FD vs. MR2 T
 

So my FD has a catback. Boosting fine. Motor/tranny/rear end fluids changed 1 week ago. Spark plug wires changed 3 weeks ago. Boosting finer.

And then my friend's MR2 turbo has exhaust and intake and EBC @ 15psi. The rest is just whatever: BOV, suspension, body kit. The thing is that his clutch is starting to slip at 15psi.

How close of a race would this be on the freeways?

-Dan

i hear they dont do so well top end so i dont know
im guessing they are pretty light though????
im for the fd all the way

the FD would win. i'm very sure of it cause my friend has a j-spec motor in his mr-2 (245hp with ceramic blade/ball bearing turbo) and his setup was 12psi + catback and all i had was a downpipe+catback and i pretty much roasted him. about 3 car legnths from 10-70

I reckon FD. My experience with an MR2 was difficulty to launch (too much weight at back - can this be a problem?) and limited top end.

J.

are you kidding my mr2 launches awesome the weight actually helps it launch just like porches mid-engines

the fd wins hands down top-end if that's his only mods

not even a race. I had a mr2t and it was a dog. The reported 6 second times to 60 must have been done in a very controlled environment. Everything but the engine in those is cool and well made though..

I had a 92 MR2-T for a weekend and my 88 S/C MR-2 auto was faster. It was fun to drive and pretty quick but it would hardly even boost in 1st gear. I raced my friends stock 91 MR2-T when I was on stock twins at 14 psi - I gave him about a 8-10 car headstart on a onramp - I passed him when he hit 100 - I was going 130 :D I think they top out at 144 mph - I'd imagine a FD with even a CB woud win handsdown

The FD will win for sure. You won't waste him really badly, but you won't have trouble at all to win.

MR2's are one of the easiest cars to launch well. One of the fastest cars off the line out there not including AWD cars. Back when the supercharged version came out in 88, it was the fastest car in the world for 0-30mph and I know it kept this title for many years. I think it was even faster than an F1 car. Mr2's do have a limited top end though like other guys mentioned.

You will win.

I remember reading that in an article in a Motortrend or C&D about one of the editors top ten favorite cars to drive. One of them was a 88 S/C MR-2 auto. I was like what? It went on to say it had the fastest 0-30 time for that year and years to come (faster than a F40 and 911 Turbo) I thought this was funny because when I had that car which was extremely rare since 98.5% of all S/C MR2s were 5 speed - I would blow the doors off anything I raced from a stoplight - I raced a 96 Cobra SVT and had 2-3 lengths on him...then he passed me like I was standing still by 40-50 mph - it was one fast car down low.

Unfortunately for the owner of the MR2, mods don't take as well to them as they do Supras and RX7's. I owned a '92 Turbo car for a long time, and despite what many of you say, my car was more than a little "quick". I invested much time and money into it however, and if I had done the same into an FD at the time, I never would have sold it...the MR2 just wasn't enough for me.

However, an MR2 on 15 psi w/intake and exhaust will easily run low 13's if it can get traction worth a shit. They do launch insanely well. My car with a bone stock JDM Gen 2 motor in it was unbeatable from a dig...

They are very slow up top unless you perform lots of headwork, and are willing to rag on them under high boost for long periods of time, and thus I opted for an FD down the road.

Not before I pulled a modded Z06 from a 40-roll however :).

Wow, interesting feedback......

It'll most likely be freeway runs... from 60 or 80 or something ............ I know they're pretty damn quick on the lower end.............

Oh and one more thing about his car, he's got a mild sound system in his car so that might also be a negative since it adds more weight to his car.

does the mr2 have full exhaust? a full intake (removal of afm)? either, i'd have to say that your rx-7 would win based on the stats u gave on ur car.

hey azndisgrace, what generation mr2 turbo motor does ur friend have? genII is 225hp and gen III is 245hp at the flywheel.

the Fd would win

I though the same thing until I spoke to an MR2 owner at the road course about two years back. He said his weighed over 3000 pounds! For a car that size, you'd think they'd weigh closer to what an FD does. Mazda's weight reduction program really payed off.....

Barry, How are the hybrid turbo's compared to stock? Is your car back on the road now?

GoodFella
 

The owner you spoke to must have done some weight...adding...

My car, even with a bolt in NHRA Legal 6-point "cage", T-tops (heavier than sunroof/hardtop cars), 3/4 tank of gas, and me (205 lbs), weighed 2894 @ a weigh station.

So, either he was a very large man (hah), or the little bit of weight reduction I did (as in removing heat shields, and the rear wall carpet/padding) removed over 200 lbs...I doubt the latter however.

If you run an MR2 from a "highway" punch, even if you give him the move, you'll pull him in a heartbeat. The data some of these guys has posted is most definately false. I'll have to scrounge around @ a friend's house for the tape, but if I find it I have documented proof that my car topped out at 176...or at least @ the "Y" in "Unleaded Gas Only", and the Supra I was with said ~175 (either way, well passed the 160 mark). My car however was running on 18's at the time, and I had enough headwork that revving my car to 8750 wasn't a big deal.

Regardless, an FD with the same amount of money into mods as an MR2, will always win, unless it's a 0-30, o 45 race. You'll even beat them decelerating...it's almost kinda sad how much it takes to make an MR2 a truly "fun" car from a driver's standpoint.

