[Mk2] [NA] whats the difference in performance in revision 2 and 3 na

[rowan_rev1]

sorry i shouldve explained he has the 3s-FE engine in a rev1 i wasnt sdaying mine was that much quicker than a rev3 lol oops sorry!

i was simply suggesting that the 3s-fe is the SLOWEST car

[blue2]

Im simply right about the rev 2 being quicker than the rev 3 then I need to look this up because I remember reading somwhere that the lower bhp rev1 engine was faster 0-60 than the rev 2.
My mate had one and it seemed slightly pokier than my rev 2. Does the low bhp rev 1 engine look different to the 158bhp rev1 and 2 engines. I remember my mates engine looked different.

[minty0_10]

the rev 1 119bhp engine looks more like the mk1 mr2, engine totaly diffrent to the rev 2 cars also theres no rear spoiler or front fogs

[rowan_rev1]

yes it look smaller too. it doesnt have the intake manifold coming over the head either.
also you'll notice it has an air flow meter (afm) instead of the 3sge MAP sensor.
it seems like people think that the rev12 only came with the lower hp engine but thats not true the rev1 came with both the 3s-fe AND the 3s-ge!

if you'd driven in the car with the 3s-fe you'd KNOW it just couldnt be quicker than the others cars. any of them........anywhere in the world!

think about the physics of it.

you have 2 cars both at 1300 kilograms
one has 175 hp
one has 119 hp
which one will accelerate quicker?

as long its the same gear ratio's then the 3s-fe will never be as quick as the 3s-ge's

[star_gazer]

Hi Blue,
Nothing more than an air filter and one of those ebay resistors at the time (i know it wasn't that). Speedo's fine and I was running on 16's with 45 profile, if that makes any difference, but thanks to an M3 going past at about 150 on the M1 at 3am I managed to crank her right up on a straight too. It hit's 137 in forth no problem every time, so I can't see why the extra 23mph is soooo unexpected for fifth, although it seemed to take forever over 150 and wouldn't push past 6900 revs.
Is the gearing on yours the same as mine?
Marc

Hi Marc, if you are on stock gearing and 16 with 45, then as far as i know 3500 rpm in 5th is 70 mph, gps verified, hence at 6900 rpm your calculated true speed is about 137 mph, which is the factory claimed speed if i remember correctly. Your spedo has a 13 mph drift which is perfectly fine as 10% over is very good for a car spedo. (10% of 137 is ~ 14mph ) The air filter wont affect top speed to anything perceptible on the spedo. Try using a gps and average it over good distance.

Official Toyota figures for revision 1/2 0-6 is 7.8 seconds, versus 7.7 seconds for the revision3.
The difference is fairly marginal between the two, but it is there and the balance of power is in favour of the revision 3+ engine. Just check out the MR2 Challenge grids for the mk2 and you'll find all of the front runners use revision 3 engines.
Patrick

Totally agree with this. Most people tend to take figures on magazines/manufacturers without understanding what they mean. These figures are normalised for atmospheric pressure, road surface etc. Also the factory test driver will literally drive the car to bits to establish the figure, if its 7.7s in the book then in real life on a public road you will get about 8 to 8. odd s if you drive like a lunatic. People just imagine that they are Aryton Senna and will drive that fast, in most cases they will only achieve 80% of the cars factory figures, achieving the next 10% is difficult and the last few % is only for a very very skilled driver.

People just look at the factory spedo and think look I have gone to xxxmph, while the fail to realise that the spedo by law over reads, mostly by 10% at 70mph, and can go as high as 20% in the triple figures. The law makers and car makers know every one is a winner, bragging rights in the pub, i did 160 mph in my corsa, i owned you!!

Hope it helps

[nakamura]

no your simply wrong sorry! the 3sge model (158hp) was quicker to 60 than the rev3+. james off of mr2oc.co.uk and i are constantly racing and my rev1 gltd is FAR quicker than his is!

Official Toyota figures for revision 1/2 0-6 is 7.8 seconds, versus 7.7 seconds for the revision3.

The difference is fairly marginal between the two, but it is there and the balance of power is in favour of the revision 3+ engine. Just check out the MR2 Challenge grids for the mk2 and you'll find all of the front runners use revision 3 engines.

Patrick

Im sure the jap spec rev1+2 g-limiteds on jap fuel put out 167bhp with 0-60 time at 7.2 with the rev3s still hitting 7.7.

[rowan_rev1]

no your simply wrong sorry! the 3sge model (158hp) was quicker to 60 than the rev3+. james off of mr2oc.co.uk and i are constantly racing and my rev1 gltd is FAR quicker than his is!

Official Toyota figures for revision 1/2 0-6 is 7.8 seconds, versus 7.7 seconds for the revision3.

The difference is fairly marginal between the two, but it is there and the balance of power is in favour of the revision 3+ engine. Just check out the MR2 Challenge grids for the mk2 and you'll find all of the front runners use revision 3 engines.

Patrick

yes but are they using rev3 engines in rev1 cars?
the rev1's are lighter so putting the later engine in would be beneficial!

