MR2 vs MRS

[Rob]

Agreed about the Mk2 brakes-I think they are weak and I have the Rev2+ calipers running grooved discs, yellow stuff pads, master cylinder brake stopper, Motul fluid and goodrich brake hoses......

[ashley]

yellow stuff pads,

That's why you think they are weak

[Mike]

I have to say I am surprised by people commenting on SW20 brakes. Read any contemporary road test and its just about the only aspect of the SW20 that received universal approval.

Have those owners come to the SW20 from newer cars with overly servo'd brakes perhaps?

[rev3turbo]

The only thing wrong with the mr2 brakes are the calipers, they are prone to seizing, but thats expectable really on an old car, so its a non issue

Other than that they are great brakes, with the right pads

[RST]

^^^and so they are on other Toyotas, and lots of other makes as well!!!

I came from MK2's so I don't like much else. Others I know came from MK1's so they like MK3's not MK2's. I never tried a mk1 (apart from being a passenger) but without a shadow of a doubt the MK2 is the one for me. Never drove a mk1 but the inside is just too retro for me which put me off apart from not having a garage.

As for handling, every mk3 I drove handled like ***t -but most owners were happy with 2-3-4 different tyres and didn't see my problem but then I just found MK3's in general allot less looked after which stands to reason as they were mass marketed.

I found the MK3 very "twitchy" but really quite planted but it has a short wheel base which din't suit me. It's a small car but really quite confident though. What put me off was the engine, I didn't even like the start-up, sounded too mechanical -didn't take to it at all. With a 3SGTE in there or a red top I reckon it's where it should be but the 1.8 was a big mistake for me. I do like the fugly MK3 but can't see me owning one again -the mk2 still has allot more going for it in my books. The only time I'll ever own a mk 3 again (which may still happen) is of it has some proper 4 banger grunt in the boot.

[Odin_S]

This man speaks the truth. The third paragraph sums up my thoughts too. The MK3 just didn't seem that special. Very mass produced look to it. The engine definitely should have been the T Sport one from the start.

[tonigmr2]

MR2 Championship - MK2s were always spanking the MK3s. Reason? 1) more powerful, 2) more grip, 3) MK3s handle and point wonderfully but their suspension is not very tight (bilsteins on a MK2 much more up to the job).

Changes to MK3s 1) manifold to release just a few more ponies (free up breathing with induction kit and exhaust) and 2) BC Coilovers.

Result - MK3s start winning races.

Really it's about power and grip. Trouble with the MK2 though is once it lets go it goes big time. Personally I prefer the MK3 as it is more progressive!

[Rob]

yellow stuff pads,

That's why you think they are weak

Lots seem to think they are good. I had blueprint ones before and they felt the same! I do have a set of Carbotech's waiting though....

[gavsdavs]

I have to say I am surprised by people commenting on SW20 brakes.

Have those owners come to the SW20 from newer cars with overly servo'd brakes perhaps?

I should qualify my statement.

Stock brakes on an SW20 feels under-braked on a track
(They overheat)

On the road the brakes are fine.

I've only really driven my car regularly in the last 14 years - so no, i'm not expecting more servo help.

[Race Idiot]

I should qualify my statement.

Stock brakes on an SW20 feels under-braked on a track
(They overheat)

On the road the brakes are fine.

I've only really driven my car regularly in the last 14 years - so no, i'm not expecting more servo help.

Is that with standard pads? I'm just curious because i've only been on track with aftermarket front calipers and carbotechs.

Most people here seem to think that the standard brakes in good nick with decent pads is usualy good enough on track.

[gavsdavs]

Is that with standard pads? I'm just curious because i've only been on track with aftermarket front calipers and carbotechs.

Most people here seem to think that the standard brakes in good nick with decent pads is usualy good enough on track.

So far as I know, yes. For a while I had grooved/drilled discs but they weren't any better than the stock rotors, in fact wore out/degraded badly (rust/decay). I didn't do any track time on them.

I've had two specific types of brake/clench moments.
- Hooning into a corner with cold brakes. My bad. No bite.
- Increasing pace on a long session and eventually getting pedal to the floor softness - I suspect fluid overheat.

but we're missing my original point. the sw20 has AT LEAST 200kg of extra mass to stop (and me, 115Kg) compared to rev1/rev3. Your brakes are going to have a harder time.

[Ben]

but we're missing my original point. the sw20 has AT LEAST 200kg of extra mass to stop (and me, 115Kg) compared to rev1/rev3. Your brakes are going to have a harder time.

And you were doing 40-minute sessions, I seem to remember!

[gavsdavs]

I don't know if this holds true for people who do regular track days, but a mate of mine did a lot in an exige. He found that brake pads only last a couple of days on a track. I suspect that's about right as I caned my pads at Bedford.