I used to own a MR2. The stock CT26 turbo will run out of breath on the top end. So you'll probably beat him. But you can upgrade the turbo. There's a Greddy T-67 kit available for the car, and with that he'll eat a lot of FD's on the top end. Don't forget that the Supras that run in the JGTC GT500 series are using 3SGTE engines from the MR2 and they're making 500+WHP. Also, the midship engine layout of the MR2 helps him launch because all the weight is over the drive wheels. Don't under estimate those cars.

Having owned both a 1993 FD and a 1994 MR2 Turbo I can say that it will depend on the mods. FD are faster stock, but a MR2 with a GenIII engine will hang in with the RX-7. The Toyota's (stock) CT-26 Turbo will run out of steam, but with a GenIII Turbo (CT-20b) which is ceramic but not ball bearing, it will keep up. Also for the person that said the RX-7 will also out brake the MR2, it will depend on what year. The 94-95 Turbo MR2's will out brake almost all production cars including the RX-7 (stock for stock). With that said, the MR2's engine is basically the Supra's engine, but 2 less cylinders, so don't count them out, they can handle high boost. But RX-7's are generally faster, and will be faster with the same amount of money invested. Both cars weigh about the same 2700-2900lbs, with the RX-7 having more power.

mr2 vs tt rx7
 

hey guys,

one of my mr2 buddies sent me this post.

in a 1/4 mile race, yes the fd would win. however, in a 1/8 mile race, at least against the TT RX7 that i raced, i had him beat.

I killed him off the line... and im sure it was because he was having traction problems, which i was not because the weight over the wheels is a good thing. i was about 4-5 cars lengths ahead of him... steadily... up until i shifted into 4th gear.

I had him up to about 80 mph... and then he pissed on me and ripped my doors off. he passed me so fast i felt like i was going backwards. my top end sucks and u guys top end rules. ive had mine up to 135... im sure i coulda pushed to 145-50 with my 17 inch wheels... but thats about it.

all i have is a Stock 91T/motor with an AVCR runnin about 14-15 psi, intake, exhaust, etc. my friend dave in the TT RX7 is just about stock.. and he runs a 13.6... i run a low 14. ill have to see what his 1/8 mile time is at the track and compare it to mine.

do any of u know what the fastest recorded rx7 is in the 1/4 mile? im just curious. there are a whole lotta 13 second mr2's, about a dozen 12's, two 11's and two 10 second mr2's out there that are recorded. the one is about to break into the 9's (10.26 - he knocks off quite a bit each time, lol)

i think its funny that a lot of u used to have mr2's. sounds like u like ur rx7's better though. whoever said an mr2 is harder to make a fun car... i dunno what u be smokin but i think a 91T stock is fun as hell nevermind mod'ed. mr2 meets are the best. nothing makes me happier than to cruise around with 33 mr2's like we did in NY at bear mountain.

edit: and mr2's stop really fast... im willing to bet faster than most rx7's. i have a 91 with cross drilled rotors and i have bad tailgating habits... but since i got this car, it doesnt matter because it stops so fast. the only thing i cant tailgate is a motorcycle... or another mr2. the 93's and up have bigger rotors and they stop hella fast. yeah... mr2's arent as light as ud think... 27## stock for the turbo without a driver.

well... interesting post... ill see if i can get those 1/8 mile times for ya's.

I'm pretty sure 7's have been in the 8's. I know for a fact they are in the 9's.

Turbocharged MR2's loose in 0-60, qtr. miles, handling and top end. 7's and MR2's weigh roughly the same, but stopping distance for an FD is 60-0 in 110ft. while the MR2 get 106ft.

I know a guy here has 93 mr2 T with exhaust / intake/ bov..

dynoed 191 whp @ 15psi.
so i'll say rx7 will win..
I also been told that 93+ mr2 is heavier than 90-92 cuz of audio system or something.. 3200lbs??

I find it funny that nothing has been posted with the exception of people saying what I already said in my post.

Apparently some of you guys that previously owned MR2s, and even some of the guys that still own them, know absolutely nothing about them. It's easy to copy/paste info from an FAQ section though, isn't it?As for the MR2 increase in weight, it had nothing to do with Audio anything. The same options were offered in all years, however the addition of bigger brakes, a beefed up rear suspension, and a much heavier rear x-member are the main factors in weight addition in the 93+ years.

The difference in 5S and 3S equipped cars is the engine weight difference.

Blah Blah Blah...this post isn't going anywhere. Race the kid, and you'll find out. CT-26 equipped cars (just like the supra) run out of steam due to the CT-26 being an incredibly inefficient compressor.

To each, his own. I like my FD.

thanks for the stopping distance statistics shinobi.
i didnt know 7's could stop that fast... cool. i guess i shouldnt tailgate u guys either then.. cause im sure it takes me more than 4 feet to react!

91T weight: 2783 w/ t-tops ; 2758 hardtop
93T weight: 2822

stock, without driver of course

no stock audio system weighs 300+ pounds. lol

MontegoTT: may i ask who you are referring to? just curious if i was one of the 2 owners u speak of. i found this post intresting just because people are posting their opinions on the cars, and most seem to list both the positive and negatives of both cars, which is great. yeah some of the information was incorrect... so what.