1995 mr-2 turbo review

[CovertPenguin]

By Richard Truett
Motor Trend
July 27, 1995
The high-powered Toyota MR2 Turbo sports car, once honored for delivering ''the most bang for the buck,'' is going out with a whimper.
This mid-engine two-seater - dubbed a baby Ferrari by some- will fade into automotive history at the close of the 1995 model year, ending an 11-year production run and leaving its mark as probably the best-all-around two-seater sports car any Japanese automaker ever built.
Yes, I think the MR2 is a better car than the $81,000 Acura NSX. The zero-to-60 mph performance is nearly equal, and the MR2 has a more fluid and original appearance.
When the MR2 fails to appear on the showroom floor this fall with the rest of Toyota's 1996 models, it's very likely that few people will notice. But the automotive world will be slightly less rich because of it.
Toyota sent just 265 MR2s to the United States for the entire 1995-model year. Only 895 were sold here last year. Sales, in fact, have been winding down for the past three years.
The history of the MR2 is very simple to follow, and there is a lesson here for other automakers who want to sell sports cars to youthful buyers: As the price goes up, the sales will go down. You can't build a car for young people and price it for well-heeled middle-aged buyers.
Toyota sold 32,314 MR2s in 1985, the car's first year. Price: $10,999.
One look at the price of this week's fully loaded test vehicle tells you why the MR2 is finished here. It costs more than $33,000. You could buy a new Chevrolet Corvette coupe or three base model Plymouth Neons for what our blazing red test car costs.
The major reason the MR2's price is so high is because the car is built in Japan and is subject to the unfavorable currency exchange rates that are driving up prices of Japanese-made cars in the United States.
That said, I freely and loudly admit that I love this car. The MR2 Turbo is my all-time favorite sports car, the one vehicle I would buy if I could only own one sports car for the rest of my life.
If you've never been in or driven an MR2 Turbo, it might be easy for you to dismiss this little elegy of mine as just so much blather. But those of us who have experienced this car know otherwise.
PERFORMANCE
Mounted sideways behind the cockpit is a turbocharged, 2.0-liter, 200-horsepower engine with double overhead cams and 16 valves. Very few cars produce 100 horsepower per liter - the $70,000 Lotus Esprit is the only other sports car that does that comes to mind.
When you first start the MR2's engine, you hear a throaty but muffled rumble from the twin chrome exhaust pipes. Oddly, the sound gets quieter, not louder, when the engine is revved.
Our test car came outfitted with a fast-shifting, five-speed manual transmission. The non-turbo model, which has a 2.2-liter, 135-horsepower four-cylinder power plant, can be equipped with a four-speed automatic or a manual.
I can't imagine this car with anything but a stick shift. The stubby, leather-covered shifter barely pokes out of the full-length floor console. As you grasp the fat end of the shift knob and apply a little pressure, the shifter notches easily through the gears.
It took me quite a while to learn how to shift this car smoothly. The somewhat stiff clutch is very fast-acting, meaning that just barely letting up on the pedal engages it completely.
In any case, the engine loves to be revved high and driven hard and fast. To some ears the iron and aluminum engine might sound a bit harsh when revved, but I feel that its growly nature is in keeping with a true sports car. In a two-seater, you want to hear the engine as it revs. After all, the right mechanical noises help give a sports car its character, and the MR2 has plenty of character and style.
The turbocharger doesn't engage much in first gear unless you floor the accelerator. In fact, it really only engages when you place a load on the engine, doing something such as, say, accelerating quickly in third gear. In such instances, the turbocharger winds up, blasting a denser mixture of fuel and air into the cylinders and sounding similar to the high-pitched whine of a dentist's drill.
Toyota says that accelerating from zero to 60 mph takes just 5.7 seconds, making the MR2 one of the world's 20 fastest regular production cars.
On a long road trip, the MR2 cruised quietly and efficiently. It sipped premium unleaded at the rate of 28 miles per gallon on the highway. It got 22 mpg in the city.
HANDLING
Beauty is more than skin deep on the MR2 Turbo.
In addition to the dynamo of an engine, the MR2 is blessed with a superb suspension system that lets the driver explore his driving skills without having to worry about whether the car is up to dealing with strenuous maneuvers.
The four-wheel independent suspension system enables the MR2 to hold the road as well as or better than any of the more expensive and exotic sports cars I have driven.
Accelerating hard as you come out of a curve is one of the most fun ways to enjoy the MR2's superb handling abilities. No matter how fast you go, the MR2 hangs onto the road with absolute tenacity. The body does not lean much, and because it is so low to the ground, you feel completely safe pulling off maneuvers that might make for dangerous driving in other cars.
The MR2 comes with an electronic/hydraulic power rack-and-pinion steering system that is very tight and crisp. The brakes - anti-lock discs at all four corners - provide abundant stopping power.
The anti-lock system seems a bit unrefined compared with others I've tested. There is quite a bit of pulsing at the pedal, but the system stops the car quickly and without fuss. We were able to pull off 108ft in a 60-0 mph test. Which is better than everything we have tested this year.
The MR2 is one of the few cars that is always entertaining to drive.
FIT AND FINISH
Because sports cars tend to be driven very hard, they don't always hold up as well as the average family sedan. Trust in the MR2's mechanical integrity is another reason why I like it so much. No one builds higher quality cars than does Toyota, and the MR2 is no exception.
The car feels completely unbreakable. The trim pieces fit together tightly and are made of durable, high quality materials. The perforated leather seats, for instance, are truly excellent in looks, comfort and design.
You can't help but notice the thickly padded dash and the attractive carpet. The doors, trunk lid and hood close with a solid thunk.
Our test car came with removable T-tops, which were free of leaks during a heavy downpour. The tops are easily removed; you pull down on a handle on each panel and lift the panels off, then stow them in the trunk. The T-tops have removable shades; they attach to the inside of the glass panels.
Visibility is another of the car's strong points. The MR2's nose slopes gently downward, giving the driver a clear view of the road. Rear and side vision also is good.
Our test car came equipped with air conditioning, an AM/FM radio with a CD player, cruise control, and power windows, mirrors and door locks.
Toyota says it is discontinuing the MR2 in the United States because its low sales don't justify developing a new model. Sales will continue in Japan.
The average driver doesn't need more speed. The MR2's handling prowess is among the best in the world. There is nothing wrong with the car's baby Ferrari looks, and its quality and dependability are without question.
Very few cars from Japan have achieved classic status over the years, but I think the MR2 Turbo someday will become a sought-after collectible. I think the MR2 Turbo is destined to become a timeless classic, a sports car that will be just as coveted as the Jaguar XKE and Corvette Sting Ray. I will forever miss this car, and only till later will the automotive world recognize it as the true sports car it so deeply deserves.

