mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

[QUOC2008]

mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Which is faster
Which is better handling
Which has the highest potential[/list]

[shinny]

mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Which is faster
Which is better handling
Which has the highest potential[/list]

Faster - MR2 turbo, out of the box
Handling - That's a matter of opinion, but probably the S2k
Potential - Depends on budget.

S2000 engines are forged from stock, so if you can blow, fuel and manage them you can get very good numbers. That said, in the UK, almost everyone goes SC rather than turbo because noone appears able to map turbo'd S2000s here. That means, even if you go for a 450bhp SC kit, it will still feel linear like an NA, rather than the thump of midrange torque a turbo gives. So when you talk about potential, the S2000 hits a big price cliff (SC kit) quite quickly (within 25bhp), while a rev3 turbo will give you 50bhp just with bolt ons and boost controller.

[juliankv73]

mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Which is faster
Which is better handling
Which has the highest potential[/list]

Quick google search reveals: -

Parkers Review
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/h ... /roadster/

S2000 vs MR2 (Imoc)
http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic. ... a40952cb6e

US MR2oc.com
http://www.mr2.com/forums/threads/56946 ... 000/page11


Pistonheads discussion
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1069540

Car comparisons
http://www.automotiveforums.com/t322574 ... turbo.html

Plenty of views above, and in the last link a post by JekylandHyde


He's well known in the US forums for racing "Hyde", he wrote

12-02-2004, 03:55 PM

The turbo MR2 is 2800-3050 lbs stock.
I've seen 13.4 in an turbo MR2 with only intake/exhaust/donwpipe ... not even a boost controller.

$ per $, the MR2 will kill the S2000. There are plenty of "deals" on MR2s out there. Style there is no competition. The S2000 looks like a miata-made-into-a-bathtub IMO. The MR2 looks like the sexy mid-engine sports car that it is.

As for the MR2 cockpit feeling small ... not sure where that comes from. I am 6' 0" and a good friend of mine is just over 6' 2" and he owns two MKIIs as well. We have zero problems fitting.

MR2 blind spots? ... I've been driving them since 1989 and I have yet to find anything resemlbing a significant blind spot ... maybe I can't see it

The only reason I would pick the S2000 is if I was a dedicated autocrosser and could use that high RPM band.

The truth is: to each, their own
I would hate it if everyone was driving MR2s.
I am grateful for the many people that choose something else :)etc

Enjoy the read

[pistol pete]

A friend had a turbo S2000 and it's very quick.. He mapped it himself

But he works for Honda and has a very tasty nsx
And fully forged civic turbo

[MR2-FAN]

MR2 GEN3 Turbo is faster, but better handling has the S2000.
I enjoy driving both, it`s hard to compare them.

[mrturbotom]

Doesn't have to be rev3+ to be quick. People seem to down trodden the earlier revs. Where as the extra torque they have helps them pull ahead

[shinny]

A friend had a turbo S2000 and it's very quick.. He mapped it himself

Does he have a project thread anywhere? Would love to read up about that

Doesn't have to be rev3+ to be quick. People seem to down trodden the earlier revs. Where as the extra torque they have helps them pull ahead

The question was asked about rev3+. It's easier to get above 280bhp on a rev3+, although that's only another 20bhp before you get to the 300bhp on the rev3 and it becomes equally tricky to go much above that on either engine.

[QUOC2008]

My friend had a s2000 and drove it... i really hated it as theres no power until 6rpm and even then vtec hits its was rubbish hardly made any difference... handling was ok but if u put same size wheels on the mr2, it feels like it handles better but s2000 is alot more easy to handle unlike the mr2.

Driving the mr2 feels good no blind spots true... but when it goes it like to spin around 360 lots thats why this my 3rd n 4th mr2 i have

I love the turbos

Now my rev 4 turbo is around 480bhp high boost and my friend n me brought a evo x... n he sold the laggy vtec s2000 lol

[QUOC2008]

Also there s alot of difference in better cornering and handling compare to easy to control which alot of people miss understand between the 2.

Handling vs easy to control

[fingers99]

Doesn't have to be rev3+ to be quick. People seem to down trodden the earlier revs. Where as the extra torque they have helps them pull ahead

Rev 1 or 2 without the power steering, aircon and etc. will be faster than rev3 onwards.

See and here for the Honda in 2.2 trim (which wins 0-60).

In 2.0 litre V Tec trim, there's only a tenth in it.

(Of course, it's only a rough guide.)

You'd imagine that the Honda will be less edgy at the limit.

[Gullzter]

Doesn't have to be rev3+ to be quick. People seem to down trodden the earlier revs. Where as the extra torque they have helps them pull ahead

Rev 1 or 2 without the power steering, aircon and etc. will be faster than rev3 onwards.

See and here for the Honda in 2.2 trim (which wins 0-60).

In 2.0 litre V Tec trim, there's only a tenth in it.

(Of course, it's only a rough guide.)

You'd imagine that the Honda will be less edgy at the limit.

Really, only a 1/10th? Where did you read that?
From what i see the 2l vtec s2k is a 0-100k in low 6 whereas the rev3 turbo is low-mid 5s which works out at least half a second, maybe even a full second. Ive pulled along a stock s2k and left it behind when my rev3 was stock.

On topic, i quite like the hard top s2k for looks, all i can say is the mr2 is faster, id imagine the potential would also be in the mr2 aswell, i noticed a big difference from stock rev3 turbo to SS 3" exhaust, decat and induction.
no idea about handling

[fingers99]

Really, only a 1/10th? Where did you read that?
From what i see the 2l vtec s2k is a 0-100k in low 6 whereas the rev3 turbo is low-mid 5s which works out at least half a second, maybe even a full second. Ive pulled along a stock s2k and left it behind when my rev3 was stock.

On topic, i quite like the hard top s2k for looks, all i can say is the mr2 is faster, id imagine the potential would also be in the mr2 aswell, i noticed a big difference from stock rev3 turbo to SS 3" exhaust, decat and induction.
no idea about handling

I link the source -- impossible to tell/know how accurate they are.

I can't find any "real" 0-60 figures for Mk2 Turbo lower than 6s, and we know how difficult the manufacturer's figures are to beat.

Maybe the S2000 is low geared? Makes for better "unreal world" 0-60 times, may be necessary due to the very high revving n/a lump?

[Herts66]

I had an s2k and changed to an mr2 na and then changed to a turbo clip.
I would say the mr2 is quicker.
The s2k was a dream car that dissappointed it was going rusty and felt claustrophobic.
I much prefer the mr2.

For me everyone raves about Honda reliability - not me I think it's a myth. S2ks suffer plenty from chocolate timing chain tensioner, seized suspension rattly clutches and engines that get buzzed off the limiter throw rods. Couple that with seized calipers a plenty and the number that fly off the roads into the scenery.... Also their was an engine fault leading to big/little end failure on the final run out models. Some owners feel the need to fit racelogic traction control. I think they are fragile...

I still think they are pretty cars but for me if you consider they are all younger than the mr2 they are no where near as good.

[Ryan S]

Rev 1 or 2 without the power steering, aircon and etc. will be faster than rev3 onwards.

there is no way a rev1 or 2 will keep up with a rev3. my rev3 is like a totally different animal than my rev2. the difference really is night and day. exact same mods other than the blitz ECU. rev2 with all breathing mods, 260-280bhp. rev3 with same mods 290-300bhp?? i find it a huge difference.

as for s2000, stock for stock i'm not sure, but rev3 with bolt ons it wouldn't stand a chance.

[fingers99]

Rev 1 or 2 without the power steering, aircon and etc. will be faster than rev3 onwards.

there is no way a rev1 or 2 will keep up with a rev3. my rev3 is like a totally different animal than my rev2. the difference really is night and day. exact same mods other than the blitz ECU. rev2 with all breathing mods, 260-280bhp. rev3 with same mods 290-300bhp?? i find it a huge difference.

Standard cars? The pimp mobile with all the kit makes 25 more bhp. It weighs an extra 350 kilos and has an inferior power to weight ratio.

Rev 3 is a better engine, has a better engine map, bigger TB, bigger turbo and so on. But many of the faster MR2s in the States run (very modified) Rev 1 or 2 engines. (Simply because the Rev 3 engines are much rarer there).

[Marf]

Stock for Stock on a track, I'd put my money on the S2000.

Why? Double wishbone suspension, better throttle response, no lag, better weight distribution.

Stock for Stock on a drag strip, I'd put my money on a Rev 3 Turbo.

Why? Better launch traction.

At the end of the day they're both RWD mid engined sports cars with 240ish horspower out of the box.

There's not gonna be much in it on the road, but I'd happily bet the S2K is easier to drive on the limit simply because it doesn't have what amounts to an 80's turbo lump providing the power

[QUOC2008]

Yeah the rev 3 does 0-60 in 5.4sec or lower stock but the handling is weak due to the skinny size tyre width 225 at the rears is not gonna do it. If the mr2 and s2000 had the same tyres and wheel size i think the mr2 will beat it badly. S2000 is easy to handle but mr2 has better cornering traction due to the engine being at the back... much more harder to handle tho.

Drag race mr2 wins
Cornering s2000 wins due to tyres
Potential mr2 wins by miles
My friend spent xxxx lots of money on the s2000 £6000+ and only got 24bhp
Mr2 turbo rev 3 yep 1-2k easy to get 50-60bhp+

s2000 lbs torque is so bad its a joke @ the wheels the s2000 does 150lbs and 170bhp.
Mr2 @ the wheels 215lbs and 210bhp. Transmissin loss is alot less on mr2 so any mods will really count on the mr2

Trd version would it be considered stock standard? If so the s2000 and the mr2 are not even in the same level

[Marf]

Cornering s2000 wins due to tyres

Not because of near 50/50 weight distribution and double wishbone suspension? Just tyres?

[QUOC2008]

Well f1 cars have a 30/70 weight distribution so 50/50 is not a good setup for cornering unless you want a more easy to use car and wishbones? Maybe but i dont think either are better then wider tyres with race tyres on do you.

Im no expert but in racing tyres would be the number mod then brakes rights guy. Thats what people tell me anyway

[Marf]

I just... well... nope, can't do it