V6 versues 3SGTE versus the world...

[scottish_mr2]

this thread was suddenly created for me.. i didn't decide the topic title either.. but good work to the mod or admin who picked it for me!

in anycase - the point i (and others) have been making and PROVING all along is that anything that a certain V6 engine converter spouts should not be taken with a pinch of salt.. more like a sack.. if his name was Pinocchio his nose would live in a different postcode..

the main sticking point seems to be he claims V6's will perform (if not out perform) rev1/2 tubbies and even claims they will do 13 second quarters..

one of his classic quotes:

lol JJ more and more folk are realising a V6 is not an expensive dream but a very affordable reality,theres also a massive grin factor driving a mk2 v6 knowing its something special and not just another mk2...this is a big reason why people want a v6,Its the complete package,the sound it makes,the smoothness,the silky power delivery,no lag,the throttle response,the insane low down torque,the reliability,the 13 second quarters! the driveability ....the list goes on[/quote

If you feel like a test drive get in touch or if you fancy a conversion let me know.... paul.

First point to note:
Paul Woods or any of his converted clique have yet to post a time slip of a V6 clocking a 13 second quarter.. the quickest i've heard was in the other thread where a 14.5 was mentioned.. hardly 13 seconds is it? - or hardly rev1/2 JDM turbo performance for that matter - as a point of reference feel free to browse the times posted here:

http://www.mr2ownersclub.com/mr2records/drag14.htm

you'll notice that the quickest 9 second car there is actually a revision 1 turbo

you'll also notice that the fastest a V6 got (with SC) was 13.005 - so how in gods green earth does Paul Woods think a stock/stockish V6 will break into the 13's?...

The V6 in stock form v a rev1/2 turbo in stock form will always be a better option though,it delivers the same power but from the word go,no waiting for a turbo to spool......side by side id say the v6 would pull away strongly from a turbo over the first hundred yards and it would probably be pretty even at the end of the quarter.Its just a totally different way to deliver the power.

Second point to note:
The 1992-1993 3VZ-FE engine has 185 hp (138 kW) at 5800 rpm and 189 ft·lbf (256 N·m) at 4600 rpm. 1994+ have 200 hp (149 kW) at 5800 rpm and 204 ft·lbf (277 N·m) at 4600 rpm. - what does the rev 1/2 turbo have again? - 220 bhp.. so worst case scenario you are down 35 bhp and best case 20 bhp.. but then he'll hit you with 'free mods' etc.. how much does an MBC cost again? £14... lol! that's as good as a 'free' mod in my book

personally im tired of 3s-gte nonsense,overly fussy ecu that throws its rattle out at the slightest problem,turbos failing,boost problems,knock sensors,lambda problems,AFM's the list goes on....you only need to read any of the mr2 forums mechanical section to see them littered with mk2T probs

That just about sums up why mk2 owners want to go v6,they are sick to death of the little niggles from the 3s-gte...its a great engine when it works,but its as you say,always a case of "will it boost ok today"

Third point:
he claims me and others (basically anyone who dares to criticise his work) are "V6 haters" - which is not the case at all - i have said all along and maintain to this day that the 3VZ-FE is a good engine and sits comfortably between the 3SGE and 3SGTE engine in terms of performance - yet his above quote shows that if anything the only hating going on is from Mr Woods towards 3SGTE's..

another point to note is that he is not adverse to posting incorrect information - the table that Hot_Chilli provided him with (which he then 'converted') is a prime example of this.. once the error was pointed out he then claimed it was a simple mistake on his part? - the guy can't even use a calculator yet people are trusting him with their pride and joy and their hard earned under the pretence they will be getting a tubby destroyer..

and if anyone dares to question him or provide facts/figures which dispute his unfounded claims he then comes out with threats! - classic!..

so i propose to get this bashed out once and for all in the public domain and have an adult discussion on the topic and start posting facts so this one can be laid to rest once and for all.. then anyone who crops up in future wanting to know can be referred here...

discuss....

[sidewaysfreak]

Mr Woods has put, and still is putting many 3sgte's into mk1's, I don't think he hates them at all, he just appreciates the fact you can put an engine in that performs equally as well and can drive to the moon and back.... Twice.