[McFly]

omg....a tear. seriously..............y toyota y?

bryan

[Mobil1]

Originally posted by CovertPenguin

Yes, I think the MR2 is a better car than the $81,000 Acura NSX.



boy, you may be legally retarded.

well the author of that article atleast :hit:

MR2's fkn own, dont get me wrong....but come on....MR2 or NSX seriously.

[atx s13]

I am not a big fan of the NSXs.......they have gotten better since 95 when this was written but still.......If I had 80k to get a car it wouldnt be a NSX.




"...Mounted sideways behind the cockpit is a turbocharged, 2.0-liter, 200-horsepower engine with double overhead cams and 16 valves. Very few cars produce 100 horsepower per liter - the $70,000 Lotus Esprit is the only other sports car that does that comes to mind. "

Wouldnt a Silvia fit that or no because of its backseat..... S13 205hp 2.0L ;) but the MR2 rocks. Its a shame that it died off like so many of the cars we love did....:cry:

[Mobil1]

Originally posted by atx s13




"...Mounted sideways behind the cockpit is a turbocharged, 2.0-liter, 200-horsepower engine with double overhead cams and 16 valves. Very few cars produce 100 horsepower per liter - the $70,000 Lotus Esprit is the only other sports car that does that comes to mind. "

Wouldnt a Silvia fit that or no because of its backseat..... S13 205hp 2.0L ;) but the MR2 rocks. Its a shame that it died off like so many of the cars we love did....:cry:

turbo charged cars do not count in the hp/liter count. turbo cars have an obvious advantage here but there are some NA cars that do produce those kind of numbers RSX-S 2.0 liter 200 hp (100 hp/liter) Integra-R 1.8 liter 197hp (108 hp/liter) 360 Modena 395hp (117hp/liter) there are a few others as well but that gives you a good idea of some cars that produce such numbers normally asparated.

reason turbo charged cars dont really count in this kind of contest is because of boost. its like raising the compression of your car by X number of atmospheres of compression for every 1 bar of boost being run. 14.7 psi = one atmosphere. so for every 14.7 psi more than regular sea level pressure is one bar of boost. 1 psi of boost equals about 15hp.

so you start talking about turbocharged cars and theres a world of math used to figure out the ACTUAL hp/liter of the engine being tested.

theres some basic physics for yall :thumb:

[SecretAgent]

NSX all the way. there's really no comparison.

[CovertPenguin]

Originally posted by SecretAgent
NSX all the way. there's really no comparison.

wrong.. there is PLENTY of comparison.. PLENTY!!! the MR-2 will corner as well as a NSX will (both at full potential) the mr-2 driver will ahve to have some talent but it WILL turn as well as a NSX... the mr-2 weighs lighter and is turbo charged meaning!!! it has more potential HP to gain than a NSX does.. and ALOT more torque down low where it counts when ucome out of a corner. NSX's gear ratio is REALLY high too... the NSX is a fabulous car.. but its capabilities aren't comparable to an mr-2 in the long run... no doubt about it.. Plus all of this performance for a car that costs 1/3th the amount of the NSX when it was released.

[CovertPenguin]

Originally posted by Mobil1Skyline
turbo charged cars do not count in the hp/liter count. turbo cars have an obvious advantage here but there are some NA cars that do produce those kind of numbers RSX-S 2.0 liter 200 hp (100 hp/liter) Integra-R 1.8 liter 197hp (108 hp/liter) 360 Modena 395hp (117hp/liter) there are a few others as well but that gives you a good idea of some cars that produce such numbers normally asparated.

reason turbo charged cars dont really count in this kind of contest is because of boost. its like raising the compression of your car by X number of atmospheres of compression for every 1 bar of boost being run. 14.7 psi = one atmosphere. so for every 14.7 psi more than regular sea level pressure is one bar of boost. 1 psi of boost equals about 15hp.

so you start talking about turbocharged cars and theres a world of math used to figure out the ACTUAL hp/liter of the engine being tested.

theres some basic physics for yall :thumb:

ill agree with u.. the ONLY reason it MADE 200 and not 225 was because of emissions.. but u have to relize that back in 1991.. 4 cylinders car RARLY made anything over 160-170 (even turbo charged)

[atx s13]

