Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2
08-06-2003, 07:16 PM
#1
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2 What do you mean more money with an import. Considering turbo 4 blocks and there parts are already forged(alot of them), it should not take more than 5000 to obtain 500hp. My mods where(stock longblock)
greddy tdo6 l2 kit(3100)
fuel(500)
clutch(500)
vpc(used)(700)
thats 4800 dollars. I dynoed 434 to the wheels at 1.3 bar(around 19psi). There are 4g63,3sgte,sr20's making that alone. So its not that hard to do.
greddy tdo6 l2 kit(3100)
fuel(500)
clutch(500)
vpc(used)(700)
thats 4800 dollars. I dynoed 434 to the wheels at 1.3 bar(around 19psi). There are 4g63,3sgte,sr20's making that alone. So its not that hard to do.
Trending Topics
08-07-2003, 10:07 AM
#9
TECH Addict
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Texas, it's like your state, but better.
Posts: 2,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2 and yet another. booo...
MR2's are not impressive. you can make anything fast, but unless you have a t-76 on that monkey, i dont think alot of the guys on here are going to warm up to ya.
MR2's are not impressive. you can make anything fast, but unless you have a t-76 on that monkey, i dont think alot of the guys on here are going to warm up to ya.
08-07-2003, 12:11 PM
#10
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2 Well, we will see Chris(25psi)'s dyno numbers soon. He is supposed to be getting it dynoed and tuned this weekend. We are also supposed to line them up eventually. Some proof should come soon. Right Chris? 
08-07-2003, 02:46 PM
#11
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: htown
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2 Yep right Cantdrv65. Are you comming down here to watch the dyno? Let me know ASAP! Is there anyone else who would like to come watch?
Yo Bullit, you can come dyno your 190hp mustang gt.
Yo Bullit, you can come dyno your 190hp mustang gt.
08-07-2003, 06:20 PM
#12
Re: Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2 Hah, takin shots at bullit. Buddy of mine has a new MR2 spyder, but he had a 1984 MR2 that handled like no other, was a fun car to drive in the twisties. At least he was smart enough to realize it's good there and its a waste to dump a ton of cash into it motor wise to try to make it "fast".
08-08-2003, 12:54 AM
#14
TECH Resident
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kemah, Tx.
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2 I started a whole new thread to reply to this.......
https://ls1tech.com/threads/showflat...31&fpart=1
https://ls1tech.com/threads/showflat...31&fpart=1
08-09-2003, 12:17 PM
#16
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2 Ok, I read the other post and I wanted to reply the best way I can.
First, I am an MR2 owner and a big fan of the car...ok fine, just so you know.
No, it probably wasn't the best thing to post a video and try to defend why you did it, but...
I just wanted to clear up a few things for the people here.
Yes, I do know that stock, LS1's are faster...in a straight line, and cheaper to modify...in a straight line.
But the MR2 was never made just for straight line speed, it was made to be a good mix of handling, braking, AND straight line speed, and when it came out in 1991, it was quite fast compared to domestic competition if you look at the Mustang, F-Body, etc. Not faster, per se, just competitive.
It also had incredible handling and braking numbers, especially in 1993, when it was upgraded in those departments.
Styling is by opinion, of course, but many people do mistake them for Ferraris, which is one of the goals of Toyota I think, to make an affordable Ferrari, and Automobile magazine thought so, which is why they did a MR2 vs. 348 comparison, and the MR2 was very similar in peformance, except for the top speed.
Yes, it is more expensive to get it to go fast in a straight line, since the engine isn't sold in as many cars as domestics, 4G63 Eclipse engine, or Honda engines.
But, if anyone ever followed IMSA in the early 90's and Dan Gurney's American Eagle Prototype cars...it was the same engine, and they destroyed a lot of cars and setting lap records with it when those races were still going on. The engine can get to 400+ hp pretty easily, and for cars that weigh sometimes only 2,600 lbs. it's got potential.
Unless you're John Force or the best Top Fueler, there will ALWAYS be someone faster than you in the 1/4 mile. Whether it's a Metro or whether it's a Z06, you have to live with it, and move on.
Mid-engined cars do have a launching advantage over most drivetrain layouts, save for AWD ones. I've launched better in my 16 second NA MR2 than a 12 second Camaro, though that means nothing in the race, it is interesting.
I'm not going to be all Rodney King on here, but hey we're all car enthusiasts, we like RWD cars with torque, and we like to beat "the other guy" no matter who it is. We just do things a bit differently.
It's all good
First, I am an MR2 owner and a big fan of the car...ok fine, just so you know.
