MR2 Roadster Owners Club

Hey All,

Okay so here it is, I like my MR2   s:D :D s:D    But as most of us complain about on here its a bit lacking in power, and being a total boost junkie and comming from a 260bhp focus ST I really do miss this side of things.

Now I've driven the rear wheel drive I wouldn't go back to an ST or like minded hot hatch, theres only so much power/torque you can get through the front wheels.

So I have 3 options...

1. Lump it, accept the car for what it is (and just learn how to cut hair...   s:flame: :flame: s:flame:  )   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  
2. Go buy a faster sports car like an S2000, Porsche Boxter S
3. Turbo the MR2!   s:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: s:crazyeyes:    s:scared: :scared: s:scared:  

I've given the later options some serious consideration, heres the pro/cons as good as I can see them but let have your inputs/thoughs/experiences...

Turbo the MR2 vs buy a faster car....
Pros
Alot cheaper on insurance (really!)  About £250 per year cheaper than the group 19 sports cars, and thats after declaring the turbo!
Serously quick MR2, in the same performance leaque as the S2000/ Boxter S easy I recon.
I won't loose £1000 selling the MR2 so soon after I bought it!
Jealousy - I can leave the MR2 in Asda car park without it getting keyed (unlike a Porsche)
Cheaper servicing vs others even after factoring in oil changes every 5000 miles.

Cons
Main one is obviously sunk value - £4.5K to turbo it is serious money and I won't get that back if I had to sell it for some reason
Doesn't have the status symbol of the others (like I care, infact I prefer the opposite)
Cost wise not much cheaper than buying a 2001 porsche boxter S or 2003 S2000 with lowish miles.

Thanks

David

Quote from: "stargazer30"Cons
Main one is obviously sunk value - £4.5K to turbo it is serious money and I won't get that back if I had to sell it for some reason
Doesn't have the status symbol of the others (like I care, infact I prefer the opposite)
Cost wise not much cheaper than buying a 2001 porsche boxter S or 2003 S2000 with lowish miles.

Take the turbo back out again and sell it when you sell the car, get some money back. There is a Hass stage 2 for sale at the moment for <£2k
Not a con for you then!
Humm. but think of the insurance, scratches and worry.

Each to their own. But if i wanted an orange i would buy an orange, not an apple and some paint.

Bit different if you have the ability, time and facillities to diy, then you also get the satisfaction of the end product being your own work.

if your not board with teh car yet (other than power)

and don't mind teh learning experience that comes with a Turbo then turbo it

you'll get nost of your cash back by splitting when you sell

if you want firte and forget simplicity

buy another car

Mark, your formatting really screws with my mind, and I always try to read your posts as limmericks  s:( :( s:(

Quote from: "WillsSayers"Mark, your formatting really screws with my mind, and I always try to read your posts as limmericks  s:( :( s:(

There was a roccer called Mark.
Who posts just for a lark.
Though brainy and clever,
he imparts knowledge never,
and leaves us all in the dark.

Quote from: "stargazer30"Serously quick MR2, in the same performance leaque as the S2000/ Boxter S easy I recon.

Having just been there and done this (well almost, just Koyo rad left to fit) I can vouch that a reasonably well sorted turbo set-up will leave you wanting little else  s:D :D s:D , so I agree with the first part of the above sentance, as for the second part, well..... A friend of mine has a brother-in-law with an E46 M3 (3.2, 343hp, etc) and after back to back passenger rides in that and my 2 he concluded that the 2 is quicker  s:shock: :shock: s:shock:  (up to and around national speed limits of course).

Remember the one big advantage of the 2; power to weight ratio.  The same HP in many other cars (Lotus, VX220, Caterham excluded) doesn't always compare.  And then there is the childish but satisfying past time of showing many exotica a clear pair of heels down a given slip road or dual carriageway in 'that hairdressers car', yep, not grown tired of that yet  s:wink: :wink: s:wink: .

Lets go back to basics....

There are two types of members here  who want more power (speed, other than time taken to 0-60, doesn't come into it on a road car).

Those that want a p*n*s extension to show off at the traffic lights, or those that feel the extra is a nice to have in a car they love.

If its the former go buy another car, and buy something that makes you look like you've got an extension.

If its the latter, add extra power (turbo, supercharger, e-manage, change engine, Unichip - whatever grabs your fancy). You'll know how much you can afford by working out how much extra that new one would have been!

Quote from: "roger"Lets go back to basics....
Those that want a p*n*s extension to show off at the traffic lights, or those that feel the extra is a nice to have in a car they love.

Too late for that now mate, I'm married with 3 kids.  I bought the 52" LCD TV too late also   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:    Just the performance I'm after, whilst I'd like having a porsche I'm not after a status symbol.

Infact - off topic a bit but I've had two attempts at test driving a Boxster S and neither dealer would let me based on my appearance/age!  Basically I got told to come back when I had proof of insurance and loan paper work!  Crazy as I'm not going to arrange a loan before I've even driven the car!  I tried explaining I'm a professionally qualified project manager but I work from home mostly so I don't need to wear a suit to my office, no joy.

The good thing with playing with the Mr2 engine is that you get all the good stuff you have just now in the chassis etc but you're pushing the car up to it's own limits (whether it's yours or not, doesn't really matter just now).

So you get a car that's now at 9/10ths.

If you go buy an M3, for the same kinda speeds you'll be at 6/10ths.

So, down to you personally, do you prefer to work a car or have lots left to play with but only use it 10% of the time?

If you want a faster car to begin with and then you drive that at 9/10ths, depending on how good a driver/lucky you are, it may or may not last long.

A turbo/V6 Mr2 is plenty for the road IMO.

Remember, quicker isn't always more fun. I'd rather be grinning like a lunatic when i get out the car and still have a glimmer of hope i'll be keeping my licence.

Quote from: "roger"Lets go back to basics....

There are two types of members here  who want more power (speed, other than time taken to 0-60, doesn't come into it on a road car).

Those that want a p*n*s extension to show off at the traffic lights, or those that feel the extra is a nice to have in a car they love.

Did I say something wrong  s:roll: :roll: s:roll: , but in case your wondering Roger, yes I'm off to the clinic Monday for the extension and I'm having it painted black at the same time.  Ahh forum's, nothing better for judging people you've never (yet) met.....

What I was trying (sorry, meaning) to say was you can change the 2 into a startling performer with a finished turbo conversion.  It isn't easy, nor cheap (though relative to trading in and other associated costs, possibly in the balance, its the headache of it all that's a bigger one for me) but can be done and enjoyed.

I'm off now to ensure my posts stay nice and low.

I don't think Roger was referring to you Andrew. Having met you, I know you're not like that at all, just an enthusiast.

Probably meant those with loud bodykits and stuff......... oh that's me!!! Aaargh!   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:    s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  
Only kidding on that bit, I think the distinction was being made as to some people's requirements. I've always liked the 2 out of the box, just wanted to enhance it a bit, but others buy a 2 and have the realisation that the power output alone is the reason they can't enjoy it, they never get the fun element that is in the car. Its those folks who need to buy a different machine as they probably won't be happy with the car no matter what they change on it or how frequently they alter it.

Has this question been asked so you can accelerate faster than other people between roadworks up to 30-40-50-60-70mph, or because you want to race it on a track?

Quote from: "stargazer30"Infact - off topic a bit but I've had two attempts at test driving a Boxster S and neither dealer would let me based on my appearance/age!  Basically I got told to come back when I had proof of insurance and loan paper work!  Crazy as I'm not going to arrange a loan before I've even driven the car!  I tried explaining I'm a professionally qualified project manager but I work from home mostly so I don't need to wear a suit to my office, no joy.

I find that absolutely appalling, stereotyping should have gone after the 60s/70s/80s . Kick a football around next time you're in the show room and talk to David Becham on the mobile   s:D :D s:D

Quote from: "Les"Has this question been asked so you can accelerate faster than other people between roadworks up to 30-40-50-60-70mph, or because you want to race it on a track?

I wouldn't rule out a track day, and would like some professional instruction too as I'm pretty new to RWD.  The main reason is I'm used to a turbo and the torque it provides.  It makes for easy/lazy driving.  The 2 is great on the bends but for getting into gaps on the A19 or having to speed up after road works its tiresome, having to change down/rev the nuts off it.  I recon with a turbo you'd have the best of both worlds.

Or option 4, buy my turbo'd 2 all done, mapped with issues sorted.  s:bounce: :bounce: s:bounce:  

I've just bought an e36 m3 to replace my turbo 2 (I need the space) and will say with complete conviction that for pure driving pleasure the 2 wins hands down - no contest. It's so much more responsive, you can feel what's going on through the steering and gives you the low down turbo torque (the m3 needs winding up first).

If you're near me feel free to give me a call, your welcome to go for a ride in both and make your own mind up.
If not, then try and get a ride in another members turbo 2 you won't be dissapointed and unlike the st it's also economical.

Come guys lets get back on topic pls, pros and cons of buying a faster car vs turbo on the MR2.

[MOD]Thread split to keep relevant points here[MOD]

I'm for the turbo. Having driven many turbo'd MR2's now and many 'faster cars', I found no compromise in the turbo'd '2 in terms of the performance and drive of the car. Having taken my time to explore and develop each aspect of the car, the only negative things I've found about turbo-ing an MR2 is the throw away cost and reliability issues. Considering a 911 cost my mate £12k a year in depreciation for the two years he owned it, I don't think dropping £4k on a turbo is that bad at all. Reliability wise, my car was pretty bullet proof when it was running the TTET/SP240 @ 240bhp. The issues have arrived since going forged internals and pushing for 300+ bhp.