Originally posted by Mobil1Skyline
turbo charged cars do not count in the hp/liter count. turbo cars have an obvious advantage here but there are some NA cars that do produce those kind of numbers RSX-S 2.0 liter 200 hp (100 hp/liter) Integra-R 1.8 liter 197hp (108 hp/liter) 360 Modena 395hp (117hp/liter) there are a few others as well but that gives you a good idea of some cars that produce such numbers normally asparated.

reason turbo charged cars dont really count in this kind of contest is because of boost. its like raising the compression of your car by X number of atmospheres of compression for every 1 bar of boost being run. 14.7 psi = one atmosphere. so for every 14.7 psi more than regular sea level pressure is one bar of boost. 1 psi of boost equals about 15hp.

so you start talking about turbocharged cars and theres a world of math used to figure out the ACTUAL hp/liter of the engine being tested.

theres some basic physics for yall :thumb:

This article was back in 1995. back then the NSX wasnt as good as it is now plain and simple. The MR2 was turbo charged, there for I mention the Silvia as it too is turbocharged. I can see where you are going but the author of this artilce was comparing a turbo car in his statement. I also agree that now adays lots of cars are up near the 100hp/per liter mark but thats 7 to 8 years later.

The MR2 is always over looked because nobody really though it had what it did. The followers of the car know what it is capable of and love it. I think it will become a well known car and sout after by lots of people.

[CovertPenguin]

your right about everything.... its now a cult car, when i race alot of people they dont even knwo what they hell they just raced.. and everytime i talked to them after they race they would always be impressed that the little car kept up to their F body/cobra/ etc etc (fast drag cars)

thanks for backiong up the mr-2 heh

[SecretAgent]

Yes, an MR2 may, MAY, be able to hang with an NSX around the turns, but straightaway there's no hanging. NSX's run low low low 13's STOCK. Last I checked all you modded MR2 guys were just barely hitting those times. Just look at JGTC, the NSX's are DOMINATING the field. Take a ride in an NSX and you'll know what I mean. It's far superior to the the MR2.

[CovertPenguin]

Originally posted by SecretAgent
Yes, an MR2 may, MAY, be able to hang with an NSX around the turns, but straightaway there's no hanging. NSX's run low low low 13's STOCK. Last I checked all you modded MR2 guys were just barely hitting those times. Just look at JGTC, the NSX's are DOMINATING the field. Take a ride in an NSX and you'll know what I mean. It's far superior to the the MR2.

wrong... the supra won against the NSX(this year)... and the supra uses the same engine as I do. (and other mr-2s and GT-4s/celica all tracs)

and no.. its a FACT that it can hang with an NSX.. and NSX's dont run low low low 13's stock, they run high to medium 13's.. once again "a fact".. i can post a step by step video of how the NSX and the MR-2 are similiar.. if u want the video my AIM name is covertpenguin i ll be more than willing to send it to you. funny thing is that a j spec mr-2 would match if not beat a NSX in turns and speed. 245 horses 275 horses. 400 pound difference.. ?? close race. if i say so myself.. add a 5 buck boost conrtoler and u are good for very low 13 second passes.. shit the stock turbo is capable of medium 11 second passes..

mr-2's (the sw20 version/my style and bryans) weren't even designed by toyota.. only thing toyota about my car is the interior.. chassis/body/suspension ferrari and the engine is yamaha..

[R.J.]

how much did the mr2's go for brand new back in 95

[CovertPenguin]

o shit.. in 1995 they were WAY over priced at 33k.. in 91 they went for 24-26k (turbo models)

[R.J.]

dayuuuuuum 35 g's. did you have to bring the vaseline for them to fuck you?:thumb:

[CovertPenguin]

no.. toyota has their own brand of vaseline that they like to use.. TRD vaseline

[Drummer93]

Originally posted by CovertPenguin
wrong... the supra won against the NSX(this year)... and the supra uses the same engine as I do. (and other mr-2s and GT-4s/celica all tracs)

whoa, did u meant to say that right?

are u talking about the Mark III supras?

they used the 3sgte, and then when the MKIV came about they put the 2jzgte, the N/A mr2 used the 3sge i believe, and then the N/A celica used the 5sfe which is the same engine as my camry, correct me if i'm wrong.

[CovertPenguin]

no he was talking about the hardcore race cars.. the hardcore race cars (CASTROL TOM DENSO) etc etc. use the 3sgte for better weight balance

[CovertPenguin]

"Yes, an MR2 may, MAY, be able to hang with an NSX around the turns, but straightaway there's no hanging. NSX's run low low low 13's STOCK. Last I checked all you modded MR2 guys were just barely hitting those times. Just look at JGTC, the NSX's are DOMINATING the field. Take a ride in an NSX and you'll know what I mean. It's far superior to the the MR2."

japanese grand touring championships is also by no means a good determinent of how good the car is.. its just the frame of the NSX (basically) and asme with the MR-S and the Supra.. all frames.. also they aren' t even remotely stock.. the MR-S got in 3rd place (as i recall) and the supra won the big champonship.. all 3 of them would've gotten 1st 2nd 3rd. but castrol toms supra got smacked by that viper.. either or the supras won

[Drummer93]

ahh yes, of course, now i understand, u should have said that.

i have heard of that car.

i also heard a guy running a mr2 w/ the 5sfe and the turbo'd it, so it would be a 5sfgte.

was in florida, pushing like 400 hp, heard of it?

[CovertPenguin]

heh.. I didn't bust out randomely talking about it.. secret agent started it and i was mainly talking to him when i made those statments.. sorry for not clairfying..

the 5sfe isn't a great platform... the only redeemable thign about it, is that its a 2.2 liter.. but that is about it.. some guy on this board actually has one.. and it would be called 5sfte no G... G means a performance head.. like 4age 3sgte... e=fuel injection G=performance head t=turbo a=different series of performance head.. thats how i know it atleast

either or.. if i was any performance guru "for a toyota car' i would not turbo charge an engine that was meant for something else.. in the long run it'll cost u more.. and parts will be slightly more expensive because of their rarity and compabality.. :) my 2 cents though

[Drummer93]

bah, yea, i posted that to quickly, meant to say 5sfte.

there is a few guys with camrys that have swapped the 3sgte engine into there car with not to much modification. i'll try to find the pics.

i was hoping bryan would buy the j-spec engine so i could have his old one, o well, maye someday.

[Drummer93]

found pictures, couldn't find the info

Website for more pics (http://www.gibson99.com/camry/alexw/)

sorry the pics are so big, i'll only post a few, more on the site

http://www.gibson99.com/camry/alexw/engine2med.jpg

http://www.gibson99.com/camry/alexw/25leftmed.jpg

[CovertPenguin]

damn fucking nice... i have never seen the engine in the front before haha... thats a really nice car.. who shit.. its a 2 door???? is that? what is it?

[Drummer93]

its a camry. 95-96 they made a coupe model, kinda a ealry solara.

gen 3 was from 92-96 and was only sedan from 92-94, in 95 they offerd the SE model, v6, sporty 2 door, and they changed the front bumper slightly as well.

[Mobil1]

93 and up NSX puts out 290 hp from a 3.2 liter Vtec V6.

0-60 - 5.1

0-100 - 11.6

1/4 Mile - 13.5

Lateral Accelation (skid pad test) - .89g


96 MR2 Turbo puts out 200hp from a turbocharged 2.0 liter inline 4

0-60 - 6.2

0-100 - 16.7

1/4 Mile - 14.7

Lateral Acceleration (skid pad test) - .86g



it seems to me that the MR2 in STOCK form can not out run an NSX on the drag strip or on a road course.

[CovertPenguin]

seems to me u have wrong numbers.. IM me on AIM (covertpenguin) and ill send u the real numbers...

by the way there was NO 96 mr-2 turbo..... in america.. and everywhere else around the world it had 245 horses... and i know the skid pad is well above .86.. where the hell did u get this supposed 1996 "stats".. because whereever u did get it was made up

send me a IM ill send u the movie.. u can watch yourself.. the one in the movie they dont even test the j spec one.. and the mr0-2 hangs..

[SecretAgent]

I don't need to see video's of NSX's running mid 13's stock. I see like 3 of them everyday. All running low bottom 13's, and all of them stock.

Also, last year at JGTC every race I saw had the NSX's finishing in front, although I only caught the first 2/3 of the season. The new season just started last week, I haven't been keeping up with that one tho.

the 91-96 NSX's have a 3.0L V6 with 290hp, the 97+ have a 3.2L V6 and 320hp.

[Demosthenes]

What would one need to go through to get their MR2 model as close to j-spec insane 245hp? What conversions etc.

Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you covert. I test drove 93 N/A. EXtremely nice! Suspension handling and everything was godlike. I told my mom that what I was about to do was not me going crazy or losing control of the car and I just moved it side to side a little in the lane and it jerks back and forth at my command. My mom went psycho on me though. haha. I was in complete control of that car. It's handling OWNZ. I can't wait till I find a good turbo model for me!



~Demosthenes

[CovertPenguin]

Originally posted by SecretAgent
I don't need to see video's of NSX's running mid 13's stock. I see like 3 of them everyday. All running low bottom 13's, and all of them stock.

Also, last year at JGTC every race I saw had the NSX's finishing in front, although I only caught the first 2/3 of the season. The new season just started last week, I haven't been keeping up with that one tho.

the 91-96 NSX's have a 3.0L V6 with 290hp, the 97+ have a 3.2L V6 and 320hp.

your wrong.... the 97+ doesn't have 320 horses

here is a 2001

http://autos.msn.com/vip/engines.aspx?modelid=9962&src=vip

only 290.. and the smaller version had 250..

shit even a 2002 has 290 horses.. where is the other 30 horses? also look at the torque! only 225.. and those are brand new ones..

http://autos.msn.com/vip/engines.aspx?modelid=10322&src=vip

also whatever JGTC race that happened in decemeber the supras won... thats the last time i have seen it..

My friend in a mr-2 turbo with only a boost controler(and a body kit) beat a NSX (mods unknown if any)... i have that video too..

The NSX wasn't a rael big contender in that bracket.. Usually the Skyline or the Supra won.. (the times i have seen it atleast)

why are u going by the things u have seen? when i have proof?? these are documented times from the manufactuer and driven by expert drivers? NSXs DO NOT run 13.0's 13.1's or 13.2's.. a 13.5 is a big maybe.. but anything below that would have to be a factory freak (which is weird because they are all hand made like mr-2s as well) give it a chance and IM me..

[CovertPenguin]

Originally posted by Demosthenes
What would one need to go through to get their MR2 model as close to j-spec insane 245hp? What conversions etc.

Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you covert. I test drove 93 N/A. EXtremely nice! Suspension handling and everything was godlike. I told my mom that what I was about to do was not me going crazy or losing control of the car and I just moved it side to side a little in the lane and it jerks back and forth at my command. My mom went psycho on me though. haha. I was in complete control of that car. It's handling OWNZ. I can't wait till I find a good turbo model for me!



