PDA

View Full Version : mr2 - want one but is it a death trap?



skidMarkNZ
04-13-2010, 09:45 PM
Hey guys, i'm getting sick of my corona, i've got a gen 4 3sgte st215 engine sitting here... so if i get an mr2 i can put it in that

i have narrowed my car list down to

mr2 - 1994 ish shape

nissan 300zx

mitsubishi starion - aka chyrsler conquest.

i'm very much towards the mr2 but i worry about the safety of them in a crash. and every man and his dog has a celica here so i'd rather have something a bit different.

but heres what ive seen happens to mr2's, compared to what is not exactly the worlds strongest car that hit it, the mr2 did not fear well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR1NJtX9r-c

opinions guys?

Cheers: mark.

Waffles!
04-13-2010, 10:08 PM
MR2s handle more differently that any other car I've driven. You have to know how to drive them safely if you're going to drive one. Personally, I did a lot of research on the car and consulted with some MR2 owners (namely Luni) before I bought mine. I've had mine for close to a year now, and she is by far the most fun car that I've had as well as the most likely to turn around and bite my head off if I make a mistake.

If you're scared that MR2s are a death trap, don't get one. Plain and simple. You don't want to be worrying about your life as you're driving down the road; it's distracting. Honestly, I steer people away from MR2s because they have kind of an unstable platform. What I mean is people don't realize that by moving all the weight in the car back, you have completely changed the physics of driving. You have to relearn how to drive, and most people that are looking for a cool looking car don't understand that aspect. This is why you find so many youtube videos of crashed MR2s.

On the other hand, if you have your heart set on an MR2, please head on over to MR2OC.com and read anything you can get your hands on. There is a lot of good information on that site.

If you do get and MR2, anything 93+ for the MKIIs is the year to have.

Good luck with whatever you end up with!

geebes
04-13-2010, 10:19 PM
I am a huge fan of them. Just watch out for giant trucks. :)

Luni
04-13-2010, 11:23 PM
It is if youre a noob and a dumbass driver.

Hipster Lawrence
04-14-2010, 12:21 AM
The MK2 turbo is so much better of a car than the 300zx it's not even funny.

The starion while super duper cool would be a can of worms.

My advice get an 86 hardtop or sunroof mr2, greatest car ever. Or a mk2 turbo in unmolested shape.

The number one rule about buying an mr2 is to wait til you find the right one and that may take some time.

oh yeah www.mr2oc.com

burnyd
04-14-2010, 12:48 AM
I am a huge fan of them. Just watch out for giant trucks. :)

Or stupid old women missing stop signs that are considered too old to drive!!!

T-spoon
04-14-2010, 02:43 AM
Go for it! When you first get it take it somewhere SAFE, with no other traffic where you can fully test the limits of the car and your skill. You have to see for yourself what happens when you do certain things. Once you know what it's going to do, then you know how to drive it. In any kind of weather you know you'll just have to be extra careful and don't take chances.

As far as safety if you DO get into a crash, I'm not going to lie. If you get t-boned or wrap it around a telephone pole or plow into something at high speed, you are going to be seriously screwed. Yeah, in any car this is true, but it's especially true with a small car that has all the heavy stuff in the back and a crumple zone that stops behind the seats. I've seen a lot of MR2 wreck pictures and they are nasty. On the other hand, they can take a MASSIVE pounding (no immature chuckles here :P ) from the back. I was rear-ended by an Expedition and the whole front of it was mangled. Yeah, it totaled the MR2 but the damage stopped before the engine bay and I drove it with that damage for 2 months before selling it to someone doing an engine swap.

So like Luni said, if you are smart and don't screw around (that doesn't mean pussyfoot everywhere, that means learn what the car and yourself can and can't do in a safe environment), then they are as safe as any other car on the road.

andy
04-14-2010, 04:28 AM
yes

skidMarkNZ
04-14-2010, 04:39 AM
i have my eye very firmly on this one...

edit... helps if i put the *$^*&$^ link....

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Cars/Toyota/mr2/auction-283515212.htm

http://images.trademe.co.nz/photoserver/tq/84/124009184.jpg

joe's gt
04-14-2010, 04:54 AM
Researched alot about the 300zx. Heavy as hell, stupidly hard to work on, hit or miss on reliability...

but I still want one. Its basically a freeway killer as long as you build the engine. Its too heavy to be anything else. You'd have to take off A LOT to get that weight down.

You can't really use it for anything but a pleasure weekend driver. I personally love the looks and you can build the vg30dett to pretty much take almost anything from a roll. But other than that, can't race with it, can't drag with it, can't do much actually. Its more of a collector/unique car to add to the collection with no real purpose other than being a dyno queen.

goretro77
04-14-2010, 06:33 AM
A mid engined rear wheel drive car rewards a good driver IF you accept the fact that the car WANTS to rotate. At the limit this is a great advantage, just never lift your throttle in the turns, either maintain or apply more.

KM
04-14-2010, 07:07 AM
An MR2 is the only platform I'd feel good putting a 3SGTE in.

I want RWD so bad, that offer I got to trade the celica for a 240 is making me itch.

T-spoon
04-14-2010, 08:17 AM
Researched alot about the 300zx. Heavy as hell, stupidly hard to work on, hit or miss on reliability...

but I still want one. Its basically a freeway killer as long as you build the engine. Its too heavy to be anything else. You'd have to take off A LOT to get that weight down.

You can't really use it for anything but a pleasure weekend driver. I personally love the looks and you can build the vg30dett to pretty much take almost anything from a roll. But other than that, can't race with it, can't drag with it, can't do much actually. Its more of a collector/unique car to add to the collection with no real purpose other than being a dyno queen.

Plus you know, you can pick up MKIII supras for cheap, slap in a JZ and perform just as good to much better than a 300ZX and not look like crap (sorry if anyone likes how they look, I think they're really boring).

skidMarkNZ
04-14-2010, 10:08 AM
is that mr2 limited in that link i put a few posts up a good buy? decent model of mr2?

roadwolf
04-14-2010, 11:03 AM
As long as you don't buy a rev 1 MR2 the handling is not too bad. It was the rev 1 that gave it the bad reputation for swapping ends. Don't forget Ferraris and Lamborghinis suffer from the same problem but no one complains about them.

Smaay
04-14-2010, 02:38 PM
definatly get a MKIII Supra over the 300ZX. but hell now days you can find a NA Supra 5 Speed for about 10,000. put another 3000 into it and you have a 400HP Supra! the NA is so easy to turbo its disgusting!

Grot
04-14-2010, 02:53 PM
i have my eye very firmly on this one...

edit... helps if i put the *$^*&$^ link....

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Cars/Toyota/mr2/auction-283515212.htm

http://images.trademe.co.nz/photoserver/tq/84/124009184.jpg

You really want a 93+

Hipster Lawrence
04-14-2010, 02:56 PM
You really want a 86


Fix'd

Grot
04-14-2010, 05:53 PM
i prefer mk1s too. but hes looking for an mk2.

Idiot Stick
04-14-2010, 06:10 PM
Also don't assume that because the Mr2 is RWD that you can jump in and do super awesome drifts.

It's not that kind of car.

renegadex
04-14-2010, 08:15 PM
The MK2 turbo is so much better of a car than the 300zx it's not even funny.

The starion while super duper cool would be a can of worms.

My advice get an 86 hardtop or sunroof mr2, greatest car ever. Or a mk2 turbo in unmolested shape.

The number one rule about buying an mr2 is to wait til you find the right one and that may take some time.

oh yeah www.mr2oc.com


+1

Waffles!
04-14-2010, 08:22 PM
You really want a 93+

Again, if you want a MKII MR2, you really do want a 93+. Toyota did a lot of upgrades to the 93+ MR2s in the factory, and it's much easier to get a 93+ rather than doing all the upgrades yourself. Do yourself a favor and pass on anything that is prior to 93 (as far as MKIIs go). You should be able to find 93+ pretty easily where you're at. In the States, it's a little bit more difficult to find them because they didn't import so many, and stopped importing the MKIIs in '95.

skidMarkNZ
04-15-2010, 01:10 AM
Yeah i can't afford a 93 + as much as i would love one

I just went out to a dealer and with no intention of buying it took a 1990 manual mr2 for a good 30 minute drive...

geez guys you wern't kidding when you said they are nothing like a front engined car, and i got a sample of what happens if you dont treat them with respect whel i pulled off a set of lights and into a side road.... could feel the back start to jiggle a little when keeping a steady pedal, damn even in non turbo its a thrill to drive, the only thing i didnt like was the steering was extremely heavy. not so bad when moving (checked tyre pressures and put 34 pound in the fronts and 35 in the rears, they had about 25 pound each in them, handled quite well wityh some pressure but turning it at slow speed in a car park it was almost like it had no power steering, would this be a problem with this specific car, or are they all pretty heavy in the wheel? and the brakes were s**t

v8killer
04-15-2010, 01:39 AM
It is if youre a noob and a dumbass driver.

i swear all ur posts need to be in someone's sig lol


it depends what u hit and how fast both "objects" are going. if what luni said isn't the issue and it happens to be just an accident any car that gets hit head on at 45 mph by an other larger vehicle doin 45 mph it will be just as pummeled. get the mr2 and see how many other people have them take a look at mr2oc. there are a lot more people with mr2s and some whose head is bigger than the mr2 itself.

