does anyone know why

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know why they didnt put the old mr2 turbo'd engine in the roadster? it seems odd theyve taken a step backwards, could you imagine how fast it would be, as the mk3 weighs nothing. oh and my car still rattles like its put together with pritt stick

[Anonymous]

I suspect they made it the same power as the mx-5 on purpose, in fact al lthe roasters in this price range are about the same.  Insurance group has to be the main factor i suppose.

[SteveJ]

Keep an eye on RogueSystems - I am currently working with them on a 3SGTE (MkII Tubby) install in a roadster.

[Tem]

Does anyone know why they didnt put the old mr2 turbo'd engine in the roadster?

Emissions? And the fact that it's not used in any car nowadays.

It would probably make the car jump to another price group as well. New 3S-GTE costs more than a new 2ZZ-GE, they'd probably have to upgrade the chassis as well...it might be over £30k with 3S-GTE  s:? :? s:?  Just swap it in yourself, if you like the idea  s;) s;)

[Slacey]

Also, big power is never what the MR2 was designed for IMO, it was more about light weight and sharp handling I think... went a bit wayward with the MK2 though  s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

[Anonymous]

at it's release the word was that it was done to keep the purchase price down as well as the insurance costs........


i agree with slacey, the mkI and mkIII are truer to the spirit of the car, it's the mkII that was "a step backward", but that's strictly my opinion........

kev

[Anonymous]

I noticed that in general not many roadsters are equiped with turbos.

I guess it leaves the real enthusiast with the option to add one (the car has massive potential -- a lot more than the MkII.)

If the MkIII was already equiped with a turbo, it would be too easy for thousands of people to boost the power and make the car a much more challenging and dangerous ride. It could acquire a "bad" reputation (a little bit like the early 911 turbos).

[Anonymous]

Honda, BMW and Ferrari (who are indisputedly some of the worlds best engine manufacturers) do not use turbos (for non-diesel engines anyway):

The turbo is for many mechanical engineers the "easy way" to get extra power. But top engineers at Honda can produce a reliable 2l normally aspirated engine that develops 240bhp: That's more power per litre than most average turbocharged engines (e.g. Opel/Vauxhall's 2l turbo engine with 200bhp or VW 150bhp 1.8 turbo engine.)

I wish the MkIII had been sold just like the Celica with a "normal" version (138bhp) and a TS version (189bhp). That way, the true hardcore enthusiast could still fit a turbo if he/she wanted.   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

[MRMike]

Honda, BMW and Ferrari (who are indisputedly some of the worlds best engine manufacturers) do not use turbos (for non-diesel engines anyway):

The turbo is for many mechanical engineers the "easy way" to get extra power. But top engineers at Honda can produce a reliable 2l normally aspirated engine that develops 240bhp: That's more power per litre than most average turbocharged engines (e.g. Opel/Vauxhall's 2l turbo engine with 200bhp or VW 150bhp 1.8 turbo engine.)

I wish the MkIII had been sold just like the Celica with a "normal" version (138bhp) and a TS version (189bhp). That way, the true hardcore enthusiast could still fit a turbo if he/she wanted.   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

Also completely academic in my opininon.  The engine in the S2000 is a masterpiece in engineering terms, but real world makes no sense IMO.  It just doesn't feel that quick on the road, because it has absolutely no torque. Compare it to a turbo, and though it's more basic will feel much quicker. Horses for courses I suppose..but this horse isn't impressed

[Anonymous]

Also completely academic in my opininon.  The engine in the S2000 is a masterpiece in engineering terms, but real world makes no sense IMO.  It just doesn't feel that quick on the road, because it has absolutely no torque. Compare it to a turbo, and though it's more basic will feel much quicker. Horses for courses I suppose..but this horse isn't impressed

I agree with you on the fact that if you drive the S2000 in a "classic" way (using mid-range rpms) you will be very disapointed. In order to extract its 240 horses, you need to get it spinning very fast. (Something most drivers won't do.)

Think of a F1 engine. Hardly any torque at all, but you get between 700 and 1000 bhp at extremely high rpms (i.e. 16-18000 rpm)

Basically torque is good, but torque at higher rpms is even better (because of the gear ratios.) It's the amount of torque you get at the road wheel that matters (not at the flywheel - as the rpms matter there).

The S2000 engine produces 240bhp because it runs at very high rpms and you can stay in lower gears longer and thus produce higher torque on the roadwheels.) Once in its power band, the engine will be (almost) as fast as a 240bhp turbo powered engine.

Now imagine fitting a turbo to the S2000 engine (higher torque on already a very high rpm engine - this would become a 400bhp killer!  s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted:    s:P s:P

[Anonymous]

I'm not an anti Turbo "Taliban", in the contrary, I've been seriously considering fitting a decent one on my Mk.III for a while now. (To bring the power up to a decent 200 bhp or so.)

However, if given the choice, I'd rather have something perhaps a little more reliable (like the 2ZZ engine or maybe even a TRD Supercharger - if only the damn thing could fit in the '2.)

BTW a friend blew a total of 3 turbos (on his prized Nissan 200SX/240SX). And he's a pretty careful guy, believe it or not.

I wondered why Lotus hadn't fitted a turbo engine on the Elise. After all, why not? It's a lot more easy that way to get the extra torque (and bhp)... Then I remembered the terrible problems people had with the Esprit Turbo   s:D s:D