~Demosthenes

a NA to turbo swap if done by a reputable place would cost with EVERYTHING around high 3k to low 4k.. with the good 245 horse power motor... which is very godlike.. a 13.5 or above is very acheivable with a stock j spec engine (gen III) a low 13 is acheivable with just a 5 bucks boost controler.. the stock turbo is good for 11 second passes.. j spec mr-2s are by NO MEANS slow cars.. please for the love of god.. if u do get a NA mr-2... learn hwo to drive that before u go to a turbo... because the pull u will feel in a j spec mr-2 will hurt your insides (no bull shit) it really hurts especially throught 1st and 2nd..

[Powell]

Zac and I offered a challenged to these low 13sec cars. Zac's car would be a good contender and if they beat him. Then I can run them. If they beat me then we have some REALLY fast stock NSXs...

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by CovertPenguin
a NA to turbo swap if done by a reputable place would cost with EVERYTHING around high 3k to low 4k.. with the good 245 horse power motor... which is very godlike.. a 13.5 or above is very acheivable with a stock j spec engine (gen III) a low 13 is acheivable with just a 5 bucks boost controler.. the stock turbo is good for 11 second passes.. j spec mr-2s are by NO MEANS slow cars.. please for the love of god.. if u do get a NA mr-2... learn hwo to drive that before u go to a turbo... because the pull u will feel in a j spec mr-2 will hurt your insides (no bull shit) it really hurts especially throught 1st and 2nd..

OH no no no no no, I meant that I had driven an N/A I wouldn't get one. haha, it's just there are not turbo ones for sale around here. And I'm tired of waiting so I drove an N/A just to testdrive one. But yeah, I meant starting with turbo and achieving godlike 245. Thanks for info though. And yes, I would not be crazy go nuts and wreck car. Learn to drive it. Drive it. Never be dumb.

~Demosthenes

[CovertPenguin]

heh the car is sad to say.. reaching a market in which any punk kid (like myself) can get a hold of it... so alot of these kids wreck them and treat them like how they would treat their civic

[SecretAgent]

oops, sorry, misquoted the published specs of the 97+. I will tell you this tho. 91-96 make around 245-250hp to the wheels and 180-185lb ft. the 97+ make about 260hp to the wheels.

ok, now...why would I believe magazine articles over my own eyes?? For example, SCC, R&T, C&D, just about everyone published the 99-00 Civic Si's as running a 15.7 1/4 mile time. I have driven 6 of them to a 15.3 1/4 mile time. And seen many others do better than a 15.7. All of them when stock.

And gee, since it's apparently impossible to run low 13's in a stock NSX I better tell the 3 guys I know that all got 13.4-13.1 a couple weeks back that their timeslips are wrong. :rolleyes: I'm not a magazine quoter, I believe what I see, and what I know. Not what some publisher in a magazine tells me to believe.

[CovertPenguin]

Originally posted by SecretAgent
oops, sorry, misquoted the published specs of the 97+. I will tell you this tho. 91-96 make around 245-250hp to the wheels and 180-185lb ft. the 97+ make about 260hp to the wheels.

ok, now...why would I believe magazine articles over my own eyes?? For example, SCC, R&T, C&D, just about everyone published the 99-00 Civic Si's as running a 15.7 1/4 mile time. I have driven 6 of them to a 15.3 1/4 mile time. And seen many others do better than a 15.7. All of them when stock.

And gee, since it's apparently impossible to run low 13's in a stock NSX I better tell the 3 guys I know that all got 13.4-13.1 a couple weeks back that their timeslips are wrong. :rolleyes: I'm not a magazine quoter, I believe what I see, and what I know. Not what some publisher in a magazine tells me to believe.

what if i told u i have seen other wise?

[Kinny]

Naturally aspirated, Revs up to 8000 rpm, aluminum monocoque, titanium rodded.. The NSX will ownz joo!! And the NSX maybe lighter than you think. Also the MR2 is heavier than you think.. ;) Things are not what they seem. Manufacturer always underquoted the performance of their cars. Just look at VW for instance.. A 1.8T powered GTI/Beetle is published 150 to the flywheel, but in reality, it's more like 150 to the wheels.. If you believe whatever is published, then you're pretty gullible. :D Don't get me wrong.. MR2 is a great car.. I want one myself.. But you always get what you pay for.. And dollar for dollar, the NSX is much better than the MR2.

[CovertPenguin]

so no one will IM me :( its a really interesting video... the NSX weighs in at 3100 (which is not that big when u consider the size) the mr-2 weighs in "with no one in it" 2750-2800.. which isn kind of heavy for the size... NSX is made out of ALOT of aluminium and light metals...(but not nessasrily strong metals). the TRD 2000GT (275 horses) and is priced still alittle bit lower than the NSX (only made in japan though) weighs in at 2500 pounds and would royally whip the shit out of any NSX (except maybe for the NSX type R that is coming out soon). (got videos of that too) TRD body kits for the mr-2 lower the weight by 100+pounds..

dont get me wrong though, i DO think the NSX is a tad bit faster and a TAD bit better in handling (with a US SPEC MR-2).. but back in 91 the mr-2 turbo was rated "best bang for your buck" for 2 years.. If you are willing to sacarfice 50 thousand more dollars for horse power that could be made up for a 5 dollar boost controler... and get 235's in the back instead of 215's and put the 215's in the front.. then u have yourself a NSX killer/atleast run with the NSX. if u are just going to randomely blurt out things that are "mostly not even true" then atleast watch the video..

aim name is covertpenguin.. in 1999 the mr-2 GT-S was the fastest production japanese car made.. (yes faster than the NSX)

[CovertPenguin]