[dawolf]

Totally agree with this. Most people tend to take figures on magazines/manufacturers without understanding what they mean. These figures are normalised for atmospheric pressure, road surface etc. Also the factory test driver will literally drive the car to bits to establish the figure, if its 7.7s in the book then in real life on a public road you will get about 8 to 8. odd s if you drive like a lunatic. People just imagine that they are Aryton Senna and will drive that fast, in most cases they will only achieve 80% of the cars factory figures, achieving the next 10% is difficult and the last few % is only for a very very skilled driver.

People just look at the factory spedo and think look I have gone to xxxmph, while the fail to realise that the spedo by law over reads, mostly by 10% at 70mph, and can go as high as 20% in the triple figures. The law makers and car makers know every one is a winner, bragging rights in the pub, i did 160 mph in my corsa, i owned you!!

Hope it helps

Very true. Speedo's are never 100% accurate and some of those 0-60 times are not really true. I've timed my rev 2 G-Limited a few times and it's been closer to 8 secs (going by the speedo).

[minty0_10]

any way back to the speedo thing i seen 160 mph on my old rev2 clock down a long steep hill tried it again with my sat nav and it only showed 150mph so quiet a difference is speed.

i also had a jap inport rev2 that would screem to 150mph on the clock even althrough the car was still limited to 115mph

[JAP BOY]

I have no doubts about the N/As are quick for what they are but 160 i can't imagine i've only managed 145mph in mine and that was just over 6k rpm tbh it didn't have alot left in it to go anymore!

[blue2]

Ive only had mine upto 145 and I didnt want to put any more pressure on the engine as the revs were pretty high at this speed.
Going back to what rowan_rev1 said regarding the rev 1 3s-fe engine. My mate had one a while ago and I drove it on many occassions. This car was pretty quick, most suprising was that it had lsd fitted. I couldnt believe this until we tested it on a car park where 2 nice black lines were left. His car definatly had the 3s-fe engine and when I drove it I couldnt see any differene in straight line speed, if anything his car seemed ever so slighty more responsive. But, Im only gauging this on the performance of my rev2 which is pretty bog standard and 100+k miles. Im thinking he must have had a very well cared for car and the lsd gearbox may have added something, not sure

[Antstarr]

no your simply wrong sorry! the 3sge model (158hp) was quicker to 60 than the rev3+. james off of mr2oc.co.uk and i are constantly racing and my rev1 gltd is FAR quicker than his is!

Official Toyota figures for revision 1/2 0-6 is 7.8 seconds, versus 7.7 seconds for the revision3.

The difference is fairly marginal between the two, but it is there and the balance of power is in favour of the revision 3+ engine. Just check out the MR2 Challenge grids for the mk2 and you'll find all of the front runners use revision 3 engines.

Patrick

Dont think I agree with you on this....the revision 1 was quicker on 0-60 than the rev2 due to the weigt advantage without the PAS and Air Con. Even when I use to have blats with rev 2 and 3 NA's they use to get quite shocked on the acceleration of the rev1, had tubby owners stating that it was very nippy as well.


From what I record I think its actually:

rev1 - 7.1/7.2
rev2 - 7.8
rev3+ were around 7.7ish

[JAP BOY]

Antstarr Mk2 Mr2 N/A will never touch the tubbys with regards to going topend speed.
Its a fair point to say they don't respond well to mods as the tubby's do but i think if you get the suspension and the brakes sorted and a good driver i dont think you'll notice any difference in twistys with regards to handling although tubby drivers generally excercise caution around bends

[star_gazer]

Dont think I agree with you on this....the revision 1 was quicker on 0-60 than the rev2 due to the weigt advantage without the PAS and Air Con. Even when I use to have blats with rev 2 and 3 NA's they use to get quite shocked on the acceleration of the rev1, had tubby owners stating that it was very nippy as well.

From what I record I think its actually:

rev1 - 7.1/7.2
rev2 - 7.8
rev3+ were around 7.7ish

I don't think the absence of a PAS and Aircon and lower BHP will give you nearly 0.6 seconds advantage

For the record how much weight savings?, 50Kg, 100Kg, 500Kg ..?

One thing that can give better acceleration in a speed range (note the use of range) is the gearing, but if you gain the 0-60, then you have to lose above if you still have similar top speeds.

The sensation of feeling quick has very little to do with performance, you can feel real quick in a go cart or a smart roadster, than you might in a F18, but trust me the F18 can exceed the go cart in acceleration and speed and cornering but it lacks the sensation at the same performance levels

Don't let the sensation of performance trick you, its just a sensation, performance on the other hand is hard facts, for which data, proof and eventually reasoning is needed.

