mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

[Marf]

Ah I'm only poking fun

Yeah, the S2000s did get a reputation early on as they're small, short wheel base RWD cars with no traction control. Sounds like the same reputation MR2s got early on with the Rev1 eh?

[QUOC2008]

I have seen video of a mr2 na vs s2000 on track and the mr2 na beats it in the corners badly both have wider wheels so i really dont think s2000 r faster in corners... but hey it just a video maybe the driver... who know

[gavsdavs]

I have seen video of a mr2 na vs s2000 on track and the mr2 na beats it in the corners badly both have wider wheels so i really dont think s2000 r faster in corners... but hey it just a video maybe the driver... who know

I chased a mates s2000 in a mk2 with a 3s-ge - S2000 comfortably leaves it.
I suspect a turbo will trounce one though - any difference in handling is probably small enough to be outweighed by driver skill.

[QUOC2008]

To be honest both mr2 and s2000 stock are quite slow... until u get 350+ then its fun... in sun mad crazy in the rain.

[QUOC2008]

If u had 245 tyres on the mr2 na like the s2000 he wouldnt leave u in the corners...

[kev8611]

At the end of the day they're both RWD mid engined sports cars with 240ish horspower out of the box.

Pretty sure s2k is front engined.

On topic. The mr2 would be faster in a straight line. This video also says its capable of holding its own on a track. Yeah its lap times are a bit slower than others but its out in front the whole way pretty much.

http://youtu.be/FFEi-0Rx6J0

[Tsia]

At the end of the day they're both RWD mid engined sports cars with 240ish horspower out of the box.

Pretty sure s2k is front engined.

On topic. The mr2 would be faster in a straight line. This video also says its capable of holding its own on a track. Yeah its lap times are a bit slower than others but its out in front the whole way pretty much.

http://youtu.be/FFEi-0Rx6J0

There's FM and RM (Front and rear mid) layouts

[Peter Gidden]

Discussing stock spec. is fine, and can be interesting.

Otherwise the car that's had the most spent on it wins.

And yes, S2K is front-engined.

[gavsdavs]

Pretty sure s2k is front engined.

Errr, yeah. S2k is front engined.

[kev8611]

I thought the were all FR (front engine rear wheel drive)

Mr2 is mid engine rear wheel drive

[Marf]

At the end of the day they're both RWD mid engined sports cars with 240ish horspower out of the box.

Pretty sure s2k is front engined.

On topic. The mr2 would be faster in a straight line. This video also says its capable of holding its own on a track. Yeah its lap times are a bit slower than others but its out in front the whole way pretty much.

http://youtu.be/FFEi-0Rx6J0

There's FM and RM (Front and rear mid) layouts

Indeed, front mid is where the engine is up front but positioned behind the front wheels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-engine_design#Examples

[gavsdavs]

Pretty sure s2k is front engined.

On topic. The mr2 would be faster in a straight line. This video also says its capable of holding its own on a track. Yeah its lap times are a bit slower than others but its out in front the whole way pretty much.

http://youtu.be/FFEi-0Rx6J0

There's FM and RM (Front and rear mid) layouts

Indeed, front mid is where the engine is up front but positioned behind the front wheels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-engine_design#Examples

That makes pretty much every orthodox car 'front mid' engined - why not just front ?
Can you show me a car where the engine is in front of the front axle ?

[shinny]

Can you show me a car where the engine is in front of the front axle ?

Pretty much every Audi!

[Marf]

It may be a subtle difference, but this is accepted automotive nomenclature my friend. When the weight of the engine is positioned behind the front wheels, that is Front Mid Engined

Examples of front engine?

Can you show me a car where the engine is in front of the front axle ?

Pretty much every Audi!

Yep Audi Quattro, pretty much all BMWs, S13/14/15, Supra etc etc.

All these have the weight of the powertrain further forward on the chassis than a FMR car placing the bulk of the powertrains weight forward of the wheels.

If you call it something different so be it but the difference and therefore naming convention is there.

[gavsdavs]

Can you show me a car where the engine is in front of the front axle ?

Pretty much every Audi!

That's a clarksonism because they understeer.
The engine is not mounted IN FRONT of the front axle. It's in the front of the car, but on top of the front axle.

Just sounds like splitting hairs for the sake of it.

To follow your analogy, you're saying that "FMR" is an accepted layout.

Is there an equivalent accepted norm for "FFR" ?

[Marf]

Audi quattro as in "Fire up the Quattro"

[Marf]

More???

[Marf]

And one more for luck... RS5





Look where the engine goes... in front of the front axle! the gearbox face is almost bang in line with the centre of the front axle.

[gavsdavs]

So there are a number of positions at the front of the car where the engine may sit - I'm sure really to make space in the cabin rather than being that far forward a desirable position for it to sit.

The original comparison was the S2k vs the MR2 - where the mid engine layout of the mr2 really means "behind the driver" as opposed to "in front of the driver".

The distinction of "in front of" as opposed to "behind" the driver is what makes them handle differently.

An "FMR" car drives very similarly to an "FFR" car (the correct acronym for an Audi using your nomenclature), albeit with different degrees of understeer.

The MR2 understeers a LOT less than either of the above as there is much less weight over the front axle. That (in my opinion) makes the S2k and MR2 not comparable...

[Marf]

The distinction of "in front of" as opposed to "behind" the driver is what makes them handle differently.

Bringing the weight closer to the centre of the car serves to lower the polar moment of inertia(resistance to turning force) which is preferable in a sports car.

There was more understeer out of the box on my MR2 than my front mid engined FD btw. Understandable given the MR2s weight distribution though.

As for the Mr2 and the S2k being incomparable because the engines are "front" and "rear", well clearly I disagree given I raised the point about the S2k being FMR to further liken it to the MR2 as they are both mid engined sports cars with short wheelbases.