Fast-road/Track car advice - mk3 2ZZ or mk2 turbo?

[C70r]

I thought I'd register here to garner a bit of experienced opinion about an upcoming car choice. I'd really love to hear from anyone who has taken either (or both) on track, to help me decide.

I've been bitten by the trackday bug in a hot hatch, and intend to up the ante a bit in 2017 (while hillclimbing/sprinting the hatch with a mate). I want to buy something that will be brilliant fun on track, and usable for occasional journeys on the road (e.g. trips to the shops) and driving to track. I don't drive to work (live in London), and the OH has a practical/sensible car for real journeys. I've had plenty of quick/powerful/RWD cars before, so neither option is particularly daunting.

Both MR2s popped up as potential candidates, along with a supercharged MX5 and an S2000. My budget is about £5k (give or take), and I'd be aiming at both cars being part-stripped/bucketed etc..

While the turbo would probably have the edge in a straight line (assuming I was aiming at ~300bhp), would the extra couple of hundred kilos blunt it in the corners compared with the mk3?
Would the extra performance of the turbo be of significant benefit on the average UK track?
Is the turbo, particularly when mildly tuned, more fragile than a largely standard 2zz?
Would either deal better with super-occasional use (like once a fortnight) and being parked outside?

Which would you choose, and why?

[Ben]

Welcome to IMOC. This thread will probably give you some good ideas

http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=190500

[Ben]

As an additional thought, I compete in a sprint series alongside a 2ZZ-powered Mk3 and a *fairly* stock powered Mk2 turbo (around 260bhp I think). the Mk2 has beaten the Mk3 in 3 out of the four rounds so far. It's fair to say they are both extremely competent drivers.

Personally I'd go for the 2ZZ Mk3 anyway, as the engine really comes alive on track

[pistol pete]

I'd go for the 2ZZ caged mk3.. great little cars..

the turbo is very capable.. but i loved my mk3 on track and that was only a 1zz..

I started track work in a mk3 and have evolved into different cars..
feel free to have a read through
http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=176621

[C70r]

Thanks folks.

Ben - I'd read that thread already, actually. Although I'm still struggling a bit to pick between the two.

[Ben]

It's very much down to personal preference - there's no right answer unfortunately

Best bet would be to see if you can find a local owner who wouldn't mind offering a passenger ride. I'd offer myself, but I sold my last MR2 a couple of years ago and both of mine have been Mk1s

[Race Idiot]

Are you the same guy who made the thread on pistonheads?

As someone whos fairly cackhanded and slow I've had lots of fun with it but, it hasn't been cheap.

Although I've tried to keep mine fairly road friendly (fixed bucket seat and removable steering wheel aside) i'd say the MK3 with a 2zz would be the better bet on track.

Less weight, less consumable use less temp management. On a hot day at bedford my turbo was seeing oil temps of 130c after about 5 laps, this is on a low boost setting and lifting off the throttle down the big straight a bit. Needs an aftermarket oil-cooler to keep temps in check.

However I'm not sure if I'd want to do any long distance in a stripped out mk3. If I could be bothered to fix the aircon and added a bung to the exhaust I recon I could do some big distances in it.

[C70r]

Are you the same guy who made the thread on pistonheads?

As someone whos fairly cackhanded and slow I've had lots of fun with it but, it hasn't been cheap.

Although I've tried to keep mine fairly road friendly (fixed bucket seat and removable steering wheel aside) i'd say the MK3 with a 2zz would be the better bet on track.

Less weight, less consumable use less temp management. On a hot day at bedford my turbo was seeing oil temps of 130c after about 5 laps, this is on a low boost setting and lifting off the throttle down the big straight a bit. Needs an aftermarket oil-cooler to keep temps in check.

However I'm not sure if I'd want to do any long distance in a stripped out mk3. If I could be bothered to fix the aircon and added a bung to the exhaust I recon I could do some big distances in it.

I am indeed. I thought the same username would have been the big giveaway tbh.

A lot of what you say about your experiences on track with the turbo are things that have been bothering me. It just feels like a lighter car with a more 'stock' engine configuration would be a much better drive and ownership proposition, even if it didn't shove me in the back on every straight.

[Race Idiot]

I say consumables but my car hasnt been that bad, i've only used one set of tyres (started with Toyo T1R's and then upgraded to Advan AD08Rs) and i've been using the same set of pads for a while.

I've just bits and bobs go wrong like turbos failing and gaskets blowing. But again my car was a bit ropey when I bought it.

I feel like a MK3 would be a 'fresher' car mainly due to being newer. Unless the MK2 has had a major suspension refresh.

[gavsdavs]

The rev2 almost certainly has the edge in straight line speed, comfort if you're taller and a bit more practicality if it's also a shopping car.

The rev3s are a good deal lighter and have an amazing turn-in on a track - they're little roller skates by comparison. They are probably a bit lighter on consumables, a bit easier to source parts for as they're newer, etc.

Obviously whichever way you go it has to be a red one as they're known to be the fastest

[C70r]

The rev2 almost certainly has the edge in straight line speed, comfort if you're taller and a bit more practicality if it's also a shopping car.

The rev3s are a good deal lighter and have an amazing turn-in on a track - they're little roller skates by comparison. They are probably a bit lighter on consumables, a bit easier to source parts for as they're newer, etc.

Obviously whichever way you go it has to be a red one as they're known to be the fastest

I'm confused - do you mean "mk2" and "mk3", rather than "rev"? I thought that was only applicable to the mk2?

[C70r]

I say consumables but my car hasnt been that bad, i've only used one set of tyres (started with Toyo T1R's and then upgraded to Advan AD08Rs) and i've been using the same set of pads for a while.

I've just bits and bobs go wrong like turbos failing and gaskets blowing. But again my car was a bit ropey when I bought it.

I feel like a MK3 would be a 'fresher' car mainly due to being newer. Unless the MK2 has had a major suspension refresh.

You see, those "bits and bobs" are what would worry me - and what I would assume wouldn't be present to fail on a largely standard, and more modern 2ZZ lump.

[SonicSW20]

I'd go 2ZZ Mk3, or if you really want to go out there with the conversion, look into Honda K20 conversions. The K20 swap with some choice mods will see you to 230bhp+. It's not a heavy engine either.

IMO, a Mk2 Turbo will only show it's performance benefit (assuming you're running the standard 280~300bhp botl on mods with stock turbo, ECU etc) on tracks with long enough straights to exploit the power advantage - Bentley Straight at Snetterton for example. With a good setup and the right tyres the Mk3's lighter frame and nimbler handling should see it ahead of the Mk2 on twistier tracks.

This is not to say the Mk2 would be bad in any way, it will still be great fun and very quick with the right setup. I just think the Mk3 would be a bit quicker in the corners where the fun is.

As Pete says as well, being lighter means your tyres and brakes will last longer, and you have less temperature management to worry about.

[HughesR1]

I agree with what Gazza has said there ^

I was in a similar position to you last month (Thats my thread link posted earlier by Ben). I ended up with a Rev5 NA with a few upgrades for no real reason other than I just quite like Mk2's (And I've had 4 of them now so know my way around them).

I had the opportunity to buy a 2ZZ Mk3 and I passed it up, still kicking myself now to be fair . Having driven both, I would hands down pick a 2zz mk3 over an MR2 Turbo for track work for the reasons already mentioned above like heat management and reliability etc. I've also never found turbo cars that entertaining on track, the low down torque feels epic on road but on track when the revs are always high up they never feel that much faster. I did a trackday at Bedford a few years ago where I was able to drive our Elise (180bhp then) back to back with my friends VX220 Turbo (260bhp then) and whilst on the road the VX was noticeably quicker, it was noticeably slower on track because there wasn't much chance for it to utilise its low down torque/power, I'd think the MR2 Turbo vs Mk3 2ZZ would be a similar story? (Someone might be able to prove/disprove this?)

The main reason I chose my mk2 NA is that the initial purchase price is so cheap it left more cash left over to do trackdays, upgrade brakes, suspension, tyres, decent service. I'd still buy a 2zz Mk3 now though if one came up for sale for a fair price, then just use my Mk2 for daily duties

[MilesH]

MK3 2ZZ's are great on track, but speaking from personal and long term experience of an n/a mk2 and a 2zz (and 1zz) mk3, the mk2 n/a is hands down more reliable on track and will not give you half the issues a 2zz will.

All in my opinion of course

[gavsdavs]

I'm confused - do you mean "mk2" and "mk3", rather than "rev"? I thought that was only applicable to the mk2?

Sorry, yes, that's what I mean. mk2 vs mk3.

[CalMac]

I almost swapped my Rev 3 turbo for a 2zz mk3 a while back

http://imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php? ... e4834d74d7

A little more food for thought!

[C70r]

Thank you, all. This is some really helpful input - and veering towards my preconception.

MK3 2ZZ's are great on track, but speaking from personal and long term experience of an n/a mk2 and a 2zz (and 1zz) mk3, the mk2 n/a is hands down more reliable on track and will not give you half the issues a 2zz will.

All in my opinion of course

What sort of issues could I expect with a mildly tuned 2ZZ?

[MilesH]

My experience shows they are more prone to niggles than a 3SGE n/a in a mk2. The 3SGE I use for racing and test days and I just top up the oil and run it. Never an issue unless you over rev or once every couple of seasons I have had a headgasket go. Whereas the 2zz I have only used on the odd trackday and I've had driveshaft issues, plug failing, lift issues and a couple of other small things over the years.

It may just be my experience but the 2zz just seems slightly higher maintenance.

But no one can deny in terms of lap times the 2zz is slightly quicker.

[Jerry]

For your use (track&street), reliability, performance and possible future development of car taken to account:

1. MK3 with Honda K20 engine
2. MK2 with 3SGTE
3. Original MK3