[HighwayStar]

Dont know what the exact weight difference is either but as well as no PAS and no Air Con most rev1s also have no ABS, no side impact protection in the doors, no motors for steering fogs and no air bag mechanisms. Then there's the smaller brake discs, smaller wheels (x5) and,
and, ..er... well, thats all I can think of at the mo but what might that total?
Anyone know the official weight differences and what differences there are in gearing between em?
I'd also always thought the 3sge rev1 was 7.2 to 60 compared to the 7.7 of the rev3 but then Patrick at Rogue does know most things MR...
Someone else recently in a thread about the oldest mk2s had their own car featured in an original 1990 road test with performance figures.
Think it was a Peter....
Anyone?
R

[HighwayStar]

Found it!! Did a search and Peter C has a rev1 tested by Autocar & Motor way back that made the dash to 60 in 6.7sec and the 1/4mile in 15.2 and he reckons its a standard car.
R

[star_gazer]

Found it!! Did a search and Peter C has a rev1 tested by Autocar & Motor way back that made the dash to 60 in 6.7sec and the 1/4mile in 15.2 and he reckons its a standard car.
R

I am sorry, but tests like these, and people taking them at face value is what makes it easy for the motor industry to get away with, ask any racing driver here and they will confirm:
In that test done by Autocar:

1. What was the atmospheric pressure (altitude of the test site!!)
2. Was the track wet or what was the surface wetness/dryness?
3. What about humidity
4. Were all the fluids full or at minimum, including fuel
5. How many people were in the car?
6. What tires were used?
7. What was the grade of the track?

and the list goes on

If you don't have standardised conditions the results mean no xxxx, perhaps the later version might do it at 6.5 seconds for the same conditions? How do you know?

What one really needs to do is to test all revisions and average them under several runs.

Please don't get me wrong, but things like this are of interest to me from a technical point of view.

Again I personally don't take some things about performance at first glance as its very easy to spin values to make it sound impressive. At the end of the day what makes a bigger difference in achieving all these numbers is the most important thing the driver

[HighwayStar]

Hey Stargazer (named after the Rainbow opus by any chance?),
What difference does it make what conditions? All performance tests surely are done with driver only, minimum fuel and on the best possible conditions available... unless the co. concerned are idiots. They want to show their vehicles in the best possible light. The point is a supposedly standard car (inc. tyres) made it in 6.7secs. I'm sure conditions were at the optimum and I'm sure the test driver knew his onions well. My point is here is an apparently standard rev1 posting these figs which as far as I know are significantly quicker than any I've seen or heard of for any other n/a rev.
Just thought it was interesting in relation to the topic...
If its making it 1 whole sec faster than others are saying a rev1 should do it it sheds new light onto the thread don't you think?
R

[star_gazer]

Hey Stargazer (named after the Rainbow opus by any chance?),
What difference does it make what conditions? All performance tests surely are done with driver only, minimum fuel and on the best possible conditions available... unless the co. concerned are idiots. They want to show their vehicles in the best possible light. The point is a supposedly standard car (inc. tyres) made it in 6.7secs. I'm sure conditions were at the optimum and I'm sure the test driver knew his onions well. My point is here is an apparently standard rev1 posting these figs which as far as I know are significantly quicker than any I've seen or heard of for any other n/a rev.
Just thought it was interesting in relation to the topic...
If its making it 1 whole sec faster than others are saying a rev1 should do it it sheds new light onto the thread don't you think?
R

Hey just named as that just came to my mind

The conditions do make a lot of difference, say on an icy track with normal tires I can possibly prove that the rev1 has a 0-60 of 2minutes
But if I don't state track conditions, means no xxxx, but I am being honest, its 120s 0-60mph, slower than a speeding micra
Again the pressure affects a lot, think turbo or supercharger If I took the car up to a high altitude + warm track the engine may be down on power by 20% and bingo it will be slower 0-60mph than stock, so I can apparently prove everyone wrong
Or take it to the lowest and cool, moist air track Power up by 15% and hey I can be faster than stock
Showing the vehicle in the best possible light That I think is called misleading the consumer

Whilst its not my intention to argue over this being 1 whole second faster is what tells me this is a total
Thinking of it logically if this journalist can drag the stock car 1 whole second faster than the factory test driver, why is he a journalist ffs??
Imagine if he is a professional drag racing driver, now manufacturers spend £xxxxx to shave 0.1 s, just hire this journo and he/she will shave 1s off the time how wonderful, Jun and all these specialist tuners must be idiots, spending £150,000 on tuning the engines alone, just hire the journo and bang win all the races

I do think it is important to state these numbers, but all magazine results should be viewed logically to avoid nasty little tricks

[HighwayStar]

I do agree with what your saying mate however I also think that unless these figures are an outright lie from a well respected magazine then they are damn impressive. I've no reason to believe this magazine lied or even 'fudged' the results. They're in the business of comparing and reporting on cars and not providing publicity for certain manufacturers over others.
Whatever the conditions and whoever the driver was they clearly produced a rev1 0-60 time substantially lower than factory claims which we all agree are themselves conducted under optimum conditions.
Be interesting if Peter C might come along and give us more info from the road test on how and where the figures were obtained and what the magazine had to say about them.
His car was the (I think) 304th rev1 off the production line, maybe it was played with by the factory if they knew it was going to be a media test car... even if this were the case I'd love to know how it did it....
P'raps Peter will be along.....
R