Luni
04-15-2010, 02:19 AM
Ive tooled around in an NA MR2. I have to go out of my way to get that thing to do anything stupid, so in an NA, if youre driving reasonably, you will be fine.

Turbos will try and kill you if you drive them stupid though.

vangls14
04-15-2010, 06:41 AM
I think the "fear" of MR2's is a bit over exaggerated. They are normal cars and if driven normally, which is what should be done on the streets, they are safe like any other car. If you drive like an asshat, regardless if you're in a Corolla or an MR2, you're going to end up hurt. It's not that hard to figure that. I've never seen an MR2 snap oversteer by itself, parked in a garage. Snap oversteer is a term created by noobs to explain their lack of intelligence or driven ability.

Also, the suspension revision of the 93+ was NOT THAT much of an improvement over the 91-92 (in fact, some argue that it was a downgrade from a performance perspective). The only thing making the 93+ more worth getting is the LSD, improved E153 transmission, and upgraded brakes (the 93+ lip is meh, but +++ for wing, tail lights, matching body molding for 94+).

Shadowlife25
04-15-2010, 10:09 AM
I think the "fear" of MR2's is a bit over exaggerated. They are normal cars and if driven normally, which is what should be done on the streets, they are safe like any other car. If you drive like an asshat, regardless if you're in a Corolla or an MR2, you're going to end up hurt. It's not that hard to figure that. I've never seen an MR2 snap oversteer by itself, parked in a garage. Snap oversteer is a term created by noobs to explain their lack of intelligence or driven ability.

Also, the suspension revision of the 93+ was NOT THAT much of an improvement over the 91-92 (in fact, some argue that it was a downgrade from a performance perspective). The only thing making the 93+ more worth getting is the LSD, improved E153 transmission, and upgraded brakes (the 93+ lip is meh, but +++ for wing, tail lights, matching body molding for 94+).


Gonna have to respectfully disagree on this one man.

The 93+ has a better MORE STABLE suspension setup.

"Snap oversteer" is not just a "n00b" way of saying "I can't drive".
It is directly because the 90-92 had a much less stable suspension.
More maneuverability, yes; but at the cost of stability.
Think of it like a MIG Fighter Jet.

There is a reason there are so many that upgrade the suspensions.
These upgrades make the car feel more controllable and compliant.

LSD, Transmission and brakes are pretty big in my book.
Suspension is HUGE.
I have been in an AE86 that decimated all comers.
It's "pathetic" 80hp was unimportant, its awesome suspension, was.

Also, if someone isn't going to drive like a moron, why is it important?
MR//RWD whatever.
I have owned and driven every platform available.
It is a matter of learning both YOUR limits and those of the car itself.
(Preferably in a safe environment)

Get what you want, drive it, enjoy it/

Anyone who says differently is either lying or trying to sell you something.

Hipster Lawrence
04-15-2010, 11:56 AM
Sorry but snap oversteer is bullshit. Cars don't just oversteer for no reason. The mr2 is just more sensitive to driver inputs lifting in the middle of a corner at speed is NOT snap oversteer it is a driver error a common error and the standard reaction but NOT the cars fault. All mr2s have a tendency to oversteer just like any mid or rear engine car. But the thing is they understeer like a bitch under the right conditions drive a stock mk1 in auto-x and you'll see what I mean.

The thing is toyota did the same thing with the suspension on the mk1s but the general consensus is that the early suspension design was the better one on the mk1s.

vangls14
04-15-2010, 05:02 PM
The 93+ has a better MORE STABLE suspension setup.

There is a reason there are so many that upgrade the suspensions.
These upgrades make the car feel more controllable and compliant.

LSD, Transmission and brakes are pretty big in my book.
Suspension is HUGE.

My point is...the 93+ suspension is NOT a drastic (yet, debatable) improvement over the earlier suspension. Yes, a lot of MR2 owners do upgrade their suspension. However, it is IMPORTANT to note that upgrading the SW20 suspension has little to do with correcting 91-92 snap oversteer or upgrading to 93+ spec suspension, but for a SIGNIFICANT improvement over any OEM setup, 93+ or not. Trust me, very rarely will you ever encounter an MR2 owner who "upgrades" his 91-92 suspension to 93+ spec.

Believe me, the 93+ suspension is nothing HUGE over the 91-92 suspension. The only things HUGE on a 93+ are the LSD, beefed up synchros, and larger brakes. If one really wanted to "upgrade" their 91-92 suspension to a 93+ spec, it would cost no more than a few hundred bucks as these items are considered junk. It will cost a LOT more than that to get the LSD, improved transmission, and upgraded brakes.


Sorry but snap oversteer is bullshit. Cars don't just oversteer for no reason. The mr2 is just more sensitive to driver inputs lifting in the middle of a corner at speed is NOT snap oversteer it is a driver error a common error and the standard reaction but NOT the cars fault. All mr2s have a tendency to oversteer just like any mid or rear engine car. But the thing is they understeer like a bitch under the right conditions drive a stock mk1 in auto-x and you'll see what I mean.

The thing is toyota did the same thing with the suspension on the mk1s but the general consensus is that the early suspension design was the better one on the mk1s.

I agree. People make it sound like it is a flaw in design of the car when it is, in fact, an intrinsic characteristic of any ass-heavy car. I've never seen an MR2 snap-oversteer by itself with no one at the wheel.

skidMarkNZ
04-15-2010, 10:17 PM
test drove 2 of them yesterday, both a hardtop manual and a t-top auto.

interesting car. going back and fourth with the finance company currently....

does this one check out for you guys, k's seem good etc


http://www.carjam.co.nz/car/?plate=eab980

renegadex
04-16-2010, 06:45 AM
Man I wish I could find a hardtop MK2 chassis

roadwolf
04-16-2010, 03:22 PM
Suspension upgrade to Rev2 from Rev1 maybe a few hundred bucks, but the work involved is quite a lot. The rear subframe is different, the mountings for the bottom arms were moved to make the car more user friendly. The original suspension was designed by Lotus, but the driver involvement when cornering fast seemed to be more than the average person posessed.The original suspension is most probably better, if it is in the hands of a skilled driver, but most MR2 drivers at the time in the UK, just wanted a car that looked special and handled like their old front wheeldrive car and when the rear end got lively in the wet they panicked and complained and gave the car the bad reputation, when in fact as has already been said it was the drivers at fault.

vangls14
04-16-2010, 07:23 PM
^Don't know where you got your information from, but Lotus never assisted Toyota in the design of the MK2 MR2. What is debatable is the speculation that Lotus helped Toyota in designing the MK1.

In reality, all the suspension revision jazz probably amounts to less than the difference made with LARGER tires and wheels used in the 93+. IIRC, the rear tire size increased pretty significantly from 205mm to 220mm wide. Obviously, as we all know, increased rear grip = less oversteer.

T-spoon
04-16-2010, 11:49 PM
Trying to downplay a particular handling characteristic on a particular car and say that it amounts to nothing more than driver inexperience is as foolish as claiming there's no way for a driver to adjust to a particular handling characteristic.

You guys need to re-read the thread where so many of us talk about getting to know the limits of the car and the driver and how it acts under different circumstances. "Snap oversteer" is not just a phrase to scare bad little kids at night, it's something that happens as a result of a combination of things - lifting in the corner, not being used to the feel of the car on the edge, etc. - and because MR2s (and mid-rears in general) tend to be like that, they will have that reputation. Yes, it is a deserved reputation. Yes, it should scare away drivers who don't care to learn to drive their car. No, it does not mean the car is "flawed" and I really don't think most people said it was.

So calm down with the "OMG no such thing!!" junk. The guys who have mentioned this about MR2s have done plenty of driving of MR2s and compared that to other fast FWD and RWD cars. Trust me.

