Just got my 03 mr2 a couple of weeks ago, and i love it,
but the perofrmance isnt what i expected at all, this is a car with nearly 140bhp and very light with it, but its not as quick in a straight line as my old 106 gti, the handling is a bit better although i am still getting used to that so its only as good as my abilities LOL s:D :D s:D
I have done about 1500 miles since i got it and thought it may loosen up a bit, but its on the sluggish side,
how does everyone else compare their mr2 to their previous car????
You need to take the car to 5000 revs and keep them up. You will find its a different beast altogether then!.
Mine is a little beast! Its sooooo much better than my escort 1.8si - handling is superb... and if you think its only a bit better, then either your old car was stunning or ... well.... god knows what!
Craig is right though, if you get the revs up it really rockets along... from 4000+ it starts to liven up 6000 and the engine goes mental! s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:
My engine still feels a little tight some days, but generally i dont thrash it, but it goes like sh*t off a shovel when i want it to! (mainly speeding round corners is where you should notice it)
So the vvti is a little like v-tec then??
think i will wait a little while before revving it to high,
i suppose when i got the pug i thought it was slow until i had learned how to drive it,
what speed i am i looking at changing in each gear to keep above 5k??
by the way i would like to add i am not a boy racer, just sometimes enjoy a fun drive on a quiet road, i leave racing to the muppets
3rd gear = i went up to 80 in the demo car i had and it would have gone further too! s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted: s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted: s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:
I knew nothing about the 2's engine, but yes, on the forum I was told 5k was the magic number.
I don't make a habbit of it, but this weekend with my visit to Lincoln it was constantly around there. Like Kris said corners and roundabouts you will really see it.
Went for a blat with friends with a Honda VVTI and a Golf GTI, they can keep up on straights, but roundabouts and corners you leave them standing. I also had a nice friendly race with a Subaru Imprezza Turbo recently, and left him standing due to very windey road!
The engine comes 'on-cam' at about 4K rpm and boots you in the chest from about 5K up to 6,5 or so.
Oh and trust me the '2 is quicker in a straight line than a 106 GTi (a great car though IMHO) as well as in the twisty stuff. But I agrees it's a completely different beast. When you get used to it you'll most likely find you make better progress in the '2 than the Pug.
--H--
at the moment i would have to disagree, not one of my passengers has mentioned the "back in the seat" feeling they got in the pug, i am not convinced? maybe i am expecting to much? has anyone else on here owned both??????
If you have a look at my Unichip graph (http://www.mr2roc.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=604#604) (the torque part), you'll see that if you stick at above 4000 you should be ok.
At the end of the day, the MR2 Roadster isn't quick in a straight line, and there's plenty that'll get past you in a drag. However 'round the twisties, you'll need an Elise, Caterham/Westie, or similar car to keep up with you. s8) 8) s8)
a little off topic but, the celica 190
its still a 1.8 and i assume the same block just with different internals and mapping to the 140 version, is it possible to straight swap the internals from the 190 bhp to the 140 bhp engine?
Quote from: "Blue 2"at the moment i would have to disagree, not one of my passengers has mentioned the "back in the seat" feeling they got in the pug, i am not convinced? maybe i am expecting to much? has anyone else on here owned both??????
i dont get this... you do know you push the pedal on the right to go faster, right? s:roll: :roll: s:roll:
s:D :D s:D
LOL!!
its just that the mr2 doesnt put the same smile on my face as the pug did,
i took it for a blast last night and it feels its lacking something
i mean it does take off high up the rev range but, not very much,
They did give you a '2 and not a Yaris didnt they....? s:? :? s:?
s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
Seriously, give it a chance... i was not over impressed until i pushed it... if your looking for straight line speed, its not really the car for that (althought its no slouch), but when you take a roundabout at 80 (*cough, i mean 40 officer... s:oops: :oops: s:oops: ) and it just grips and grips then you know you have made the right choice! s:D :D s:D
I would never go back now....
