![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
Which is faster
Which is better handling
Which has the highest potential[/list]
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members
QUOC2008 wrote:mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000
Which is faster
Which is better handling
Which has the highest potential[/list]
QUOC2008 wrote:mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000
Which is faster
Which is better handling
Which has the highest potential[/list]
JekylandHyde wrote:12-02-2004, 03:55 PM
The turbo MR2 is 2800-3050 lbs stock.
I've seen 13.4 in an turbo MR2 with only intake/exhaust/donwpipe.
.
.
not even a boost controller.
$ per
$, the MR2 will kill the S2000.
There are plenty of
"deals" on MR2s out there.
Style there is no competition.
The S2000 looks like a miata-made-into-a-bathtub IMO.
The MR2 looks like the sexy mid-engine sports car that it is.
As for the MR2 cockpit feeling small.
.
.
not sure where that comes from.
I am 6' 0" and a good friend of mine is just over 6' 2" and he owns two MKIIs as well.
We have zero problems fitting.
MR2 blind spots?.
.
.
I've been driving them since 1989 and I have yet to find anything resemlbing a significant blind spot
.
.
.
maybe I can't see it
![]()
![]()
The only reason I would pick the S2000 is if I was a dedicated autocrosser and could use that high RPM band.
The truth is: to each, their own
I would hate it if everyone was driving MR2s.
I am grateful for the many people that choose something else:)etc
pistol pete wrote:A friend had a turbo S2000 andit's very quick.
.
He mapped it himself
mrturbotom wrote:Doesn't have to be rev3+ to be quick.People seem to down trodden the earlier revs.
Where as the extra torque they have helps them pull ahead
mrturbotom wrote:Doesn't have to be rev3+ to be quick.People seem to down trodden the earlier revs.
Where as the extra torque they have helps them pull ahead
fingers99 wrote:mrturbotom wrote:Doesn't have to be rev3+ to be quick.People seem to down trodden the earlier revs.
Where as the extra torque they have helps them pull ahead
Rev 1 or 2 without the power steering, aircon and etc.will be faster than rev3 onwards.
![]()
See
and
here
for the Honda in 2.2 trim
(which wins 0-60).
![]()
In 2.0 litre V Tec trim, there's only a tenth in it.![]()
(Of course, it's only a rough guide.
)
You'd imagine that the Honda will be less edgy at the limit.
Gullzter wrote:
Really, only a 1/10th? Where did you read that?
From what i see the 2l vtec s2k is a 0-100k in low 6 whereas the rev3 turbo is low-mid 5s which works out at least half a second, maybe even a full second.Ive pulled along a stock s2k and left it behind when my rev3 was stock.
![]()
On topic, i quite like the hard top s2k for looks, all i can say is the mr2 is faster, id imagine the potential would also be in the mr2 aswell, i noticed a big difference from stock rev3 turbo to SS 3" exhaust, decat and induction.
no idea about handling
fingers99 wrote:
Rev 1 or 2 without the power steering, aircon and etc.will be faster than rev3 onwards.
![]()
sheppy wrote:fingers99 wrote:
Rev 1 or 2 without the power steering, aircon and etc.will be faster than rev3 onwards.
![]()
there is no way a rev1 or 2 will keep up with a rev3.my rev3 is like a totally different animal than my rev2.
the difference really is night and day.
exact same mods other than the blitz ECU.
rev2 with all breathing mods, 260-280bhp.
rev3 with same mods 290-300bhp?? i find it a huge difference.
![]()
QUOC2008 wrote:
Cornering s2000 wins due to tyres