MR2 Performance

Anonymous · June 11, 2003, 14:01

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.

juansolo · June 11, 2003, 22:08

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!

Anonymous · June 12, 2003, 08:24

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:

Anonymous · June 12, 2003, 08:39

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.......

Anonymous · June 12, 2003, 08:48

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?

Anonymous · June 12, 2003, 08:53

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

s:D

Anonymous · June 12, 2003, 09:32

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--

Anonymous · June 12, 2003, 09:40

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.

Anonymous · June 12, 2003, 10:22

True, although the Mini is good fun to drive (IMHO of course).

--H--

Anonymous · June 12, 2003, 10:27

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

juansolo · June 13, 2003, 21:34

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.

juansolo · June 13, 2003, 21:35

Oh and don't get me started on evo...

s:evil: :evil: s:evil:

Anonymous · June 16, 2003, 10:17

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--

juansolo · June 16, 2003, 20:23

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.

Anonymous · June 17, 2003, 09:40

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid.

--H--

juansolo · June 17, 2003, 14:18

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.

Anonymous · June 17, 2003, 14:25

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--

juansolo · June 17, 2003, 14:41

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

s:D

Anonymous · June 17, 2003, 15:08

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--

juansolo · June 17, 2003, 15:55

<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

s:D

juansolo · June 17, 2003, 15:57

<hypocrite>Saying that if I had to chose between them, it'd be the Westie every time</hypocrite> s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

Anonymous · June 17, 2003, 16:18

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 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--

juansolo · June 17, 2003, 18:35

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.

Anonymous · June 19, 2003, 09:41

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--

juansolo · June 19, 2003, 14:35

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

s:D s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted: