[Mk3] [Generic] Why did Toyota not put the 197bhp BEAMS engine in the MK3?

[James Junior]

Any ideas?

The only reason I can think of is size? Was this engine too big for the little bay on the MK3?

The 197bhp BEAMS engine is raved about as being an amazing piece of NA engineering.

Yet it seems that for all the development time/ costs it hardly found its way into any of Toyotas cars!

Okay it made the cut for the last 1000 MK2's and went into the RS200 but other than that you don;t hear much of it.

Surely a BEAMS engine would have the MK3 a sweet car indeed, more akin to the S2000 than the MX5 it competes with?

[RST]

It's not too big for the bay -but you have to do a little re-jigging with some of the steelwork I think. Partick Mortell's got one in his MK3 -seen it last time I was down at Rogue and it actually looks like it fits in easy enough (looks at home anyway).

...it went into other cars like the Celica ST202 SS-II and SS-III and Caldina and I believe there was at least one specific race car series it went into (some formula XXX -over in Japan) -it was the Black Top with dual VVT-i which went into the RS200. I think the Red Top is really only a rarity in MR2's.

I dunno why it wasn't used in the MK 3 -smaller car, emissions I guess. If you're a manufacturer you have to look at building a car that hundreds of thousands of buyers on the street want. Not everyone wants the big engine I guess.

[James Junior]

I dunno why it wasn't used in the MK 3 -smaller car, emissions I guess. If you're a manufacturer you have to look at building a car that hundreds of thousands of buyers on the street want. Not everyone wants the big engine I guess.

I guess your right there - you can't argue that Toyota didn't get it right, there's thousands of MK3's out there and the MK3 has been on sale for nearly ten years since its launch.

Its just a shame that they moved away from the enthusiasts market, why not launch it with two engine options?

The mass market 138bhp could have been the entry level for all those hairdressers and posing ladies and the BEAMS / turbo charged one for the enthusiasts...

[mattcambs]

Any ideas?

The only reason I can think of is size? Was this engine too big for the little bay on the MK3?

The 197bhp BEAMS engine is raved about as being an amazing piece of NA engineering.

Yet it seems that for all the development time/ costs it hardly found its way into any of Toyotas cars!

Okay it made the cut for the last 1000 MK2's and went into the RS200 but other than that you don;t hear much of it.

Surely a BEAMS engine would have the MK3 a sweet car indeed, more akin to the S2000 than the MX5 it competes with?

My question has always been: why didn't Toyota put the 190bhp 1.8 into the mk3?

[maaaaaark]

My question has always been: why didn't Toyota put the 190bhp 1.8 into the mk3?

oooh, im guessing you mean the 2zzge or whatever it was in the exige?
that would have been a great idea imo

[RST]

Bit off-topic but have you seen Rogue's 1MZFE conversion in this months Banzai? It's somewhere on the forum here as well. Lyndon showed me it earlier this year but, not being a V6 MR2 fan (shock), and looking back now I really didn't give it the credit it deserved at the time. It really looks like it was meant to be there -especially with the engraving on the intake manifold -very impressive.

No chance Toyota would have considered that on the production car though!

Another quick question, if the BEAMS is that good -why did they de-tune it for the production cars?

[JohnnyC]

Another quick question, if the BEAMS is that good -why did they de-tune it for the production cars?

Reliability?

[Harry]

Why did Toyota not put the 197bhp BEAMS engine in the MK3?



This Is a very good question I would like to know how car manufacturers decide on chassis considerations then engine choices. Is It to do with the production lines set up Infra structure of parts and again assembly line supply distribution.

Marketing via the local Japanese domestic market, USA, Africa, South America, Asia, Europe and other places considerations. Then possibly the environmental Issues like emissions and so on. Be good to know how the car manufacturers put all these mixes together to decide what goes to production and market.

What I do know Is that Black Top with dual VVT-i which went into the RS200 Is one of the best engines I have driven along with ultra smooth slick gearbox and torque en acceleration out of this world. For an NA It drives more with the characteristics of a super charger. Having previously owned a Levin 1600 4 AGZE 16 v twin over head cams unit,although the Levin revved a bit further.

Do also know that manufacturers aim for a mix between economy and performance perhaps their marketing decided to lean their efforts towards the economy side of engines, hence not utilising the Beams engine to full production.

Or maybe they have future plans for the Beams motor? The high revving 4 AGZE type motors fell out of vogue with them eventually and sadly too. So what drives the market forces the car manufacturers or the market consumer.

[jrleech]

Rogue Motorsports have fitted a Beams to their Mk3... looks great. Think they're also planning on swapping that for a Turbo'd Beams

[Harry]

Rogue Motorsports have fitted a Beams to their Mk3... looks great. Think they're also planning on swapping that for a Turbo'd Beams

OMG: Awesome.

[BenF]

Heh, Beams and Mk3 .. I suspect it was a combination of :

- Weight of the engine / gearbox vs the Alloy 1zz lump
- Emissions

The 138bhp 1zz lump in the Roadster is actually a very nice match for the standard car's chassis and wheels / tyres and creates a very nice overall package.

The 2zz 190bhp engine is completely different and isn't just a different high-flow/redline head on the same bottom end.

As both remain 1.8 lumps, torque figures for both engines are very similar - the 2ZZ-GE 190 lump will rev higher which is what gives it the greater peak bhp.

Personally, I'd have really liked a V6 swap into a Roadster - the ECU and emissions is where the challenge is though.

However, IMO a turbo (or SC) is the best way to go on the standard engine - it gives you more torque and flexibility. Providing you don't turn things up too far the standard gearbox / clutch / driveshafts will handle 220ft/lbs of torque without problems, but you need to take this into account when driving in damp conditions

[James Junior]

Hey Ben,

Yeah I always fancied a MK3 with the turbo conversion but just found the cost inhibitive and felt like it would be dead money.

You;ve had yours a while haven't you?

I tried to justify it to myself a few times but the thought process always kind of went:-

£8k for a decent facelift MK3 + £2k for the conversion, or £10k straight for a decent Honda S2000? Hmmmmmm...

[mrfil13]

They might have decided that 140bhp engine was enough, even with that they a fairly rapid. With the 190 engine it may have risked going from a sporty run about to only appealing to sports car enthusiasts.

Which ends up coming back down to money.