No offense, but the simplist answer is that you don't know how to drive it yet. It's ability is not the straight line, but the corner...
Being in the North East, I'd strongly recommend that you book yourself into an airfield day at Elvington ( m http://www.bookatrack.com/ (http://www.bookatrack.com/) m ) and learn what your car is really capable of in absolute safety
Even better, trek down to North Weald and take a day's performance driving tuition ( m http://www.carlimits.com/ (http://www.carlimits.com/) m ). Hopefully the club will start organising group days down there in the future.
Quote from: "Blue 2"a little off topic but, the celica 190
its still a 1.8 and i assume the same block just with different internals and mapping to the 140 version, is it possible to straight swap the internals from the 190 bhp to the 140 bhp engine?
Unforunately not; the "Celica 190" engine (the 2ZZ-FE) is a totally different engine in almost every respect to ours (despite having a similar model number, 1ZZ-FE).
Many also ask if it's possible to transplant the 190 engine; opinion suggests that it's not only hard to physically do, but in any event, not desirable due to the very different characteristics not suiting the Roadster.
Note that in the Japan GT Championship race series they tend to fit the 3S-GTE (the mk2 MR2 Turbo engine) into the back of the Roadster, so that would seem to be the way to go (if you must s:) :) s:) )
When i first got my 2 back in ealry 2000, after driving my (modded) MX5, it did not feel quite the same, after a few months of tweaking and replacing parts (witcha are lot easier to get now s:? :? s:? ), it still seemed to lack that something off the lights so to speak.
Then took it for a real long drive one sunny Sunday along the coast, some real twisty roads, then my face just lit up, after that i spent more and more time taking twisty A roads and just leaving most other cars for dust.
After my trip up into the moutains last year in Atlanta with Exboyracer, i realised the car needed nothing extra from the factory other than a little bracing (of which most now comes on 03's), and it stuck like glue all the way to the top, and as he raced for years, he knew what he was doing!!!
Anyone can drive fast in a straight line, life starts when the straights stop, just my £0.02 though s:) :) s:)
Andy
you won't be wnting that nice flat six engine then :-) :-) :-)
Quote from: "pmdye"Many also ask if it's possible to transplant the 190 engine; opinion suggests that it's not only hard to physically do, but in any event, not desirable due to the very different characteristics not suiting the Roadster.
I'm 100% sure it can be done. As 2 guys from Spyderchat will prove soon. I'd want to do it myself, but luckily I don't have the extra cash s:) :) s:)
Obviously it's harder to do than swapping in another engine with same block (if one would exist for Spyder)...
yeah it's possible but expensive (as are all engine transplants) size wize its not to much of a % inlargment bit bigg enoght to cause hose's to be modified and so forth s:? :? s:?
If i had a 190 i would give it to a compnay who know what there doing and they would be able to sort it out, There's been stranger engine transplants before s:roll: :roll: s:roll:
Quote from: "Buster"There's been stranger engine transplants before s:roll: :roll: s:roll:
Yeah...like the 3.8l supercharged V6 to Mk1 MR2, that has smaller engine bay than Mk3 s:) :) s:) I still can't believe that actually fits in there...
i had heard of that 1 but i didnt believe the guys, i dont supose you have ny write up's on it, would be intrested how they managed it
a mk1 has a much smaller engine bay than the mk3 and it had less intakes as they suffered from over heating so wonder how they done that ????? s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
The original was done by Carl Crawford, but there are at least 2 others these days. Here's one by Carl:
m http://www.djedwhite.com/photo/photo.ph ... ry&dir=mr2 (http://www.djedwhite.com/photo/photo.php?mode=directory&dir=mr2) m
Here's one with Toyotas 3l supercharged V6:
m http://www.atlantamr2s.com/owners%20rid ... ck/MR2.htm (http://www.atlantamr2s.com/owners%20rides/joe%20vick/MR2.htm) m
Edit: If the first link gives an error, try to refresh..
cheers for the info when i have time i will read them properly
thank you s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
Quote from: "Blue 2"its just that the mr2 doesnt put the same smile on my face as the pug did
Then you are not driving it properly.