For comparison, an MR2 with 240bhp will give a 0..60 of 4.9s which is the same as a 911 4S. Ok, so the MR2 doesn't have the badge/status nor does it have that nice Porsche interior, but you can live without these.

The MR2 also handles and drivers superbly with the extra power. Brakes cope fine too. The only extra you will definitely need going turbo is an up-rated clutch.

Sorry guys I should have said from the off, I'm considering the 200bhp package only, >200 needs a stronger clutch  :-) :-) :-)   Anyone driven a 200bhp turbo mk3?

That's exactly the kind of power mine puts out. It's a significant difference to the standard car and is enough to surprise some fast cars. We're talking about 200bhp per ton at this level which is pretty quick and as mentioned reliability, handling, brakes, clutch e.t.c have all been more than up to the job.

The only issue is that traction on the 205 summer tyres isn't so good in the cold so it requires sensible use of the throttle -but that's part of the fun.

As you can tell, my vote is turbo the 2 but be prepared to 'fiddle' with it a bit to get it set up well. Remember also that dome of the costs will be throw away (mapping, labour).

The end result is something as quick as the st but that is more fun and much more economical

Still no guarantees that you'll get away without a new clutch. Best to factor it into your plan. It doesn't have a sexy 'performance' clutch price but the LUK is well up to the job at around 120 earth quids.

The standard PE and Apexi kits get you to your required ball park on power, and they're both great kits. But there's no intelligent mapping which loses you an extra raft of power and band of safety. Your plan to "fiddle with it a bit" gives you some great options.

FWIW

Having just gone down the "Turbo Route" I am extremely happy with the result.  I have owned a standard facelift for two years and whilst it has been brilliant in most respects already mentioned it was certainly lacking grunt at modern day speeds on dual carriageways and motorways.  It was great fun at 40-60+ on "back roads" and "twisties" but in amongst the BMW and Mercs etc on bigger roads it just felt lost and underpowered. I found I avoided motorways and dual carriageways which limited my enthusiasm for longer journeys in the car.

Now I am turbo'd I can't wait to get on the open roads as well as the smaller ones.  (I might even sell my Ducati!)  The MR2 now does everything briliantly and I look forward too every drive, including motorway journeys.  For me it has converted a very good car into my dream car.

Daryl

It seems that Stargazer is not after the big numbers, which is a good thing if you want reliability, but why go for a Turbo, we are now pushing 170 BHP out of an N/A with some reasonable mods and the response is instant, OK you don't get the kick in the backside from a turbo, but what you do get is one smooth steady push with no lag which makes the car drive totally different, you have more control in the bends plus in a straight line down a dual carriageway it will give most cars a run for their money.

It's a different way of driving in a N/A, you have to use your gears as you have not got the push of a turbo, which can make you lazy and also puts a bigger strain on the car - gearbox etc.

Might be worth seeing if anyone is local to you or better still come to one of the meets and at least try the different options.

It's just another option - don't knock it until you have tried it.

Oh yes you don't need a large p**is either   s:D :D s:D    s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  

Rob.

Quote from: "FGRob"It seems that Stargazer is not after the big numbers, which is a good thing if you want reliability, but why go for a Turbo, we are now pushing 170 BHP out of an N/A with some reasonable mods and the response is instant, OK you don't get the kick in the backside from a turbo, but what you do get is one smooth steady push with no lag which makes the car drive totally different, you have more control in the bends plus in a straight line down a dual carriageway it will give most cars a run for their money.

What does it take, cost and parts wise to get 170 out of the 1zz?

See the V6 for all of the above times 10.

A few of us have got reasonable result N/A with certain mods. Robs right up there and so far has the best results as far as im aware.

You dont have to spend £3k-£4k to acheive this.

My spend was around £1000-£1100 mark which i feel is good for the results i gained

The mods are listed on my signature

CHE Manifold
Cobra Sports Exhaust
PPE Cold Air Induction
Emanage Blue
Mapping

Unless you're loaded or really, really, really love the car and want to keep it forever, or are simply addicted to modding, then always buy a better car as it'll almost always be quicker. I learnt that the hard way.

You can put as much power through the wheels of the MR2 as you want, but you won't necessarily make it a better car. Having driven '2s of varying power over the years, I've personally found that about 200bhp feels right for the car. Any more and you're holding on rather than driving due to the limitations of a shorter wheelbase and a more relaxed chassis compared to something like an Elise.

Quote from: "Dan M"Unless you're loaded or really, really, really love the car and want to keep it forever, or are simply addicted to modding, then always buy a better car as it'll almost always be quicker. I learnt that the hard way.

You can put as much power through the wheels of the MR2 as you want, but you won't necessarily make it a better car. Having driven '2s of varying power over the years, I've personally found that about 200bhp feels right for the car. Any more and you're holding on rather than driving due to the limitations of a shorter wheelbase and a more relaxed chassis compared to something like an Elise.

Well put Dan - I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I'm the second of the above - well I think most people know that any way   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

V6 - OK it's an option but you change the car totally from a well balanced machine to a unknown point and squirt - hey it's whatever your passion is I think.

Rob

Quote from: "FGRob"V6 - OK it's an option but you change the car totally from a well balanced machine to a unknown point and squirt - hey it's whatever your passion is I think.

Rob

That is totally inaccurate. V6 conversions don't become just point and squirt. Balance is altered , yes,and tendency is for greater understeer on slower corners but it still handles well. A good geo setup and bracing are essential to get the best from it. At higher speeds it actually feels more stable.
To underline what Olie had said earlier, the conversion isn't just about that, its about a more relaxed drive when you want it as well. There isn't often the opportunity to go very fast on our roads, so a good torque spread at almost any revs is nice to have.
I am sure the nicely modded 1zz engine is an absolute hoot and I know the turbos are as well.
I love stock roadsters as well, but I think if you don't come from that sort of starting point, there is no value in going the modded route, go straight to buying a "better car".
I think Dan does have a very good point and has advocated getting a better car in place of mods for a while now, but a great many people really like the character of the Roadster, me included, and have stuck with it due to its charm.
( yes it isn't always financially the best way to go!   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  )

Quote from: "FGRob"V6 - OK it's an option but you change the car totally from a well balanced machine to a unknown point and squirt

You should come and have a shot of mine. Major misconception that it changes the car like that.

It's still extremely well balanced.

Hey guys, thanks for the inputs.

I'd go for a turbo rather than pursuing NA tuning.  I prefer boost to screaming engines thats all.  I did look at a 2zz swap before turbo as its cheaper and will still see near 200bhp but it was the high reving/low torque that put me off, same thing that puts me off the Honda S2000 which has the same sort of engine.  Also 2ZZ had a few side effects like no imobiliser once fitted (my insurance would freak at that).  Didn't look at a V6 but that must be some serious weight in the rear right?

Being the sad person I am on data I've worked out the BHP/weight ratio and torque/weight ratio of the turbo'd 2 vs the other cars in the same sort of league and even at 200bhp and the lower torque its quicker on paper than the others.  The 240bhp/high torque MR2s must be utterly nuts!  Also I really like the idea of having a sleeper, something I can park at the local supermarket and no-one would look at it twice   s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:

1MZ is 170kg's. Unsure of the weight of a 1zz.

I need to get one of those scales that measure with a hook. Can't remember the name of them but they use a similar thing for weighing fish   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

Anywho's i'd urge you to try one and actually feel how little difference the V6 makes. If you want an engine you don't have to rev the nuts off, the V6 is perfect, full go from 2.5k revs.

You'd be amazed how much a turbo, intercooler and plumbing weighs!

Quote from: "OlberJ"

Quote from: "FGRob"V6 - OK it's an option but you change the car totally from a well balanced machine to a unknown point and squirt

You should come and have a shot of mine. Major misconception that it changes the car like that.

It's still extremely well balanced.

The thing is once you've done it that's it no going back, unlike a turbo / N/A you can just revert it back to stock if you want.

I've seen Nigel's car, looks and sounds fantasic but it's not my cup of tea - and that's the whole point about this, the OP asked a question he's got his own ideas, we did have a slight topic drift but I think in the end the question has been answered - buy a faster car  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:    s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  .

If I wanted a 6 cyl then I would go TVR - hey but that's me.  s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  

Rob.

Erm no, I'm not convinced buying a faster car is the best option so far.  Infact I'm leaning toward the turbo route   s:D :D s:D  

BTW does anyone know if the SP turbo kit uses the stock manifold or is it replaced?  I was going to get the precats out but if the manifold is replaced then it would be a waste of time.  I know my cobra cat back will still be okay had asked about that.

every kit replaces teh manifold

No, of course the manifold doesn't stay. Where do you think the turbo would go?

The SP kit (as does all turbo kits) replaces the stock manifold with a custom one. The SP (and TTE) kit uses a cast manifold. This doesn't have the reliability issues connected with the welded steel versions the other kits use.

Find a local member who has a turbo'd 2 and I'm sure they'll give you a spin in it. That'll make your mind up  s:) :) s:)  Or talk to SP and I'm sure they'll let you take a ride in the SP-Racer.

I don't think buying a faster car is the way to go personally, you end up with just another car, there's no enjoyment getting it there. Take the kit car enthusiasts for example, it would be quicke and easier to buy a production car but no, to modify a car is a personal thing and this must be more rewarding than going out and buying a car.