Originally posted by Kinny
Naturally aspirated, Revs up to 8000 rpm, aluminum monocoque, titanium rodded.. The NSX will ownz joo!! And the NSX maybe lighter than you think. Also the MR2 is heavier than you think.. ;) Things are not what they seem. Manufacturer always underquoted the performance of their cars. Just look at VW for instance.. A 1.8T powered GTI/Beetle is published 150 to the flywheel, but in reality, it's more like 150 to the wheels.. If you believe whatever is published, then you're pretty gullible. :D Don't get me wrong.. MR2 is a great car.. I want one myself.. But you always get what you pay for.. And dollar for dollar, the NSX is much better than the MR2. '

its better to go by what the manufactuer says than what some joe blow guy off the street says... and every car has been treated differently by each owner over the years and the car will respond better if it was treated right, but sad to say, sport cars are ragged on more than most cars

.. im not gullible but i have to go by the facts, not by what some guy saw... i've seen a Supra TT run a 16 (something) on the track.. a GOLF GTi beat it.. also saw a NSX run a 15.9 (it was 3k ft about elevation though) but even with that in factor he was running high 14's sea lvl.. just saying its hard to generalize when there are ALOT of exceptions out there.. its always best to go by what the manufacter says.. "on a documented video" which they usually release for every car

[SecretAgent]

ok, then let's go by magazine facts.....published 1/4 for MR2 turbo (US Spec of course, becuase last time i checked non of us lived in Japan) 14.7

published time for 98 NSX - 12.9@110 (time obtained from car and driver august 98).

hmm....1.8 seconds. just a TAD? that's an ass raping if you ask me.

Skid pad NSX- .90

MR2 Turbo - .86

.04 G's sound close, but it's really not. But for the benefit of the doubt, we'll say they're equal there.

0-60 times NSX - 4.8
MR2 Turbo - 6.2

again...almost 2 second difference.

Ok, now how about price. When they killed the MR2 it cost 35k. They killed it b/c of a complete lack of sales. The NSX costs almost 3 times that, but yet, people are still willing to buy those, over a 35k MR2. Hmmm....now why would someone do that if the MR2 was the superior vehicle? Obviously the NSX must be better if people are willing to pay 70-80k for a brand new one.

Anyways...if you see my original 2 posts: yes they will hang together in the corners, but straightline the NSX owns the MR2.

[CovertPenguin]

why are u comparing a 98 car to a 91 car.. the mr-2 wasn't even around to compete with a 98 NSX.. compare a 91 nsx to a 91 mr-2 if u want to compare apples to apples... and by the way

0-60 in 5.9 quartermile of 14.2 i got a video proving it... SEND ME A IM DAMN U.. ill send u the video... the NSX ran a 13.8.. i have NEVER SEEN a NSX run 12's from the factory.. show me where u are getting this information...

NSX's are low volume imports... not many are actually bought... in 95 alot of sprot cars died.. because of the weak yen and the strong dollar... when u have 100 mr-2s u ahve to sell and 1 NSX.. its quite easier to sell the 1 NSX and be in alright condition then selling 50 mr-2s and losing 50 others... MR-2 died in america but it lived on all around the world BUT HERE.. the mr-2 died because of emissions.. if we had the japanese mr-2 i bet it would've last as long as the supra TT did..

once again send me a IM.. and where u get this information and these 12 second NSX's

[SecretAgent]

Car and Diver August 1998. I've already said that. and stop asking me to IM you. I don't need to watch a damn video of a fucking NSX, I see them in real life everyday.

[CovertPenguin]

jesus all im asking for his proof... not 320 horsepower NSX's of yours that run 12 second passes

[SecretAgent]

dude, you must seriously be blind or something. I already said I made a mistake on how much hp the 98+ made. Also, I have already stated where I got the 12.9@110 number...in fact, I stated that right next to where I stated the 12.9. Hey you're the one that wanted to argue magazine facts, not me.

So you have a video of one car running that time. so that means that all of them run that time?? I never asked you to believe what I saw. I was just stating it. Never asked you to believe anything. But how can you possibly expect to forget all my past experience with MR2's and NSX's by watching your video?

[CrystalWhiteGT]

hahaha u magazine whores... I could get a '03 mustang Cobra for much less than a NSX, put a lightning pulley, catback exhaust, and chip in it, and make rice pudding out of 90% of the nsx's out there.....

And for the record, for 70 grand, I would take a viper over a NSX
especially since the bastards killed the pop up lights for the new bodystyle.

[CovertPenguin]

its not just random joe blow video... its a documented video... from the manfactuer that compare cars to cars.. its not some home video...

NSX is a cool car, but an mr-2 is not far from it.. is all im saying... and apparently motor trend thinks the same... apparently this certain author would rather have a mr-2 than a NSX..

[CrystalWhiteGT]

oh ya... and in a droptop too... there are no droptop NSXs that I know of... haha even the SW20 was available in a droptop.

[SecretAgent]

the SW20 was a targa. not a convertible.

the NSX is also a targa. almost all 98+ are targa's. there are only about 3-10 a year that aren't.

[SecretAgent]

Originally posted by CrystalWhiteGT
hahaha u magazine whores... I could get a '03 mustang Cobra for much less than a NSX, put a lightning pulley, catback exhaust, and chip in it, and make rice pudding out of 90% of the nsx's out there.....

And for the record, for 70 grand, I would take a viper over a NSX
especially since the bastards killed the pop up lights for the new bodystyle.

I never said the NSX was the best car out there. far from it. This was a comparison of the NSX and MR2 turbo. It has nothing to do with Vipers and Mustangs.

