Discussion
Looking for some advice
Got a freind looking for mega cheap, good handling, RWD, trackable road car, budget 1-2k... i recon MR2 fits the bill perfectly.
anyone have any experience with these? mk2's look light years ahead of mk1's, whats relative performance like? presumably mk2 can be turbo'ed in future. which is better car round track? what upgrades are worth having/doing?
gracias in advance
francis
Got a freind looking for mega cheap, good handling, RWD, trackable road car, budget 1-2k... i recon MR2 fits the bill perfectly.
anyone have any experience with these? mk2's look light years ahead of mk1's, whats relative performance like? presumably mk2 can be turbo'ed in future. which is better car round track? what upgrades are worth having/doing?
gracias in advance
francis
Do a search in Japchat...
IMHO the Mk2 is more GT than sports car, the turbo is very quick though. The Mk1 is a brilliant car and definately the better bet for your budget. The US got a supercharged version, and it's possible to transplant the engine...
OTOH the MX5 of the same vintage is pretty much as good, more common and has a very healthy after-market tuning scene.
IMHO the Mk2 is more GT than sports car, the turbo is very quick though. The Mk1 is a brilliant car and definately the better bet for your budget. The US got a supercharged version, and it's possible to transplant the engine...
OTOH the MX5 of the same vintage is pretty much as good, more common and has a very healthy after-market tuning scene.
Nissan 200SX on eBay
Nissan Silvia on eBay
MR2 MkI on eBay
The Silvia and 200SX are proper RWD cars but the MR2 can be fun too. Easy engine to work on, most things are fairly accessable, and, if you can find one, a 4AGZE supercharged lump will sit in the back quite nicely.
Nissan Silvia on eBay
MR2 MkI on eBay
The Silvia and 200SX are proper RWD cars but the MR2 can be fun too. Easy engine to work on, most things are fairly accessable, and, if you can find one, a 4AGZE supercharged lump will sit in the back quite nicely.
Re; adding a Turbo in the future, take a look at the thread 'tweaking MR2 performance' with my NA MR2 the upgrade cost to turbo it is more than the cost of the entire car. So if your mate does want turbo performance he's probably better off saving a little longer and getting a turbo.
That said he should be able to pick up a really nice NA for about £2k.
Some things to consider...... post 93 Mr 2 got much better suspension, power steering and air bag. The Pre 93 like mine has a reputation for being tail happy...they are...but if you're used to driving a mid/rear engined car it's not a problem, and the modified suspension on the >93 car lost some of the handling characteristics of the original.
There are alot of Jap imports about, generally a bit cheaper, tend to have air con and often are autos, but insurance can be more as they have weaker locks than UK spec cars ( apparently they are a bit less thieving in Japan ).
That said he should be able to pick up a really nice NA for about £2k.
Some things to consider...... post 93 Mr 2 got much better suspension, power steering and air bag. The Pre 93 like mine has a reputation for being tail happy...they are...but if you're used to driving a mid/rear engined car it's not a problem, and the modified suspension on the >93 car lost some of the handling characteristics of the original.
There are alot of Jap imports about, generally a bit cheaper, tend to have air con and often are autos, but insurance can be more as they have weaker locks than UK spec cars ( apparently they are a bit less thieving in Japan ).
You'd never get a mk2 turbo for that kind of money, tbh i've never in been in an NA so i couldnt really compare the two.
Assuming the NAs and the Turbos have the same set up, they handle really well and grip for Japan. The rev 1's have a reputation for being a bit snappy, but the rev 2s onwards are much better.
Mines only tried to kill me once
Assuming the NAs and the Turbos have the same set up, they handle really well and grip for Japan. The rev 1's have a reputation for being a bit snappy, but the rev 2s onwards are much better.
Mines only tried to kill me once
for a MK2..
The rev 1's (both N/A and Turbo) are very twitchy apparantly, and watch out for build quality
The rev 2's were much better handling and improved the brakes, the GE engine still had the 150bhp.
The rev 3+ got 170bhp - but it was much heavier, so it is actually slower.
If you can find a good rev 2, thats your best bet, and you wont get a turbo (or not one you'd want) for £2k..
The rev 1's (both N/A and Turbo) are very twitchy apparantly, and watch out for build quality
The rev 2's were much better handling and improved the brakes, the GE engine still had the 150bhp.
The rev 3+ got 170bhp - but it was much heavier, so it is actually slower.
If you can find a good rev 2, thats your best bet, and you wont get a turbo (or not one you'd want) for £2k..
Sorry to be pedantic... but I did say an NA for £2k and that if he wanted a turbo he'd need to save up and buy a turbo rather than getting an NA and then converting it. 
In fact he might be able to buy mine if I go for a tubby in due course!
My Rev 1 did try and kill me, but only once, and that was because I took my foot off the floor on a bend, ever since then I've never had any 'twitchy' problems at all you just need to know how the car handles.
In fact he might be able to buy mine if I go for a tubby in due course!
My Rev 1 did try and kill me, but only once, and that was because I took my foot off the floor on a bend, ever since then I've never had any 'twitchy' problems at all you just need to know how the car handles.
Fidgits said:
For his budget, he could get a very nice Mk1, or an early Rev1 MK2 - just avoid the FE engine (128bhp), ensure you get the 150bhp GE...
the Mk1 only used the 4A-GE engine - pre 87 used the blue top, post 87 red top which was built stronger to make make for the forced induction superchargers - but they kept this engine on all models of this time. They are essentially the same speed, but the later mk1 (mk1b) is worth looking out for as the brakes & suspension were changed for the best. The only thing which could put the Mk1a over the 1b is the air intake system, which is sh!t on the later models - the air box being in the boot, and the intake plumbing looking like a rat-maze... From what you've said - definatley suggest the Mkl MR2 - it makes for great track days, and fair enough - it may lack serious power - but if you drive it high up in the rev range - no problems at all.
