What's quicker, V6 mr2 or rev1 turbo??

[ChrisT]

But other than that Toyota already made a quick MR2 and if the 3S-GTE is the engine they picked, rather than putting a V6 in it, they probably knew what they were doing.

The manufacturer knows best, you could say the same about any modifying and you don't see many standard tubby's.

That's not what I meant. If the V6 engines being fitted were significantly quicker than the 3S-GTE then it would make a lot of sense to do the engine coversion. However this does not seem to be the case.

So unless you specifically want to convert the NA you have now it would seem to make more sense to just buy a turbo.

Imagine if you had a car with a 1.2 litre engine, you wouldn't fit a 1.4 engine from a different car, if there was already a 1.6 litre version of your car already available.

[antnkel]

How do you post attachments

[Kongaroo]

How do you post attachments

I've never figured out the way to upload pics to IMOC posts either

I usually upload my pics to a free file hosting website like: http://www.imageshack.us/

Some people use photobucket etc.

It then gives you a 'Thumbnail for forums' link that you can then copy and paste direct into your IMOC post.

[antnkel]

A couple of dyno's
http://mr2oc.co.uk/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=107325.html

[Poohbear]

I would say my V6 conversion is a typical one so.....

I dont believe there is much in it between my V6 and slightly modded Rev1/2 turbo's, most I've seen at RR days I've attended have made less than 210bhp @ the fly. At the same RR day my V6 made 208 bhp & 215 ft lb @ the fly so virtually nothing in it.

What I can tell you though is that having owned a very healthy 3S-GE that made 166bhp & 144 ft lb previously in the same car the V6 is way way quicker than that was.

At Santapod in a howling headwind I posted a 14.6 1/4 and on the day out of our group I wasn't beaten by any Rev1 or Rev2 3S-GTE but I was pipped by a Rev4. And the nearest NA 3S was over a second slower.

For the money I paid for my conversion I could have easily had a Rev3 Turbo installed instead, which fair enough would have been far more powerful, but not what I wanted....I'm an NA nut so I chose to have a V6 because I like the NA delivery and also I wanted something slightly more rare.

If I'm ever at a meet and anyone wants a ride to see what all the fuss is about I'm more than happy to oblige, it really is a different experience to a standard NA or Turbo.

My Dyno sheet below.



Bob

[Quigonjay]

Image Replaced With URL For Quote http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/P ... 6small.jpg

Bob

does the v6 have any mods?
not bad if it doesnt

[Kongaroo]

Nice one - thanks for the link and dyno plot

Going by what's posted in the MR2OC.co.uk thread Bob is running:

Rev2 3VZ-FE with Apexi filter, ported & flowed heads, de-cat & Mongoose exhaust 208.6bhp & 215ft lb @ fly.

I had a quick search on IMOC for a similarly lightly modded rev2 turbo with a dyno done that was also done on a dyno dynamics in shootout mode and this is the first one I found (I didn't actually find any Stock rev 1 ones):





This car has a CT26, manual boost controller, gutted cat, kakimoto exhaust, HKS induction kit and xs power intercooler kit so similarly modded.

It peaks at around 15PSI with the boost tailing off to around 12 to 13 psi towards redline and makes 264FWHP and 273ft.lbs torque.

Please note I am completely aware we are only comparing 2 cars here - I'm doing the comparison purely on the graph that was kindly posted here and one of the few lightly modded rev 2 plots that was also performed in shootout mode on a Dyno dynamics that I could find by searching IMOC.

I've adhered to facts and figures only without bias toward either one but those with sensitive souls that can't be objective might want to stop reading here

The Tubby dyno pull begins at 2500RPM - this is approx 33MPH with stock sized tyres in 3nd gear. Torque at this point is about 137ft.lbs versus about 190ft.lbs in the V6.

It takes the turbo approx. 900RPM to match the amount of torque from the V6 - this happens at around 3400RPM. This is approx. 46MPH in 3nd gear.

Beyond this point the Tubby has significantly more torque all the way to redline. The V6 dyno run seems to stop at approx. 6560RPM where torque is 145ft.lbs while in the Tubby it is about 200ft.lbs at this point.

So in summary: from 2500RPM to 3400RPM the lightly modded V6 has a rapidly diminishing torque advantage over the lightly modded Tubby. To put this into context this RPM band is 33 to 46mph in 3rd gear and 22 to 30MPH in 2nd gear on stock sized wheels.

Now this is obviously a very rough comparison between just 2 cars but which car has more area under the torque curve? Without a doubt it is the Turbo.

I would expect this particular V6 car to have a significant advantage over a completely stock rev 1 however, as well as the usual benefits that having an NA engine would have over a turbo charged one.

[Paff]

The V6 is slower than the tubby overall, but its a completly different engine and there are different reasons to want one, it can be a nicer drive, it makes a nice noise and if you want it to be lazy it will be

Ok not in a mk2 like most of you guys arguing are but heres something that happened yesterday.

Someone popped down to see me and have a chat in his mk1.5, gt4 chargecooler, a few other bits done to it and apparently about 270bhp (altho we are not 100% on that).
I took him for a short spin in the mk1 V6 and here was his comment.....

"wow, that noise, it's not as fast as the mk1.5 but I want one"

After which he started doubting his mk1.5 ownership and we spent the next hour or so discussing the cost of building one and the options that are currently avaliable. He may well keep the mk1.5 but he will have a V6 as well.

Not everything is black and white. Try a drive in one of each and see what you prefer for yourself and ignore all the forum arguments.

[antnkel]

Nice one - thanks for the link and dyno plot

Going by what's posted in the MR2OC.co.uk thread Bob is running:

Rev2 3VZ-FE with Apexi filter, ported & flowed heads, de-cat & Mongoose exhaust 208.6bhp & 215ft lb @ fly.

I had a quick search on IMOC for a similarly lightly modded rev2 turbo with a dyno done that was also done on a dyno dynamics in shootout mode and this is the first one I found (I didn't actually find any Stock rev 1 ones):





This car has a CT26, manual boost controller, gutted cat, kakimoto exhaust, HKS induction kit and xs power intercooler kit so similarly modded.

It peaks at around 15PSI with the boost tailing off to around 12 to 13 psi towards redline and makes 264FWHP and 273ft.lbs torque.

Please note I am completely aware we are only comparing 2 cars here - I'm doing the comparison purely on the graph that was kindly posted here and one of the few lightly modded rev 2 plots that was also performed in shootout mode on a Dyno dynamics that I could find by searching IMOC.

I've adhered to facts and figures only without bias toward either one but those with sensitive souls that can't be objective might want to stop reading here

The Tubby dyno pull begins at 2500RPM - this is approx 33MPH with stock sized tyres in 3nd gear. Torque at this point is about 137ft.lbs versus about 190ft.lbs in the V6.

It takes the turbo approx. 900RPM to match the amount of torque from the V6 - this happens at around 3400RPM. This is approx. 46MPH in 3nd gear.

Beyond this point the Tubby has significantly more torque all the way to redline. The V6 dyno run seems to stop at approx. 6560RPM where torque is 145ft.lbs while in the Tubby it is about 200ft.lbs at this point.

So in summary: from 2500RPM to 3400RPM the lightly modded V6 has a rapidly diminishing torque advantage over the lightly modded Tubby. To put this into context this RPM band is 33 to 46mph in 3rd gear and 22 to 30MPH in 2nd gear on stock sized wheels.

Now this is obviously a very rough comparison between just 2 cars but which car has more area under the torque curve? Without a doubt it is the Turbo.

I would expect this particular V6 car to have a significant advantage over a completely stock rev 1 however, as well as the usual benefits that having an NA engine would have over a turbo charged one.

What's the stock boost on a rev2 ?

[uglee]

My car is a converted turbo. There was NOTHING wrong with my engine and I decided to change. I let people draw their own conclusions. I just wanted an engine with a bit of soul. The 3S-GTE although powerful is hardly the most charismatic 4pot around.

I've run at Crail twice. 1st time was with a decatted, 15psi boosted Rev2 3S-GTE. It certainly didn't hang around, but I could only manage a 14.2 sec 1/4 mile. The surface at Crail is appalling, the tarmac has been ground smooth where you launch from and is very difficult to get a good launch without squirming everywhere.

2nd time I went was with the V6, only thing it has is a bit of mild headwork. Running on 18's I posted a 14.5 sec 1/4 mile with the same traction issues off the line and exactly the same conditions as previous.