The bottom line, just like we said, is learn how the car handles, learn what the limits feel like, and if you respect that, the cars are amazing.

Shadowlife25
04-17-2010, 12:11 AM
Trying to downplay a particular handling characteristic on a particular car and say that it amounts to nothing more than driver inexperience is as foolish as claiming there's no way for a driver to adjust to a particular handling characteristic.

You guys need to re-read the thread where so many of us talk about getting to know the limits of the car and the driver and how it acts under different circumstances. "Snap oversteer" is not just a phrase to scare bad little kids at night, it's something that happens as a result of a combination of things - lifting in the corner, not being used to the feel of the car on the edge, etc. - and because MR2s (and mid-rears in general) tend to be like that, they will have that reputation. Yes, it is a deserved reputation. Yes, it should scare away drivers who don't care to learn to drive their car. No, it does not mean the car is "flawed" and I really don't think most people said it was.

So calm down with the "OMG no such thing!!" junk. The guys who have mentioned this about MR2s have done plenty of driving of MR2s and compared that to other fast FWD and RWD cars. Trust me.

The bottom line, just like we said, is learn how the car handles, learn what the limits feel like, and if you respect that, the cars are amazing.


Exactly.

vangls14
04-17-2010, 01:20 AM
Good post, T-spoon.

No one is trying to downplay the fact that a mid-engined car has a tendancy to be unstable at the limit, especially when in mid-corner. We all know that. However, as the title of the thread implies, people are scared that an MR2 will randomly kill them while driving normally? People, snap oversteer is overrated and overexaggerated! You will be just fine!

I've daily driven a couple MR2's for a few years now, and not once have I had to utilized a different driving method, technique, skill, etc. Hard to believe, but with some common sense, an MR2 Turbo drives just like a regular car, just like my 5th Gen Celica. It doesn't do random flips, turns, or jumps if I'm not prepared with racing gloves, shoes, a helmet, and a certificate from Skip Barber Racing School.

Bottom line answer to thread question is...

It is if youre a noob and a dumbass driver.

Also, I've noticed that some MR2 owners will overexaggerate and perpetuate the mythical dangers of snap oversteer on the street for a prestige effect. You know, "MR2s are NOT normal cars like a Celica. They require exceptional skill to handle." etc... These tactics are no different from a crazed Honda owner claiming he has to install a $1000 alarm system on his car, and he only uses Royal Purple oil and premium gas in his standard Honda Civic DX. C'mon, man, it's a fricken Civic, not a 911 Turbo or Ferrari F430! All of that stuff does not make your car any "better" than your typical run-of-the-mill Ford Focus or Mazda Protege.

skidMarkNZ
04-17-2010, 06:54 AM
handbags at 10 paces boys lol, shrug, i went out and bought a z32 nissan 300zx...

it goes round corners and has seats and a steering wheel inside and stuff.

renegadex
04-17-2010, 07:47 AM
Good post, T-spoon.

Also, I've noticed that some MR2 owners will overexaggerate and perpetuate the mythical dangers of snap oversteer on the street for a prestige effect. You know, "MR2s are NOT normal cars like a Celica. They require exceptional skill to handle." etc... These tactics are no different from a crazed Honda owner claiming he has to install a $1000 alarm system on his car, and he only uses Royal Purple oil and premium gas in his standard Honda Civic DX. C'mon, man, it's a fricken Civic, not a 911 Turbo or Ferrari F430! All of that stuff does not make your car any "better" than your typical run-of-the-mill Ford Focus or Mazda Protege.

I have to disagree with this. To a point that is true, driving normally most of the time it is like a normal car. However, here is an example of what a Civic wont do:

Many years ago, I was driving after a rain storm normally on stock 14" wheels with some all season tires. Took a turn through a big intersection going about 25 or 30mph hit a bump then hit a good sized puddle and the back end broke away and I spun out in to the median. For the most part, Civics aren't going to do that. Comparing how an MR2 handles and how a Civic handles is like comparing apples and oranges. Face it, having the engine sitting in front of the axles and in the front of the car is going to make the car handle much differently even driving around normally and especially in emergency situations.

If you are coming from FWD world and think an MR2 is going to drive the same you are going to have an accident.


Anyway I think the easiest and one of the best things to do to an MR2 to make it safer and handle better is good tires. At least get the 93+ 15" wheels and some good sticky tires. And make sure to replace them when they get the the wear bar. If you have shitty or bald tires on the back of an MR2 you will have a problem.


handbags at 10 paces boys lol, shrug, i went out and bought a z32 nissan 300zx...

it goes round corners and has seats and a steering wheel inside and stuff.

Just wait until you have to work on that engine. You will hate yourself. The only thing easy to change out on that engine is the fuel filter.

Hipster Lawrence
04-17-2010, 06:15 PM
Trying to downplay a particular handling characteristic on a particular car and say that it amounts to nothing more than driver inexperience is as foolish as claiming there's no way for a driver to adjust to a particular handling characteristic.

You guys need to re-read the thread where so many of us talk about getting to know the limits of the car and the driver and how it acts under different circumstances. "Snap oversteer" is not just a phrase to scare bad little kids at night, it's something that happens as a result of a combination of things - lifting in the corner, not being used to the feel of the car on the edge, etc. - and because MR2s (and mid-rears in general) tend to be like that, they will have that reputation. Yes, it is a deserved reputation. Yes, it should scare away drivers who don't care to learn to drive their car. No, it does not mean the car is "flawed" and I really don't think most people said it was.

So calm down with the "OMG no such thing!!" junk. The guys who have
mentioned this about MR2s have done plenty of driving of MR2s and compared that to other fast FWD and RWD cars. Trust me.

The bottom line, just like we said, is learn how the car handles, learn what the limits feel like, and if you respect that, the cars are amazing.

Ok I agree with 99% of this. But the term snap oversteer implies thet it's the car's fault. It's not the cars fault it's not a design flaw.

Luni
04-17-2010, 07:35 PM
To me snap oversteer is a handling characteristic of the car.

The characteristic is a low polar moment of inertia. It takes little coercion to get the car to change direction rapidly. That characteristic will make the car go from straight to sideways faster than a standard car without the engine in the middle. You fight the slide and you get the car to straighten out, but again since it has a low polar moment of inertia, the whole car changes direction rapidly again, and this time the momentum transfer changes direction with the car and now you are sliding the OPPOSITE direction.

Or, more easily put, you slide, you correct and straighten the car, but the momentum has now changed direction and it wants to make you go the direction you pointed the tires to correct your initial slide. That one isnt so easy to correct and you end up spinning out or sliding the opposite direction that you started.

So, its the cars tendancy to snap back the opposite direction if not handled properly. That IS the cars fault in a way, because thats just the nature of the beast. Now I agree that most of the time when this happens, its because the driver didnt do what he was supposed to properly. He lifted throttle when shit got out of hand, or he tried to apply the brakes instead of steering out of it. Or he got overzealous in his correction and countersteered TOO forcefully, or gave it TOO much gas, or whatever. Maybe he entered a corner too hot, turned in too sharp, initiated a slide, and tried to overcorrect to exit the slide. Whatever the case may be, that type of shit doesnt happen in a non mid engined car to that extent.

But the bottom line is, the MR2 DOES experience "snap oversteer" and it IS related to the design of the car. Its mostly affected by the experience of the driver and his ability to control it, but the inherent danger is there. This mostly applies to MK2s, as the MK1 with its shorter wheelbase and less power is less likely to get you into that situation. This is related to the cars suspension geometery more than anything else. Take a car like the NSX, Ferraris, they use double wishbone suspension. MacPherson struts just dont do what DW suspensions do. Theyre WAY inferior. This is one of the MR2s biggest shortcomings. This is also the reason why a car like an NSX is quite a bit more neutral and easier to drive at the limit. They should have made it a little wider, and used a double wishbone suspension on the damn thing.

Ive been driving MK2 turbos probably longer than anyone else on here (even longer than most people on mr2oc even), and Ive only experienced it once or twice, and Ive never crashed from it, but It happens. And when it happens, its pretty damn scary.

skidMarkNZ
04-18-2010, 12:01 AM
I have to disagree with this. To a point that is true, driving normally most of the time it is like a normal car. However, here is an example of what a Civic wont do:

Many years ago, I was driving after a rain storm normally on stock 14" wheels with some all season tires. Took a turn through a big intersection going about 25 or 30mph hit a bump then hit a good sized puddle and the back end broke away and I spun out in to the median. For the most part, Civics aren't going to do that. Comparing how an MR2 handles and how a Civic handles is like comparing apples and oranges. Face it, having the engine sitting in front of the axles and in the front of the car is going to make the car handle much differently even driving around normally and especially in emergency situations.

