be sure that the engine is nothing out of this world when compared to what is available now for the 3SGTE as things have moved on quite a bit in terms of available chargecoolers, cams, intake manifolds and blocks.

In any case, regardless of what suspension changes it has undergone I would have no problem considering it a heavily modified MR2 (because that is exactly what it is). Indeed it was classed as such for the races it entered

I'm making no assumption I'm making an observation. Look at the wheel tubs in the front and then tell me where the strut would be? It does not have struts its a radically altered chassis. It is a modified MR2 as much as the 6R4 is a modified Metro!

The cylinder head is the opposite way around to any other 3S engine I've ever seen so I would call that very different to anything thats currently available. Although its possible for anyone to do it if you time your exhaust cam 180 out it would work just fine.

[Kongaroo]

Lol, no worries bud. I won't argue with you on the definition of what can and can't be considered a 'modified MR2'