911 Carrera

[steve b]

The poster on that thread is also the guy that ATS racing named their GT28rs turbo kit after due to him being considered a bit of a pioneer for that turbo.

I run that turbo on my MX5 GT2860RS - Aka The Disco Potato

I'm just realistic thats all, if I think someones talking rubbish then I'll disagree.

I know Jon has taken his 300bhp @ fly MR2 to Porsche trackdays and gone faster than them, but he's got loads of track experience, knows how to drive the car and drives it very hard. Thing is I bet if he was put in the driving seat of one of the Porsches he'd be passing the other Porsches even faster. He's mention before though he likes the driving challenge the MR2 presents, he finds it rewarding because its difficult to drive, likes pushing it and being able to catch faster cars with it. More an indication that hes a good driver rather than the cars really good.

I find it hard to believe that all the other Porsche enthusiasts are brand new every time and it's their first time on the track too. You've just proved our point that with a 300bhp tubby, you have a better power to weight than many things out there and if the chassis was that bad, the Porsches would leave him for dead in the corners.

300bhp non stripped out tubby = 225bhp/ton 40 odd less than my MX5 for gods sake

I'm talking about a very good driver, passing some porsches, not all. Which do you think gets driven harder with less worry, £3K MR2 or £40K Porsche?

I don't know why I discuss this with you, have you been on track yet? Ever? Do you have ANY experience of what your talking about?

Tell me what do you think the result would be if you got your MR2 up to 300bhp and turned up at a track day with Lauren in her DC2, who do you think would be faster?

[mr2nut123]

I run that turbo on my MX5 GT2860RS - Aka The Disco Potato

I'm just realistic thats all, if I think someones talking rubbish then I'll disagree.

I know Jon has taken his 300bhp @ fly MR2 to Porsche trackdays and gone faster than them, but he's got loads of track experience, knows how to drive the car and drives it very hard. Thing is I bet if he was put in the driving seat of one of the Porsches he'd be passing the other Porsches even faster. He's mention before though he likes the driving challenge the MR2 presents, he finds it rewarding because its difficult to drive, likes pushing it and being able to catch faster cars with it. More an indication that hes a good driver rather than the cars really good.

I find it hard to believe that all the other Porsche enthusiasts are brand new every time and it's their first time on the track too. You've just proved our point that with a 300bhp tubby, you have a better power to weight than many things out there and if the chassis was that bad, the Porsches would leave him for dead in the corners.

300bhp non stripped out tubby = 225bhp/ton 40 odd less than my MX5 for gods sake

I'm talking about a very good driver, passing some porsches, not all. Which do you think gets driven harder with less worry, £3K MR2 or £40K Porsche?

I don't know why I discuss this with you, have you been on track yet? Ever? Do you have ANY experience of what your talking about?

Tell me what do you think the result would be if you got your MR2 up to 300bhp and turned up at a track day with Lauren in her DC2, who do you think would be faster?

Once again, here comes the money question. £20k on an MR2 and £40k on a Porsche. Which would win then? Think that's fairly obvious.

My original point, and always has been, is that with half the money you spend on a Porsche or any other supercar for that fast, is that a tuned japanese motor will be every bit as capable and possibly faster and from hearing experiences from Ferrari owners about changing clutches and electrics going wrong of flappy paddle boxes that providing you had modified the car right, the japanese are known for reliability even when pushed.

[mr2nut123]

Tell me what do you think the result would be if you got your MR2 up to 300bhp and turned up at a track day with Lauren in her DC2, who do you think would be faster?

How can you tell what a guys ability is to drive over a forum? Is it all about having thousands of posts talking gibberish about fully understanding the complete ins and outs of how a car physically handles?

Also, if it was in reverse and there was lamposts around the track i'd definately be feeling confident

[Mike]

I've seen this debate raise its head on many occasions on various forums, however I'm yet to see the question "what makes a car a supercar?" ever satisfactorily answered.
Quite often the conclusion is that you simply cannot define "supercar" the term means too many different things to different people.
Some cars just have "it" and they tend to be ones with: great performance (for their era), unusual/exotic/outrageous styling, limited production run, a BIG price tag and I'm sorry to say a badge synonomous with all of the above.
Those factors are covered by the likes of Ferrari, Lamborghini etc and they are marques that have entered the public consciousness as makers of supercars. To the majority of the general public a car such as the Nissan GTR would be pretty anonymous, they'd probably assume that its a cheap coupe thats been chavved. However those who take an interest in performance cars know better, they know that barring the badge it is every bit the supercar that a 911 GT2, F430 or DB9 is.

MR2Nut said something along the lines of "they should have made it a mid-engined 2 seater". The reason being that to some those two details are the very essence of a supercar. The first time my now ex girlfriend saw my (admittedly very shiney ) MR2 she exclaimed "Oh my God, how can you afford that?" Why? because the SW20 has that accepted supercar shape, and sometimes to some people thats all you need.

IMO the MR2 in any guise is not a supercar, its just not special enough, ultimately it lacks exclusivity and a certainly elegance in its engineering.
BUT, If you turn it round though and ask if the MR2 Turbo was made by Ferrari in much smaller numbers, commanded a higher price and was marketed as an entry level model in the range back in 1989/1990 ala' Porsche 944, 968 would that make it more of a supercar? I think so, the badge a car wears makes a big difference.

Except no matter how good we think the MR2 is, I dont think Ferarri would ever make something like one!
People are comparing highly modified MR2's against standard Supercars here. When was the last time Ferarri made a car with "only" 200-240 bhp?
I would guess early 80's?

The MR2 is a fine car in it's own right but it was never designed to have huge power. To a certain point it's fine but the more you put into one the worse the delivery and usability is.
Could you imagine having a stinking great turbo on one that kicks in full boost at 5k revs come on boost in mid corner?
You just dont have hideous power delivery like that in a supercar. They're designed almost obsessively to have beautiful power delivery from the whole rev range of the car.

There is just so much more on a supercar that just isnt considered on an every day road car.

They have to as they're designed to go that fast and keep doing it.

But this is a dead conversation as there seems to be a total split here.

One thing I will ask though, a friend of a friend once had a Focus RS with around 500bhp, it was break neck fast.
Is that now a supercar?

I think you've somewhat missed my point, I'm not saying that a manufacturer like Ferrari would make a car like the MR2 (only has half the required cylinders for a start ) I was merely making the point that the badge a car wears has a great influence on its image.

As for the power output the MR2 Turbo has very comparable performance figures despite having less power to the Ferrari 348 which was introduced in 1989. Rev 1 MR2 Turbo 0-60 5.7sec top speed 160mph, Ferrari 348 0-60 5.5sec top speed 165mph.
http://www.qv500.com/ferrari348p1.php

[mr2nut123]

I've seen this debate raise its head on many occasions on various forums, however I'm yet to see the question "what makes a car a supercar?" ever satisfactorily answered.
Quite often the conclusion is that you simply cannot define "supercar" the term means too many different things to different people.
Some cars just have "it" and they tend to be ones with: great performance (for their era), unusual/exotic/outrageous styling, limited production run, a BIG price tag and I'm sorry to say a badge synonomous with all of the above.
Those factors are covered by the likes of Ferrari, Lamborghini etc and they are marques that have entered the public consciousness as makers of supercars. To the majority of the general public a car such as the Nissan GTR would be pretty anonymous, they'd probably assume that its a cheap coupe thats been chavved. However those who take an interest in performance cars know better, they know that barring the badge it is every bit the supercar that a 911 GT2, F430 or DB9 is.

MR2Nut said something along the lines of "they should have made it a mid-engined 2 seater". The reason being that to some those two details are the very essence of a supercar. The first time my now ex girlfriend saw my (admittedly very shiney ) MR2 she exclaimed "Oh my God, how can you afford that?" Why? because the SW20 has that accepted supercar shape, and sometimes to some people thats all you need.

IMO the MR2 in any guise is not a supercar, its just not special enough, ultimately it lacks exclusivity and a certainly elegance in its engineering.
BUT, If you turn it round though and ask if the MR2 Turbo was made by Ferrari in much smaller numbers, commanded a higher price and was marketed as an entry level model in the range back in 1989/1990 ala' Porsche 944, 968 would that make it more of a supercar? I think so, the badge a car wears makes a big difference.