I was thinking about the elise route but have a change of heart, putting a turbo on my car is being considered at the moment, the wife just needs convincing.

 s:lol: :lol: s:lol:   I wouldn't mention that if I were you, just an impromptu night out a Pizza Express or somewhere.

Oh I thought the turbo went in between the manifold and the cat, as I know the SP kit shortens the stock cat a little.  Got it now the turbo is built into the manifold   s:oops: :oops: s:oops:  No need to remove my pre-cats then   s:D :D s:D  

As for convincing the wife - you could try my mates approach, just do it and then deny everything, hmm what turbo? its not turbo'd it always drives like that   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:    It worked from him till he wanted his elevenses, what do you mean I had it last night, no I didn't?  yes you did, doh!

You were right first time. The turbo sits between the manifold and the exhaust. Kits can't use the stock manifold though because it's exhaust port won't match up to the turbo's exhaust inlet port. Generic turbo's are built to a standard port specification, like T2, T3 or T4. A turbo kit replaces the stock manifold with one that has a matching standard exhaust port for the turbo of choice, so they will bolt together.

I think Dan nailed it. If you really love the way the '2 drives, adding more power is a good thing to do. How much depends on how deep your pockets are and how many reliability compromises you want to make. Turbo up to around the 200bhp mark is nice to drive and suits the car really well. Going significantly further runs you into torque numbers that can shorten the life of the gearbox. Lots and lots of power needs a bigger turbo, so some effects on throttle response, particularly in part throttle situations and you can regard the stock gearbox as a consumable.

You can go the N/A route. It is usually simple enough (when it all works out, unlike my build at the moment) but you wont get that lazy mid range stomp a turbo gives you with even the best set up. This is less intrusive than a turbo conversion and does not add any weight (even took a lot off with my mods), cheaper to do and still makes for a nice drive.

Engine swap is getting a bit more serious. 2zz is manic, so more gears, more revs, just my sort of thing, but the opposite of the turbo in character. V6 adds some weight and is a properly big mod, but you get power and a decent noise to go with it. Deep pockets for engine swaps.

I love the way the '2 drives, so am happy to spend a tidy sum making it go faster. I like the frenetic element of wringing out a high revving engine and am seriously considering 2zz at the moment. Turbo is not an option for my preferences. I like the mid engined balance and manners of the car, so replacing it with something that gives me a similar balance but is faster is difficult. Really, the logical next step if a good torque delivery is your thing, is the VX220 turbo / VXR220. But these are more hard core than the '2 in some ways.

From what the OP has said, I reckon a turbo would fit the bill nicely.

Chris

This is just a personal opinion but the alternative options are Lotus, Porsche or VX. The MR2 probably sits at the bottom of the pack at the moment but trumps the MX5 and the MGF. MR2, silver, with hardtop lasted about a day at the garage down the road as did a red Boxter at just under 20 grand with a plastic rear screen. I think you should go for the car.

Okay heres the probs with the different car route..

Boxter S
Finding one with a good history and in good condition in the price range difficult, most expensive of the bunch
silly repair and maintenance costs due to no access to engine
plastic rear screen WTF!
sky high insurance
highly likely it will get keyed in Sunderland

S2000
Best of the bunch but a group 20 insurance again
iffy handling apparently?
low torque, high reving engine
hard to find locally, hens teeth these

BMW Z4
Most of these are 2.0, 2.2s so under powered
3.0 apparently front heavy given weight of engine
2.5L is the one to go for but not many up here, expensive to buy
expensive maintenance again
group 19 insurance like the boxter

VX220
nope sorry its just ugly, don't care how good they are I couldn't buy one

MX5
Would need turboing anyway so may as well turbo the 2.

 s:lol: :lol: s:lol:   In a way, I think you have answered your own question.

What about lotus, exige or elise?

Quote from: "Mike68"What about lotus, exige or elise?

Need the supercharged versions if torque is your thing.

Chris

Said it earlier, saying it again. If you want an orange, buy an orange, not an apple and some paint.

Markii already answered the original question with reply No. 4

Quote from: "markiii"if your not bored with the car yet (other than power)

and don't mind the learning experience that comes with a Turbo then turbo it

you'll get most of your cash back by splitting when you sell

if you want fit and forget simplicity

buy another car

edited by me to help Wills out   s:D :D s:D  



Simples   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  



Or in Laymans terms, listen to Craig >>>>>

Quote from: "nelix"Said it earlier, saying it again. If you want an orange, buy an orange, not an apple and some paint.

Quote from: "nelix"Said it earlier, saying it again. If you want an orange, buy an orange, not an apple and some paint.

All well and good if you can afford just the right orange. Alternative is to buy an apple and make it as close to the orange that you can afford. Or it may even work out better than the orange you could not afford if it all works out well.

For the combination of mid engined dynamics, practicality and price of a turbocharged (or supercharged) MR2, you will not get anything else in the price range. Boxters that are in the price range will be well leggy and give power to weight that is not really any better, or even as much as a well sorted '2. Lotus don't do anything with a torquey engine in that price range or even remotely near it. No one else does a mid engined practical car in that price range full stop. Closest you will get to what the OP wants is the VX220 turbo starting at around £13,000. You can build a lot of MR2 performance for that money and you get a heater that works and a roof that is waterproof.

I really like the idea of a '2 with more power. It is what the car should have had from the factory. I would agree that in many cases, it is just easier and better to buy a faster car, but with a modded MR2, you can have your cake and eat it.

Chris

Quote- off topic a bit but I've had two attempts at test driving a Boxster S and neither dealer would let me based on my appearance/age!

Just as well really as if you'd driven the Boxster, you'd have found that it does all the MR2 does, only better, so you'd have bought one and this interesting thread would not have started

As for bikes vs cars they may acelerate fast but most of those riding them just don't seem to know how to get round bends

I completely agree with Chris. The MR2 feels like it was designed to take more power. I'm amazed there wasn't a 2zz engine option at POS as it feels like it was made for it. You give it more bhp, and the car feels in no way compromised with it's handling.

I've driven other faster stock cars, 350Z, RX8, Boxster S, 911 4S, 911 2S, M3, Z4 and an Elise. None of them have left me wishing I had one instead of my MR2. I love the interior of the Porsches and I like the sounds made by those with 6 cylinders. I love the wow-factor of the Elise and the practicality of the M3, but as an all round package the MR2 comes out on top. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the stock MR2 is better than these cars, but if you put the time and effort (and £££) into making the MR2 the car you want, you can surpass these other cars easily in terms of both performance and smile factor. You also get the bonus of it being cheaper than all the above to buy, cheaper parts and cheaper running costs, trivial depreciation and stealth factor.

Let me put it another way. Are those that advocate 'buying the orange' against modifications to other things? A house for instance? I'm thinking of adding a hot tub, a conservatory and landscaping the rear garden of my home this year. Should I forget those plans and simply buy a house that already has the hot tub, the conservatory and the garden with the unnecessary-no-other-function-other-than-nice-to-look-at-water-feature?

Ok, so perhaps the house analogy is a little different but my point is that the perfect car for some people doesn't exist. You can either buy the closest thing to it, or you can try and make it. Sure, there's Zonda's and Veyron's out there, but those and unfortunately unrealistic for most of us.

And just to counter-argue myself; I've agreed the purchase of a Lotus Elise to complement the MR2. It'll be the car I use when the MR2 is off the road, which unfortunately has worked out at over 50% of the time this last 2 years   s:oops: :oops: s:oops:  . This shows how much trouble (and cost) you can have with trying to build that perfect car, but it also shows I'll be sidelining this 'faster car' for my beloved MR2, because I know my MR2 is better all round.   s:flame: :flame: s:flame:

Righto, Thanks for the input guys, I'm happy for the mods to lock this thread now if they want as my minds made up.

If I'm going to spend the money on a more power its going to be the turbo route, Common sense tells me it would be better to buy a faster car in the same sort of league but the fact is there isn't any other car thats right for me when I consider insurance, running costs, purchase cost vs age of car, practicality etc..  

Mind you it shows theres a clear gap in the car market here, imagine if Mazda decided to do a 1.8L turbo MX5 for say £1 to £1.5K above the price of the basic 1.8L NA model, made it a round 220bhp and a sensible insurance/tax band! I recon they wouldn't be able to build them fast enough   s:D :D s:D

[MOD]Bear with me, I am splitting the off topic bits to chit chat.[MOD]

Quote from: "stargazer30"Sorry guys I should have said from the off, I'm considering the 200bhp package only, >200 needs a stronger clutch  :-) :-) :-)   Anyone driven a 200bhp turbo mk3?

I drove a TTE one and have to say that it drove excellently. Sure you can use more power, but around 200 makes it a complete package of go and grip.

Chris

You'll want a stronger clutch even with 200bhp, trust me. Stock one will hold it but it really won't last very long if driven hard.

Ive had the TTE Turbo fitted about 6 months ago. All i can say is that with around 200bhp, you really will have a big smile on your face, no one will try and race you at every traffic light as they wont know its turbo'ed, and if they do , most people will get a bit of a shock, or an A**e whooping. Also it is a very lazy drive if you just want to chill, with nice torque, you dont need to change gear all the time to overtake.