Ignoring speed for a second.....I know what i'd rather be seen in s:!: :!: s:!:
hi mate, i got a 106 mk2 rallye, tuned at 124bhp so is the same as ur gti was (slightly faster tho cus rallyes are lighter), havent got an mr2 yet but am looking for one after summer.
can u tell me how the cars differ in performance and handling, eveyone here will say the 2 handles better but they havent driven a pug gti/rallye!
all ur opionins on changing cars would b appreciated, cheers.
Quoteveyone here will say the 2 handles better but they havent driven a pug gti/rallye!
I have driven many cars including most of the quick Pugs and can quite honestly say that there is NO fwd car out there that is as much fun to drive as a rwd sports car.
IMO the most fun FWD car there is actually comes from the Pug stable and is the 205 Gti. Stripped and caged (but otherwise left boggo) they are top fun and suprisingly goonable. Very easy to control and remarkably quick around a circuit (especially in the wet). The closest thing to it is the Integra Type-R or the Ibiza Cupra 16v (or any derivitive of the Mk2 Golf for that matter, it just so happens that this one was the best). What it has over the Honda and Seat cars is that a tidy 205 Gti can be bought for £800 and a FIA cage, buckets and harnesses cost another £800 on top of that* Cheap track cars don't get much better.
Anyway I digress. It is fun to a point but nothing will change the fact that it's driving the wrong end and that FWD is evil. Bear in mind that it only exists because it is cheap and it's easy for muppets to drive.
*for the record, we did just this only a few months ago. Highly recommended!
Quote from: "juansolo"I have driven many cars including most of the quick Pugs and can quite honestly say that there is NO fwd car out there that is as much fun to drive as a rwd sports car.
Focus RS? s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Quotecan u tell me how the cars differ in performance and handling, eveyone here will say the 2 handles better but they havent driven a pug gti/rallye!
Well, having driven my sisters boyfriends last derivative Rallye, I have to say, I was mighty impressed. I think that the main difference really is that it is not just the fact that the wheel drive is different, but the real top limits are very different. I came out of the Rallye smiling a lot cos they ARE great fun (and BOY do they stop!), but compared to a '2, the limits are much lower. I reckon on a track that there might not actually be that mich difference to be honest, but that is something I would have to check! Anyone?
Don't knock the Pug for beinf front wheel drive. I have driven rear wheel drive cars for years now and was very pleasantly suprised and wouldn't say that they were set up for muppets at all!!! Very much a real road racer for people on a lower budget maybe. Cracking little car. Great turn in, decent acceleration, great braking and very very controllable. I liked it a lot.
Then the babay came along and he had to get rid. He was gutted.......
QuoteFocus RS?
Kris,
As a rule, I HATE Fords. There is just something about them that just says "TIT"!!! (Please don't take offence Craig. I have to say it IS a generalised sweeping statement and doesn't apply to everyone. I know a lot of Ford owners who are very nice people indeed. I just have a phobia of Fords. Its completely irrational! s:wink: :wink: s:wink: s:lol: :lol: s:lol: )
Anyway, that aside, there are very few that I like. GT40, Cossies and my Dads old Mk2 Cortina 1600Gt. What a car.
But at Motordrive, when out in the Caterham, I was ASTONISHED to see how fast these things actually went and hung on round corners. Incredible stuff. Ok, the guy in the Caterham said that we were getting seriously help up by it, but it was a Caterham, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.