No, it probably wasn't the best thing to post a video and try to defend why you did it, but...
I just wanted to clear up a few things for the people here.
Yes, I do know that stock, LS1's are faster...in a straight line, and cheaper to modify...in a straight line.
But the MR2 was never made just for straight line speed, it was made to be a good mix of handling, braking, AND straight line speed, and when it came out in 1991, it was quite fast compared to domestic competition if you look at the Mustang, F-Body, etc. Not faster, per se, just competitive.
It also had incredible handling and braking numbers, especially in 1993, when it was upgraded in those departments.
Styling is by opinion, of course, but many people do mistake them for Ferraris, which is one of the goals of Toyota I think, to make an affordable Ferrari, and Automobile magazine thought so, which is why they did a MR2 vs. 348 comparison, and the MR2 was very similar in peformance, except for the top speed.
Yes, it is more expensive to get it to go fast in a straight line, since the engine isn't sold in as many cars as domestics, 4G63 Eclipse engine, or Honda engines.
But, if anyone ever followed IMSA in the early 90's and Dan Gurney's American Eagle Prototype cars...it was the same engine, and they destroyed a lot of cars and setting lap records with it when those races were still going on. The engine can get to 400+ hp pretty easily, and for cars that weigh sometimes only 2,600 lbs. it's got potential.
Unless you're John Force or the best Top Fueler, there will ALWAYS be someone faster than you in the 1/4 mile. Whether it's a Metro or whether it's a Z06, you have to live with it, and move on.
Mid-engined cars do have a launching advantage over most drivetrain layouts, save for AWD ones. I've launched better in my 16 second NA MR2 than a 12 second Camaro, though that means nothing in the race, it is interesting.
I'm not going to be all Rodney King on here, but hey we're all car enthusiasts, we like RWD cars with torque, and we like to beat "the other guy" no matter who it is. We just do things a bit differently.
It's all good
08-09-2003, 12:43 PM
#17
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TEXASS
Posts: 3,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2
Ok, I read the other post and I wanted to reply the best way I can.
First, I am an MR2 owner and a big fan of the car...ok fine, just so you know.
No, it probably wasn't the best thing to post a video and try to defend why you did it, but...
I just wanted to clear up a few things for the people here.
Yes, I do know that stock, LS1's are faster...in a straight line, and cheaper to modify...in a straight line.
But the MR2 was never made just for straight line speed, it was made to be a good mix of handling, braking, AND straight line speed, and when it came out in 1991, it was quite fast compared to domestic competition if you look at the Mustang, F-Body, etc. Not faster, per se, just competitive.
It also had incredible handling and braking numbers, especially in 1993, when it was upgraded in those departments.
Styling is by opinion, of course, but many people do mistake them for Ferraris, which is one of the goals of Toyota I think, to make an affordable Ferrari, and Automobile magazine thought so, which is why they did a MR2 vs. 348 comparison, and the MR2 was very similar in peformance, except for the top speed.
Yes, it is more expensive to get it to go fast in a straight line, since the engine isn't sold in as many cars as domestics, 4G63 Eclipse engine, or Honda engines.
But, if anyone ever followed IMSA in the early 90's and Dan Gurney's American Eagle Prototype cars...it was the same engine, and they destroyed a lot of cars and setting lap records with it when those races were still going on. The engine can get to 400+ hp pretty easily, and for cars that weigh sometimes only 2,600 lbs. it's got potential.
Unless you're John Force or the best Top Fueler, there will ALWAYS be someone faster than you in the 1/4 mile. Whether it's a Metro or whether it's a Z06, you have to live with it, and move on.
Mid-engined cars do have a launching advantage over most drivetrain layouts, save for AWD ones. I've launched better in my 16 second NA MR2 than a 12 second Camaro, though that means nothing in the race, it is interesting.
I'm not going to be all Rodney King on here, but hey we're all car enthusiasts, we like RWD cars with torque, and we like to beat "the other guy" no matter who it is. We just do things a bit differently.
It's all good
First, I am an MR2 owner and a big fan of the car...ok fine, just so you know.
No, it probably wasn't the best thing to post a video and try to defend why you did it, but...
I just wanted to clear up a few things for the people here.
Yes, I do know that stock, LS1's are faster...in a straight line, and cheaper to modify...in a straight line.
But the MR2 was never made just for straight line speed, it was made to be a good mix of handling, braking, AND straight line speed, and when it came out in 1991, it was quite fast compared to domestic competition if you look at the Mustang, F-Body, etc. Not faster, per se, just competitive.