I would reccomend getting a turbo, and i would say that £2500, with £300-£400 in reserve for any unseen costs, which there will be. thats it though, £4000 is a bit high in my opinion.
Buying off a member like i did is a great idea, firstly you will know the setup is reliable, and second, us members are nice people who you can trust. you should tell us where you live, i bet someone with a turbo will take you for a spin and show you how quick they are  s:D :D s:D  

Lastly, I very much doubt your clutch will last long with any turbo, mine lasted 100 miles, although it had already  done 60, 000.

I'm up in Sunderland (that's near Newcastle for the southerners!) I wouldn't mind a passenger ride in a turbo'd 2 as SP is a good 4 hrs and 200miles from me so I won't be able to get a go in the demo car before I'm comitted (2 week lead in, and deposit paid up front)

With the clutch replaced its into the £5K mark, which is more than I want to spend, £4K was what I was aiming to spend but that means hoping my stock clutch with 19K miles will handle it.

If you can't afford another £500 for a clutch (that's parts and labour) then I'm going to stick my neck out here and say you probably can't afford to go turbo in the first place IMHO. Honestly, there's enough experience here to know by now that if you are going FI then you will need a better clutch, and to not allow for it is folly.

You may be okay for a bit if yours has only done 19K miles, but I'd still expect to do it sooner rather than later and at least that way there won't be any nasty surprises at a later date.

Quote from: "Dan M"If you can't afford another £500 for a clutch (that's parts and labour) then I'm going to stick my neck out here and say you probably can't afford to go turbo in the first place IMHO. Honestly, there's enough experience here to know by now that if you are going FI then you will need a better clutch, and to not allow for it is folly.

You may be okay for a bit if yours has only done 19K miles, but I'd still expect to do it sooner rather than later and at least that way there won't be any nasty surprises at a later date.

Can afford it just, the more money the less attactive turboing is.  TBH if I am going to spend 5K why not spend another £700 and get the 240 bhp job!  Anyone fancy a group buy.. lol  s:D :D s:D    s:D :D s:D    s:D :D s:D

definitely get the clutch done at the same time. It's not the power it's the torque that causes the slip and It will slip (sooner or later). If it slips straight away, you're going to be a little disappointed with the whole package which would be a shame. If you have to save up an extra month or so, then save up!

You're right on with the thinking for the 240 bhp. On a £/bhp ratio, spending another £700 to get the extra 40 bhp makes a lot of sense. Problem is, when do you stop! You could do it in stages, I'm assuming the extra £700 could be postponed and added as a stage 2 upgrade in 12 months time when you're use to the 200?

I can assure you, the 240 package works very very well in SP's demo car. Drive it, and you'll want it in your own car. My first test drive in it many years ago resulted in me leaving SP in my own car with a turbo bolted to it 2 weeks later.

I don't think there are any Turbo'ed '2's in the North East any more. Well there is DJ2k21's but his is around 400+ bhp and he's somewhere on Teesside

Phil

Quote from: "evileye_xc"...around 400+ bhp

s:shock: :shock: s:shock:

Quote from: "kentsmudger"

Quote from: "evileye_xc"...around 400+ bhp

s:shock: :shock: s:shock:

Yeah, have you seen his signature!!

I should say, having owned a turbo'ed '2, I loved it until it became obvious I couldn't easily resolve the issues. I did decide to go forthe faster car and after my first proper blat of the year yesterday am very happy with my decision.

With a turbo I would factor in doubling your insurance and also things like gauges, a piggyback chip, tuning, additional servicing,  as well as a clutch. If I had 4 grand to spend on a '2 and lived in the North East I'd be straight down to Woodsports in County Durham and ask Paul to wab in a v6 for me.

Phil

My experience was similar to Muffdan.  Once I had driven the SP car there was no going back!  s:scared: :scared: s:scared:  

I also decided to go straight for the full 240 rather than 200 and then the extra 40 later on.  It was cheaper to go the whole hog in one go.  I also went for the new clutch even though the old one had only done 12K  (anyone want a slightly used standard clutch?).  No point in having power and not getting it on the road due to a slipping clutch.  s:cry: :cry: s:cry:  

I am loving every minute of my time spent driving the turbo.  I really believe that the chassis and brakes really do deserve more than the standard engine provides.  I am not saying the na is a bad car. It's just sooo much better as a "sportscar" with the turbo.  I just have to keep reminding myself to let the tyres warm up a little before giving it too much "welly"  (As a biker you would have thought I would remember  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  ).

Quote from: "nathanMR2"A few of us have got reasonable result N/A with certain mods. Robs right up there and so far has the best results as far as Im aware.

You dont have to spend £3k-£4k to acheive this.

My spend was around £1000-£1100 mark which i feel is good for the results i gained

The mods are listed on my signature

CHE Manifold
Cobra Sports Exhaust
PPE Cold Air Induction
Emanage Blue
Mapping

I'm pretty sure David is set on a turbo conversion, but just for completeness Nathan, that £1100 isn't really an apples-with-apples comparison is it?  I'm pretty certain you couldn't buy all those parts new and fitted for that price.  If we're using a DIY/ second hand parts comparison, then £2k is the going rate for a SH TTE conversion which is cracking value by comparison.  I completely agree that a new turbo conversion (at £4k- £6k) is not for everyone, but there is a big difference between a brand new warranted drive-in-drive-out set up and a set of DIY parts whether new or second hand.

And now to the apples-with-oranges comparison...  Jason points out that what some people want to achieve is their ideal car, which is often something that simply does not exist... but can be created.  I subscribe fully to this, not because I sell MR2 parts, but because this is what I have done with my own car... and I love it!  Sure, I am a tuner so I do spend a lot to ensure my car is at its very best, but these claims of how much faster these alternative "fast" cars just don't stack up because my experiences have been very different, whether on road or track!

Once you've got the car tuning bug I don't think it ever leaves you, so even if you do go off and buy yourself a "faster" car in the future, you'll end up spending a fortune on tuning that too!  And, if you're not too unlucky (as some on here have been - you know who you are!), most of what you buy can be removed at a later date to recover a good chunk of your outlay.

The MR2 Roadster tuning proposition is especially attractive for all the reasons already discussed - try arguing ALL of those points with any other car!!

The '2 rocks!!

There is another point to consider, and that's driveability. I know for a fact that my old Roadster was miles quicker after I turbo'd it, and yet once the novelty wore off I know the car was much more fun to drive NA. There's something so much purer in the drive without a turbo, and it was the main thinking behind me not going for all-out power after selling the VXR. As good as a turbo car is, you simply cannot beat the immediacy of an NA lump that doesn't leave you fighting between lag and boost round the corners. There's no doubt that turbo cars are much better for this than they used to be, but the lag is still there and will always be there due to the very design of it. Most people don't even realise the difference in the drive between NA/SC/turbo, and they just look at the end performance figures.

For me, I'd say that if you really want to go FI then a supercharger is the way to do it, so you keep the feel of an NA engine but with the extra grunt that FI provides. And even after all that, if you really want to go faster then spending £4K on driver tuition will make you much quicker than any turbo kit, as it's the driver that makes most of the difference. I remember a few years ago at Elvington one of our members in a Unichip-equipped car pushing 160bhp being comfortably quicker than another one of us with a turbo on his car, although in all fairness having seen said turbo-car owner drive recently I believe it would well be different now...!



It's irrelevant saying that "Oh, my car has beaten this car and that car on track, so it's definitely quicker!" as it's 95% down to the driver. Case in point, at Bedford last year my brother in his 350Z managed to get the 996C4S in front of him blue flagged for driving so slowly round the corners. Now there is no way in hell a 350Z is quicker on track than the Porker, but the 996 owner just couldn't drive for peanuts even considering it was my brother's fist time on track! A 986S is going to be comfortably quicker on track than a turbo'd Roadster I suggest, but on the road in a straight line it'll get left behind. Power alone doesn't tell the whole story, feel and balance play more of a part in determining a great car to drive.

I don't think I'd go as far to say you can't have a good drivers car with a turbo.   I do agree for bigger turbos and remapped turbo cars this is an issue.  Bigger turbo, you get lag and typically remapped turbo cars give you full boost at command which can be a bad thing.  My remapped ST put out 260bhp and due to the small turbo had a very uneven torque curve, super torque lower down the RPM range and starved further up.  That + the front wheel drive turned the car into a point and squirt car, it was almost impossible to get power down out of corners correctly as the power delivery was just not linear enough.

So sure with an NA car no issues here.  However my ST as standard was much different.  Loads of people on the ST forums complain that the stock map is just stupid as it limits boost to 1/4 until 4K RPM.  The standard ST feels sooo slow compared to a mapped one.  But... the torque curve is totally flat and theres no lag.  I guess someone at Ford new what he was doing as it makes the car drive like a fast NA car.  I remember before I got rid and it went back to standard, sure it felt slower but it was so much nicer to drive.

I didn't say you couldn't have a good driver's car with a turbo, just that it's far more progressive to drive on track and fast twisty roads with NA.

If you could get a 240 bhp and 220ftlb NA lump into the car that weighed around the same as a 1ZZ with a turbo kit then I'd agree with Dan completely - NA would be the best, but you can't, so it isn't!  This thread relates to making the car fast(er), and there is no way that anyone can argue that a NA MR2 is as quick as a turbo car in ANY conditions (all other things being equal).  Throttle response will be adversely affected by a turbo but the additional oomph more than makes up for it.  Personal preference about throttle characteristics and engine sound are another matter and make for a different driving experience which is why it is completely understandable why many prefer the car in NA form.

I completely get the V6 option though, but this is essentially irreversible so it is not as versatile as a turbo conversion and, ultimately, not as tuneable.  Supercharging is a middleground that, IMO, will leave you wanting more!

