Thinking of moving to an sw20

[Ryan S]

Turbo > V6 > BEAMS > NA

Turbo > V6 > BEAMS > NA> Pushbike (marginally).

[Rory]

sheppy is correct - I've never seen a thread about someone transplanting an NA engine into their turbo or selling their turbo to upgrade to an NA.

NA serves a purpose for people who maybe cant get insurance on a turbo or cant afford to buy a turbo (although now days you can pick up turbos for peanuts) or maybe people who just want a 2 for the looks over performance.

[Ryan S]

sheppy is correct - I've never seen a thread about someone transplanting an NA engine into their turbo or selling their turbo to upgrade to an NA.

NA serves a purpose for people who maybe cant get insurance on a turbo or cant afford to buy a turbo (although now days you can pick up turbos for peanuts) or maybe people who just want a 2 for the looks over performance.

if you had the same driver take both cars around a track, the tubby would be faster every time.

[ashley]

NA's are more fun than turbo's if you are after a better balanced car, with a linear throttle response and you're not worried about all out power.

How can the NA handle better than a turbo? Easy- the engines weighs significantly less, and the throttle response is more linear.

Having had both I fully understand why people love an NA as a track car- it is mahoosive fun!! If I can get my turbo to handle anywhere enar as good as my old NA then I'll be a happy bunny, but there's no getting away from that extra weight in the engine bay

It really is NOT all about power with these cars....if that's what you are after anyway

[Kongaroo]

What is the difference for stock turbo vs stock N/A in terms of the engine weight Ashleigh?

As for Turbo vs NA - I'd go turbo every time... if only because getting owned by virtually every modern 'hot hatch' gets old really quickly

Mk2 turbo handling is nice anyway I think. I have the MR2 and mk1 MX5 both running Koni adjustable setups and although both are good I think the MR2 setup wins hands down. There just isn't quite enough suspension travel in the MX5 strut to stop it from bottoming out on deep bumps at speed - the MR2 Koni's are about perfect in this respect.

[Race Idiot]

Now i've got my 205cc back on and i've got my nice blitz id boost controller im suprised how progressively std levels of boost come in. I actualy feel more confident getting on the power earlier coming out of corners now.

If you had someone drive a std na and then a std turbo most people would choose the turbo. But thats a bit of a moot point seeing as both cars will probably need a bunch of suspension work anyway.

Basicaly op get a test drive in a turbo and an na buy the one you like

Mk2 turbo handling is nice anyway I think. I have the MR2 and mk1 MX5 both running Koni adjustable setups and although both are good I think the MR2 setup wins hands down. There just isn't quite enough suspension travel in the MX5 strut to stop it from bottoming out on deep bumps at speed - the MR2 Koni's are about perfect in this respect.

Hands down my favorite damper for the MR2 I still miss the ride from my old konis, i'm on yellow billies now.

A well setup na with konis paired with some good (not stupid overly stiff tein) springs, aftermarket arbs, new topmounts and polybushing would be a nice b-road weapon i bet

[Ste2]

Turbo > V6 > BEAMS > NA

2GRFE > Turbo ?

[Ryan S]

Turbo > V6 > BEAMS > NA

2GRFE > Turbo ?

i wouldn't say so as the turbo is virtually no hassle to get to the 300bhp mark.

[Marf]

Hmm, I'd disagree, I'd rather have a 300hp V6 NA than a 300hp 4cyl Turbo

If I ever got another MR2 it'd have to be a 2GRFE

[madfish]

Lol... what have I started?

Either a beams or a tubby is the way forward

[Herts66]

Just to add my 2pence.
I came from an AP1 S2K to a rev4 N/A and then fitted a turbo lump.
Out of the three I am happy with what I have now.
I don't miss the ragtop or the F20. I like the power and actually think the turbo is quicker. I expect mine is 250ish brake.
MR2 turbo gets my vote.
Ps. I also had an MX5 mk2.5 sport six speed LSD etc.
I would say that was the better track car of them all but sadly lacked grunt on the road.
For kicks tho I also have an R1

[madfish]

You prefer the mr2 to the s2k? Interesting! I loved my s2k (ap1 as well) but sold due to needing a dog chariot/practical daily, hence the leggy

[craig]

I prefer forced induction over NA. My personal preference.

Each to their own. I do like the sound of a spooling turbo behind thee 'ol nappa.

[KarlBristol]

I prefer forced induction over NA. My personal preference.

Each to their own. I do like the sound of a spooling turbo behind thee 'ol nappa.

I disagree.. Nothing beats the rumble of a large V6 behind your head

If in the future I get bored I can also add in that spooling turbo (or a supercharger) that everyone seems to love so much. Best of both worlds

[HighwayStar]

There are quite a lot of posts stating that turbos are quicker than beams which themselves are quicker than the normal n/a etc etc. This isn't in dispute. More or less the same weight in more or less the same chassis will be pushed faster by the more powerful engine... this is obvious it simply isn't what the OP deemed important.
It was the driving experience where the importance was placed which comes down to road holding, handling and the overall feel and responsiveness of the car and the argument is valid that neither one of these has anything to do with engine power output Individual set up and driving style will be more relevant than the lump behind you.

[Ryan S]

Yes, but he also drives a twin turbo legacy...the only choice here is the turbo, coming from a twin turbo to a 160 odd bhp car (or even the beams) would make me want to drive it straight off the nearest pier. I agree the na can be fun, i've just never had any in one.

[HighwayStar]

Really? I constantly have fun in mine. Perhaps you should consider a driving course since by the same rationale an MX5 should be no fun, nor any old mini, nor a lotus cortina, nor pretty much every mk1 nor... well, the list is endless isn't it. I assume you would disregard the GT86 as a fun car based on power output as well.
As for driving it off a pier... are you sure you could actually hit it?

[madfish]

The primary goal for me is as highwaystar says, a more driver based car..

Ultimately the choice will be based on condition BUT I would feel like I had bought a lesser model if I went for the NA when a turbo model was well within budget and availability plus with seemingly little difference In fuel economy (based on driving style) the turbo makes more sense to me...

On a side note, this seems to be a great forum this could have easily turned into a childish slagging match

Really appeciate all the info up to now

[synXero]

On the plus side there are a great many mr2s around. It's easy enough to buy and try and sell on! There are certainly one or two great cars that come up every six months or whatever, but you culls hypothetically buy and NA, realise you miss forced induction, and sell it for a turbo then.

In fact I would almost recommend that, because it's so easy to spin the mr2 if you drive it like an mx5. Maybe it's wiser to learn in an NA.

[Harold]

I think the risk of spinning/having an off in a mk2 has been quite overstated by you chaps. As long as you're sensible and don't drive like a dick then you have nothing to worry about. My first and only car before my mr2 turbo was a 1.4 8v Clio with all of about 70bhp, 3.5 years on I'm still alive and haven't spun or lost control of the car yet.

My advice - Buy a turbo, the sound of the turbo spooling up behind your head is intoxicating and never gets boring.