Porsche Boxster drivers - bigger knobs than Beemer drivers?

[luthor1]

my current daily tyres are on my stock 15" rims (the kumho's were on 17's) and are just Falken ZE512's which they use on the challenge race cars. They aren't great track tyres, but they're pretty decent for fast road actually! Quite happy with them for pootling about.

[rossdymond3352]

I'm interested to see if anyone on this forum has anything on there mr2 that this guy will consider any good?

[luthor1]

55 plate Ford Fiesta ST with the Duratec engine?

No stripes though Must visit Ford!!!

[rossdymond3352]

PMSL! Must have a ganders at that matey!

[nakamura]

my current daily tyres are on my stock 15" rims (the kumho's were on 17's) and are just Falken ZE512's which they use on the challenge race cars. They aren't great track tyres, but they're pretty decent for fast road actually! Quite happy with them for pootling about.

I went thro i set of 512 in under six months Andy. Useless imho. 452 are the only way to go with Falkens on an MR2.

[luthor1]

Uncle Fester is cheap and still has warranty!!!

Certainly hasn't got the power to blow it's gearbox to smithereens

it's quite a giggle though...

The Falkens really are just run-around tyres, and I expected nothing from them, and on that basis they've been great - it's all about perspective really!! But point taken...

[Lauren]

A modern car does not always mean a better car. Look at rally cars, some of the older ones run circles round the new more modern cars.

Maybe if you didn't have your head so far up your own ar$e you could realise the points of the above comments.

Actually the reason why some of the older rally cars are faster (group B for example) is because there are far more restrictions on newer rally cars.

And for your last point, pot, kettle springs to mind. I think Aidy has explained himself well enough, whilst an MR2 turbo may be fun and is quick enough in a straightline it does suffer from a lot of foibles that are not present in many other cars.

[ryan]

Didn't an episode of TG pitch some old group B cars against the newer ones? I'm sure the newer ones were quicker (round their test track anyway?)?

[luthor1]

A modern car does not always mean a better car. Look at rally cars, some of the older ones run circles round the new more modern cars.

Maybe if you didn't have your head so far up your own ar$e you could realise the points of the above comments.

Actually the reason why some of the older rally cars are faster (group B for example) is because there are far more restrictions on newer rally cars.

And for your last point, pot, kettle springs to mind. I think Aidy has explained himself well enough, whilst an MR2 turbo may be fun and is quick enough in a straightline it does suffer from a lot of foibles that are not present in many other cars.

EVERY time you harp on about 'foibles' and it's "good in a straightline... but.." I will follow immediately with a total disagreement, pointing out AS USUAL, that the foibles are so basic, and easy to resolve, that anyone left with any sense that the MR2 is a 'bad' handling car is short sighted and has only driven bad ones.

If you bought your shiny new boxster with cheap MoT pass remould on it, you'd surely change them for good rubber? So why not just resovle the issues with the MR2 turbo which, quite frankly, costs pennies, and is mainly labour.

The MR2 is a FINE handling car, and it provides clear proof of it's ability EACH and EVERY time you see it on a track against ESTABLISHED excellent cars. It ALWAYS beats the Porsche in it's class, and even in NA form where it's WELL down on power to weight ratio, still runs the integra extremely close.

I think the Porsche fans should go here and stay there: http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/

[Lauren]

EVERY time you harp on about 'foibles' and it's "good in a straightline... but.." I will follow immediately with a total disagreement, pointing out AS USUAL, that the foibles are so basic, and easy to resolve, that anyone left with any sense that the MR2 is a 'bad' handling car is short sighted and has only driven bad ones.

If you bought your shiny new boxster with cheap MoT pass remould on it, you'd surely change them for good rubber? So why not just resovle the issues with the MR2 turbo which, quite frankly, costs pennies, and is mainly labour.

The MR2 is a FINE handling car, and it provides clear proof of it's ability EACH and EVERY time you see it on a track against ESTABLISHED excellent cars. It ALWAYS beats the Porsche in it's class, and even in NA form where it's WELL down on power to weight ratio, still runs the integra extremely close.