The world's fastest road cars (not just on road, or on track, just "fastest") either have turbos or BIG engines.  The latter is not an option for an MR2 Roadster.

P.S. I agree that driver training is relevant, but I've never had any.  Plenty of people on here have seen how fast my car is, and I'm the first to admit it's because of the car, not my driving!

Quote from: "MattPerformance"If you could get a 240 bhp and 220ftlb NA lump into the car that weighed around the same as a 1ZZ with a turbo kit then I'd agree with Dan completely - NA would be the best, but you can't, so it isn't!  This thread relates to making the car fast(er), and there is no way that anyone can argue that a NA MR2 is as quick as a turbo car in ANY conditions (all other things being equal.) Throttle response will be adversely affected by a turbo but the additional oomph more than makes up for it.[/u]).

Hmm, I would disagree to an extent. Let's assume for a second that we'd put a lightly-fettled (p&p, intake, exhaust, possibly cams?) V6 making 240bhp (or even a K20A) into a Roadster and pitted it against a 240bhp turbo'd car and chucked them on track using the same driver. I would suspect that the V6 may be that little bit quicker  as you would be able to get the power down far quicker through the corners, so somewhere like Anglesey would favour this kind of car. Conversely on a drag strip the turbo car would of course the NA car for dead.


As always, it will depend on how you want the car to feel. I prefer purity, Matt prefers turbo thump, and that's why we have different views on this I suspect. No-one is right or wrong, it's just opinions.  s:) :) s:)




Here's a thought though: How about if you took a regular NA MR2 and spent £2K on power bits and £2K on suspension & brakes? I think that would be substantially more fun than either of the above routes on the road, and if you're only going to track it once or twice a year you're not going to lose out on much. See Nic's car for an example of how to build an incredible NA car (with respectful nods to Danny and FGRob, of course).

Quote from: "Dan M"If you can't afford another £500 for a clutch (that's parts and labour) then I'm going to stick my neck out here and say you probably can't afford to go turbo in the first place IMHO. Honestly, there's enough experience here to know by now that if you are going FI then you will need a better clutch, and to not allow for it is folly.

You may be okay for a bit if yours has only done 19K miles, but I'd still expect to do it sooner rather than later and at least that way there won't be any nasty surprises at a later date.

Just let you know i'm still on my original OEM clutch, and I have 200/220BHP. Just VERY occasionally there's a little bit of slip if I put my foot down in the wrong gear (and when I forget to take my foot fully off the clutch   s:( :( s:(  ), but that's been with me for a couple of years, and got no worse.

OK perhaps I'm not as fast as some, but I've done 3 trackdays and 2 airfields so it has had some hard work to do.

I've got my £500 put to one side (in my mind at least), but don't seem to need it yet. So whilst Dan has a good argument, by my experience it is not absolutely necessary to do it at turbo time if you want to save it for next year's Christmas present   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

This thread has taken an interesting turn. I completely see both sides of the debate here. Ultimately, the MR2 is a precise and nimble road car. One of the joys in exploiting what it can do is treading that fine line when the car is loaded up in a corner and you are teasing the power in against cornering force earlier and earlier. Here, the balance of the car is heavily dependent on part throttle response and this is the area where the turbo is at its most compromised. The bigger the turbo (relative to engine size) the greater the effect on throttle response. I have driven a TTE equipped car and the turbo install drove very well indeed, well up to the standard of a modern OEM installation. However, although lag was minimal if floored, there was still that throttle elasticity that you get with any turbo. This, for my personal taste, is at odds with the kind of car the MR2 is. Don't get me wrong, the extra thump was highly satisfying and made for a very entertaining road car, just not to my personal taste. Further, the torque delivery was quite linear with the torque fading out at the top end in a similar way to the stock setup.

Technically, there are ways to get around this. Supercharging almost completely eliminates the part throttle elasticity provided you don't have a big intercooler in the system. You can go bigger engine, but this almost always means bigger weight. You can go more revs, but this means peakier engines with less urge at lower RPM. They each have pros and cons in setting up. If I were staying with the 1zz I would supercharge it. The boost is fixed and linear, generally with a nice increase in torque with revs. On the downside, you end up with engine power being used to feed the engine, so ultimate output is going to be less. Turbos need more thought in controlling the boost. They can be prone to boost creeping up, smaller turbos give good mid but poor top end, for that diesel feeling and larger turbos increase lag and lose out at the bottom end. The art of a good install is the balance of these elements. I reckon the TTE had this very well resolved. Of course turbos use waste energy to do the job so are capable of ultimately higher outputs. Bigger N/A engines are obviously going to give better "quality" power, but there is both weight and cost to factor in. High revving engines are the other way to go. You get more power, but have to work harder for it. The opposite of what the OP is wanting, but for me at least, more in keeping with the character of the sports car the MR2 is, which is why I am seriously looking at the 2zz conversion in the next couple of months.

At the end of the day, you pays your money and takes your choice. More grunt with slight throttle response compromises (turbo), more grunt with slightly limited top power potential (supercharger), more grunt with more weight, some of it high up in the car (V6), more grunt with short manic gearing and greater demands on the driver (2zz). Of course you can just N/A tune what is there and get less than half the gain but with no compromises other than cost.

For all these options though, we should not forget the chassis and brakes. A set of Goodrich braided brake lines does wonders for brake feel. Bracing the shell moves the feel of the car up a segment making everything more clear and accurate. A set of coilovers makes the car much more settled and quicker witted.

Whichever way you go, one thing is for sure, it is gonna cost ya  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

Chris

Sometimes Chris, I think you and me are brothers separated at birth (http://www.otherplaceforum.com/images/smilies/heart.png)


I was thinking as well the other day, is the only reason that TTE made their turbo kit around 180-200bhp (depending on which dyno/car is being read) purely because of longevity and keeping a sensible warranty? Or was it because that's what they felt gave the best power increase to the car before you get to the hanging on syndrome I mentioned in an earlier post? Be interesting to know, that's for sure.

Just to touch briefly on the turbo/SC thought: I would instinctively agree that the SC should give a better response and so be a more pleasant experience. However, in the Mini Cooper S I found the newer turbo one is actually a better drive, both on road and on track.

Back to the main topic: If you've got the modding bug, you'll just end up modding your faster car, in my experience. In terms of the MR2: I'd go for the turbo if you're otherwise happy with the the car. If you've always had a hankering for a Boxter S (or whatever the case may be) then go for that.

So which is better? Only one way to find out...... FIGHT  :-) :-) :-)

Perhaps I've been watching too much Harry Hill?

As a side note, Anyone know what a 1zz turbo with the intercooler weighs? Or the weight of a converted car?

hard to say, different kits use different turbos and different sized intercoolers (if they use an IC). There's also the loss of the stock manifold and possible loss of main cat and back box to consider. You take away weight as well as add it.

I did check out the V6 option BTW.  basic V6 conversion won't give much change out of £5K and for that you get 200lb/ft and 200bhp V6 plus a new clutch so its the same sort of power and cost as the basic kit Matt does give or take a little.  The experts (woodsport) are just down the road from me at Durham.  The down side is they have a 3 to 4 month waiting list and the conversion takes 4 weeks!  My cars my daily driver so not an option for me really.

Quote from: "Dan M"once the novelty wore off I know the car was much more fun to drive NA. There's something so much purer in the drive without a turbo, and it was the main thinking behind me not going for all-out power after selling the VXR. As good as a turbo car is, you simply cannot beat the immediacy of an NA lump that doesn't leave you fighting between lag and boost round the corners.

This is exactly why I haven't turbo'd mine.  I have driven the SP240 and the C2 and whilst it is fun for a giggle I reckon most of the time a chipped N/A has just enough power to keep it interesting.  9 times out of 10 I never feel the need for more power.

Quote from: "Twos Company"

Quote from: "Dan M"once the novelty wore off I know the car was much more fun to drive NA. There's something so much purer in the drive without a turbo, and it was the main thinking behind me not going for all-out power after selling the VXR. As good as a turbo car is, you simply cannot beat the immediacy of an NA lump that doesn't leave you fighting between lag and boost round the corners.

This is exactly why I haven't turbo'd mine.  I have driven the SP240 and the C2 and whilst it is fun for a giggle I reckon most of the time a chipped N/A has just enough power to keep it interesting.  9 times out of 10 I never feel the need for more power.

All interesting points, as already said we are now deep into personal opinion.  I differ from the above tbh.  Before I went turbo I had pursued a small degree of NA mods; Unichip, markiii pipe, Blitz panel, Magnex cat back, 5w40 fully syn oil and ran on V Power (probably £800's worth in total).  On a good day it may have been worth 150hp (just a guesstimate) and whilst it was without doubt an improvement over stock I still found myself wringing its neck to get a move on (in other words still lacking).  I then went for a passenger ride in Ste's (Spit) C2 and that was just mind altering, decision made, if I'm keeping the 2 then I had to tick the turbo box on the 'list of mods to do to your 2 before you die' (does a list exist?  New thread maybe????).

Clearly a solid, proven set-up is key to getting a level of driveability on a turbo and as you say its your daily driver then I'd think your best (only) option is the drive in drive out package from SP.  My personal experience with my Apexi (one of the smaller blowers, yet made about as much as a stock 1ZZ can take) is that driveability hasn't really suffered, its smooth off boost and just as quick as when it was NA but now I have boost assisting from 2500 and at 3000 the full mania is revealed and its just a case of how hard do you want to press the pedal.  If anything IMO it's the polarisation from off boost to on boost that alters the driveability (not necessarily worsening it) and for me that just adds another element to its character and another aspect to respect (feather the throttle if any degree of hand wheel angle is present).  Make no mistake its a radically different car to when it was NA'd, but then isn't that what you are looking for anyway?