If you are coming from FWD world and think an MR2 is going to drive the same you are going to have an accident.


Anyway I think the easiest and one of the best things to do to an MR2 to make it safer and handle better is good tires. At least get the 93+ 15" wheels and some good sticky tires. And make sure to replace them when they get the the wear bar. If you have shitty or bald tires on the back of an MR2 you will have a problem.



Just wait until you have to work on that engine. You will hate yourself. The only thing easy to change out on that engine is the fuel filter.

shrug, why would the motor have any problems provided i give it regular oil changes and dont thrash the shit out of it.

nissans are pretty reliable provided you are nice to them, its usually the turbo ones that people thrash the shit out of that means they fail. my corona was easy to work on but in 30,000 miles apart from regular serviceing all ive had to do is the water pump.

85gtsblackman
04-18-2010, 04:12 AM
[QUOTE=skidMarkNZ;30092485]shrug, why would the motor have any problems provided i give it regular oil changes and dont thrash the shit out of it.

QUOTE]

because its old and will have a decent amout of miles on it, even if it were barely driven, given its age, all the oil seals will start to fail

regular oil changes and tune ups only go so far, what happens when stuff other than the long block fail, the engine could go 300,000 miles, your still going to do other stuff

hoses
seals
gaskets
timing belt and tensioner
water pump
clutch
turbo will fail one day if its orginal turbo with over 100k on it

and thats just a small list of stuff

also u forgot its a machine, stuff sometimes randomly fucks up for no reason

skidMarkNZ
04-18-2010, 04:15 AM
[QUOTE=skidMarkNZ;30092485]shrug, why would the motor have any problems provided i give it regular oil changes and dont thrash the shit out of it.

QUOTE]

because its old and will have a decent amout of miles on it, even if it were barely driven, given its age, all the oil seals will start to fail

regular oil changes and tune ups only go so far, what happens when stuff other than the long block fail, the engine could go 300,000 miles, your still going to do other stuff

hoses
seals
gaskets
timing belt and tensioner
water pump
clutch
turbo will fail one day if its orginal turbo with over 100k on it

and thats just a small list of stuff


you gotta do that with any car, thats just part of having one, just because its harder to work on doesnt bother me, only takes 2 hours to yank an engine...

lcutch cant go its auto...

turbo cant go because its non turbo lol

85gtsblackman
04-18-2010, 04:20 AM
automatic nissan , didnt u see the SHIFT_FUN commercials

skidMarkNZ
04-18-2010, 04:25 AM
automatic nissan , didnt u see the SHIFT_FUN commercials

:nopity:

Hipster Lawrence
04-19-2010, 02:28 AM
Good post Luni I'm with you up to the part about the macpherson struts. Awhile our toyota designed macstruts ARE inferior, designed correctly for the right application there are superior to any mutlilink. Just ask Colin Chapman, or bmw, or watch a WRC race.

skidMarkNZ
04-20-2010, 02:13 PM
Good post Luni I'm with you up to the part about the macpherson struts. Awhile our toyota designed macstruts ARE inferior, designed correctly for the right application there are superior to any mutlilink. Just ask Colin Chapman, or bmw, or watch a WRC race.

what does it matter if its good in wrc or bmw...

when we ARE discussing a toyota... its irrelevant....

that like saying....

an ugly chick is inferior, but if she was hotter she could be superior.

vangls14
04-21-2010, 09:01 AM
automatic nissan , didnt u see the SHIFT_FUN commercials

LOL. He will regret getting a Nissan in due time. Nissans are notorious for electrical gremlins. A handful of my friends are Nissan fans and all have had their share of electrical issues (about 7 cars in all, 4 of which had the same VG30DE that is found in the Z32). I wish you the best, lad.

Oh, also, the brakes on the SW20 are not rubbish. The cars you test drove were probably bad examples, but the SW20 is known to have amazing stopping power.

skidMarkNZ
04-21-2010, 10:20 AM
lol. He will regret getting a nissan in due time. Nissans are notorious for electrical gremlins. A handful of my friends are nissan fans and all have had their share of electrical issues (about 7 cars in all, 4 of which had the same vg30de that is found in the z32). I wish you the best, lad.

Oh, also, the brakes on the sw20 are not rubbish. The cars you test drove were probably bad examples, but the sw20 is known to have amazing stopping power.

yeah wel i drove 2 in spotless condition with about 60,000 miles on them, and the brakes worked yes, but they had nil feedback feel, they felt so wooden it wasnt even funny.

ItSnotjavi22
04-21-2010, 11:14 AM
Def agree with luni on this one. Always irks me when people says that early MKI's don't snap oversteer. If in a corner a car transitions from understeer to oversteer or from gripping the road to oversteer very quickly, it snap over steers. Off the top of my head BMW z3's had the same problem and early S2000's. If you spend enough time readin car and driver, motor trend etc. you'll run into reviews like this.
Although it's a dumb move, lifting mid-corner will get you into trouble no matter what rear wheel drive you have. But if you've ever had the chance to drive a live rear axle car with a LSD you'll see that a nice gradual transition into a slide and out of it is nice. It might not be as performance oriented and easy to quickly hit chicanes, but it's smoother and lifting doesn't put everything after that into fast forward.
Basically I see both camps exaggerating the dangers or completely puttig the blame on drivers. I drive less at the limit in my MR2 than my friends do in their predictable cars, so it actually makes me drive safer. There's a long turn here that my friend hit doing 80, Im personally not confident enough to do that. maybe in his civic or my pickup yeah. If I do wanna fly around a corner, it's one that I know well and one that I've already planned out where I might end up if spin out.

T-spoon
04-21-2010, 03:34 PM
yeah wel i drove 2 in spotless condition with about 60,000 miles on them, and the brakes worked yes, but they had nil feedback feel, they felt so wooden it wasnt even funny.

What do you mean exactly? My MR2s had excellent brakes and one of them had severe undercarriage rust. Could you elaborate on brake feedback and feeling wooden?

eatdirt40
04-21-2010, 04:41 PM
Funny how the OP asked about the safety in a crash and all responses are targeted toward the handling of the car. Yes I feel if you were in an accident of significance that the mr2 is a deathtrap.

T-spoon
04-21-2010, 04:53 PM
Funny how the OP asked about the safety in a crash and all responses are targeted toward the handling of the car. Yes I feel if you were in an accident of significance that the mr2 is a deathtrap.

Funny how you didn't read all the responses :hehe: No but seriously, that question was answered a couple times, and no, they are not "deathtraps".

vangls14
04-21-2010, 08:13 PM
yeah wel i drove 2 in spotless condition with about 60,000 miles on them, and the brakes worked yes, but they had nil feedback feel, they felt so wooden it wasnt even funny.

You don't have to take my word for it. Go back to read some published stopping distances and it's clear that the SW20 will own the Z32 when it comes to braking. Of course, being MR and lighter probably helps braking a lot.

90blacktrac
04-21-2010, 08:43 PM
Didn't this guy allready buy a Z a page ago?

roadwolf
04-21-2010, 09:07 PM
^Don't know where you got your information from, but Lotus never assisted Toyota in the design of the MK2 MR2. What is debatable is the speculation that Lotus helped Toyota in designing the MK1.

In reality, all the suspension revision jazz probably amounts to less than the difference made with LARGER tires and wheels used in the 93+. IIRC, the rear tire size increased pretty significantly from 205mm to 220mm wide. Obviously, as we all know, increased rear grip = less oversteer.
Your right about the MK2 but a Lotus engineer did assist with the MK1 suspension. Your very own Dan Gurney helped to set up the MK2. As for your idea that fitting bigger wheels means less, than changing suspension geometry and lowering the ride height, I must assume you are not or I hope your not a motor engineer. Also to the member who tried to convince us that Macpherson struts are superior he should really study suspension design, he will then find that Macpherson struts change wheel camber as they move ,not a good idea for handling, and by the way Lotus use double wishbone suspension.

skidMarkNZ
04-21-2010, 11:56 PM
You don't have to take my word for it. Go back to read some published stopping distances and it's clear that the SW20 will own the Z32 when it comes to braking. Of course, being MR and lighter probably helps braking a lot.



Being lighterZ? ahh an mr2 is about 200kg lighter yes..... but it had no weight in the front to pin it down, and 80%+ of braking is on the front with any vehicle.

i could tell the mr2 was constantly giving itself as abs work out, under seemingly normal conditions.

for the other p[oster... i cant really elaborate and further, if you havn't felt "wooden" feeling brakes before then i cant exactly explain it... but i shall try

...you push the pedal and it felt like nothing wass really happening, i pushed the pedal even harder, okay getting a bit of brakes now... push even harder and eventually got somewhere....

i don't think it's practical to drive a car where to have to put serious pressure on the pedal to make it stop....

drove my mates mr2 today that has had a full brake overhaul, mildly still responsive but still not up to spec....


Didn't this guy allready buy a Z a page ago?

yeah exactly, but like any forum full of know it alls the topic diverges, in this case to snap oversteer, i'm trying to leave them to it, i have my answer and its now turned into one of those age old discussions.... that always pops up.


^Don't know where you got your information from, but Lotus never assisted Toyota in the design of the MK2 MR2. What is debatable is the speculation that Lotus helped Toyota in designing the MK1.

In reality, all the suspension revision jazz probably amounts to less than the difference made with LARGER tires and wheels used in the 93+. IIRC, the rear tire size increased pretty significantly from 205mm to 220mm wide. Obviously, as we all know, increased rear grip = less oversteer.

my dear sir, there is alot more to car suspension tyre widths grip etc, than your pretty little mind could ever cope with...

stick to your matchbox cars.

Shadowlife25
04-22-2010, 12:09 AM
skidMarkNZ:

Please understand that this a forum of many different people and viewpoints.
Do not insult someone's intelligence simply because their opinion does not match your own.

Everyone has at this point realized that you purchased the Z car.

Let them enjoy their debate.
Perhaps there will be knowledge attained through it.

To sum up, please be polite.
No one has been rude to you.
Return that favor.

Thank You

vangls14
04-22-2010, 02:45 AM
As for your idea that fitting bigger wheels means less, than changing suspension geometry and lowering the ride height, I must assume you are not or I hope your not a motor engineer. Also to the member who tried to convince us that Macpherson struts are superior he should really study suspension design, he will then find that Macpherson struts change wheel camber as they move ,not a good idea for handling, and by the way Lotus use double wishbone suspension.

??? Motor engineer = SW20 MR2 revision? My point was, the tire size increase probably had a lot to do with the "improvements" on reducing the tendency for the rear tires to lose grip. I hope that is not too difficult to understand.

Regarding your comments about MacPherson struts and Lotus suspensions...try to give your own ideas rather than repeating what others have said. Most agree that DWB is better in theory (for all that cool reasons you repeated), but just because a certain car has a double wishbone suspension, that doesn't necessarily mean it's superior in design or performance. For example, various Honda Civic models use DWB and Corvettes use an "out-dated" leaf spring setup at all four corners. I hope that clarifies that poster's comment that a well-designed MacPherson is better than a poorly designed DWB.


Being lighterZ? ahh an mr2 is about 200kg lighter yes..... but it had no weight in the front to pin it down, and 80%+ of braking is on the front with any vehicle.

LOL. You probably didn't pass highschool physics. It's called inertia, aka weight transfer, noob. I hope you gain a bit of understanding from the following:

Placing the engine up front also has some disadvantages. First, braking ability is somewhat diminished. Diminished braking occurs because weight transfers forward under braking (Karasa, 2001), leaving relatively little weight remaining over the rear wheels during braking and thus, limiting the ability of the rear tires to contribute the braking task. Second, accelerative ability is limited somewhat by the relative lack of static weight over the rear tires when, the weight of the vehicle shifts rearward upon acceleration (Scotti, 1995). Despite its relative drawbacks, the front-engine layout remains the most popular.


my dear sir, there is alot more to car suspension tyre widths grip etc, than your pretty little mind could ever cope with...

stick to your matchbox cars.

So says the noob who bought an automatic Z32 for sporting purposes and cannot understand the basic ideas of weight transfer during deceleration and acceleration.

I realize that my explanation was extremely dumbed down, but that was intentional for members such as yourself. Although I'm shocked at your level of understanding of basic physics (or lack thereof), I hope you can appreciate your free education here.

Good day to you, sir.

Shadowlife25
04-22-2010, 03:36 AM
I will say this ONCE more for the benefit of all posters in this thread:

Intelligent discourse is welcome, as always.

Insults and name-calling have no place in this or any thread on this board.

If you have an opinion, reference it as such.
If you have fact, cite sources.

We need to help build our community, not build further separation.

In other words: Play nice or don't post.

vangls14
04-23-2010, 06:55 AM
...but it had no weight in the front to pin it down, and 80%+ of braking is on the front with any vehicle.

Hahaha...still cracks me up everytime I read it. I believe this is sig-worthy material.

4thgenceli
04-23-2010, 07:00 AM
I'll say it twice...



I will say this ONCE more for the benefit of all posters in this thread:

Intelligent discourse is welcome, as always.

Insults and name-calling have no place in this or any thread on this board.

If you have an opinion, reference it as such.
If you have fact, cite sources.

We need to help build our community, not build further separation.

In other words: Play nice or don't post.

Shadowlife25
04-23-2010, 09:58 AM
....

Please understand that I was entirely serious.

Be courteous gentlemen. Final warning.

skidMarkNZ
04-23-2010, 10:36 AM
Hahaha...still cracks me up everytime I read it. I believe this is sig-worthy material.

ive been a motorcycle rider for 12 years, a motorcycle mechanic for 6... and a proffessional racer for 4, and doing bloodey well

i think i'd know something about braking, on a bike we rarely use the rear brake on the track apart from stabalising the rear on heavy downshifts if you are riding a pre slipper blutch, exact same applies with a car.

almost all braking performance is on the front, yes in any vehicle, if you don't know that get your bastard father to educate you on how to not suck big fat donkey dick at the internet.

jesus christ timmay you jack off more than george bush.

Shadowlife25
04-23-2010, 10:37 AM
Enjoy your week off....

Luni
04-23-2010, 06:57 PM
MR2s arent like normal cars. Their rear brakes actually carry a pretty large part in braking. MR2s have rear vented brakes to handle the extra force applied on them.

My MR2s brakes will hurt you when you slam against the seat belt if I hit them.

I am just running stock 93 turbo brakes, axiss ultimate pads, stainless steel braided lines, and Dot4 ATE superblue fluid.

Even a stock MR2 turbos brakes arent THAT bad. If they are, theyve been neglected and arent up to par.

Ive been working on MR2s for 10 years. I probably know more about them than most (if not all) anybody who frequents this forum. The MR2 Turbo has some really good brakes. If youre driving a car with shitty brakes, theyve been neglected, the lines are stretched, the seals are bad, the pads suck, the rotors are had, etc etc etc.

Take care of your shit and it will take care of you.

But, the MR2 isnt like a standard front engined car where it has way more brake bias in front. It DOES have more in front, but its not like 80 percent front 20 percent rear. Its probably more like 60/40 bias. Maybe 65/35.

Hipster Lawrence
04-23-2010, 09:27 PM
^most of that only applies to mk2s.

Mk1 owners deal with the 80/20 slpit front to rear brake bias. We also have solid rear rotors.

Mk1s do have great brakes.I'm running stock 85/86 rotors toyota pads and BG dot4, I've never felt fade at all. My biggest complaint is the brake bias and that can be fixxed by using an adjustable prop valve or getting rid of the prop valve altogether.

Luni
04-24-2010, 12:14 AM
You and your MK1s Larry.

LOLZ.

Well I said mine the way I said it cause the thread was originally started in lieu of someone looking at an MK2.

Nobody but you likes MK1s :p

Hipster Lawrence
04-24-2010, 02:45 AM
lol

The fact that less people like the mk1s makes me like them that much more.

renegadex
04-24-2010, 09:16 AM
MK1s are da bomb

not12listen
04-24-2010, 06:47 PM
i'll chime in as an avid AW11 Mr2 owner/driver. owned it for nearly 7 years now. when it ran (currently going thru a swap), it was my daily driver.

i've driven quite a number of SW20's over the years too... NA and Turbo.

plain and simple. have respect for the weight balance. if you treat it like a FR, AWD or FF layout vehicle, it will be very unhappy with you and will spin at some point. with the fact that you intend on putting a 4th gen 3sgte, i would recommend AGAINST the AW11 chassis. it is much smaller platform and weighs a LOT less than the SW20 chassis.

now... a lot of people are doing the MK1.5 conversion (3sgte into aw11). mostly its for bragging rights and to make up for other short-comings. only a handful of people can actually control such a lightweight, short wheel based vehicle with THAT much power...

and then you mix all that lack of weight, short wheel base and power with RAIN. even in sw20 turbo Mr2s its REALLY easy to spin out and loop the car. so, quite honestly, i would recommend against going with the latest fad, but instead be SOMEWHAT practical and realistic about your future purchase.

the SW20 was designed with the 3sgte power and weight in mind, the AW11 was not. but, also, with the additional power of the ST215 setup, get some REALLY WIDE and STICKY tires for the rear.


on a personal note, this is just odd suggesting an SW20 as i really do not like them at all. too big, too heavy and far too flashy (ie. attention grabbing). i also hate the fact that every f'n Eclipse, Civic, Integra, Evo, (insert whatever car name you want here) etc wants to race you the moment they see the Turbo badge or the fact that its an SW20 chassis...


so, back to comparing the traits of both cars.

AW11 - a LOT more difficult to drive than most other cars, period. because of the short wheel base, the (WONDERFUL) lack of power steering, low weight and weight balance... this car has very quick and accurate steering response, a TON of power is not needed because it is so low in the weight department (too much power absolutely kills the balance of this car). in mid-turn, if you lift on the throttle, you will feel the aw11 become unbalanced and the rear (at excessive speeds) will begin to lift and possibly rotate. in mid-turn, if you keep the accelerator right where it is or give it more gas, the rear will plant itself to the ground and you'll pull thru the corner faster and harder than you expect. the Aw11 NEVER came with ABS - this is a blessing! :) it allows very finite brake control during all driving conditions, especially rainy. this is NOT an ideal setup for beginners. Camber, Caster and Toe adjustments are available from the factory! this is a wonderful thing for suspension nazi's like myself. :) the aftermarket support of the AW11 is ok.

SW20 - a bit heavy, very comfortable, relatively easy to drive and very eye catching. this car will grab the attention of a lot of people. most SW20's came with power steering and ABS - making the SW20 far more friendly to novice drivers. due to the overall weight and balance of the vehicle, it is ideally suited for the power of the 3sgte. of course, increasing the power beyond stock, it is recommended to get some really grippy and wide tires - otherwise you'll might yourself spun and looking at on-coming traffic. the suspension setup of the SW20 is pretty easy to tune and is very forgiving (depending on springs rates, etc), although the same with all cars from the factory, it's factory alignment is setup for mild understeer. the SW20 has a huge aftermarket following for brakes, suspension, engine, tuning, etc.

as per driving impressions:
for daily driving (no fun stuff), i would prefer an SW20.
for fun driving (no boring daily driving), i would absolutely prefer the AW11.

being that the AW11 is more difficult to drive, it is also far more rewarding.

blowinrotors
04-25-2010, 04:16 AM
MK1s are da bomb

http://www.needapresent.com/lib/img/prod/xl/swiss-cheese-door-wedge-a.jpg

Shadowlife25
04-25-2010, 09:40 AM
Respect the Space-Wedge yo!

Hipster Lawrence
04-25-2010, 12:57 PM
@not12listen,

All that is true BUT, mk2s do handle better for some reason. Go to an autox and you'll see what I mean n/a sw20s own at the autox.

Also I really don't consider the mk1 to be a lightweight car, the gvw is around 2800 lbs.

4thgenceli
04-25-2010, 12:59 PM
http://www.needapresent.com/lib/img/prod/xl/swiss-cheese-door-wedge-a.jpg
Can I take your wedge for a drive?

Idiot Stick
04-25-2010, 01:59 PM
@not12listen,

All that is true BUT, mk2s do handle better for some reason. Go to an autox and you'll see what I mean n/a sw20s own at the autox.

Also I really don't consider the mk1 to be a lightweight car, the gvw is around 2800 lbs.

and from what I hear, MKIII's > MKII Na's at autox.

Crazy about that.

Hipster Lawrence
04-25-2010, 03:01 PM
the mk3 is in a class by itself. It's what the mk1 should have been, IMO the best mr2.

Miatas are still faster than the mk3 though. I can't decide what I'd rather have an mk3 or mx5.

not12listen
04-25-2010, 05:07 PM
@not12listen,

All that is true BUT, mk2s do handle better for some reason. Go to an autox and you'll see what I mean n/a sw20s own at the autox.

Also I really don't consider the mk1 to be a lightweight car, the gvw is around 2800 lbs.

i've heard the stories of Randy Chase, basically, slaughtering the field... then everyone jumped over to it afterwards. :)

honestly, i was never impressed by the handling of SW20s. then again, most of the ones that i drove had stock suspension setups. but, one major advantage the SW20 had from the factory (would could be easily done to the AW11) is the staggered tire setup.

btw - i went and weighed my 86 Mr2 with power windows, power locks, no a/c, a rear trunk full of crap... 2440lbs. :) that is the weight without me in it as well. i'm uncertain if my AW11 is a rarity...


the mk3 is in a class by itself. It's what the mk1 should have been, IMO the best mr2.

Miatas are still faster than the mk3 though. I can't decide what I'd rather have an mk3 or mx5.

honestly, the MKIII Spyder has the best suspension, weight and handling. the engine is a dismal failure in my eyes. it is the most torqueless and has the most lack luster acceleration... the only SLOWER accelerating car i've ever driven was an automatic NA MKI AW11... even my old stock 1982 Starlet with its 1.3L of pushrod fury, making an INSANE 56hp felt FASTER than the 5 speed Spyder.

i'm guessing you've not heard of ITA-Mr2 (on MR2OC). his name is Norm. the guy is around 60 or so years old. and he WHOOPS the crap outta Miata's on the track! :)

unfortunately, due to some medical problems, he cannot race like that anymore. :(

T-spoon
04-25-2010, 05:37 PM
Mmmm, MRS handling.... my wife and I are still sad we had to trade ours in.. BUT.. it just wasn't practical for what we needed and the Yaris is. Oh well, maybe we'll get another some day with a hard top shell.

About the engine in the MRS, well yeah, it's not spectacular but really, those are some ridiculous comparisons. However slow it may FEEL to you, in reality it is decently quick considering that motor (and would smoke the living daylights out of that 56 HP starlet). The shifter is sooooo sweet. The problem with the 1zz is that it's got to be wound up pretty much all the time, what it gives you depends a lot on how you drive it. It lives in higher RPM, like the 2zz but sadly without the lift. I always maintained that the MRS should have had the 2zz as a factory option, a GT package or something and it would have made the car really shine, but the 1zz does ok and doesn't tend to blow up when mis-shifted. :hehe:

Funky looks and all (they do grow on you though), I'd definitely own another MRS if the right situation arose.

not12listen
04-25-2010, 07:19 PM
i wasn't intending to offend or anything of the nature with my comparison... its just what my impression was. :)

high rpm is not something that i shy away from at all, that i can promise you. :) 6500rpm at corner entry and 7300rpm-7500rpm at corner exit in my AW11 with its 4a-ge. hmm... i wonder why it blew up??? :)

as nice as the power of the 2zz-ge might be, the VVTL-i (specifically the Lift portion) was a poor attempt by Yamaha to emulate VTEC. the 2zz-ge lift bolts in the 7th gen celica's have a recall on them from 2000 and 2001. they were also re-designed in 2002-2005, (the ECU was also re-tuned in 2002-2005 to drop you out of lift in between shifts) but STILL had the exact same problem... the lift bolts would borrow into the head and you'd have to have the head replaced.

honestly, it would've been smarter if toyota had brought over the 3rd gen 3sge (175hp with ACIS). they could've given it VVTi and upped the compression slightly and required high octane. that would've stomped all over the 2zz-ge with plenty of room to spare. it would also have given the buyer a proven and phenomenal engine with a squared setup, more torque (this is a sticking point for me)... and it would've been a legal swap for me. :)

and no, i do not consider the BEAMS 3sge as a good swap personally. i know, and trust, a few people that have driven many varieties of it. the lack of torque and incredibly peaky nature of its powerband, all point to a Honda style engine. and while i respect honda's engineering, i hate the powerband.

karl
04-25-2010, 10:11 PM
yeah wel i drove 2 in spotless condition with about 60,000 miles on them, and the brakes worked yes, but they had nil feedback feel, they felt so wooden it wasnt even funny.

it's unfortunate that you'd dismiss the braking ability of a car just because it probably had crap pads on it. a mk2 with a set of carbotech pads will easily drain the color from your passenger's face under braking.


Also to the member who tried to convince us that Macpherson struts are superior he should really study suspension design, he will then find that Macpherson struts change wheel camber as they move ,not a good idea for handling,

every suspension changes camber under compression/rebound. the only real advantage of double wishbone is that you can control the camber curve/roll centers better, allowing for more movement of the wheel before the camber curve becomes undesireable. a second-order benefit is that the motion ratio of the dampers can be reduced compared to macP, allowing finer damping control and lower damper piston speeds.

this is all nil though, since you can pretty much tune out the disadvantages of macP, and control camber by controlling roll. case in point- two of the most successful road racing cars, the 911 and the M3, both use macpherson strut suspension in front. it really isn't the disadvantage many people make it out to be.


Its probably more like 60/40 bias

+/- 1%, that's pretty much what i got when i calculated it out.

goretro77
04-26-2010, 01:12 AM
There is nothing wrong with struts as long as they are well designed, albeit usually done for cost/packaging vs double wishbone.

Double whishbone suspension usually gives you more camber gain allow for a better ride because the strut also takes cornering & braking loads. I personally feel the difference between my buddy's MRS and my Elise. Love 'em both, but I feel the Elise is more predictable, easier to drive at the limit over imperfect roads.

Colin Chapman himself used a strut design call the 'Chapman Strut' on the Lotus 12.

not12listen
04-26-2010, 02:27 AM
the chapman strut design was specifically designed to allow toe adjustment in the rear suspension. the AW11 is a perfect example of a macpherson front strut and chapman rear strut setup.

prior to Colin Chapman design, no vehicle (that i'm aware of) that had a rear macpherson strut type suspension had rear toe adjustment.

the primary problem with the strut design with a single lower control arm is that under hard cornering forces, the suspension gains positive camber (quite the opposite of what you want ideally). an uneven upper/lower control arm setup, by contrast, gains negative camber under hard cornering conditions.

its not that struts (macpherson or chapman) are necessarily BAD by design, its just a design limitation.

proof of this is can be seen with 2 similar cars: MKIII Mr2 Spyder & Lotus Elise/Exige.

whereas the Mr2 has macpherson/chapman struts all around, the Elise/Exige has dual control arms (uneven length). quite similar packages, mid-engine, lightweight, overall dimensions, etc. but, their handling characteristics are night and day apart.

quite frankly, i've always thought of the Elise/Exige as the MKIV Mr2. :)

not12listen
04-26-2010, 04:21 AM
btw - goretro77 - i love your sig line. :) Colin Chapman was a brilliant man and severely under-rated... his ideas and concepts still hold absolute to this day ("its not about power, its about power to weight."). :)

renegadex
04-26-2010, 05:14 AM
My MK1 handled better than my MK2...

vangls14
04-26-2010, 08:49 PM
How are you guys measuring "better handling"? Butt g meter?

Without a doubt, the MKI is more nimble at slow speeds (well, the MKI is limited to slow speeds, :)) due to less weight than the typical MK2 tubbie, but as another member mentioned, each platform is "better" at a different thing. The MK2 is a GT car which just so happens to be decent at the MKI's game.

Hipster Lawrence
04-27-2010, 12:17 AM
the chapman strut design was specifically designed to allow toe adjustment in the rear suspension. the AW11 is a perfect example of a macpherson front strut and chapman rear strut setup.

prior to Colin Chapman design, no vehicle (that i'm aware of) that had a rear macpherson strut type suspension had rear toe adjustment.


Not sure where you are getting your info from

The chapman strut is a macpherson strut that does not turn. There is really no such thing as a macpherson strut rear suspension. I don't know where you got the info about toe adjustment from. You can add toe adjustment to ANY suspension even a solid axle so I really don't see the point in inventing a new suspension system just to add a toe adjustment.

Besides that to say black and white that DW is better than MS is retarded. Because my ford ranger with double wishbone handles like shit so did my 79 caprice classic.

Some of the best handling cars in the world use macpherson strut suspension. It's lighter cheaper has less parts to break etc. There ARE advantages to a strut setup. I'll concede in a sporting car double wishbone is usually the better choice BUT I don't think struts are the handicap that folks are making them out to be.

Luni
04-27-2010, 12:44 AM
You dont have to replace a head if you lose a lift bolt. You have to pull the rocker arms out and use a punch to knock the broken bolt shaft out.

And if you change to the newly revised lift bolts that issue wont happen.

Luni
04-27-2010, 01:09 AM
Some of the best handling cars in the world use macpherson strut suspension. It's lighter cheaper has less parts to break etc. There ARE advantages to a strut setup. I'll concede in a sporting car double wishbone is usually the better choice BUT I don't think struts are the handicap that folks are making them out to be.


Define your version of best handling cars in the world.

In my book the best handling cars in the world are the exotics. Ferraris, Lambos, etc.

They ALL have double wishbone suspension. So do F1 cars.

Shadowlife25
04-27-2010, 01:17 AM
I think everyone has also forgotten about the cost issue.

Regardless of everything else, these are not terribly expensive cars from a manufacturer pov.

They went with the best most cost effective design they could implement at the time.

Nothing wrong with that.

But to blindly put it off as not being an less evolved design, is just plain wrong.

Think about it from a price point perspective and you will see why things get made initially and later revised. ;)

Just my .02

not12listen
04-27-2010, 02:09 AM
Not sure where you are getting your info from

The chapman strut is a macpherson strut that does not turn. There is really no such thing as a macpherson strut rear suspension. I don't know where you got the info about toe adjustment from. You can add toe adjustment to ANY suspension even a solid axle so I really don't see the point in inventing a new suspension system just to add a toe adjustment.

Besides that to say black and white that DW is better than MS is retarded. Because my ford ranger with double wishbone handles like shit so did my 79 caprice classic.

Some of the best handling cars in the world use macpherson strut suspension. It's lighter cheaper has less parts to break etc. There ARE advantages to a strut setup. I'll concede in a sporting car double wishbone is usually the better choice BUT I don't think struts are the handicap that folks are making them out to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapman_strut

the illustration shows a MacPherson strut, and goes into detail that in a Chapman setup is used to set rear wheel toe.

as per DW:
http://www.racingaspirations.com/?p=286

you can move the right most arm and watch as it moves upward, it moves into a negative camber angle.

unfortunately, i cannot find a MS calculator... :/ and i'm not saying that DW is always better than MS. i'm just saying that DW gives a more beneficial angle of articulation under cornering forces.

honestly, i've never seen a solid rear axle that offered toe adjustment. i am not doubting your word. but, i'm just saying that i've never seen one. :)

blowinrotors
04-27-2010, 03:40 AM
Some of the best handling cars in the world use macpherson strut suspension. It's lighter cheaper has less parts to break etc. There ARE advantages to a strut setup. I'll concede in a sporting car double wishbone is usually the better choice BUT I don't think struts are the handicap that folks are making them out to be.


My car has a macpherson set up. I dearly wished it had a double wishbone and rack/n/pinion. I can live with the solid rear axle though...

Hipster Lawrence
04-27-2010, 01:35 PM
Define your version of best handling cars in the world.

In my book the best handling cars in the world are the exotics. Ferraris, Lambos, etc.

They ALL have double wishbone suspension. So do F1 cars.

Pretty much every porshe ever made and bmws come to mind.

Legacyofdan
04-27-2010, 02:09 PM
It should be known to the main debaters in this thread...awesome thread...very good information and good bias's between debaters very good read thus far in my opinion :)

karl
04-27-2010, 04:15 PM
Pretty much every porshe ever made and bmws come to mind.

yeah, they tend to do pretty well against ferraris on racetracks. obviously, they require different approaches to setup, but either one is just as capable on a race track.


So do F1 cars.

F1 cars are totally different animals though. most of their "suspension" is the tire. the other issue with F1 is that aero reigns supreme. there's just no way to package a strut suspension on a high speed open wheel car. the only suspension that WILL work on an F1 car is double a-arm, since that's what the aero dictates.

vip09
04-27-2010, 04:43 PM
The problem with the 1zz is that it's got to be wound up pretty much all the time, what it gives you depends a lot on how you drive it. It lives in higher RPM, like the 2zz but sadly without the lift.

Are you serious? The only part of the powerband that feels decent in the 1zz is around 3-4k. Anything above that and it's choking horribly. That engine hates to rev! I drive a 2zz every day and there is no comparison at all above 4k rpms, the 1zz just falls on its face if you try to rev it any higher.

T-spoon
04-27-2010, 05:40 PM
Are you serious? The only part of the powerband that feels decent in the 1zz is around 3-4k. Anything above that and it's choking horribly. That engine hates to rev! I drive a 2zz every day and there is no comparison at all above 4k rpms, the 1zz just falls on its face if you try to rev it any higher.

I think you're being blinded by lift and personal bias. Our MRS was never choking horribly as soon as it hit 4k. I'm pretty familiar with how the 1zz behaves in that car. Of course the 2zz is a high RPM car with VVTi, so the two will be like night and day at higher RPMs. My point is that the 1zz is not like the 5sfe that has good lower range torque, the 1zz powerband is shifted a bit higher. No, the 1zz does not "hate to rev", it just doesn't have lift so like most engines without variable valve timing (or like, forced induction, or race heads that aren't too fun in stop and go traffic), it's going to hit a point where power stops increasing with RPM.

BTW, 4k is not LOW rpm... I bet 90% of drivers on the road would pass out if their needle crept that high and consider it whipping the car to shift that high on a regular basis.

vip09
04-27-2010, 07:02 PM
I think you're being blinded by lift and personal bias. Our MRS was never choking horribly as soon as it hit 4k. I'm pretty familiar with how the 1zz behaves in that car. Of course the 2zz is a high RPM car with VVTi, so the two will be like night and day at higher RPMs. My point is that the 1zz is not like the 5sfe that has good lower range torque, the 1zz powerband is shifted a bit higher. No, the 1zz does not "hate to rev", it just doesn't have lift so like most engines without variable valve timing (or like, forced induction, or race heads that aren't too fun in stop and go traffic), it's going to hit a point where power stops increasing with RPM.

BTW, 4k is not LOW rpm... I bet 90% of drivers on the road would pass out if their needle crept that high and consider it whipping the car to shift that high on a regular basis.


I'm not talking about lift. And the 1zz does have variable valve timing. In the 4-6k rpm range the 1zz completely falls on its face compared to the 2zz out of lift. I girlfriend has an MRS and I drive it all the time and I autocross it. I rev the piss out of both. After 4k rpms you can feel the power falling off, by 5k to 6k it feels completely flat like it's hardly accelerating any longer. It feels best around 2k to 3.5k.

T-spoon
04-27-2010, 07:43 PM
I'm not talking about lift. And the 1zz does have variable valve timing. In the 4-6k rpm range the 1zz completely falls on its face compared to the 2zz out of lift. I girlfriend has an MRS and I drive it all the time and I autocross it. I rev the piss out of both. After 4k rpms you can feel the power falling off, by 5k to 6k it feels completely flat like it's hardly accelerating any longer. It feels best around 2k to 3.5k.

Meh, kind of a worthless argument in these terms anyway. If we really want to look at what the 1zz produces, we should be looking at dyno graphs, not our butt-dynos :hehe:

DudeMan
04-28-2010, 12:51 AM
It should be known to the main debaters in this thread...awesome thread...very good information and good bias's between debaters very good read thus far in my opinion :)

I know hey, I even thought it was gonna be locked at one point.

Let the master-debating continue.:biggthumpup:

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

not12listen
04-29-2010, 02:13 AM
well... i'm a different school of thought from vip09 and T-spoon. i personally think that both the 1zz and 2zz are terrible engines, for various reasons. :)

BOTH lack low end torque.

the 1zz suffers from an OVERALL lack of OOMPH at higher rpms, especially uphill.

the 2zz has that nasty lift bolt issue (which is STILL present in the 2002-2005 celica gts), and its true power only kicks in once you hit lift. i am not saying that the 2zz lacks power below the lift point, but that it isn't impressive.

a while back, my wife had a supercharged Mr2. it was overboosted to from 7psi to 12psi. without effort, she would walk away from 7th gen celica gts' on the road, despite her Mr2 being heavier and her gear ratios being longer.

as i stated previously, it would have been far better if toyota had brought out the 3rd gen 3sge instead of the 1zz or 2zz. would it be heavier? absolutely. but, it would be more reliable (ACIS vs VVTL-i), run the same octane and yet produce more power, have a squared bore/stroke setup (unlike the long stroke 1zz/2zz) and have far greater potential for power and tuning potential.

and for the power junkies, the 3s is an iron block, which can handle a tremendous amount more boost than aluminum. oh yeah, that would also have lent itself to countless 3sgte (half-trac) conversions that would have been bolt in!

so, with no disrespect to either of the other fellows, but bang for you buck, neither the 1zz or 2zz are worth much time at all, unless you like getting groceries. :)

----

one other small note. with the 3sge VS 1zz/2zz, the 3sge has a far less peaky powerband (the BEAMS 3sge is not an engine that is part of my statement). and a more broad and useful powerband lends itself to being faster, in every situation.

T-spoon
04-29-2010, 02:29 AM
Unfortunately you're missing the direction Toyota has been headed. They didn't want to make one of their older engines work with US emissions, they wanted something new, they wanted to boast the HP/Liter etc. and keep advancing technologically. Yeah, I'd have loved a later model 3sge or gte in any of the 2000-2005/7ish MRS/Celica, but Toyota had no interest in that. It's really completely beside the point to talk about what we think they should have done, all we can really discuss is what they DID.


And to be frank, you are overstating the issues with the ZZ line. I don't personally have any great love for them, but you have to be reasonable. Lotus had no qualms with putting the 2ZZ in their car, and it's an amazing machine which has few handling equals and is quick enough that anyone calling them slow probably drives a funny car for a living.... and they cost.. half what a base model Porche does, due in part to the economic choice of motor.

goretro77
04-29-2010, 02:45 AM
One of the two main reasons why Lotus chose the 2ZZGE engine for the Elise was that the 2ZZGE engine produced the good power for its weight and displacement.

This decision came around late 2004 to use the 2ZZGE.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y75/goretro77/ratio.jpg

Also - Lotus was desperate to get the Elise into the U.S. market and Toyota already has this engine emissions approved for U.S.domestic market. Lotus approached Toyota three separate times, each time they were turned away before Toyota agreed to allow the 2ZZGE and its matched 6 speed manual trans to be used in the Elise/Exige.
The 2ZZGE appeared for the first time in a 2005 Lotus Elise when it came to the US. Its an improvement for the Elise, which has the Rover engine back in the UK. Personally I would not buy an Elise with a Rover power plant.

Now I am not saying there are not better engines out there, there are. Overall, the 2ZZGE is a good match for the Elise's lightweight concept.
The 2ZZGE benefits from having to pull only 1950 pounds with the Elise.

not12listen
04-29-2010, 03:41 AM
on the contrary, its not that i've missed the point of the newer engines. its just that i do not like the newer engines. :)

i will happily and fully admit that i feel that toyota's best street vehicles ever were produced back in the 80's. quite honestly, there are only a few examples of vehicles that toyota made from 1990 and after that will ever get a 2nd glance from me. and each is for a particular reason.

ST185 AllTrac Celica - it got an upgraded 3sgte and kept the basic principles of the ST165.
1999 Corolla (non USDM model) - it was used in WRC.
Mr2 Spyder - ultra light weight and amazing handling and steering!

and that about completes the list. :) although, if we talk about the 80's, the list would be much longer. :)

roadwolf
04-29-2010, 09:21 AM
"honestly, i've never seen a solid rear axle that offered toe adjustment. i am not doubting your word. but, i'm just saying that i've never seen one."

I'm not surprised you haven't, I think the flaw in his statement is using the word solid, which means in one piece, therefore non adjustable. On a different note I am quite amused that this thread has gone from MR2 death trap, through suspension design and now to zz engines, off topic or what?.

Hipster Lawrence
04-29-2010, 03:35 PM
honestly, i've never seen a solid rear axle that offered toe adjustment. i am not doubting your word. but, i'm just saying that i've never seen one. :)
http://www.spc-tv.com/install/pass-car/41-ezshim.html

That's for a fwd with a solid axle like the newer corollas.

I've never seen anyone adjust toe or camber on a rwd live axle but I'm sure it can be done with a little engineering.

Luni
04-29-2010, 05:02 PM
Yeah, its gone pretty off topic.

If you guys want to discuss solid rear axles, and FWDs and 2zz engines and crap, go start a new thread in general.

This thread was originally created talking about a MK2 MR2.

skidMarkNZ
05-04-2010, 02:06 AM
"honestly, i've never seen a solid rear axle that offered toe adjustment. i am not doubting your word. but, i'm just saying that i've never seen one."

I'm not surprised you haven't, I think the flaw in his statement is using the word solid, which means in one piece, therefore non adjustable. On a different note I am quite amused that this thread has gone from MR2 death trap, through suspension design and now to zz engines, off topic or what?.

well suspension design is being talked about, but from what ive read everybody is relying on 2nd hand information, kinda like chinese whispers, gets a bit lost inbetween.