mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

[gavsdavs]

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 you are so keen to use "front mid" as opposed to simply "front" engined - would you be so kind as to find the link on wikipedia for the "front front engined" layout ?

It just sounds like a 'how far forward is the engine' and doesn't (to me) sounds mid engined. I'm not saying it's not an 'industry accepted phrase' - i'm just saying it sounds like a rather forced distinction of 'front engined'.

The S2k is similar to an MR2 in weight layout in the same way a banana skin is like a shoe (IMO)

[Marf]

As you are so keen to use "front mid" as opposed to simply "front" engined - would you be so kind as to find the link on wikipedia for the "front front engined" layout ?

Don't be ridiculous, it demeans us both.

It just sounds like a 'how far forward is the engine' and doesn't (to me) sounds mid engined. I'm not saying it's not an 'industry accepted phrase' - i'm just saying it sounds like a rather forced distinction of 'front engined'.

The distinction exists because there's a difference in the packaging of the powertrain and the handling of the end product!

Hard headed sort, aintcha?

The S2k is similar to an MR2 in weight layout in the same way a banana skin is like a shoe (IMO)

Yeah I kinda pointed that out a couple of pages ago when I talked about the S2000s 50/50 weight distribution(achieved thanks to its FMR layout). The MR2 is around 57% rearward which gives it the off the line traction we all know the MR2 has.

The reason the FMR layout is important is just like the MR layout in the MR2, it gives that low polar moment of inertia, i.e. fast sharp turn in.

[gavsdavs]

As you are so keen to use "front mid" as opposed to simply "front" engined - would you be so kind as to find the link on wikipedia for the "front front engined" layout ?

Don't be ridiculous, it demeans us both.

So if there isn't a formal (i.e wikipedia definition) for FFR, then FMR - is really just front engined with the engine further back for cars which are sold with less cabin space and better weight distribution.

The distinction exists because there's a difference in the packaging of the powertrain and the handling of the end product!

Hard headed sort, aintcha?

Yeah I kinda pointed that out a couple of pages ago when I talked about the S2000s 50/50 weight distribution(achieved thanks to its FMR layout). The MR2 is around 57% rearward which gives it the off the line traction we all know the MR2 has.

The reason the FMR layout is important is just like the MR layout in the MR2, it gives that low polar moment of inertia, i.e. fast sharp turn in.

I just don't think the S2k is like the mr2 to drive. It's more like an mx5, a Z4, an M3, or an SLK. Not much weight over the rear - slides are readable and very much part of the fun.

The MR2 drives more like a NSX, or a 458, where a rear slide is not so much a readable, manageable experience.

[Marf]

So if there isn't a formal (i.e wikipedia definition) for FFR, then FMR - is really just front engined with the engine further back for cars which are sold with less cabin space and better weight distribution.

Whatever works for you

[shinny]

Edit: Saw this after posting...

So if there isn't a formal (i.e wikipedia definition) for FFR, then FMR - is really just front engined with the engine further back for cars which are sold with less cabin space and better weight distribution.

Not sure how "formal" wikipedia is, but it describes everything Marf has been saying. Not sure why you couldn't look it up yourself, but here's a post all about it...

As you are so keen to use "front mid" as opposed to simply "front" engined - would you be so kind as to find the link on wikipedia for the "front front engined" layout ?

It just sounds like a 'how far forward is the engine' and doesn't (to me) sounds mid engined. I'm not saying it's not an 'industry accepted phrase' - i'm just saying it sounds like a rather forced distinction of 'front engined'.

Actually, by your logic you should be calling an MR2 a rear-engined car (like a beetle or 911) simply because the engine is behind the driver, ignoring what the front and rear are actually referring to - and that's the axles!

Place the engine in front of the front axel makes a car an FF, FR or F4 layout. Place the engine between the axels gives MF, MR or M4 layouts (often prefixed with an F or R to specify which axel the engine is closer to). Place the engine behind the rear axel gives RR or R4.

And just to show Marf is speaking entirely correctly, here's the wikipedia page on the MF (FMF) layout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-engine ... ive_layout

In automotive design, a MF, or Mid-engine, Front-wheel-drive layout is one in which the front road wheels are driven by an internal-combustion engine placed just behind them, in front of the passenger compartment. In contrast to the Front-engine, front-wheel-drive layout (FF), the center of mass of the engine is behind the front axle. This layout is typically chosen for its better weight distribution (the heaviest component is near the center of the car, lowering its moment of inertia).

In fact, Wikipedia lists the S2000 as an example of the FMR layout:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-engine ... heel_drive

However it does, rightly or wrongly, state this:

These cars are RWD cars with engine placed between driver and front axle. However, due to the difference being fairly minor, these cars are referred to as FR cars instead.

Meanwhile you asked for a wikipedia page on the FF layout... here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FF_layout

And, more interestingly, there's a clear distinction raised between FF and MF on the mid-engined page linked bove:

MF layout – Front Mid-engine / Front-wheel drive

These cars are "mid-ship engined" vehicles, but they use front-wheel drive, with the engine in front of the driver. Please note that this layout should not be confused the FF layout- the MF layout has the engine's center of mass behind the front axle rather than in front of it as with FF. In most examples, the engine is longitudinally mounted rather than the transversely as is common with FF cars.

[gavsdavs]

So let's go nuts with this naming scheme.
Audi. FFR
S2k - FMR
MR2 - RMR
911 - RRR

Are we having fun yet?

These aren't terms in common use, are they?

[shinny]

So let's go nuts with this naming scheme.
Audi. FFR
S2k - FMR
MR2 - RMR
911 - RRR

Are we having fun yet?

No need to be facetious

It's just FR because you've already described the engine as being forwards of both axles. It's just RR because you've already described the engine as behind both axles. MR describes the engine as being between the axles, at which point it is helpful to say if it's closer to the front or the rear axle. Forget about where the driver is... they don't really come into play here!

These aren't terms in common use, are they?

They are certainly terms I understand and I would distinguish between FF / FR and FMF and FMR. I suspect a fair number of petrol heads would also recognise the difference - even though most would commonly still refer to FMR cars as front engined (just as I bet you've called the MR2 rear engined before), the distinction between front and mid-front is important once you start talking handling (as we have been doing)

[dazzz]

Gav, Marf is correct on this. This is gran turismo one stuff.

If we were stood at the bar and you described your car to me as mid engined I would take that as you mean your engine is mounted behind the driver.

Marf would be the guy at the end of the bar that steps in and says " well technically a lot of cars are mid engined etc etc". don't be that guy Marf. No one likes to go for a pint with that guy. Be the guy that says " here's an interesting fact, due to the actual position of the engine etc etc..."

It seems like you want an argument rather than to help someone to understand something they may never have heard of before

Communication is the key to education.

Ps s2000, engine is in the front of the driver unless you only drive in reverse.

[shinny]

Marf would be the guy at the end of the bar that steps in and says " well technically a lot of cars are mid engined etc etc". don't be that guy Marf. No one likes to go for a pint with that guy. Be the guy that says " here's an interesting fact, due to the actual position of the engine etc etc..."

In fairness, it's not Marf who stepped in to correct Gav, it's Gav who stepped in to incorrectly 'correct' Marf. Marf said something intelligent in likening the two cars being compared. I'd happily go for a pint with someone who saids interesting, clever and correct things

[Marf]

Indeed, thanks Shinny

[gnzyza]

I do like the s2k and had one over a extended period while I was fixing it up for a friend. I don't think I could live with it as easily as the mr2 but could set it up to be a much better drivers car. The engine is very linear and the vtec crossover is smooth so you don't realise how fast it can haul compared to the other vtec engines.

This one was the earlier models and you could get the rear out fairly easy and it sometimes did give you much notice but all the time it was controllable unlike my mr2 which is always trying to kill me lol

[gavsdavs]

Marf would be the guy at the end of the bar that steps in and says " well technically a lot of cars are mid engined etc etc". don't be that guy Marf. No one likes to go for a pint with that guy. Be the guy that says " here's an interesting fact, due to the actual position of the engine etc etc..."

In fairness, it's not Marf who stepped in to correct Gav, it's Gav who stepped in to incorrectly 'correct' Marf. Marf said something intelligent in likening the two cars being compared. I'd happily go for a pint with someone who saids interesting, clever and correct things

These conversations don't work well on internet forums.

My first point was that in laymans terms there are three broad groups of engine locations - front, mid, and rear.

I admit i'd not come across the distinction between ffr and fmr before, and my comment was that it sounded an odd hybrid of terms to suit a particular argument.

My second point was that an S2k isn't like an MR2 to drive.

I disagree with this.

they are both mid engined sports cars with short wheelbases

.

I think very few people would agree that an S2k is 'mid-engined'.

And finally:

I bet you've called the MR2 rear engined before

No - The clue is in the cars name.

[Ryan S]

I think very few people would agree that an S2k is 'mid-engined'.

i think very few "laymans" would agree it's mid engined, if it's behind the front axle, it's mid engined, same as the 350z. if you know what you're talking about then you'd agree.

[Race Idiot]

With the S2000s suspension you've got double wishbone vs the mr2s mcstrut. But tbh I dont think mcstrut is that much of a disadvantage, seeing as stuff like bmw and porsche use it.

I did look at s2000s a while ago when I was looking at fun cars to replace the mr2 that were a bit newer because I was doing a load of mileage in my old turbo.

One thing I found was that the steering in the s2000 had even worse feel than the sw. I felt like I had to have two stabs at a corner sometimes because it had even less feedback than the sw's. The damping is miles better though, hell the rear dampers have external resivoirs which is pretty trick for a fairly high production vehicle. But tbh I can see why they have a bit of a reputation.

I enjoyed the engine but being used to the tubbys extra torque spoiled it for me. Honestly at the time it mainly came down to it being more cramped inside than the 2 and the fact that i'm not a big convertable fan.

Also I still dont get how there are so many people with sw20s that 'are trying to kill them' either youre driving way too hard for the conditions. Or you've got poo tyres and knackered suspension. Unless your all rolling around in monster 500bhp machines?

[gavsdavs]

I think very few people would agree that an S2k is 'mid-engined'.

i think very few "laymans" would agree it's mid engined, if it's behind the front axle, it's mid engined, same as the 350z. if you know what you're talking about then you'd agree.

Sorry shinny, you're being a condescending pedant.

[Ryan S]

I think very few people would agree that an S2k is 'mid-engined'.

i think very few "laymans" would agree it's mid engined, if it's behind the front axle, it's mid engined, same as the 350z. if you know what you're talking about then you'd agree.

Sorry shinny, you're being a condescending pedant.

***Sheppy*** and any car enthusiast would agree about the engine layout, behind the front axle is considered mid engine.

you wouldn't call a porsche mid engined.

[QUOC2008]

With the S2000s suspension you've got double wishbone vs the mr2s mcstrut. But tbh I dont think mcstrut is that much of a disadvantage, seeing as stuff like bmw and porsche use it.

I did look at s2000s a while ago when I was looking at fun cars to replace the mr2 that were a bit newer because I was doing a load of mileage in my old turbo.

One thing I found was that the steering in the s2000 had even worse feel than the sw. I felt like I had to have two stabs at a corner sometimes because it had even less feedback than the sw's. The damping is miles better though, hell the rear dampers have external resivoirs which is pretty trick for a fairly high production vehicle. But tbh I can see why they have a bit of a reputation.

I enjoyed the engine but being used to the tubbys extra torque spoiled it for me. Honestly at the time it mainly came down to it being more cramped inside than the 2 and the fact that i'm not a big convertable fan.

Also I still dont get how there are so many people with sw20s that 'are trying to kill them' either youre driving way too hard for the conditions. Or you've got poo tyres and knackered suspension. Unless your all rolling around in monster 500bhp machines?

The driving postion , space and feel of the mr2 is soo much better then the s2000. People always complain about the mr2 s bad nature but if you were in a f1 car would you complain about the snap oversteer, cornering n braking is hard at low speeds.
I m sure if we had the trd version with 500bhp and wider revised suspension we wouldnt complain.

There is a big power difference @ the wheels and traction between the mr2 and s2000... thats why the mr2 will win in a drag race.

But cornering im still not agreeing that the s2000 is better. But out the box the mr2 with 195 tyres and the s2000 with 245 tyre has a big part to play in it.

[gavsdavs]

***Sheppy*** and any car enthusiast would agree about the engine layout, behind the front axle is considered mid engine.

you wouldn't call a porsche mid engined.

I'd call a boxster and a Cayman mid engine, but not a 911.

You are inferring I'm not a car enthusiast because I don't agree.

That's not very inclusive is it.

(Sorry about the name mixup).

[Ryan S]

With the S2000s suspension you've got double wishbone vs the mr2s mcstrut. But tbh I dont think mcstrut is that much of a disadvantage, seeing as stuff like bmw and porsche use it.

I did look at s2000s a while ago when I was looking at fun cars to replace the mr2 that were a bit newer because I was doing a load of mileage in my old turbo.

One thing I found was that the steering in the s2000 had even worse feel than the sw. I felt like I had to have two stabs at a corner sometimes because it had even less feedback than the sw's. The damping is miles better though, hell the rear dampers have external resivoirs which is pretty trick for a fairly high production vehicle. But tbh I can see why they have a bit of a reputation.

I enjoyed the engine but being used to the tubbys extra torque spoiled it for me. Honestly at the time it mainly came down to it being more cramped inside than the 2 and the fact that i'm not a big convertable fan.

Also I still dont get how there are so many people with sw20s that 'are trying to kill them' either youre driving way too hard for the conditions. Or you've got poo tyres and knackered suspension. Unless your all rolling around in monster 500bhp machines?

The driving postion , space and feel of the mr2 is soo much better then the s2000. People always complain about the mr2 s bad nature but if you were in a f1 car would you complain about the snap oversteer, cornering n braking is hard at low speeds.
I m sure if we had the trd version with 500bhp and wider revised suspension we wouldnt complain.

There is a big power difference @ the wheels and traction between the mr2 and s2000... thats why the mr2 will win in a drag race.

But cornering im still not agreeing that the s2000 is better. But out the box the mr2 with 195 tyres and the s2000 with 245 tyre has a big part to play in it.

i had 245s on my rev2, handling wise, I can't really comment as i've never tracked it, drag wise, the grip is just immense, i can't think of anything that launches the way an Mr2 does, I wish i'd timed the 0-60 on it as i'm certain it was under 5 secs!!!

[shinny]

My first point was that in laymans terms there are three broad groups of engine locations - front, mid, and rear.

They're not laymans terms, they're technical terms - as I explained earlier, they relate the engine's position relative to the axles. (If they related the the driver then mid-engined would involve some craziness where the driver straddled the block!!)

I disagree with this.

they are both mid engined sports cars with short wheelbases

.

I think very few people would agree that an S2k is 'mid-engined'.

Alas disagreeing with it doesn't make Marf wrong. The S2000 is a mid-engined car because the engine sits between the axles and that's just a fact I'm afraid. As I also noted above, FMR cars are often referred to as being front engined and noone would care if you refer to the S2000 it as such. But please stop trying to argue that Marf is wrong in stating the Honda is mid-engined because he quite simply isn't. Heck, I even posted the example on wikipedia (which you asked for) stating exactly that. I'm sorry you haven't heard the terminology before or that your technical understanding of what front, mid and rear referred to was wrong, but please treat this as an opportunity to learn something new.