Except no matter how good we think the MR2 is, I dont think Ferarri would ever make something like one!
People are comparing highly modified MR2's against standard Supercars here. When was the last time Ferarri made a car with "only" 200-240 bhp?
I would guess early 80's?

The MR2 is a fine car in it's own right but it was never designed to have huge power. To a certain point it's fine but the more you put into one the worse the delivery and usability is.
Could you imagine having a stinking great turbo on one that kicks in full boost at 5k revs come on boost in mid corner?
You just dont have hideous power delivery like that in a supercar. They're designed almost obsessively to have beautiful power delivery from the whole rev range of the car.

There is just so much more on a supercar that just isnt considered on an every day road car.

They have to as they're designed to go that fast and keep doing it.

But this is a dead conversation as there seems to be a total split here.

One thing I will ask though, a friend of a friend once had a Focus RS with around 500bhp, it was break neck fast.
Is that now a supercar?

I think you've somewhat missed my point, I'm not saying that a manufacturer like Ferrari would make a car like the MR2 (only has half the required cylinders for a start ) I was merely making the point that the badge a car wears has a great influence on its image.

As for the power output the MR2 Turbo has very comparable performance figures despite having less power to the Ferrari 348 which was introduced in 1989. Rev 1 MR2 Turbo 0-60 5.7sec top speed 160mph, Ferrari 348 0-60 5.5sec top speed 165mph.
http://www.qv500.com/ferrari348p1.php

And if Toyota were to do it all again with performance in mind instead of making 1litre shopping trolleys, they CAN produce something that would compete with the more expensive cars. Your paying for the plastic badge. The TRD team at Toyota aren't exactly thick blokes and I bet they could test and produce a car every bit as good as for example a Porsche GT3RS and going from the looks of the Supra and MR2, it would look better too.

[JJ]

Didn't toyota recently shock the world in producing the Lexus IS-F !! Thats placed itself in the same league as the M3, C63, RS4 nobody saw coming.

Now that engines being used as a test bed for the future Supra replacement which will prove to be interesting... thats if the economy picks up !!

"As for the power output the MR2 Turbo has very comparable performance figures despite having less power to the Ferrari 348 which was introduced in 1989"

Which was also a hateful car to drive and troublesome ! Looked years behind the MR2 from release too ! 355 - Now that was much improved and a great car to sport about in !

[Lauren]

And if Toyota were to do it all again with performance in mind instead of making 1litre shopping trolleys, they CAN produce something that would compete with the more expensive cars. Your paying for the plastic badge. The TRD team at Toyota aren't exactly thick blokes and I bet they could test and produce a car every bit as good as for example a Porsche GT3RS and going from the looks of the Supra and MR2, it would look better too.

Well maybe they could, maybe they couldn't. Lets face it it's not a market toyota have ever tried to make an impact on. I mean looking at the various lexus models, they have hardly made a big impact in the UK have they? After all people buy the 3 series not the IS200s do they?

LOL at it would 'look better too'... where's the evidence?

[b4rk3r]

Didn't toyota recently shock the world in producing the Lexus IS-F !! Thats placed itself in the same league as the M3, C63, RS4 nobody saw coming.

Lets face it it's not a market toyota have ever tried to make an impact on

They did it with the is-f without any previous models, so why could they do it in any other vehicle class?

[Lauren]

They did it with the is-f without any previous models, so why could they do it in any other vehicle class?

They might have made the ISF but have they sold any? I have yet to see one. Seen plenty of M3s though.

After all are people really going to even look at the ISF when there is the standard setter in the M3 anyway?

[b4rk3r]

Ive never seen an evo x on the road, did mitsubishi even sell any?

[Lauren]

Ive never seen an evo x on the road, did mitsubishi even sell any?

Only on GT5 Prologue a bit like the ISF really...

[b4rk3r]

Ive never seen an evo x on the road, did mitsubishi even sell any?

Only on GT5 Prologue a bit like the ISF really...

It was sarcasm and rhetorical

[Michel]

Well, going by a couple of youtube clips and a few google searches, teg's manage between 9:09 and 9:20. So around a minute slower than the r26's 8:17.