[CrystalWhiteGT]

Originally posted by SecretAgent
the SW20 was a targa. not a convertible.

then what is this? (yes this IS factory)
http://www.j-garage.com/3000/110-511
or this
http://www.j-garage.com/3000/110-512

buddy, u need to read up on toyota.

http://www.geocities.com/beavis6664/mr2t4.txt

somebody say something if the pics don't work

[SecretAgent]

actually buddy, you need to read up on toyota. those were only available in japan. notice the RHD??? IN THE USA (WHICH IS REALLY THE ONLY PLACE IT MATTERS) THE SW20 WAS ONLY AVAILABLE IN A TARGA TOP.

[Kinny]

Hahaha!!! Don't get me wrong.. Viper is just a brute. It has gobs of horsepower, but it's never built or handles like a NSX. True, you can do many things to a car whether a Cobra, or Civic, or Integra that will out perform a NSX. But until you've driven one and ridden in one, you would never ever understand.. The NSX is just a fine piece of machinery. I guess it being hand built and using some expensive material may have something to do with the price. I think they are both equally good cars.. NSX or MR2. No hating here.. To each their own I guess..

[CrystalWhiteGT]

and they never made a 'targa' that I was aware of... that was only on the Supra that I am aware of.
SW20s were
T-bar
Sunroof
Nothing (very rare)

[CrystalWhiteGT]

Originally posted by SecretAgent
actually buddy, you need to read up on toyota. those were only available in japan. notice the RHD??? IN THE USA (WHICH IS REALLY THE ONLY PLACE IT MATTERS) THE SW20 WAS ONLY AVAILABLE IN A TARGA TOP.

Too bad in todays modern society, the 2 markets (USA and JDM) are bridgeable... ONLY in the USA doesn't really matter, when something called a "private import" exists....
a GOOD example is the skylines that are over here. I'm pretty sure that not all of them came from Motorex.
Also, there are probably a few Porsche 959s too. (not that they are street legal)
So how about we compare globally?

[SecretAgent]

actually, it's next to impossible to import an entire car into the US. I know this, because I spent months researching this and used to be in the importing business.

yes, it's possible to do it illegally but legally is next to impossible, and the cost to do so makes it out of reach of the common person. even bill gates couldn't get a 959 legalized to stay in the country. his was confiscated by US customs.

[CrystalWhiteGT]

ya i heard that story about the 959... which is why i mentioned it. I'm not sure that you COULDN"t do it if you knew the right loopholes.. like register it out of state or some garbage like that might work.. or register it in mexico, LoL

[SecretAgent]

yes, there are loopholes, but none of them are legal. you will still not be able to register the car once you get it into the country. you can't register it out of state or in mexico either, b/c the identification number on the imported car will match nothing in their records so they can't trace it. if they can't trace it, they can't register it.

you can do it by VIN swapping and such, but again, that's very illegal.

so back to my original point, cars sold in the US are the only one's worth discussing in this conversation.

[CovertPenguin]

Mr-2 was never given a targe top...... never.. when u put a targa top on any car it disrupts the rigidty of its suspension... when all ends dont meet up, it'll flex.. toyota didn't put a targa top on the mr-2 for this very reason... its a T top... by the way.. i know 2 mr-2 owners with drop top mr-2s... here is a few pics.... read up on the cars and notice the Left hand drive..

[CovertPenguin]

well the orange is :) black one is authetic japanese

[McFly]

i own a 91 mr2 Turbo with light mods and can run with cars taht have a 5.1 0-60 from the factory, actually i pulled a length and a half out in third. if you can launch a car then you can pretty much have the advantage, and the mr2 launches WELL. i love the NSX but for the price, the mr2 is the shit. i thought that was what it was, a peice of shit, but infact it was probably the nicest car i had driven in aspects for fun and rigibility in driving.

bryan

[vuu-SW21]

I am fortunate to have a hardtop NA mr2 and I love it. Now I do want to get a NSX in the future also.

Now for the comparison to mr2 and NSX. First off they are into leagues. NSX is consider a japan super car or japan ferrari. The mr2 is a normal sports car. While I understand that both are MR layout, the previous distinction makes a differents in sales. People are willing to go and buy a NSX because it is like buying a porsche. Now the common people often view the mr2 like a integra or something. They don't see it as a SUPER CAR.

Second is the NSX is honda top of line car. The mr2 is not. I believe the supra is the powerhouse of toyota car line up.
Six cylinder vs six, as opposed to mr2's 4 banger.

And in my opinion straight aways is about money. It is the corner ability of each car that makes it shine. And the NSX has a better balance and suspension set up. So yes is is going to be better.

All in all, I love both cars and hopefully own the other one (nsx) in the future. AND EVERYTHING I SAID ABOVE IS MY OPINION, NOT FACTS SO DO NOT FLAME.

[CovertPenguin]

i can understand why u think this.... But calling any mid engined car "a normal sports car" is kind of bias.. whats "normal" about having the engine behind of u.. if u had a turbo charged mr-2 (not saying the NA is bad) u may feel differently. NSX's performance is comparable to an MR-2 Turbo...

but quite frankly the NA mr-2 would be like buying a porsche boxter (now), it was the car to keep all the "not so hardcore enthusasits" or the "not so rich" people a chance to own a nice sports car

[McFly]

boost owns. toyota fawked up! that's the cliff notes.

bryan

[vuu-SW21]

yeah but not people don't see the mr2 any kind as a SUPER CAR!!! While the NSX is no ferrari but it is still view as a Japanese super car. The mr2 is not. I am not saying that the mr2. I love my mr2 and it is only NA. It handles like wonder and it is really nice. But it is like comparing a mustang to a viper. there is a difference. The difference in the case of mr2 vs NSX is not a big one but there is a tiny gap.

[CovertPenguin]

thats the point i was trying to give to everyone else..the NSX is a better car, but not by alot... you also have to remember we "most likely" got our cars after they were used and abused.. the car we have now is not the car it was back in 91-95..

the orginal intent on this thread was just to post a review of the car not to argue with some dude about the NSX

[CovertPenguin]

by the way.. "japanese super car" title was given to the mr-2... in 1999 it was the fastest producition japanese car ever made... the supra isn't a super car by the way... it takes something "special" from other cars to make it a super car...

supra is a really fast car.. why do u think its a super car? whats so different about it?

[vuu-SW21]

i did not mean to say supra is a super car, but it is the flagship power car for toyota. The mr2 is kinda of like its little brother.

[aznsupra]

Originally posted by CovertPenguin
by the way.. "japanese super car" title was given to the mr-2... in 1999 it was the fastest producition japanese car ever made... the supra isn't a super car by the way... it takes something "special" from other cars to make it a super car...

supra is a really fast car.. why do u think its a super car? whats so different about it?

are u sure that title belongs to the mr2? i thought the skyline was the japanese supercar???
kev

[CovertPenguin]

there can be more than one super car... not like its reserved for one spot.. if it was, it wouldn't be the mr-2

[CovertPenguin]

Originally posted by McFly
boost owns. toyota fawked up! that's the cliff notes.

bryan

im guessing u are talking about why they dont ship mr-2s over here anymore after 1995 (the new mr-2 is actually the MR-S).. toyota didn't fawk up, the japanese economy did... yen was weak and the dollar was strong and the age of the SUV was coming to America, and there was no more room left for the mr-2 in the american market...

[i-vtec195]

i've actually got a few videos downloaded offa kazaa that were made in jaan in their testing of stock production cars in their domestic environment. i saw an itr run a 14.7, a s15 run a 14.2, an mr2 run a 13.6, and an nsx type-s run a 12.90. earlier i noticed some number of a "silvia" compared to those of a us-spec mr2. come on now, try comparing a 240sx instead of twisting facts in order to prove a point. i think all japanese sports cars have their perks. MR2 are THE fuckin shit for the money and have mad potential. i'd love to rock an nsx because they're awesome, and exotic. but give me an mr2 and the extra 50g's i'd save over the nsx, and let's see who does what after i'd place a few orders for parts. then compare dollars to dollars instead of apples to oranges.

[McFly]

yea, i heard a rumor, from a guy at fred haas that they might bring the sw20 back. he is the lead mechanic owns a mkIII supra with t88. i wish they would, i would BUY ANOTHER.

bryan

[CovertPenguin]

they wont bring back the "sw20".. i can almost gurantee that wont happen..... it stopped in 1999 and then came the new body style.. the MR-S... i really dont think their will be another "fast production mr-2" for a long time.. :( then again when the supra comes back, the MR-S may come back with a better engine when the supra arrives.. but till then.. dont keep your fingers crossed :(

[Bob22b]

Originally posted by Mobil1Skyline
turbo charged cars do not count in the hp/liter count. turbo cars have an obvious advantage here but there are some NA cars that do produce those kind of numbers RSX-S 2.0 liter 200 hp (100 hp/liter) Integra-R 1.8 liter 197hp (108 hp/liter) 360 Modena 395hp (117hp/liter) there are a few others as well but that gives you a good idea of some cars that produce such numbers normally asparated.

reason turbo charged cars dont really count in this kind of contest is because of boost. its like raising the compression of your car by X number of atmospheres of compression for every 1 bar of boost being run. 14.7 psi = one atmosphere. so for every 14.7 psi more than regular sea level pressure is one bar of boost. 1 psi of boost equals about 15hp.

so you start talking about turbocharged cars and theres a world of math used to figure out the ACTUAL hp/liter of the engine being tested.

theres some basic physics for yall :thumb:

Who cares if an engine has a hair dryer attached?

It's still an engine and counts for hp/liter comparisons.

[Demosthenes]

Originally posted by Bob22b
Who cares if an engine has a hair dryer attached?

It's still an engine and counts for hp/liter comparisons.

Damn right it does.

~Demosthenes

[AppleOvrSilvr]

Skyline is known as "Godzilla" in Japan. Ive never seen or heard the MR-2 being known as a supercar anywhere. Your biased OPINIONS are far from being facts. The MR2 had worst sales than the 240sx. Both are gone now.

[CovertPenguin]

Originally posted by AppleOvrSilvr
Skyline is known as "Godzilla" in Japan. Ive never seen or heard the MR-2 being known as a supercar anywhere. Your biased OPINIONS are far from being facts. The MR2 had worst sales than the 240sx. Both are gone now.

what the hell are u talking about you idiot.. the mr-2 is the largest bought/made mid engined car in the world... The review was about the mr-2 not the skyline (whereever u got that).. The mr-2 is a low volume import, 240sx is not. Mr-2 is not gone, the 240 is... :gay:

[SHIFT_KA]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions..no need to call people names...if you have the urge..use the pm button and do it off the board..this rule applies to everyone.


btw....Cary's car owns!!!:thumb:

[MeX_LeOn]

Hey peeps, dont want to piss anyone off and but in, but im kind of new to icch and im tryin to figure out how to post pics w/o having to click on the attachment file. ive been told how to but i think they didnt explain too well

[AppleOvrSilvr]

MR-2'S SUCK ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How you like that??? You biased lil bitch. Stop being so pro-Toyota and anti-everything and open up your mind. Dipshit.:gay: :gay: :gay:

[Vic]

wow another Penguin thread locked. :rolleyes: