Firstly we have converted more Mr2's to V6 than anyone else on the planet, and brought the conversion to the UK, getting on for well over 100 in various forms, 1mz,3vz and 2gr into all three marques, but by far the most common being the 3vz into Mk2 conversion, so i'd like to think i know this subject pretty well.
Owners choose this route for several reasons, reliability being the foremost reason, now i know people in this thread and other threads have said
"my 3sgte's been perfect for years.....yada yada" but one persons experience does not give a fair cross section of the Mr2 community, for that you need to look at all of the Mr2 forums mechanical sections. There and only there will you get a fair representation of the problems and issues that people driving Mr2's everyday are having, one mans experiences are just that, his own experience, but does not reflect the mass experience. That is just the same as a guy with a blown turbo engine saying ALL 3s-gte's will fail, which of course isn't true, you need to look at what is happening across the whole community of owners.Sadly all mechanical sections of the Mr2 communities forums are and always have been littered with turbo engine issues, at any given time they can outweigh NA engine issues by 10 or 20 to 1
(bear in mind there are also WAY more NA engined Mr2's out there than turbo as well).We too have seen hundreds of Mr2's over the last 14 years with the same turbo issues, there are things that just keep cropping up, nearly all boost related in some way.
To say the turbo is by nature a reliable engine is just not the case, but there are and always will be exceptions, i bet the majority of them see years of fault free driving, but more issues are reported on forums than any other way more common engine type.Now don't get me wrong, i love the 3s-gte, it's a fantastic engine with a proven pedigree and unbelievable tunability, the aftermarket support for that engine has always been second to none as well and it will produce way more bang for your buck in the BHP stakes than the 3vz or 1mz V6 engines.
I chose the 3sgte for my Mk1 back in 2001 because it really did offer the best power to weight/cost i could find and what an amazing car that was, the power totally transformed it. Unfortunately i suffered the same issues many owners have had, failed turbo, sticking AFM, blown knock sensor, overboosting, lambda issues, and they eat ignition components on a regular basis, plugs/leads/caps and rotors all needing changing far more often than with other engines.Now i said earlier that one mans experience is to be largely ignored, same goes with the above, that was just MY experience with one engine in one car, i still think they are a fantastic unit.
The 3s-gte for me offers way more scope for tuning than the 3vz or 1mz could ever promise, but with that tuning comes more unreliability and longevity is drawn into question
(as with tuning any engine beyond manufacturers spec). You really do have to live with the turbo engine on a daily basis and hope it is going to behave itself long term, again my opinion but backed up by the cross section of owners on all forums and indeed the customers myself and other Mr2 garages see regularly.Now the V6 for me personally ticks more boxes, it has nothing to do with my business, i built Europes first V6 powered Mr2
(Mk1) coming from a turbo engine and it made my Mr2 everything it should have been, a real sportscar with a real engine that did the same thing day in day out with no nonsense. Instantly after feeling the immediate low down torque and amazing throttle response i knew it was for me, the pick up and go in just about any gear transformed the driving experience, no more having to stirr porridge trying to drop back into the powerband or waiting for the boost to build, just instant torque on tap.... i for one totally love that about the V6.Now over the quarter mile
(stock rev1 turbo v stock 3vz) the 3vz will hold its own until around the start of 3rd gear, there is pretty much nothing in it at all 0-60, after that the turbo will start to pull in front as the boost kicks in hard. At the end of the quarter the turbo will be two or three cars lengths ahead, but again a lot of this comes down to the day and driver (one of the first V6 v turbo runs saw the V6 run quicker, horses for courses). The turbo for power,V6 for noise comment is just not a fair representation.Now we all know simply turning up the boost on the turbo instantly gives it a real performance edge, but let's just remember we are comparing a turbocharged engine to a normally aspirated one, that fact is forgotten by people sometimes, the fact a normally aspirated can stand shoulder to shoulder with a turbo engine speaks volumes and indeed inspires many comparison threads such as this.
The V6 in the past has been described as a middle ground between the 2.0ltr NA and turbo engine, far from true in my opinion, it is much closer to the performance of the turbo than the 2.0ltr NA.
We see just as many owners having their cars converted from turbo to V6 as we do 2.0 NA to V6, mainly due to them being sick of issues, they just want something reliable and with roughly comparable performance.It really does come down to what you want from your Mr2, if you want to build a straight line weapon and brag about BHP in the pub then go turbo, it really is the best for outright performance.
Having said that we have seen both cars doing track work and the V6 comes into its own being able to lap quicker than the turbo (the nature of NA's on track cornering presumably), that's not my area of expertise, only going off proved owners testimonies.Fuel economy, a few have said the V6 drinks fuel? Well around town you can expect anywhere from 15 to 25mpg depending on how it's driven, but on motorway runs some owners have reached up to 40mpg, especially if they have our extended 5th gear mod that comes with every swap these days.
I regularly got 25-30mpg from my V6 Mk2 with daily commuting, but granted when i mashed the pedal everywhere it dropped considerably. I don't think anyone seriously owns a sportscar for fuel economy reasons though, these are meant to be fun cars. Four wheel drive V6's also see considerably less MPG. In my experience the turbo uses just as much fuel.Now the 2gr-fe takes things to a whole new level, we are blessed with having converted and driven more of them than anyone else worldwide, all i can say is i've driven some fairly heavily modified rev3 turbos in my time as an Mr2 garage owner and the stock 2gr is easily on par with a turbo running 400bhp.
The main difference of course is that the 2gr doesn't have to blow its lungs out to achieve this performance, 200lbs.ft of torque happening just off idle and full 285lbs.ft from 2500rpm and pulls hard right to the redline. Indeed we are getting 50bhp more from our Mr2 2gr conversions than Lotus are seeing in the Evora! They have to be driven to be believed.To sum up, a lot of what you read on forums about V6 v turbo is regurgitated or word of mouth from elsewhere, perhaps the best idea is to listen to the broad spectrum of V6 owners some of whom have transgressed from turbo to V6, get an unbiased veiwpoint and make your decision from there.
I for one would never talk anyone into going V6, that conversion has always and will always sell itself, it offers too much to the Mr2 owner that the turbo cannot deliver. The turbo too offers a lot that the V6 cannot deliver, so the debate rages on and always will.For me personally, hand me the keys to a V6, my outright favourite being a 1mz-fe powered Mk1, simply a perfect balance of power/torque and weight in a brilliantly handling package.
Sorry for the essay.