Here's my times:
Turbo: http://www.crailraceway.co.uk/select_ru ... e=20041003
V6: http://www.crailraceway.co.uk/select_ru ... e=20080302

There is sod all difference between either IMO, even less so on the road. What they are is a different option and is totally down to the individual. What people fail to understand is that faster=better is not always the case. On the road my car 'feels' better. I love driving it now more than I ever did, so in that respect I made the right choice.

If the be all and end all of driving a good car is for it to be the fastest car, we really all should be in different cars tbh

[Poohbear]

Nice one - thanks for the link and dyno plot

Going by what's posted in the MR2OC.co.uk thread Bob is running:

Rev2 3VZ-FE with Apexi filter, ported & flowed heads, de-cat & Mongoose exhaust 208.6bhp & 215ft lb @ fly.

I had a quick search on IMOC for a similarly lightly modded rev2 turbo with a dyno done that was also done on a dyno dynamics in shootout mode and this is the first one I found (I didn't actually find any Stock rev 1 ones):





This car has a CT26, manual boost controller, gutted cat, kakimoto exhaust, HKS induction kit and xs power intercooler kit so similarly modded.

It peaks at around 15PSI with the boost tailing off to around 12 to 13 psi towards redline and makes 264FWHP and 273ft.lbs torque.

Please note I am completely aware we are only comparing 2 cars here - I'm doing the comparison purely on the graph that was kindly posted here and one of the few lightly modded rev 2 plots that was also performed in shootout mode on a Dyno dynamics that I could find by searching IMOC.

I've adhered to facts and figures only without bias toward either one but those with sensitive souls that can't be objective might want to stop reading here

The Tubby dyno pull begins at 2500RPM - this is approx 33MPH with stock sized tyres in 3nd gear. Torque at this point is about 137ft.lbs versus about 190ft.lbs in the V6.

It takes the turbo approx. 900RPM to match the amount of torque from the V6 - this happens at around 3400RPM. This is approx. 46MPH in 3nd gear.

Beyond this point the Tubby has significantly more torque all the way to redline. The V6 dyno run seems to stop at approx. 6560RPM where torque is 145ft.lbs while in the Tubby it is about 200ft.lbs at this point.

So in summary: from 2500RPM to 3400RPM the lightly modded V6 has a rapidly diminishing torque advantage over the lightly modded Tubby. To put this into context this RPM band is 33 to 46mph in 3rd gear and 22 to 30MPH in 2nd gear on stock sized wheels.

Now this is obviously a very rough comparison between just 2 cars but which car has more area under the torque curve? Without a doubt it is the Turbo.

I would expect this particular V6 car to have a significant advantage over a completely stock rev 1 however, as well as the usual benefits that having an NA engine would have over a turbo charged one.

Seems a fair and objective post to me, no complaints here....I'm happy with my V6 and that's all that matters. The only thing that isn't correct is that I have a CAT on my car altough it's a high flow 200 CPI one.

Bob

[Tomiam]

When I first saw the thread title I thought "Oh god.. not again..." and Ive got to admit Im a bit releaved that the thread has gained intelligence towards the end. It started off with lots of opinion, less facts, and I fully understand Paul Woods not wishing to get involved in yet another thread of this nature.

Im a V6 owner and have been for 18 months now.
This question of "which is fastest" has far too many variables in a real world setting to be easily answered and my own thoughts basically boil down to "Who cares. Choose what you think is right for you."

As said above, Im 18 months into ownership with mine and it STILL makes me smile each time I start the engine. Im aware that for less money I could have a faster turbo car (cost of purchasing an MR2 + cost of conversion) but I wouldnt be as happy.

Got a turbo and enjoying it? Wicked
Got a V6 and enjoying it? Wicked

[Kongaroo]

I agree there are plenty of reasons to want a V6 - they certainly look a lot of fun to drive

I'm half tempted to try one myself but knowing me it would just end up being supercharged and then turbo'd

antnkel - isn't stock rev 2 boost supposed to be 10PSI? I did read an interesting post by Aaron from ATS racing on MR2OC.com a few months back.

He said that there was a large variation in the location of the wastegate lever and length of the wastegate actuator rod from one car to another which could result in the 'stock' boost being from 8PSI to 11.8psi. This might go some way toward accounting for why some standard cars appear to perform better than others.