My Woodsport v6sc for reference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkZsP1op_hc

[scottish_mr2]

Mr Woods has put, and still is putting many 3sgte's into mk1's, I don't think he hates them at all, he just appreciates the fact you can put an engine in that performs equally as well and can drive to the moon and back.... Twice.

My Woodsport v6sc for reference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkZsP1op_hc

that is the point though.. they DON'T perform equally as well though!!

i've not made ANY of this up - these are ACTUAL (not substantiated by any FACTS whatsoever) quotes from the great man himself!

not sure what relevance your video has?? - but nice car all the same.. and i think for clarities sake we should maybe concentrate on the MK2 as you didn't get an AW11 turbo from the factory iirc?.. and that seems to be where the main comparison comes in..

so has any stockish MK2 V6 hit a 13 second quarter as Mr Woods claims)?

why is it so hard for people to accept that the 3VZ-FE performance sits comfortably between a 3SGE and a 3S-GTE.. as ALL of the evidence would seem to indicate...

EDIT: nice first post BTW! and welcome to the club!

[PW@Woodsport]

the hate campaign continues.

the 13 sec quarter quote comes from the US boards,they have been building and tuning v6's for years... that was a modified v6 they were referring too,you will notice i was talking to JJ about it,that was some years ago when we didnt know the real facts for ourselves.

As for the rest of this PW hate thread you are running,i think you need to grow up mate.... ive done nothing but serve the mr2 community for the last 10 years,given countless advice and we are priveledged to have a 100% success record with our customers....

When was the last time you ever remember reading a poor service or unhappy customer thread about woodsport on ANY forum EVER?????

Do a search....you seem to be good at that,find me one unhappy customer thread or negative word about what we offer or what we have done for anyone.

[scottish_mr2]

the hate campaign continues.

the 13 sec quarter quote comes from the US boards,they have been building and tuning v6's for years... that was a modified v6 they were referring too,you will notice i was talking to JJ about it,that was some years ago when we didnt know the real facts for ourselves.

As for the rest of this PW hate thread you are running,i think you need to grow up mate.... ive done nothing but serve the mr2 community for the last 10 years,given countless advice and we are priveledged to have a 100% success record with our customers....

When was the last time you ever remember reading a poor service or unhappy customer thread about woodsport on ANY forum EVER?????

Do a search....you seem to be good at that,find me one unhappy customer thread or negative word about what we offer or what we have done for anyone.

lol! - i'm not questioning your business or your customer service.. just the UNPROVEN facts you keep on spouting out..

[PW@Woodsport]

so the video and timeslip showing a stock v6 mr2 returning the same time as a stock turbo mean nothing to you?

or i suppose i falsified them as well?

[scottish_mr2]

so the video and timeslip showing a stock v6 mr2 returning the same time as a stock turbo mean nothing to you?

or i suppose i falsified them as well?

care to post them again?..

EDIT: you keep on claiming they perform the same - but yet again contradict yourself:

We just carried out a 3s-gte to v6 swap for lee,he went to crail and told me he was getting within 0.2 of his best 3s-gte time and is 100% happy with that as he now has the best of both worlds.

0.2 seconds isn't the same is it? or am i missing something?...

[matt_mr2t]

Rev1 and 2 turbo's make about 202bhp not 220 which IMO is a fictitional figure.

But I would still rather my rev2 tubby over a V6.

The only thing a V6 will win is a sound off.
I've driven other V6 engined cars, the power is instant at all.
Like every engine to get power you need to get air and fuel in there, you simply dont get that at low revs.

I have nothing against Paul W or his claims, none of my business and I'm not gonna get into arguments or slander.
Just my opinion that a turbo (all revs) is a better bet than a V6.

[Icsunonove]

this thread was suddenly created for me.. i didn't decide the topic title either.. but good work to the mod or admin who picked it for me!

Right, I've no idea what you are talking about (and I haven't got time to check it out).

Thread locked pending further action from the committee or another moderator (as it is very likely to degenerate further).

EDIT: Scottish, DO NOT start another topic please or else you may find you are temporarily locked out of your account.