But this is the interesting bit. I was talking to one of the Ford guys afterwards who was waiting for his shot in the Caterham (yeah, all the staff go and visit each others cars and try them out. It was funny watching the Honda lads and the Vauxhall lads taking the piss out of each other). Anyway, we started chatting about the RS and he said it was a fantastic car ON THE TRACK. He loved it, but he had done a few demo sessions at his local dealer at the launch and said that on a normal back road, although still very fast, it was a VERy nervous car and didn't inspire great confidence. Said it scared him a few times cos he didn't actually know what the steering was doing. He reckoned it was down to the trick diff that was fitted cos it was a Haldex racing diff that is supposed to help you grip around corners, but for normal roads with lots of undulations, it would drag you all over the road. And what he said actually concurres with a lot of the reviews in mags and programs. And all this from a Ford guy too!!!
So, Focus RS. Great car appratantly, but not one you could live with every day. Great track car, but if you had that kind of miney for a track car, would you REALLY buy a Focus?
Yeah your right, they do apparently not like b-roads at all and you could end up in a nasty position in one, but like you say, on a track... what a car! I was going to buy one (was one of my choise cars when looking recently) but went for the '2 as the RS waiting list was just way too long.
Ho-hum! s:D :D s:D
Over the last few years I have come to trust evo magazine implicitly as their opinion on various cars is always confirmed if/when I drive them myself (MR2 - 5 stars btw, one of the main reasons I considered one in the first place!).
Anyway they are contantly slating the FRS saying it's a deeply flawed car on the roads and not fun to drive as your contantly battling to keep it on the black stuff. I've not driven one yet but the fact that evo slates it says a lot to me.
--H--
no matter how crap a car can be as a driving experience it will still sell, if given the right image, for example mini, 206gti/cc, focus rs etc etc
this happens with loads of cars, which are more staus symbols than anything else.
True, although the Mini is good fun to drive (IMHO of course).
--H--
I worded my post a little wrong, what i meant was no matter what the cars were like, either good or crap, they would still (and do) sell like hot cakes, i wasnt trying to say any of those cars are poor, especially since i havent driven any of them, in any trim level or spec.
i know its a little of topic, but i need to clean up the two, loads of swirls and scratches in the sun, i have got autoglym super resin, and mer polishes, are these any good, but more importantly what order do you peeps folow when cleaning your 2?
as i cant seem to get rid of the marks
QuoteFocus RS?
Even a Focus RS. I bought an MX-5 over a Integra Type-R and never regretted the decision for a second. Remember I'm talking fun here not speed.
The most boring thing I ever watched was a one make track day (predominently FWD) with them all understeering around the track, one after the other. It was painfull. On the flipside I've just come back from Anglesey where I've been gooning the b*****ks off the Mr2 and have loved every minute of it. Another one next weekend and I reckon I'll be ready to bung some YokoNovas on it. If they're anything like as good as they are on an Elise, they'll be a top, top tyre.
Oh and don't get me started on evo...
s:evil: :evil: s:evil:
Did you actaully drive an ITR? If you can get one to understeer more than an MX-5 I'd like to see it!...
I would have bought an ITR over my '2 in a second if I could have afforded the insurance.
--H--
Yes I have. Very quick car, nicely balanced chassis, can cause the back to step out by trail braking into corners or lifting whilst cornering on the limit. As far as FWD cars go they don't come any better. Still the MX-5 was more fun. MX-5's aren't understeery by nature. You are going into corners too quickly if it does.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid.
--H--
Quote from: "Hardcore"We'll have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid.
I'm not saying that the ITR understeers by nature either. It has one of the most sorted FWD chassis there is. 99% of the time understeer is the fault of the driver rather than the car as most people go into corners too quickly. As for the MX-5: Mk1's are VERY tail happy, Mk2's are less so but still very easy to goon. Mk2.5's are much the same as Mk2's as it was pretty much a cosmetic update.
I ran an MX-5 for a track car for 2 and a bit years going through around 6 sets of tyres a year, they are full of slidey goodness.
I'm sorry, is this the right room for an arguement?...
I see what you mean though, you're saying that an MX-5 is more fun for you because you prefer a car that is easy to slide around rather that a car that is actually dynamically acomplished and handles well.
My point is that the ITR is a better car because it is neutrally balanced and handles very well indeed. If I wanted a car to goon around sideways in then perhaps I would have an MX-5, or more likely ropey old MG Midget with tyres to match.
--H--
Ah, the light dawns. I often forget that some people just like to go fast sometimes, my apologies. As you've quite rightly deduced, I prefer gooning to outright speed and if speed is your goal then the ITR will always be the weapon of choice. In comparison the MX-5 and the MR2 are wallowy and slow as they are designed primarily as road cars, the ITR was designed with the track in mind. I don't hold that either car is 'better' than the other, it depends where you are coming from.
As for wether this is the right place, it's a discussion forum, so why not? s:? :? s:? There was nothing meant by it, just a difference of opinion that's all. What does it really matter what I think? It passes the time, takes my mind off the work I should be doing right now s:D :D s:D
I wouldn't say that I really like to go fast all the time, quite the opposite really as I frown upon habitual speeders.
I agree that "better" is a subjective word to a certain degree, in that you can say "better for what". I guess my point is that the ITR is 'better' that an MX-5 in most measurable areas in terms of competence as a sports car. I do agree though that you could probably have more fun, more of the time in an MX-5 as it's limits are lower so you can have fun a low speeds.
Oh and the "is this the right room for an argument" was a flippant reference to Monty Python, my apologies if you didn't realise that. I'm not really looking for an argument! I'm also just looking to waste time away from wok which I should be doing... mission accomplished.
--H--
<Pedant mode> Better in measurable areas surely only means faster?(which it is). My Westfield is much faster in every way than my MR2, but I would never class it as a better car... As there are many other areas that the MR2 is much better.</Pedant mode>
s:D :D s:D
<hypocrite>Saying that if I had to chose between them, it'd be the Westie every time</hypocrite> s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Quote from: "juansolo"<Pedant mode> Better in measurable areas surely only means faster?(which it is). My Westfield is much faster in every way than my MR2, but I would never class it as a better car... As there are many other areas that the MR2 is much better.</Pedant mode>
s:D :D s:D
Again I suppose "faster" can be subjective also. I would choose 'faster on a British B road' over 'faster on a 2 mile straight' any day.
Ho hum, aint semantics great?!
--H--
Quite correct but unfortunately the measurables that you are talking about (0-100-0, 0-60, etc) are all done on a straight road and give little indication to the actual performance of a car when faced with a B road or a race track.
So how actually do you quantify a fast car?
BHP is irrelevant as a 100bhp car at 500kg's will be twice as fast as a 100bhp car at 1000kgs. Personally I've always thought magazines, should always give bhp/ton as it's much easier to get an idea of what the power is actually like this way.
The best way I reckon is timing over a set piece of road or track. This is where Top gear actually have it right. Though times can vary greatly driver to driver and who's to say that there is only one Stig that dons the black helmet...?
Veering dangerously further off topic, I would also say that being quick over a B road is becoming less and less important as the continuing epidemic of speed cameras spread thoughout our countryside is sapping the fun out of driving on our roads. This in turn is driving more and more people onto tracks where a different type of car is quicker.
Quote from: "juansolo"Quite correct but unfortunately the measurables that you are talking about (0-100-0, 0-60, etc) are all done on a straight road and give little indication to the actual performance of a car when faced with a B road or a race track.
I wasn't really talking about them but never mind.
Quote from: "juansolo"So how actually do you quantify a fast car?
Dunno really, I'd say one that is fastest from point A to point B, where the jouney includes various A and B roads.
Quote from: "juansolo"BHP is irrelevant as a 100bhp car at 500kg's will be twice as fast as a 100bhp car at 1000kgs. Personally I've always thought magazines, should always give bhp/ton as it's much easier to get an idea of what the power is actually like this way.