Quote from: "OlberJ"As a side note, Anyone know what a 1zz turbo with the intercooler weighs? Or the weight of a converted car?

My 1zz with PE turbo and full chargecooler setup was 1000Kg
My same car , but with the 3VZ-FE V6 weighed on the same machine came in at 1040Kg ( The weighbridge was supposed to be accurate to 20KG, so those figures can't be taken as Kg absolute, but you get the idea)
I think a 1MZ-FE V6 is around 20Kg lighter. ( Olie can probably confirm or deny this)

I fully accept the reversibilty argument and also the 1zz, even with a few mild mods is ace to drive too.
I drove my son's 2 back to back with my own, on a few nice roads in Sussex a few weeks back and though there was a difference, I just loved the way David's car responded. It just felt so sweet and in touch with the road, very responsive and the engine crisp and more flexible than I remembered as well. The Fidanza lightweight flywheel is a very underestimated mod for an NA, which I rate as probably the best for what it costs.

Quote from: "loadswine"[The Fidanza lightweight flywheel is a very underestimated mod for an NA, which I rate as probably the best for what it costs.

That's probably one of my next mods, plus a decent clutch as my thrust bearing is making strange noise at the moment.

Rob

ChrisGB, good points well made.  My only complaint is the use of the vague term "more" when summarising the various options! Bangs for your buck is surely the all important metric?!
A final point on the various options, is the potential for future tuning.  If you choose turbo you have the option for further tuning (280+ bhp) with uprated internals.  With all other options you are pretty much limited to outputs well within the capabilities of the stock engine (whichever it is!).

Quote from: "Dan M"I was thinking as well the other day, is the only reason that TTE made their turbo kit around 180-200bhp (depending on which dyno/car is being read) purely because of longevity and keeping a sensible warranty? Or was it because that's what they felt gave the best power increase to the car before you get to the hanging on syndrome I mentioned in an earlier post? Be interesting to know, that's for sure.

The outputs of the TTE kit is all based around Toyota Corporation Standards and vehicle homologation requirements (the choice of turbo was determined by the driveability argument).  The kit has to meet Toyota's own 100 hr test (100 hrs at full load at max power), Toyota engine bay temp requirements, as well as all noise and exhaust emissions, and all at a price which is marketable.  The stock cat (and to some extent, the pre-cat) will generate too high temperatures at high outputs so in order to keep the engine bay temps in check (and to meet the ultra-demanding 100hr test), the tune had to be wound back to where it is.  Also, for drive by noise, they had to keep the stock air box which is also quite restrictive.  

When you don't have to meet homologation (which tuners don't) and a good understanding of how to go about safely exploring the headroom from Toyota's fool-proof standards, it is possible to develop the kit to produce far more performance without any reliability trade-off whatsoever.  That is what the original SP240 did.  The new SP Turbo kit moves the process further along with a more efficient intercooler and a few other tweaks to improve efficiency and avoid bracket fractures and water pipe leaks  s;-) ;-) s;-)

Quote from: "Dan M"I was thinking as well the other day, is the only reason that TTE made their turbo kit around 180-200bhp (depending on which dyno/car is being read) purely because of longevity and keeping a sensible warranty? Or was it because that's what they felt gave the best power increase to the car before you get to the hanging on syndrome I mentioned in an earlier post? Be interesting to know, that's for sure.

My take on this is that Toyota had to offer a warranty with the kit, so it had to be gentle enough to no wreck anything. I think that quite a few people have shown that putting more torque than the TTE kit makes down the gearbox is going to significantly reduce its life. Quite a few have had gearbox problems in the standard non turbo car, so it is obviously not like a big VAG diesel box. As for the hanging on effect, I felt that 200hp was comfortable and I am sure that the car could handle a fair bit more with an experienced driver behind the wheel, but to do this, other compromises are being made in thermal and longevity terms.

Quote from: "MattPerformance"ChrisGB, good points well made.  My only complaint is the use of the vague term "more" when summarising the various options! Bangs for your buck is surely the all important metric?!
A final point on the various options, is the potential for future tuning.  If you choose turbo you have the option for further tuning (280+ bhp) with uprated internals.  With all other options you are pretty much limited to outputs well within the capabilities of the stock engine (whichever it is!).

If bang for buck is the key metric, nitrous is the best option, with an easy £5 per bhp added. Next step is the cheaper turbo kits at anything from £25 per bhp added. Next up is something like the Web3.0 Rotrex Supercharger kit which is around £33 per bhp gained. Next up is N/A mods at £50 per bhp. This is equalled by a 2zz swap with mild bolt on power mods but you spend more to get more. Last is the more complete, but more expensive turbo setups from around £50 - £70 per bhp and V6 conversions at a similar level. Wonder if anyone has done a 2GR-FE swap?

When it comes to headroom, the turbo gives you an option to make more than the supercharger on any given engine, but if you are building for maximum power on revised internals, the turbo that makes huge power will be less drivable than the supercharger option that makes 40 - 50hp less in total when limited by the strength of the internals.

The other thing is how you define bang. If numbers are your objective, turbo makes lots of sense. If driving purity is your thing, N/A makes lots of sense. It is all about personal preference and what you enjoy about the car.

Chris

Re the 2GR-FE swap, a chap called USPSpro over on SC has just installed one, Blitzo had done an autocross version before that as well. Nobody that I'm aware of in the UK with a Roadster yet, though there are a couple of Mk2s and a Mk1 is being done by Woodsport at the moment. With just exhaust manifold mods, these can make 300 horses on stock ecu.
Cost around £8500 or thereabouts from information I've seen. Engines are not easy to come by over here.  Say £55 per bhp increase over stock levels.

At £8 1/2Ks you are a long way into buy a better car budget. You need to love the mr2 a lot to spend that much on one. Bet it is a cracking drive though!

Chris

Quote from: "MattPerformance"A final point on the various options, is the potential for future tuning.  If you choose turbo you have the option for further tuning (280+ bhp) with uprated internals.  With all other options you are pretty much limited to outputs well within the capabilities of the stock engine (whichever it is!).

I'm assuming here you mean not adding FI?

That's the reason i like the V6. It's a starting block of 200bhp and 200lb/ft of torque (and remember, 95% of that torque is available for most of the time, not just peak). And you can add your FI up to around the 300/350 mark without needing internals.

If you uprate the internals, that'll cost you, on any engine.

Nige i need to get the car weighed really, it's booked in for when i get my tyres fitted for tracking and corner weighting so should hopefully be soon!

Also we're doing apples and oranges here. It is possible to do your own V6 conversion so the figures being banded about aren't a true reflection really.

Parts alone are about £2k for a V6 conversion. It is labour/skills intensive though.

Quote from: "stargazer30"Okay heres the probs with the different car route..

Boxter S
Finding one with a good history and in good condition in the price range difficult, most expensive of the bunch
silly repair and maintenance costs due to no access to engine
plastic rear screen WTF!
sky high insurance
highly likely it will get keyed in Sunderland

S2000
Best of the bunch but a group 20 insurance again
iffy handling apparently?
low torque, high reving engine
hard to find locally, hens teeth these

BMW Z4
Most of these are 2.0, 2.2s so under powered
3.0 apparently front heavy given weight of engine
2.5L is the one to go for but not many up here, expensive to buy
expensive maintenance again
group 19 insurance like the boxter

VX220
nope sorry its just ugly, don't care how good they are I couldn't buy one

MX5
Would need turboing anyway so may as well turbo the 2.

Just to add my 2p's worth - my mate/housemate has a 56 plate 2.5 Z4. It looks lovely, brilliant build quality as you'd expect from a BMW, but disappointing performance. My standard W reg '2 is far more agile, and beats his car from the off. It seems to take ages for the Z4 to get going, but I admit that once it's up to 3.5k revs, its quite quick

You can get a Mazda fitted MX5 1.6 turbo fairly cheaply. You can get a Fiat Barchetta and turbo it fairly cheaply. The MG-TF 160 is fairly easy to get to 190bhp and keep NA.

I don't think any of these drive as well as the MR2, but just to throw some ideas into the mix....

The Mx5 is a great drive. Especially with the turbo added.

VX220s are pretty cheap (and quick)...
Early Elise?
Smart Roadster   s:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: s:crazyeyes:    s:D :D s:D  

I'm in a similar place right now - i'm far too comfortable with the '2, even in the wet.
I wouldn't consider turboing it, mostly due to reliability concerns, which leaves me wondering: what's next?

Elise is a bit basic, Boxster has image problems and concerns about big bills, S2000 is a torqueless wonder and gets criticised for the handling.
You sure you couldn't learn to live with the VX220 Turbo looks? Maybe in black? There's an Opel version with no Griffin badge....   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

I have just realised you need to get a 335D   s:D :D s:D

Quote from: "Thudd"I have just realised you need to get a 335D   s:D :D s:D

Mapped...   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

As per my earlier post, i thnk you should buy this......

 l viewtopic.php?f=37&t=28863 (http://www.mr2roc.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=28863) l

Its froma club member, and i reckon its a fair price.

