mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Discussion and technical advice the SW20 MR2. 3S-GTE, 3S-GE, 3S-FE etc
Anything and everything to do with maintenance, modifications and electrical is in here for the Mk2.

Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members

Post Reply
Marf
Posts: 6728
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:56 pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by Marf »

QUOC2008 wrote:
The 3sgte is a sick engine for its time they even put it into falken supra to race in the le mans it was running 500bhp.


The main reason they put it into the JGTC supra was so they could push the engine towards the centre of the car for better weight distribution and handling.

Therefore the JGTC Supra was..... can you guess????


Wait for it.....

FRONT MID ENGINED!! \:D/
fred130111
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:10 pm

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by fred130111 »

Waiting for the battle to start again.... :roll: hahaha
Marf
Posts: 6728
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:56 pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by Marf »

:clown:
gavsdavs
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: saahfeeeeastlaandun

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by gavsdavs »

Image
jimGTS
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: North Kent

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by jimGTS »

QUOC2008 wrote:
yeah but the fq400 evo are the same as the trd mr2 turbos... and are classed as standard with optional upgrades from mitsubishi.

so what do you think?


But you could buy a fq400 direct from a Mitsubishi forecourt.

You couldn't do that with the TRD from toyota.
So no, they are not the same thing.

Gtr nur spec, again, you could buy from Nissan, TRD not from toyota.

As said it is the reason why some TRDs are rev1 and some rev5 (and inbetween), because the 'owners' took there cars to TRD no matter what age the car was.
Ie NOT brand new.

There may very well be a TRD with 500hp in japan, but that is only because the owner payed from the upgrades, it didn't roll off the production line like that.
Marf
Posts: 6728
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:56 pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by Marf »

gavsdavs wrote:Image


Viddy well my little droogies :eye:
Race Idiot
Posts: 2589
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:48 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by Race Idiot »

Also the jgtc supras didnt have a 3sgte, they had the 503e trd motor which is pretty much a distant relative. Internals wise its a world apart from a 3s. This is the same motor that was used in group c and imsa prototypes in the 80s/90s
QUOC2008
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:33 pm
Location: london

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by QUOC2008 »

cool some extra knowledge didnt know that the supra falken was front mid ship. i didnt know if you couldnt buy the trd from main dealer so how do you buy them then
MR2 REV 3 TURBO 450BHP
3000GT VR4 TT 500BHP
EVO X FQ360
dazzz
Posts: 2026
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:06 pm
Location: manchester

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by dazzz »

Marf wrote:
QUOC2008 wrote:
The 3sgte is a sick engine for its time they even put it into falken supra to race in the le mans it was running 500bhp.


The main reason they put it into the JGTC supra was so they could push the engine towards the centre of the car for better weight distribution and handling.

Therefore the JGTC Supra was..... can you guess????


Wait for it.....

FRONT MID ENGINED!! \:D/


I believe the 2 litre was used to lower displacement

The better balance was just a by product, not the intention.
raptor95GTS
Posts: 6213
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: glasgow
Contact:

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by raptor95GTS »

Marf wrote:
QUOC2008 wrote:
The 3sgte is a sick engine for its time they even put it into falken supra to race in the le mans it was running 500bhp.


The main reason they put it into the JGTC supra was so they could push the engine towards the centre of the car for better weight distribution and handling.

Therefore the JGTC Supra was..... can you guess????


Wait for it.....

FRONT MID ENGINED!! \:D/

if ever there was a perfect cue, Marf was there bang on time :clap: :clap: .
Marf
Posts: 6728
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:56 pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by Marf »

8)
Marf
Posts: 6728
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:56 pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by Marf »

dazzz wrote:
Marf wrote:
QUOC2008 wrote:
The 3sgte is a sick engine for its time they even put it into falken supra to race in the le mans it was running 500bhp.


The main reason they put it into the JGTC supra was so they could push the engine towards the centre of the car for better weight distribution and handling.

Therefore the JGTC Supra was..... can you guess????


Wait for it.....

FRONT MID ENGINED!! \:D/


I believe the 2 litre was used to lower displacement

The better balance was just a by product, not the intention.


http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread ... TE-Engine-!