Sponge bob said:
For his budget, he could get a very nice Mk1, or an early Rev1 MK2 - just avoid the FE engine (128bhp), ensure you get the 150bhp GE...
From what you've said - definatley suggest the Mkl MR2 - it makes for great track days, and fair enough - it may lack serious power - but if you drive it high up in the rev range - no problems at all.
The FE comment was only about the MK2 - as (as you said) the MK1 only came with a FE..
But its hard to sell a Mk2 FE.. and they are much slower than the GE
The FE really isn't even worth considering... There has been an ongoing argument in the imoc forum about exactly how much faster an NA is over a Turbo. I've had both, and the MK2 NA is a great car, just not a rapid on the straight bits. There really isn't a great deal in it on the twisty stuff, all other things equal. saying that, the Turbo is a great motor! It will happily outpace almost all cars, except for those exotic ones like TVR's, Porsches, etc. The rev 1+2 NA's have less power, but are not effected by the cat laws that came in in 94, so they are in fact quicker by about 1/2 a second than the 174 bhp rev 3's.
The Mk1 has near elise handling, and isn't that much heavier. IF you could find a good one, which there aren't many of as they tend to turn instantly to rust if you drive anywhere near a puddle then snap it up. The supercharged ones will just about keep up with scoobies on track!
Ignore anyone who rants about the snap oversteer, etc, as a mid engined rwd car will pretty much get further to the limit before breaking hevily. You just have to get used to it, like any other car. Either one will make a great track car, as long as you set it up right...
The Mk1 has near elise handling, and isn't that much heavier. IF you could find a good one, which there aren't many of as they tend to turn instantly to rust if you drive anywhere near a puddle then snap it up. The supercharged ones will just about keep up with scoobies on track!
Ignore anyone who rants about the snap oversteer, etc, as a mid engined rwd car will pretty much get further to the limit before breaking hevily. You just have to get used to it, like any other car. Either one will make a great track car, as long as you set it up right...
[quote=Sponge bob]
the Mk1 only used the 4A-GE engine - pre 87 used the blue top, post 87 red top which was built stronger to make make for the forced induction superchargers - but they kept this engine on all models of this time. They are essentially the same speed, but the later mk1 (mk1b) is worth looking out for as the brakes & suspension were changed for the best. The only thing which could put the Mk1a over the 1b is the air intake system, which is sh!t on the later models - the air box being in the boot, and the intake plumbing looking like a rat-maze...
quote]
Hi Bob,
I was servicing my MK1b at the weekend and I noticed it had silver cam covers with blue writing. Is this what is meant by "blue top"? It's an '87E so if blue top then must be one of the latest. Have you got any more info on engine differences. (I heard the blue-top had bigger valves).
Cheers,
Robert.
the Mk1 only used the 4A-GE engine - pre 87 used the blue top, post 87 red top which was built stronger to make make for the forced induction superchargers - but they kept this engine on all models of this time. They are essentially the same speed, but the later mk1 (mk1b) is worth looking out for as the brakes & suspension were changed for the best. The only thing which could put the Mk1a over the 1b is the air intake system, which is sh!t on the later models - the air box being in the boot, and the intake plumbing looking like a rat-maze...
quote]
Hi Bob,
I was servicing my MK1b at the weekend and I noticed it had silver cam covers with blue writing. Is this what is meant by "blue top"? It's an '87E so if blue top then must be one of the latest. Have you got any more info on engine differences. (I heard the blue-top had bigger valves).
Cheers,
Robert.
jap-car said:
Hi Bob,
I was servicing my MK1b at the weekend and I noticed it had silver cam covers with blue writing. Is this what is meant by "blue top"? It's an '87E so if blue top then must be one of the latest. Have you got any more info on engine differences. (I heard the blue-top had bigger valves).
Cheers,
Robert.
Hi mate, that is what is mean by blue top and red top - it's the quickest way to determine if yr 4a-ge is the earlier or later AW11 one.
The blue is the earlier one though - the red is the later - not sure when the cut off point was in 1987 mind. Bear in mind that some people re-paint the numbers, so it's not fail safe... one of the other main differences is the number of vertical engine ribs on the block itself - the later model having 7 as opposed to only 3 on the earlier block.
The second gen 4A-GE had a much stronger block, crank and other bits - as on the first revision they were apparantly prone to failure... sources say that the crank pulley bolt used to come loose - but I have no experience on this, so it's based on net info.
I think that the second gen engine always comes with an AFM as opposed to an MAF as well.
The engines are essentially exactly the same on the inside I believe in terms of valve sizes... could someone confirm this please?
Hth - Ash (not bob
) 
Sponge bob said:
Hi mate, that is what is mean by blue top and red top - it's the quickest way to determine if yr 4a-ge is the earlier or later AW11 one.
The blue is the earlier one though - the red is the later - not sure when the cut off point was in 1987 mind. Bear in mind that some people re-paint the numbers, so it's not fail safe... one of the other main differences is the number of vertical engine ribs on the block itself - the later model having 7 as opposed to only 3 on the earlier block.
The second gen 4A-GE had a much stronger block, crank and other bits - as on the first revision they were apparantly prone to failure... sources say that the crank pulley bolt used to come loose - but I have no experience on this, so it's based on net info.
I think that the second gen engine always comes with an AFM as opposed to an MAF as well.
The engines are essentially exactly the same on the inside I believe in terms of valve sizes... could someone confirm this please?
Hth - Ash (not bob
Hi Ash,
Thanks for the info. I will have a look at how many ribs the block has. I'll let you know of any further findings re differences.
Cheers,
Robert.
Gassing Station | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff