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

[Peter C]

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.

Hello boys.

I'll dig the mag out this evening and post whatever info I find.

From what I remember Autocar & Motor stated that the 6.7secs sprint (0-60MPH) comfortably outpaced Toyota's official figure and the 15.2secs for the 1/4 mile was also quicker than expected.

I bought the car totally standard with 79k miles on the clock. Now, five years later with 130k on the clock and a K&N filter and a Mongoose strapped to the manifolds my almost 18 year old MR2 still manages a comfortable 145MPH, according to the speedo, and pulls like a train in any gear at any speed.

Before I bought my Rev 1 NA I drove a couple of Rev 2s and 3s and ended up buying the earlier car because it felt much quicker and offered a raw sports car feel which the later power assisted, ABSed, A/Ced... cars couldn't provide.

[Antstarr]

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

Mate I drive a rev 3 turbo. I never said the NA was faster lol

I use to have a rev1 NA. I know the differences...I was saying at the time...my friend who had a tubby mentioned it was pretty quick compared to the usual NAs.

Star gazer I use to pull on rev3 NA's harder when I use to have blats against them. You also have to realise that 50kg almost the weight of a full grown man, just cos Patrick says red cars are faster doesnt mean they necessarily are.

[Peter C]

Ok, all info taken from Autocar & Motor's first road test of an MR2 Mk2 Rev 1 GT, dated 16th May 1990:

Test conditions:

Wind: 1-3 MPH
Temperature: 7deg C (45deg F)
Barometer: 1023mbar
Surface: dry asphalt / concrete
Test distance: 710 miles
Figures taken at 1,859 miles by our own staff at the Lotus Group proving ground, Millbrook.

Kerb weight: 1,215kg

Engine:

Power: 158bhp
Torque: 140lb ft

Performance:

Max speed: 139MPH (best), 137MPH (mean)
0-60MPH: 6.7 secs
0-100MPH: 18.8 secs
1/4 mile: 15.2 secs @ 92mph

Quotes:

"the 60mph benchmark is passed in an energetic 6.7secs - beating Toyota's claim by half a second and easily eclipsing the times of the £15-18,000 sports cars we've chosen as rivals."

"New MR2 is bigger and, with 158bhp 2 litre 16V Celica engine, much faster than toy like predecesor. 137mph and 0-60mph in 6.7secs put it in turbo Elan territory and, despite the scaremongering, the mid-engined chassis makes the very best of the power. Comfortable cabin, well made and finished. The pocket rocket supercar comes of age."



Info taken from What Car? sports car twin test dated July 1992, comparing an MR2 Mk2 Rev 2 T-Bar with a Honda Civic CRX VTi:

Performance:

Max speed: 137MPH
0-60MPH: 7.4 secs

Engine:

Power: 154bhp
Torque: 137lb ft

Kerb weight: 1,305kg

Quotes:

"as well as slightly down on power now that it has gained a catalyst"

"the revised MR2 feels heavier, more solid and less nimble than it's predecesor"

Final verdict:

MR2: 4 stars (out of five)
Honda: 3 stars

Discuss!

[Peter C]

PS: Let me know if there is anything else you want copied from the article.

[HighwayStar]

Personally Peter I think that says it all. Of course it's possible your car, the first in the UK, was 'tuned' from the factory but nothing confirms this. Test conditions seem pretty unremarkable to me.
Could it simply be rev1s are the quickest of the n/a's because of their lightness?
PS. Did you get my pm? Not sure whether it went off.
R.

[star_gazer]

Thanks Peter for the information.
When there is no way to verify the authenticity of information like this, as an engineer there are many tools to give very good estimates

From your info:
Rev 1
1215Kg
158BHP

Theoretical values are (your values in brackets() and toyota's values in []):

Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 158
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1215
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 132.13
0 - 60 (Secs) : 7.90 (6.7) [7.8]
0 - 100 (Secs) : 23.09 (18.
60 - 100 (Secs) : 15.19
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 16.34
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 84.12
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 16.24 (15.2)
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 85.09 (92)

Rev 2
from your info
154BHP
1305Kg

Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 158
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1305
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 123.02
0 - 60 (Secs) : 8.44 (7.4)
0 - 100 (Secs) : 25.28
60 - 100 (Secs) : 16.84
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 16.88
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 81.71
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 16.78
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 82.64

Rev3
174BHP
1305KG

Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 174
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1305
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 135.47
0 - 60 (Secs) : 7.72 [7.7]
0 - 100 (Secs) : 22.08
60 - 100 (Secs) : 14.36
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 16.15
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 85.52
Drag Strip Quarter Mile (Secs) : 16.05
Drag Strip Terminal Speed (MPH) : 86.50

The calculator can be found here http://www.letstorquebhp.com/calculator.asp

Now you can argue what you like, but the calculator puts things a bit logically
all three cars are similar, only difference is basically power to weight ratio, and one can clearly see that at least in theory the 0-60 times should be

Rev3 7.7
Rev1 7.9
Rev2 8.4

And if I look at our resident MR2 expert

[
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

These 2 values are spot on with my theoretical estimate.

I personally will not agree with the value of 6.7s as in my opinion/feeling (i might be wrong) there is a high possibility that whoever did the timings mistakenly entered 7.6s as 6.7s. I come to this personal conclusion as the 1/4 mile doesn't show the same improvement in performance over the factory or theoretical values.

And for comprehensive values of figures from other sources

http://www.megaboost.co.uk/mr2/frames/techinfopage.htm

I personally will go with logical thought process than just simple trust, but hey that is my nature.

Please don't take this personal, but I just like to discuss this technical point folks

[Rogue]

just cos Patrick says red cars are faster doesnt mean they necessarily are.

I would never say that red cars are faster. Black cars are the fastest.

Apart from the side impact bars that were fitted to revision 2+ models, can anyone think of any reason why later cars are percieved to be heavier? We've dismantled well over a hundred MR2s from revision 1 to 5, UK and Japanese spec. Other than the options fitted (noteably ABS and aircon) I've never seen any eveidence to suggest any difference between the chassis' that would affect their weight.

Patrick

[Peter C]

Rob,

Of course it's possible your car, the first in the UK, was 'tuned' from the factory but nothing confirms this.

This has been mentioned before but there is nothing to suggest that my car has been tuned (until I fitted the K&N and Mongoose). I remember when Skoda launched the hot Octavia, which should have been fitted with a 180BHP VW/Audi engine, when the media got their hands on it turned out that the cheeky Czechs fitted the 225BHP engine to the press cars!

Did you get my pm? Not sure whether it went off.

Got it and replied!


Star Gazer,

When there is no way to verify the authenticity of information like this

Does it need verifying? Surely a respected magazine like Autocar & Motor is a reliable source of information?

there is a high possibility that whoever did the timings mistakenly entered 7.6s as 6.7s

The figure of 6.7secs is quoted a number of times within the 8 page article. My car also featured in subsequent issues of Autocar & Motor and whenever performance figures were quoted the magic 6.7secs was there in black and white.

Please don't take this personal

I don't. A point worth raising is that the figures may have been valid when the car was new. Now with 130k on the clock (regardless what experts say about engines loosening up) and a tired 2nd gear synchro I'd be happy with a sub 10secs time!


Rogue,

I would never say that red cars are faster. Black cars are the fastest.

I don't get it. You're being too technical. Less jargon please!

[Rogue]

The figure of 6.7secs is quoted a number of times within the 8 page article. My car also featured in subsequent issues of Autocar & Motor and whenever performance figures were quoted the magic 6.7secs was there in black and white.

I'm inclined to beleive this figure. When I participated in the J-Tuner MR2 group thrash, both a revision 2 and revision 3 normally aspirated MR2 posted low six second 0-60 times. IIRC, they were 6.4 and 6.3 respectively, but I can't find the article now to back this up!

Patrick

[Peter C]

From the same era, a front wheel drive Mk2 Astra GTE 16V with 156BHP (not the later cat equipped GSi) managed the 0-60 sprint in 6.9secs, albeit with less bulk to haul around.

Considering that the MR2 is famous for it's traction I see no reason why it couldn't achieve a sub 7 second time with 158 horses under the hood.

[HighwayStar]

So the conclusion is....
Whatever the various revs were capable of originally depended on the individual car and its individual configuration, options, tyres, driver etc. Now the youngest of these (up to rev3) are over 10yrs old any original differences are now meaningless in the face of things like the quality of maintainence, mileage and mods.
Either way they're all still fabulously engaging to drive and all still beautiful to look at on your drive (... except those with bodykits but thats for another thread).
Agreed?
R

[Peter C]

You've got my vote Rob!

[nakamura]

The figure of 6.7secs is quoted a number of times within the 8 page article. My car also featured in subsequent issues of Autocar & Motor and whenever performance figures were quoted the magic 6.7secs was there in black and white.

I'm inclined to beleive this figure. When I participated in the J-Tuner MR2 group thrash, both a revision 2 and revision 3 normally aspirated MR2 posted low six second 0-60 times. IIRC, they were 6.4 and 6.3 respectively, but I can't find the article now to back this up!

Patrick

Yes ive read this article so can back this up.

[hinric1]

The UK had 2 versions of the rev1 - the 119bhp 3sfe coupe (no foglights or spoiler), and it also had the 158bhp 3sge version.

Didn't know about that. Thought that the 3SFE was for the US only. My mistake then.

the US only 2.2lt is a 5sfe. the 3sfe is 2.0lt, the f and g bits refer to induction and cams (all the stuff on top - thats why they look different)

[Beanie]

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.

Although I'm a turbo owner I would like to add this: rev 3 cars would have to comply with new rules as regard to polution so with bigger more restrictive cats + extra weight it is very likely that rev 1/2 cars would be faster. this can also be applied to the turbo rev3+ run higher boost have more power as standard but has no great advace to 0-60 times or top speed over the rev 1/2.

[hinric1]

sure this will start arguments but he induction was changed on the later engines. this means the later engines can't breath as well so rev slower (less torque = more 0-60). i did have the technical data on it but can't find it, will look to give a better explaination

[vishpish]

hey guys i have a rev 1 chassis...no fogs,abs,pas,air con and i am putting a rev2 na 2l engine in 158bhp standard with an apexi induction kit...what do you reckon my 0-60 would be....engines done 80k miles and no spare tyre as well

[Lewis Jay]

Surely the proof is in the pudding and the chef is MR2 Only Magazine.

They should get three cars, Rev`s 1, 2 and 3 together with similair mileages and mods and test the theories you have all put together.

C`mon MR2 Only its your duty to put these things right.

(I know for a fact my Rev 1 N/A engined car would have spanked all other Rev N/A`s as they are SWEEEEEEEEEET )

[dawolf]

From the same era, a front wheel drive Mk2 Astra GTE 16V with 156BHP (not the later cat equipped GSi) managed the 0-60 sprint in 6.9secs, albeit with less bulk to haul around.

Considering that the MR2 is famous for it's traction I see no reason why it couldn't achieve a sub 7 second time with 158 horses under the hood.

I don't think so unless it's been made lighter or has some good mods on. I had the 0-60 timed several times in my G-Limited and it was always 7.5-7.9 secs and that's going exactly by the speedo which tends to read higher that the actual speed anyway.

[Pete J]

Silly question, but what wheels are fitted on the rev3?

Heavy wheels make an substantial difference easily detected by your 'butt dyno' when braking and accelerating.

Stock rev2/3 rims are much lighter than bigger aftermarket wheel and tyre packages... some of which appear to be fashioned out of lead