Shame im too far away form you in wellingborough, otherwise id have helped out by letting you feel a turboed mr2.  s:) :) s:)  

still think you should do it  s:D :D s:D

I think if I was going turbo in the Roadster and I wanted a new install, it would have to be the SP kit. I've seen the SP Racer on track and it is very rapid indeed.  Not just on the straights, but everywhere.

Quote from: "ChrisGB"At £8 1/2Ks you are a long way into buy a better car budget. You need to love the mr2 a lot to spend that much on one. Bet it is a cracking drive though!

Heck, you can literally buy an older S2000 or Boxster for that money..

Quote from: "jamfe355"As per my earlier post, i thnk you should buy this......

 l viewtopic.php?f=37&t=28863 (http://www.mr2roc.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=28863) l

Its froma club member, and i reckon its a fair price.

still think you should do it  s:D :D s:D

Nope I need a reliable turbo upgrade, so it will be the SP package + new clutch + there 40,000 mile warrenty.  I'm sure this HASS kit is a bargain but if I had probs I'm up north so no specialists here and I'm not mechanical enough to fix it myself.

Quote from: "stargazer30"I'm up north so no specialists here and I'm not mechanical enough to fix it myself.

The aforementioned Woodsport in Durham

Future Racing Developments in Middleboro

XO on the Team Valley in Gateshead

Jude Performance Services in Blaydon

S-Cars in Spennymoor did some work on my '2

There are lots of Specialists up North. I'm sure there are more but that's just off the top of my head. I've used 3 of those and found all quite capable when working on a turbo '2

Quote from: "loadswine"I think if I was going turbo in the Roadster and I wanted a new install, it would have to be the SP kit. I've seen the SP Racer on track and it is very rapid indeed.  Not just on the straights, but everywhere.

Thanks Nigel   s:D :D s:D  
I'll be at Bedford on Mon (29/3) in it again, but I'm going with my Dad - it's his 70th Birthday that day - so if anyone sees it bimbling around gently please don't come rushing back onto this thread...   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  
I suspect it's also fair to say, regarding a second hand kit (or fourth hand Hass) that the reason David has a mint '05 car is that he wants the best he can get, both in terms of reliability and cosmetics.  I don't think a used kit fits the bill.  But that Hass kit will surely find a good home elsewhere.

Quote from: "aaronjb"

Quote from: "ChrisGB"At £8 1/2Ks you are a long way into buy a better car budget. You need to love the mr2 a lot to spend that much on one. Bet it is a cracking drive though!

Heck, you can literally buy an older S2000 or Boxster for that money..

You can get low milage Yr 2000 S2000s for £7k, so for £8.5k you can get a 2002 ish one in good nick! Personally that's what I'd do, but I'm bias as I had one for a few years and I love them!

And I never had any problems with the handling (as it was mentioned in an earlier post). The only people that have problems with them are people that don't understand how to drive a rear wheel drive car properly! (just my opinion of course!)

Jimi

Quote from: "Les"The main reason is I'm used to a turbo and the torque it provides.  It makes for easy/lazy driving.  The 2 is great on the bends but for getting into gaps on the A19 or having to speed up after road works its tiresome, having to change down/rev the nuts off it.  I recon with a turbo you'd have the best of both worlds.

Having the choice of driving a turbo'd family hatch - which is everything you describe here, and a '2, I far prefer the '2.  If you want to make the driving enjoyable (or, more of a headache), try thinking and looking a bit further down the road so that you're ready for whatever is going to be presented.  In standard trim, in the right gear at the right engine speed, it will deliver.  You just need to be ready for what comes up.  When you get it right, it is immensely rewarding.  When you get it not quite right, then the car will provide more than plenty of feedback about what you could have done ...

Having said that, the '2 can be really tiresome on a long drive home, in the rain and the dark after a long day at work ... but not so much I want to get rid of it.

I'd stick with it stock, and improve the way I use the road, then maybe think about more power.

edit: spelling and quoting

Quote from: "jjr197"

Quote from: "aaronjb"

Quote from: "ChrisGB"At £8 1/2Ks you are a long way into buy a better car budget. You need to love the mr2 a lot to spend that much on one. Bet it is a cracking drive though!

Heck, you can literally buy an older S2000 or Boxster for that money..

You can get low milage Yr 2000 S2000s for £7k, so for £8.5k you can get a 2002 ish one in good nick! Personally that's what I'd do, but I'm bias as I had one for a few years and I love them!

And I never had any problems with the handling (as it was mentioned in an earlier post). The only people that have problems with them are people that don't understand how to drive a rear wheel drive car properly! (just my opinion of course!)

Jimi

While I can see the mathematical logic in going for the Boxter or S2000, I reckon a 2GR-FE swap could be more fun to drive (and quicker) than either. For the price of the donor MR2 and the engine swap, you can get a reasonable high mile Boxter S or a nice S2000. The S2000 is a good engine in an average car IMO. I drove one before buying the MR2 and although the engine impressed, the steering was just plain odd / vague and the rear end felt ill at ease and not at all readable. I thought it was just that car, so tried another and it was no better. Nothing wrong with the handling as such, just not the involving drive the MR2 gives. Tried a Boxter too (though when I was looking, only very poor ones were coming in within my budget). Very grown up feel but not as flighty or nimble as the MR2. Of course both the Boxter and S2000 make good financial sense, the conversion is almost throwing money away, but the appeal remains.

As for turbo installs, the SP job is probably the best developed and refined out there. Should be fit and forget reliable, comes with warranty and gets the job done if turbo power is your thing. You can do it cheaper, but do you really want the hassle (and lost time) of ironing out the wrinkles of a less well developed kit?

Chris

Quote from: "jjr197"And I never had any problems with the handling (as it was mentioned in an earlier post). The only people that have problems with them are people that don't understand how to drive a rear wheel drive car properly! (just my opinion of course!)

Jimi

Admittedly this is third hand, but from reading up (eg in evo mag) there was a problem with the suspension/geometry on the earlier models which made them twitchy and unpredictable on the upper limit. This may have been sorted in the more recent cars, but I think the early cars are where the value is - Honda were still building them way after the sellby date.

 m http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrou ... xster.html (http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/19706/honda_s2000_v_porsche_boxster.html) m
MR2 Turbo review:
 m http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarr ... a_mr2.html (http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/201942/toyota_mr2.html) m

They gave the S2k 4stars, the MR2 picked up 5.

I had a mate who ran an S2k and a Boxster2.5, and far preferred the Boxster.
If it were me, i'd take the S2k purely because of image hangups over Porsche ownership.

That was before the re-gradings, MR2 is only a 4 star car now.


Another thing I was thinking of last night (and Matt's going to feel in danger that I'm picking on him here but I'm really not, I promise!) is that while everyone who has seen the SP240 in action is agreed that it's a quick car, and there is no doubt that it is, look at all the other mods that are on there (nicked from Matt's sig, I'll pick out the ones that demonstrate my point):


2004 MR2 Roadster: SP-Racer - SP Turbo, SP de-cat, SP back box, SP sports clutch, SP12 wheels, R888s, AP 4-pots front, AP2-pots rear, SP adjustable sports suspension, TTE ARBs, SP front strut brace, reinforced rear brace, SP body reinforcement brace, Lotus Elise seats, Elise gear knob, Elise h/brake lever, OMP wheel, side scoops, rear spoiler, hardtop.


That's a very impressive list of mods right there, and they've been very well chosen to suit the car (indeed, I struggle to think of a better performance-based modified MR2 full stop, Matt's done a great job there) but that's what's going to give the most impressive performance on road or track. The tyres alone will be worth seconds, and with the bigger brakes you'll be able to stop in much shorter distances, and then you're on to the suspension and chassis mods... Like I said, it's just about as good as you can get and I'd love to have something like that. The extra power is of course welcome, but IMHO would be wasted without the extra goodies on there to make the car what it is. Chuck that little lot on an NA car and you'd be quicker than said Boxster S or S2000, but you'd keep the essence of what the MR2 is about.




There's making a faster car in a straight line, and then there's doing it where it matters. Any turbo'd MR2 will show an Elise a clean pair of heels on the motorway, but it's be left miles behind in the twisties where the fun is. My point is maybe that we could be talking about 'faster' and value for money in a wider sense than just outright speed.

4.5 stars MR2 vs 4stars S2k according to the online knowledge, but that's splitting hairs and they're both good cars.
In the group test they criticise the pre-facelift MR2 for understeer leading to roll oversteer in a very similar way to the criticisms of the early S2k.
They're both good cars, improved by the facelift modifications.

I'm still more tempted by an Elise/VX, but my Wife is more likely to sign off on an S2k/Boxster etc   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

Tbh you'd be better off with a Boxster than an Elise. I'd say it gives 85% of the drive but with 200% more comfort (although you have to factor in the 500% more likely to get the wanker sign than with the Elise!).

Quote from: "Dan M"Any turbo'd MR2 will show an Elise a clean pair of heels on the motorway, but it's be left miles behind in the twisties where the fun is.

That depends on your definition of fun, though.. personally I rarely crank it round corners these days because (certainly on the roads I drive) you can never be sure there isn't a tractor/doddery old fool just around the blind bend that you'll run into at great speed.

Sure, sometimes I do, but I'm far far below 10/10ths when I'm doing it with the way my '2 is set up (granted that's a bit different from stock  s:oops: :oops: s:oops:  ) and these days I think I'd like something that still corners decently, but has more point & squirt on the straights..

'course if money was no object I'd get something that did both..  s:) :) s:)

Sounds to me like you're just getting old  s;) ;) s;)

Could be.. plus I pretty much only drive to & from work when there's plenty of other traffic to make the country lanes 40mph maximum the whole way (if you're lucky) - if I'd get enough money back from breaking the MR-2 and selling it as a standard car, I'd buy something sensible I think.

I don't think I need to upgrade the handling on my 05 Mr2.  The stock setup can handle corners faster than I can   s:D :D s:D .  My bottle goes before the front/rear end does in the dry and I don't push it in the wet.  Maybe when I've had more experience in it and/or done some track day style driver training that'll change.

If that's the case, then in all honesty the last thing you need is more power.

Quote from: "Dan M"If that's the case, then in all honesty the last thing you need is more power.

I think his point is about wanting to challenge the car's limits, which, in a mid-engined car requires a good deal of skill, regardless of the engine power.  Having more power enhances the driving pleasure considerably (in my opinion and experience) even well within the limits of the car.

As for the SP-Racer mods, I completely agree... the car has a range of mods aimed at making it MUCH faster than it has any right to be and it works.  Your flattery as to how well executed the mods are is most welcome (  s:D :D s:D  ) since it illustrates how well we do things here... including our turbo kits   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

Can't you just fit teflon tyres, and get the effects of more speed and power, but at 30mph?   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

Quote from: "Dan M"If that's the case, then in all honesty the last thing you need is more power.

For cornering I agree, The cars handling is superb.  For public road driving its fast enough/sticks enough.  But that's not what turbos are about really are they.  I mean I could save myself a fair but of cash vs a turbo and just stick a 2ZZ in and get near 200bhp.  But I'd still be reving the nuts off its on motorways.  Nope for me the turbo is about torque, better straight line acceleration and better pick up in the higher gears.  Best of both worlds, a sporty car that corners like its on rails and still goes like a little rocket on the straights.

Quote from: "stargazer30"Nope for me the turbo is about torque, better straight line acceleration and better pick up in the higher gears.  Best of both worlds, a sporty car that corners like its on rails and still goes like a little rocket on the straights.

Sure that's not a V6 you're describing?

Then chip the turbo   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:   My Saab went from 240nm to 320nm and 150hp to 210hp just on a stage 1. Not massive by todays standards but still enough for me. Forced me to mod the suspention and brakes.

Quote from: "stargazer30"Nope I need a reliable turbo upgrade, so it will be the SP package + new clutch + there 40,000 mile warrenty.  I'm sure this HASS kit is a bargain but if I had probs I'm up north so no specialists here and I'm not mechanical enough to fix it myself.

Exactly why I went for the SP package.  Just do a search on this club for the issues people have had fitting s/h turbos to their cars!  s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:  

Also my MR2 is a facelift with better bracing etc so some of the other mods on Matt's car won't be needed?? or may not make so much difference.  Once you have the turbo package the other handling mods can easily/cheaply be added as and when you feel you need them/funds/wife (delete as applicable) allows.  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

Quote from: "OlberJ"

Quote from: "stargazer30"Nope for me the turbo is about torque, better straight line acceleration and better pick up in the higher gears.  Best of both worlds, a sporty car that corners like its on rails and still goes like a little rocket on the straights.

Sure that's not a V6 you're describing?

May as well be, the V6 puts out about 10ft/lbs extra torque than the base turbo package SP does.  I think the higher BHP package will put out a bit more though.  It would be good to see a dyno graph of each to see how the turbo compares across the rev range as from what I hear the V6 torque is on tap the whole way   s:D :D s:D

The only issue with the graphs is that no V6 install is standard. They all have a different exhaust, different intakes and different transmissions to what you see on a Camry. So it's hard to say that's what you're getting everytime, it's 99% of the time more than the stock graphs show. In for an RR on the 10th April so i'll see what i can come up with.

2.5k to 6.5k full torque on the standard graph though.

2GR is just mental but pricey.

Quote from: "stargazer30"For cornering I agree, The cars handling is superb.  For public road driving its fast enough/sticks enough.  But that's not what turbos are about really are they.  I mean I could save myself a fair but of cash vs a turbo and just stick a 2ZZ in and get near 200bhp.  But I'd still be reving the nuts off its on motorways.  Nope for me the turbo is about torque, better straight line acceleration and better pick up in the higher gears.  Best of both worlds, a sporty car that corners like its on rails and still goes like a little rocket on the straights.

You think you would save some cash doing a 2zz? To do it properly, you are probably looking at at least as much as going turbo. To do it properly, parts wise, you need an engine and gearbox, a bit of wiring, an intake system, a good exhaust manifold, race cat and free flowing exhaust system and of course the gear selector and engine mount mods. But you don't want to lose the LSD from the stock car, so you change that over (labour costs) and while splitting the gearbox from the engine it would be silly not to pop a lightweight flywheel and new clutch in. If you wanted quiet motorway cruising, I wonder if you could swap the 6th gears over, or 5th from the 1zz as 6th in the 2zz?

With a relatively basic engine swap coming in around 3K, plus a good manifold / cat / exhaust / inlet / flywheel / clutch / Accusump / possibly piggyback, you are heading toward 5K+. You could definitely do it for less, but you may as well maximise what is there. Then you can always boost the 2zz later  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

While I agree that the stock MR2 handles pretty well, with 200+ horses under your right foot, you are going to need some structural reinforcement. I would seriously consider the SP underbody brace and anything that can be done to stabilise the lower suspension mount points at the back as a minimum. There is no real fun in just having straight line pace, much more fun seeing how much of it you can use in the corners. Stiffening the shell up a bit really helps with this.

I think that with all things power, you never have enough. Even with really big mods and power, you get used to it and start looking for more. I remember a friend of mine getting the quickest bike money could buy many years back. His first impression was that it was so fast that you could never use all the power it had on the road. 3 months later he was looking at cams, exhausts, carb work etc.

I still reckon the SP setup will suit your needs well. Me, I am starting down a very different path  s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  

Chris

Well I test drove a Honda S2000 today, same year as my MR2 a 2005, slightly higher miles at 43K.  I wanted to be sure I'm making the right decision turboing the 2 and the S2000 is the next best option next to the Boxter S which is just too expensive.

I was very tempted to buy this car I have to say.  Its not that quick until you get into the VTEC band and then it just flys.  Feels well planted on the road, has a boot, no rattles, really good handling, and the roofs electric.   The short shift gear stick feels notchy at first but its actually really good after driving it a bit.  I didn't think I would fit in it with the centre column being so wide but no worries, pretty comfy once your in it.

Got back in the MR2 to drive home and on the first bend I felt different, theres something about the MR2 when you drive it thats just special.  Maybe its the go kart light steering or the mid engined feel to it but as much as the S2000 impressed I'm keeping the MR2!  I can live with the rattly interior.

See, that's what worries me.. I really would like an S2K as my 'next car', but I wonder if anything will really live up to the fun factor of the '2..

Maybe if I fixed all the niggles with the '2 I'd feel better about it (like the dents in every single drivers side bodypanel thanks to other careless parkers!)  s:? :? s:?

Maybe I can have both.. if I win the lottery  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

This is the quandary anyone going away from the MR2 faces. The bottom line is that the MR2 is a very good drivers car indeed. The chassis is very nicely balanced and provides a nice level of interaction for the driver. It may not be the fastest thing on the planet, but what it does at the price it does it is still special. Adding a turbo, supercharger, or more powerful engine will change the character of the car a bit, but it is still an excellent drivers car. Adding good bracing enhances the good characteristics even further.

Not the best car in the world for sure, but when you look at it in terms of smiles per pound, there is not much around that does better without spending a lot more. Boost it or 2zz / V6 it and it still looks like good value in the grin factor analysis.

Chris

Smiles per pound, that's the stuff Chris.   s:D :D s:D

Okay decision made!  I'm going for the SP Turbo + New Clutch   s:D :D s:D    s:D :D s:D    s:D :D s:D    s:D :D s:D

which package?

Good choice  s:) :) s:) .

Get yourself a medical first (due to G force  s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  ) and budget for many spare pairs of socks   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:   (mine still get blown off everytime I drive it, the socks that is).

Quote from: "AC"Good choice  s:) :) s:) .

Get yourself a medical first (due to G force  s:wink: :wink: s:wink:  ) and budget for many spare pairs of socks   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:   (mine still get blown off everytime I drive it, the socks that is).

Probably ought to budget for new pants until you get used to deploying the extra shove out of corners as well  s:D :D s:D

Chris

Quote from: "muffdan"which package?

Just the 200bhp one for now, but may well get the extra bits later since the clutch will already be upgraded.

Why not pay the little extra to get a load more when it is in being done??
I am going to be back in the same boat soon (hopefully!) when my piggy-bank lets me choose between the options.
I originally only planned to go for the standard package (200) and keep my standard CAT and TTE exhaust. I am not sure what the higher package would deliver with the standard CAT and TTE exhaust, but just don't know how to decide if the extra bang for buck is worth it??
Just think that if i make the big decision to go the SP turbo route, may as well go for the higher output one!

Andy.

Having a broken 1zz in mine and having totally lost interest in the car up to this point, I've 99% committed to a 1mz conversion courtesy of OlberMotive. A low-end/high miles Elise was the nearest temptation, then I realised that I didn't have 8k to spend on a fun car.

I thought to myself that I'd rather make this car brilliant again, enjoy it for another while and then whenever I come to sell it, I'll have something that really stands out to enthusiasts and those seeking performance on the higher end of the scale.