Supra boys tell a different story :wink:
QUOC2008
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:33 pm
Location: london

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by QUOC2008 »

Marf wrote:
dazzz wrote:
Marf wrote:

The main reason they put it into the JGTC supra was so they could push the engine towards the centre of the car for better weight distribution and handling.

Therefore the JGTC Supra was..... can you guess????


Wait for it.....

FRONT MID ENGINED!! \:D/


I believe the 2 litre was used to lower displacement

The better balance was just a by product, not the intention.


http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread ... TE-Engine-!

Supra boys tell a different story :wink:


i like the info marf interesting stuff...

I was thinking now what the best suspension setup for the mr2 need it to hold down 450bhp on road use not track was thinking to change my bc coilovers to meister r for comfort.

what do you guys think
MR2 REV 3 TURBO 450BHP
3000GT VR4 TT 500BHP
EVO X FQ360
Marf
Posts: 6728
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:56 pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by Marf »

Stock billie type damping, good anti roll bars and tyres that are not rubber bands.
jimGTS
Posts: 14024
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: North Kent

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by jimGTS »

QUOC2008 wrote: i didnt know if you couldnt buy the trd from main dealer so how do you buy them then


you take your car to trd, give them loads of money.
they fit kit, and anything else you want, they then put on a trd vin plate.

thats what im led to believe anyhow.
dazzz
Posts: 2026
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:06 pm
Location: manchester

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by dazzz »

Marf wrote:
dazzz wrote:
Marf wrote:

The main reason they put it into the JGTC supra was so they could push the engine towards the centre of the car for better weight distribution and handling.

Therefore the JGTC Supra was..... can you guess????


Wait for it.....

FRONT MID ENGINED!! \:D/


I believe the 2 litre was used to lower displacement

The better balance was just a by product, not the intention.


http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread ... TE-Engine-!

Supra boys tell a different story :wink:


Come on Marf, think for yourself. Don't just google someone else's opinion.

That thread is hardly proof. Look at the regulations of jgtc and how they've changed over the years. Look at how the air restrictors and turbo size regulations have changed. Running a little 4 pot, you could have a big turbo and nice torque.

In my own opinion the last engine probably didn't give as much balance as the 503 so we can guess engine choice is all about power and torque.

I like to form my own opinions from facts rather than just parrot style.

:lol:
Marf
Posts: 6728
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:56 pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by Marf »

OK dazz, whatever you say cheifta! :-$

I can't see anything about capacity restrictions with turbo'd engines, but I can understand the fuel consumption and handling reasons for using a smaller engine set back towards the middle of the car.

So please, by all means, show me in the regs for the years that the 503'd Supra competed the reasons why they'd use the 503 instead of the 2JZ :thumleft:

Please don't take this as me being argumentative, I'm merely asking you to show me why you think the regs were the reason. Reasonable, no? :-k
QUOC2008
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:33 pm
Location: london

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by QUOC2008 »

Marf wrote:Stock billie type damping, good anti roll bars and tyres that are not rubber bands.


thats the total opposite of it now... lol
MR2 REV 3 TURBO 450BHP
3000GT VR4 TT 500BHP
EVO X FQ360
Race Idiot
Posts: 2589
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:48 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by Race Idiot »

Marf wrote:OK dazz, whatever you say cheifta! :-$

I can't see anything about capacity restrictions with turbo'd engines, but I can understand the fuel consumption and handling reasons for using a smaller engine set back towards the middle of the car.

So please, by all means, show me in the regs for the years that the 503'd Supra competed the reasons why they'd use the 503 instead of the 2JZ :thumleft:

Please don't take this as me being argumentative, I'm merely asking you to show me why you think the regs were the reason. Reasonable, no? :-k


Well they did switch to a v8 afterwards which would have simmilar weight distribution to a turboed I4 motor.
dazzz
Posts: 2026
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:06 pm
Location: manchester

Re: mr2 turbo rev 3+ vs s2000

Post by dazzz »

I think this was done because of the weight penalties incurred with a mr layout.

There used to be rules on which size turbo you could run dependent on your displacement size, size of air restrictors etc.

I can't find the old rules but just looking at the current gt300 and 500 rules it's not as good anymore.


Fk the supra guys, if they had any sense they'd be driving 2s
Post Reply

Return to “MR2 MK2 1990 - 1999 NA & Turbo”