It also had incredible handling and braking numbers, especially in 1993, when it was upgraded in those departments.
Styling is by opinion, of course, but many people do mistake them for Ferraris, which is one of the goals of Toyota I think, to make an affordable Ferrari, and Automobile magazine thought so, which is why they did a MR2 vs. 348 comparison, and the MR2 was very similar in peformance, except for the top speed.
Yes, it is more expensive to get it to go fast in a straight line, since the engine isn't sold in as many cars as domestics, 4G63 Eclipse engine, or Honda engines.
But, if anyone ever followed IMSA in the early 90's and Dan Gurney's American Eagle Prototype cars...it was the same engine, and they destroyed a lot of cars and setting lap records with it when those races were still going on. The engine can get to 400+ hp pretty easily, and for cars that weigh sometimes only 2,600 lbs. it's got potential.
Unless you're John Force or the best Top Fueler, there will ALWAYS be someone faster than you in the 1/4 mile. Whether it's a Metro or whether it's a Z06, you have to live with it, and move on.
Mid-engined cars do have a launching advantage over most drivetrain layouts, save for AWD ones. I've launched better in my 16 second NA MR2 than a 12 second Camaro, though that means nothing in the race, it is interesting.
I'm not going to be all Rodney King on here, but hey we're all car enthusiasts, we like RWD cars with torque, and we like to beat "the other guy" no matter who it is. We just do things a bit differently.
It's all good
The Z06 however has none. 
.
08-09-2003, 12:52 PM
#19
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2 Tru we are all car fanatics. Im planning to get a turbo mr2 soon just cause I had driven one before and it is very addicting 
. We all have different tastes. I actually really like how mr2's look, and some of you may laugh at that..
v8s are faster then I4's no doubt. Those are just facts. But the thing is, do you see Japanese manufacturers making many v8 sports cars? No. You know why? They don't need to. Let's line up a FD rx7 against a C5 Corvette. The rx7 is a twin turbo 1.3 liter rotary. The Corvette is a 5.7 liter v8. Who would win? The rx7. The newest Corvettes are a different story, but the thing is they started producing FD's way back in 1993.
Anyways the point is, that Japanese car builders make the most out of their engines, unlike Fords, GM, etc. There are n/a 4 cylinder engines(s2000) that can rival v8s. If Toyota or Honda decided to make a v8 sports car it would obviously spank any domestic iron, but why don't they do it? Because it would make handling worse. It's all about priorities. Most stock imports are a little bit slower, but handle much better. Domestic are only good for going in a straight line. To each his own
. We all have different tastes. I actually really like how mr2's look, and some of you may laugh at that..v8s are faster then I4's no doubt. Those are just facts. But the thing is, do you see Japanese manufacturers making many v8 sports cars? No. You know why? They don't need to. Let's line up a FD rx7 against a C5 Corvette. The rx7 is a twin turbo 1.3 liter rotary. The Corvette is a 5.7 liter v8. Who would win? The rx7. The newest Corvettes are a different story, but the thing is they started producing FD's way back in 1993
. Anyways the point is, that Japanese car builders make the most out of their engines, unlike Fords, GM, etc. There are n/a 4 cylinder engines(s2000) that can rival v8s. If Toyota or Honda decided to make a v8 sports car it would obviously spank any domestic iron, but why don't they do it? Because it would make handling worse. It's all about priorities. Most stock imports are a little bit slower, but handle much better. Domestic are only good for going in a straight line. To each his own
08-09-2003, 12:58 PM
#20
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Mr2(turbo) vs TransAM w/ bolt on's and 150 shot. part 2 Well, no I wouldn't say that Domestics are only good for a straight line, Vipers, Corvettes, Saleens all have good handling too, but can be more expensive.
I really like Corvettes, but they're big for a sports car IMHO. Ask me whether I'd rather have a 3,200 lb. car or a 2,600 lb. smaller car with the same power to weight ratio, all other things being equal, and I'll take the lighter one any day.
BTW, add 12 psi to an MR2 Spyder and you'll get low 12's in the 1/4 mile! Too bad there's no trunk or I'd have one right now...
I really like Corvettes, but they're big for a sports car IMHO. Ask me whether I'd rather have a 3,200 lb. car or a 2,600 lb. smaller car with the same power to weight ratio, all other things being equal, and I'll take the lighter one any day.
BTW, add 12 psi to an MR2 Spyder and you'll get low 12's in the 1/4 mile! Too bad there's no trunk or I'd have one right now...