Agreed, that's why I read
evo magazine as they always give bhp/ton.
Quote from: "juansolo"Veering dangerously further off topic, I would also say that being quick over a B road is becoming less and less important as the continuing epidemic of speed cameras spread thoughout our countryside is sapping the fun out of driving on our roads. This in turn is driving more and more people onto tracks where a different type of car is quicker.
I don't agree with that one entirely. Speed cameras on the motorway annoy me as I think that our motorway speed limits are too low. I have plenty of fun on countryside B roads well within the speed limit thank you.
--H--
One word that sums up my pure hatred of that magazine is this:
evoness What utter pretentious toss. It's a made up word that means absolutely nothing. I could just as much say that a car is brimming with Juanness and you'd be none the wiser. The reason it annoys me so much is that I was a subscriber to Performance Car which was an awesome mag that later became Evo. I then subscribed to Evo for a year and it was more of the same before it started going way up it's own arse. It's a shame as they take some of the best photo's of any of the mags out there, always absolutely stunning.
A and B roads come down to 'appropriate speed' more than anything else. Artificial reduction in limits in order to frustrate more drivers into getting caught by cameras is way out of order in my books. Cameras in the middle of nowhere, away from population centres and on long open roads is bang out of order. That is pure revenue generation. People wouldn't have such an issue with cameras if they were outside schools, in town centres or on village roads. Unfortunately this is not where the money is as the vast majority of motorist have a modicum of common sense in these areas and drive accordingly.
FWIW 3 million tickets were issues by cameras last year and the government is predicting that this will rise to 4 million this year. BTW, I have never been caught by a camera, I'm just sick of the motorist being persecuted by this government.
Back to the pedantry:
QuoteI wasn't really talking about them [straight line measurables] but never mind.
What measurables did you mean then? It can only be timing over a set track, otherwise it's all straight line (accelleration, in-gear times, TED, braking distance) excepting lateral G's I suppose.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there really isn't a way of truely measuring the speed of a road car. What it comes down to is perception, I suppose we could call it the evoness... s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
QuoteDunno really, I'd say one that is fastest from point A to point B, where the jouney includes various A and B roads
That rules out any race machinery then as, due to set up, a softer road sports car will always be quicker across an A or B road. It also rules out supercars as they suffer from severe practicality issues due to their size, height and usual stiffness. Also with adhesion to the speed limits, I would argue that speed over these distances is irrelevant and all that really matters is how quickly a car can reach 60 mph and how quickly it can shed that speed.
s:wink: :wink: s:wink: s:D :D s:D s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:
I like the idea of "evoness" as it is a made up word that can be used when people (like us!) incorrectly use "better".
I agree that it does sound a bit pretentious but I understand completely what it means. Is a '2 'better' than, say, an MX-5? It might not be much better in terms of speed, practicality, value, all those easily measurable things, but it's more "evo"!
I guess it's just a BS way of saying "my car's better than yours", using a quantification that can never actually be measured, and therefore you can never be proved wrong!
--H--
Quotebut it's more "evo"!
I visibly cringed when I read that...
But otherwise, spot on.
I have written a review that includes a comparison between the MR2 and MX-5 for this site somewhere (gave it to that mph blokey s:D :D s:D ), not once did I mention evoness...
... though I have used 'better' once or twice s:oops: :oops: s:oops:
LOL!
I don't actually use the word "evo" in real life! But it's difficult to describe what you actually mean when you say "better", and inevitably when you do say "better" someone will pick you up on it with a pedantic, but completely accurate, "in your opinion"!
--H--
Oi!!! You two!! You're BOTH right, now LEEEEEAAAAAAAVVVVEEE ITTTTTT!!!!!! s:wink: :wink: s:wink: s:roll: :roll: s:roll: s:wink: :wink: s:wink: s:wink: :wink: s:wink: s:oops: :oops: s:oops: s8) 8) s8) s:lol: :lol: s:lol: s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
Else I will have to get all "Evo" on ya! s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Seriously, I can see both points here. Outright speed cannot be accurately measured when you are comparing different cars on different surfaces, tracks, lanes blah blah blah. I think that "percieved" speed is a little bit TOO vague cos some cars really don't measure up. For example, you couldn't take say, a Polo GTi and put it up against an Evo VIII on either a track or a Scottish B-road cos it would get murdered cos plain and simple, the Evo IS faster, IS better. But of cars that are deemed of a certain performance, there are sooooo many variables, that you really can't measure one against theother (unless, in reality they are nearly identical, e.g Evo VIII and Impreza STi). Pointless argument, but interesting debate all the same........
I think the "Evoness" is a bit pants to be honest, but I have to say, it does kinda sum it up really. Shame they had to name it themselves from thier own magazine. I don't think it would have been seen as so pretentious if they had made something totally different and not relating to them up. s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
Quotethe Evo IS faster...
Yes, there is no disputing it would be faster in both the scenarios you suggest.
Quote...IS better
That depends on how you define 'better'. Better at being faster, yes...
This could never end.... s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:
QuotePointless argument
Absolutely, the point is that it is pointless s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
ta DAAAAA!!!!!! s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Tee hee, I quite enjoyed reading that little exchange! Probably pointless, and certainly an argument without a definitive answer... but nearly as much fun watching my 85yr old father-in-law arguing (over a pint) with his 70yr old mate about whether Frank Sinatra was the greatest singer or not!
Personally, I propose another measure of "betterness" (or whatever)... and that's "grins per pound".... my rusting, £900 Triumph Spitfire scored well on this measure (16 years ago), but I've never owned a car that beats my '2!!! s:D :D s:D s:D :D s:D s:D :D s:D
Yeah, I would go with that. Now that IS a good measure of the car. grins per pound. I like that.
So, cars high on the list would be:
The '2 obviously
Elise
VX220 (Turbo?)
Caterham/Westie
Impreza and Evo
Cars NOT on the list....
Nissan QX
Lexus SC430
Maybach
Wartburg
Any other suggestions?
Grins per pound:
Proper Mini Cooper
Caterham Classic
Pug 205GTi
All cheap and all will leave you grinning like a fool s:D :D s:D
Mk1 106 Rallye.
s:D :D s:D
--H--
Yeah, would agree with all of the above, especially the Mini! What a car! Had two now and still want another...........
Grins per pound....
How about Detla Integrale? Drove one and for a road car, still haven't felt a steering as nicely balanced and weighted as that......(except Elise....)
Cossie Escort?
Quote from: "John Woodward"Cossie Escort?
*kris puts his hand up* - yup, that would be the one for me... love that car.
Kris, you driven one? One of the few Fords I actually like. Would love to have a go in one.........
not driven (unfortunatly) but been taken out in one... the feeling of getting pushed back into your seat when the turbo comes in is superb!
Golf GTi MK2 are a bit quick round a track!
Also the porsche 911 carrera 2 was a bit of a beast - same effect with the power delivery - get your skin stretched off your face!
Driven a ferrari testarossa... s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:
Nice........... s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:
Suprised you said that about the GTi. My uncle has had one of each mark up tothe Mk4 and he said that the best one he drove, still to this day was the Mk1.
As for the Carrera, I can imaging that being fast, but I always think they SOUND faster than they really are. I'm sure it's an illusion, but would still like to drive one. They do tend to divide opinion on how they drive.....
And how did you get to dive the Medallion Machine too? s:wink: :wink: s:wink: What was that like?
Got some track time coming up cos I won a Top Gear competition for a diving course where I can choose the track and event I want. Might try the supercar experience at Silverstone......F355, 911, Viper and Esprit. See what else is on offer first though.......
The Mk2 GTi is a faster machine, and TBH would be my choice but the old Mk1 probably gives you more grins as you can chuck it about like a cart!
I very nearly bought a Mk2 GTi 16v about a year ago.
The Mk3 and especially the Mk4 IMHO are pants.
--H--
Yeah, driven my uncles Mk3 and 4 and I thought it was like driving a lead weight! The Mk2 is the one a lot of reviews go for if they were to pick a Golf, but the Mk1 IS the classic "hooners" car. A good laugh and we're back to the "grins per pound" issue again. Suppose that one can be put on the list....
I have been lucky enough to own acouple of Mk2 Golf GTIs in the past and they were belting cars....not desperately quick but so incredibly chuckable. On 'give and take roads' not much would get away from you!
Remember having one run on roads that I knew well, following a mate in his Porsche 3.0 Carrera 911. He couldn't believe that I was able to stay with him over about 5 miles of A and B roads.
It wasn't down to my greater driving ability as he was then driving TVR Tuscans for the factory, in the race series. Pretty handy chap.
The Golf was just belting fun!!
A more recently disposed of vehicle was a 2.0litre 16v Vauxhall engined Caterham 7. With 210 bhp in a car weighing 520 kg the performance was breathtaking, but on the road, again in give and take situations, I believe that the MR2 would stay pretty close to even that car....on a track, well that would be a different kettle of fish!!!
I am very content with the MR2 as it is and relish its steering, handling and general nimbleness. A lovely road car!
Just my two penneth......
Andrew
Quote from: "John Woodward"Nice........... s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:
Suprised you said that about the GTi. My uncle has had one of each mark up tothe Mk4 and he said that the best one he drove, still to this day was the Mk1.
As for the Carrera, I can imaging that being fast, but I always think they SOUND faster than they really are. I'm sure it's an illusion, but would still like to drive one. They do tend to divide opinion on how they drive.....
And how did you get to dive the Medallion Machine too? s:wink: :wink: s:wink: What was that like?
Got some track time coming up cos I won a Top Gear competition for a diving course where I can choose the track and event I want. Might try the supercar experience at Silverstone......F355, 911, Viper and Esprit. See what else is on offer first though.......
The MK2 was on an airfield, just before being let out in the testarossa and the mondeal (i think thats right)... was a present from an ex for my 21st birthday. s:D :D s:D Got a nice photo of me next to a Ferrari GTO in bright yellow overalls.... nice s:shock: :shock: s:shock:
The porka was a mates mums - we were in the car (i was squashed in the back) and he said "aint this where you usually put your foot down?" - a moan from the mum and she droped it and slamed her foot down... bloody quick car! s:o :o s:o
Jammy Git! do the silverstone one - F355 will be a beast, 911 - classic, Viper... SCARY! and last but not least, the esprit... every child from the 80's dream! LOL!
Best of the Golfs IMO was the original Seat Cupra Sport 16v. Golf Mk2 chassis, Mk3 16v engine, stripped of most heavy stuff. Absolutely great car and the only FWD I've ever regretted selling. I really, really want another as I sold it just before I started doing track days and I know they make a top track machine. There is a Welsh dude who goes to Anglesey a lot with one and is always one of the quickest guys around there.
Quote from: "krisclarkuk"the mondeal (i think thats right)...
Nearly!! it's mondial s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
my mates dad has got one... s:) :) s:)
Now i found that more fun than the 'rossa... it was easier to drive... however, my shoes were too big and i had to take my shoes off and drive in my socks... not an easy thing! still had a riot though!
You should have taken the socks off too. I drive with bare feet quite a bit, although it makes heel and toe difficult of course.
--H--
i think in a normal car i could have got used to it but in the ferrari the pedals are metal and REALLY hard to press... also they work like a proper sports car... when you put your foot down, its flat on the floor, rather than like pushing your foot to the end of the footwell as with a normal car.