Obvious flaws in this comparision are noteably the lack of information regarding the circumstance of the dc2 times i.e. modifications, driver capabilitly etc...

But still over a minute a fair ole chunk of time. At a guess thats around a 10% improvement.

EDIT... I suspect the teg's are very close to standard as thats how most owners like to keep them. So how much would a pro driver, full manufacture support and modern tyres knock off those times?

That is sloooooooooow for a Integra R. I consistently drove in the 8:50's with a Corolla fwd , coilovers and 145whp @ 1030kg. A skilled driver in a proper maintained Integra should have no problems lapping around in the 8:40's.

Oh and yea of course Porsche's are much better then MR2's.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Toyo ... 193167.htm

Keep an eye on the rearview mirror

[Kongaroo]

Also, if it was in reverse and there was lamposts around the track i'd definately be feeling confident

Snappy comeback... meowww!

Steve - yes the Disco potato is a nice turbo. I'd considered going that route prior to getting the TD06 which is why I remembered that MR2/GT3 thread I posted earlier. Maybe it's something to try once I've killed my TD06... either that or a GT35R

Btw can I have a look at you dyno sheet? I'm just curious to know what your power and torque curve is like with the GT28RS on an MX5.

[Lauren]

Oh and yea of course Porsche's are much better then MR2's.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Toyo ... 193167.htm

Keep an eye on the rearview mirror

So hang on, two porsche's go past and the MR2 pulls away from that porsche with one headlight only on the straight. Have I missed something here?

[BarronMR]

That is sloooooooooow for a Integra R. I consistently drove in the 8:50's with a Corolla fwd , coilovers and 145whp @ 1030kg. A skilled driver in a proper maintained Integra should have no problems lapping around in the 8:40's.

Oh and yea of course Porsche's are much better then MR2's.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Toyo ... 193167.htm

Keep an eye on the rearview mirror

Thanks for that info, are the teg's times you speak of modified though? I was trying to compare strictly stock for stock to show how technology has progressed or not.

As for the porsche's in the vid, I think we were comparing stock against modified mr2's. Not highly modified 911's against highly modified mr2's...

[Michel]

I think a stock Integra can go around in about 8:40~8:50.. probably a bit slower..but it depends on tyres a lot.. a rev 3 Turbo will be a lot faster I'm absolutely sure about that.. too much uphill on the NS and the Integra lacks power in those places.

[Lauren]

Thanks for that info, are the teg's times you speak of modified though? I was trying to compare strictly stock for stock to show how technology has progressed or not.

I think what is key, is mechanical grip. If you take say an R26R with 888s on it as standard and much wider tyres than the Teg, then of course it's going to be quicker simply because it has more grip so can carry more speed into the corners, so i'm not quite sure how comparable it would be.

So it's not necessarily a case of how much technology has progressed but more that the newer car has much wider tyres. Mind you my panda with all it's 100hp has 195/45/15s on it as standard, loads of grip to a point but it does dull the handling a tad if that makes sense. Or more to teh point covers up some handling foibles of the car. It seems to be the fashion nowadays.

[tonigmr2]

Steve - yes the Disco potato is a nice turbo. I'd considered going that route prior to getting the TD06 which is why I remembered that MR2/GT3 thread I posted earlier. Maybe it's something to try once I've killed my TD06... either that or a GT35R

In all honesty not sure the GT35R is a good choice if you like trackwork...a bit too laggy and a narrow powerband IME.
T

[JJ]

In all honesty not sure the GT35R is a good choice if you like trackwork...a bit too laggy and a narrow powerband IME

Depends on what you rev it too !!

I for one have a big lazy turbo HKS T04R ( probably equivalent to a GT4088 ) and in reality and a tight track, I'll struggle against the smaller ones.. its physics....but having said that... if you're in the right gear all the time and the track is quite a high speed track... just try and stick with me on the exit !

Lauren was there a few years back when i tracked my white Rev 2 MR2 turbo at elvington... that was bog standard on teins, CT26 blower... and what a hoot of a car that was to drive... out of tight corners, stamp on the throttle and you were pacing caterhams on the exit ( depending on driver again ) .. straights seem to run out of puff