I think the Porsche fans should go here and stay there: http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/

I'm not saying its a bad handling car, i'm just saying there are many cars out there that handle far better than an MR2 turbo. There are many cars out there that are far more involving to drive.

I don't think it is a 'fine' handling car. It is okay but compromised in its overall balance. It may lap quickly like i've said a hundred times before, lap times are not everything.

[weegaz22]

ive had both, mk1 and mk2

mk2 handles like a turd, mk1 is sublime

let the rage commence




this is always the problem with model specific forums/clubs, there are always a certain amount of "blinkered" people on them that think nothing will touch their car, their car is the best thing since sliced bread etc

ive been around cars long enough to be open minded about different models, sure the mr2 is better than some cars, but there is a lot of machinery that will p1$$ all over the top of an mr2...

and dont hit out with the "ooooo, but my car has 4 squillion bhp so will eat anything on the road" yes your mr2 may be tuned but the chassis was designed to deal with 240bhp, and sticking tein/cusco/scaffold poles in for dampers isnt going to change the overall geometry and give it supercar handling

mr2 or boxter.... i know what i would have

[Lauren]

mr2 or boxter.... i know what i would have

DING. Its a no brainer.

[luthor1]

You'd rather have a 2.5 litre tiptronic 'box 1997 Boxster over a 1998 Rev5 tubby with Tein Coilovers and 'foibles' corrected coupled to a sensible 290bhp tune?

[weegaz22]

You'd rather have a 2.5 litre tiptronic 'box 1997 Boxster over a 1998 Rev5 tubby with Tein Coilovers and 'foibles' corrected coupled to a sensible 290bhp tune?

no i would have the 2000 3.2 6 speed manual if you want to be model specific

simply because i like the fillings in my teeth to stay in

[Amelio]

You'd rather have a 2.5 litre tiptronic 'box 1997 Boxster over a 1998 Rev5 tubby with Tein Coilovers and 'foibles' corrected coupled to a sensible 290bhp tune?

DING. I know what i'd rather have.

Weegaz22 - i like it that you clearly haven't read through luthor1's FACT based and constructive arguement but have proceeded to insult by labelling the alternative opinion as a blinkered view.

Well done, your post was pointless

[luthor1]

You'd rather have a 2.5 litre tiptronic 'box 1997 Boxster over a 1998 Rev5 tubby with Tein Coilovers and 'foibles' corrected coupled to a sensible 290bhp tune?

no i would have the 2000 3.2 6 speed manual if you want to be model specific

simply because i like the fillings in my teeth to stay in

Well, I'd have the 1997 tiptronic Boxster 2.5 litre over a Rev1 on dodgy bushes with a weak steering rack and soggy shocks....

!!!ARE WE LEARNING SOMETHING YET PEOPLE!!!

[weegaz22]

You'd rather have a 2.5 litre tiptronic 'box 1997 Boxster over a 1998 Rev5 tubby with Tein Coilovers and 'foibles' corrected coupled to a sensible 290bhp tune?

DING. I know what i'd rather have.

Weegaz22 - i like it that you clearly haven't read through luthor1's FACT based and constructive arguement but have proceeded to insult by labelling the alternative opinion as a blinkered view.

Well done, your post was pointless

at no point did i say luthor was blinkered, sorry if i didnt scroll through the 14 pages of bitching on this thread, but i do have other better things to do with my time

why dont you enlighten me on the FACTS then?

[Aidy]

!!!ARE WE LEARNING SOMETHING YET PEOPLE!!!

The only thing we're learning is that you'll never learn

[Lauren]

You'd rather have a 2.5 litre tiptronic 'box 1997 Boxster over a 1998 Rev5 tubby with Tein Coilovers and 'foibles' corrected coupled to a sensible 290bhp tune?

No, i'd rather have a manual boxter... had no idea you could get turbos with tiptronic boxes?

[Lauren]

!!!ARE WE LEARNING SOMETHING YET PEOPLE!!!

I'm learning that you seem to have a need for constantly using caps lock.