2004 MX-5 Euphonic opinions

Neilw

Hi,

I'm in the market for a new (second hand) car, I spotted a mx5 euphonic in yesterdays autotrader for 11k sterling, one owner with aprox 4k miles.
Can't find much info on the web about them.

Has anyone any experience of mx-5's as a daily driver?

Thanks,
Neil.

prospect

www.mx5ireland.com

kluivert

Special Limited Addition - very nice its the purple car with cream interior. Check out mx5 uk there is a site that details all the special models.

This is my fav, check out pistonheads.co.uk as well for more 5's

Neilw

Cheers for the replys,

I am tempted to get one only concern is ther girly car label :rolleyes:

The euphonic model seems well spec'd, has all the toys.


Thanks,
Neil.

prospect

Neilw wrote:

I am tempted to get one only concern is ther girly car label

Drive one, you'll soon forget about that.

Neilw

Capture from autotrader attached.

VRT is 5800 euro, would there be any saving inporting to the south vs buying here?

Cheers.

Mayshine

Don't do it

That budget will get you on the Honda S2000 ladder in the UK. No comparison to the MX5 really. If you are looking for a convertable seriously consider the S2000. A welll looked after '00 will still be in great condition. VRT on this model year is about 6k so it would work out similar to the mazda

Better still drive them both and I'm sure you will find it hard to convince yourself that the mazda is the car to buy even with the age difference.

Its a nice day today - should be nice to stick the top down on the S2000 and hear the vtec sing

Thank crunchie for Friday afternoons.

Edit - and you don't have to worry about the girly label

RobAMerc

I've not driven an S2000 so I will not comment on a comparison, but will say I have heard nothing but good about them.

As for the MX5, do it do it do it.

Whats a fab and fun little car, and the version you are considering suposedly has the one gripe I have with MX5 mk1 ironed out which is refinement.

Ps I hate that girley sh*te, so many great cars get overlooked because they are percieved as girly.

my 2 cents

Mayshine

Ok - maybe I was a bit fast of the mark - how about 'Don't do it until you have a spin in the S2000). I do agree with what RobaMerc has to say though

You ain't gonna do wrong with the MX5. And once you learn not to care what others think about you and your car you will end up with a far more fun car to drive than most hatchs/saloons (you know who you are Mr (I like to stroke my dashboard) VW man ) than get discussed on this forum over and over again.

But even though you seem to have your mind on the MX5 - iI feel you should have at least a test of the S2000. There are a few around the dealers so worth popping down even if you don't think you want it. Even just to experience the 9k engine, which you won't find on any other car

Thats what I did with an M3 a while ago. Just really wanted a spin in one and see what they were like.

Neilw

Cheers lads, good info there.....

The s2k is a very nice car alright but....I could only afford a 99 or 00 model maybe with average miles, the mx5 would be an 04 with very low miles and have balance of mazda warrenty.
I would say the insurance would be more on the s2k also.
I have also read that the mk1 s2k's handling can be a bit twitchy and the back can step out without warning, not something I would want in my first RWD car.

Thanks,
Neil

Ernie Ball

You know I can't let one of these threads pass without mentioning the MR2.

(I have my flame suit on.;) )

Performance that meets or exceeds the MX-5 in handling and power, less girly looking, mid-engined RWD, lighter and more throwable than an S2000.

Here's mine:

Gatster

Have to agree with ErnieBall on this, the MR2 is an overlooked gem - like a big go kart, grin a minute. Going over to the UK to get my mine in the next couple of weeks:D , but may try an Elise as well (once I find out what VRT might be)

Neilw

MR2 is an nice car alright its just that I saw the mx5 in the auto trader and seemed good value.

Just called the seller, they have 3 cars and the mx is only used on dry days, has covered 3800 miles in 2 years and has been garaged since new. Selling due to buying a better car.

Neil.

Gateway

Neilw wrote:

Selling due to buying a better car.

Neil.

An MR2 maybe?

unkel

Mayshine wrote:

Don't do it

That budget will get you on the Honda S2000 ladder in the UK. No comparison to the MX5 reallyl

Agree. If you have a budget that generous, really you should test drive the S2000 before you make up your mind

Kudos to Mazda for re-creating the market for the tiny and fun sporty convertible car. Class to Honda for adding a seriously sporty car to this segment

BTW, some people see any tiny convertible car as a hairdresser's car. Ignore them, for they know not what they say

Neilw

Unkel,

My budget would stretch to an s2000 but it would prob be a 6 year old s2000!
The mazda is a 2004 with really low miles, basically a new car as the seller described it.
I would rather have the newer car and the Mazda is cheaper to tax and insure.

Thanks,
Neil.

Ernie Ball

If I were you, I'd drive all three of the cars that have been mentioned and then decide.

unkel

Neilw wrote:

Unkel,

My budget would stretch to an s2000 but it would prob be a 6 year old s2000!
The mazda is a 2004 with really low miles, basically a new car as the seller described it.
I would rather have the newer car and the Mazda is cheaper to tax and insure.

Yes, I can see where you're coming from. Basically it melts down to whether you want a sporty car or a true sports car. For the latter, you'll have to pay the price. The MX-5 is a little cracker of a car, but a true sports car it ain't. The S2000 is

And fear not about an S2000 that is 6 years old for that matter - reliability should be fine

Ernie Ball wrote:

If I were you, I'd drive all three of the cars that have been mentioned and then decide.

Absolutely! Let us know, Neilw, how you're getting on deciding on your next car

Mayshine

Just for you info - I paid 12.5k sterling and got a 2001 plate car with 55k. A lot of miles you might think, but the car has been serviced methodically on th 9k mark and it purrs like a kitten.

Lets put it this way in the S2000 - you can look at porsche boxsters and bmw z4s (3.0i) and easily keep up with them + and you get 2.0 litre tax too which is pretty good for the performance. YOu can also be smug in the knowlege that the others paid a hell of a lot more than you for their car

I cannot say the s2000 on the limit handling worries me either. Just take you time and learn to understand the car. Its limits (in the dry) are very high - In the wet just take it easy.

With the mx5 if you like driving you'll understand why these cars are fun - then you'll wish the mx5 had some more guts.


Anyway like the guys said - the only way to know is to try them all out

Ernie Ball

unkel wrote:

Yes, I can see where you're coming from. Basically it melts down to whether you want a sporty car or a true sports car. For the latter, you'll have to pay the price. The MX-5 is a little cracker of a car, but a true sports car it ain't. The S2000 is

Please not this tired old canard again. By any reasonable standard, all of the cars mentioned in this thread are sports cars.

Mayshine wrote:

With the mx5 if you like driving you'll understand why these cars are fun - then you'll wish the mx5 had some more guts.

Please. The S2000 has a lot of horsepower but the torque curve is steeper than Everest. Be prepared to rev the thing to 6000 to get any kind of oomph. Especially with an early model.

For less than the price of an S2000, you can get an MR2 and put a TTE Turbo in it. Then you can run circles around the S2000 and not just in the curves.

TCP/IP

Both boring cars with no passion and hereitage have a look at a MGTF if you want a laugh a minute fun car. If you fancy a go in one give me a shout and you can have a shot in my 160.

Ernie Ball

TCP/IP wrote:

Both boring cars with no passion and hereitage have a look at a MGTF if you want a laugh a minute fun car. If you fancy a go in one give me a shout and you can have a shot in my 160.

Right. Buy the least reliable and worst performing of the bunch. Because someone on the internet says its got "passion and heritage."

Three writers from Evo Magazine compared the MG-TF 160 (with the optional lowered sports suspension) and the MR2 (along with the outclassed 206cc). Here are their conclusions:

We're all convinced that the TF is a massive improvement over its predecessor. After a pulse-quickening charge to another photo location Barker reports he's pleasantly surprised: 'The TF is the best F I've driven. Loads of grip and simple, well-communicated responses when you're pushing at decent road speeds. When you do start attacking corners it'll benignly understeer. Dive in and back off and the tail stays glued.'

Green chips in: 'There's more beef to the driving sensations, too. The steering has more weight and feel, and roadholding has improved. It's a significant improvement in all areas of the driving dynamics.'

Enough to topple the MR2 from its reign as roadster champ? Almost champ? Almost, but not quite. As Barker says: 'The MR2 has the best ergonomics, gearshift and chassis feedback. It's the most fun and fast enough, a polished little roadster that demands the driver's input and dishes up rewards when it gets it--it has to be the evo choice.'

Green, too, prefers the MR2. 'The chassis encourages you to push on and the messages it sends are so clear that experienced drivers can play with it. Neat, satisfying and always entertaining.'

The MG TF160 is a massive improvement on the F and another clear sign that MG can produce genuinely exciting cars. It relegated the 206 CC to little more than a distraction in Wales and for the first time mounted a serious challenge to the MR2. But the more we drive the Toyota the more we admire it. It is an exceptionally sensitive and rewarding device--a car that teaches you more about driving than anything else for the money. The fact it costs £2000 less than a TF160 puts the conclusion beyond doubt. Barker's final thoughts are telling: 'It's a daring car because it is so different in the wet compared with the dry. It demands respect. For those who dream of owning a 911, the MR2 offers an appealing and cost-effective apprenticeship.' Knowing how he feels about 911s, that's praise indeed.

Mayshine

Ernie Ball wrote:

Please not this tired old canard again. By any reasonable standard, all of the cars mentioned in this thread are sports cars.



Please. The S2000 has a lot of horsepower but the torque curve is steeper than Everest. Be prepared to rev the thing to 6000 to get any kind of oomph. Especially with an early model.


For less than the price of an S2000, you can get an MR2 and put a TTE Turbo in it. Then you can run circles around the S2000 and not just in the curves.

BTW The S2000 in Europe has had the same engine since launch

Anyway you got to be kidding right - As an MR2 owner that is like the pot calling the kettle black - here is a graph of the torque curve of the s2000. Unless you mistake the power curve for the torque curve then or my geological understaning of the dimensions of mount everest is completely skewed then your statement is plain silly

s2000 dyno

You'll see it is producing 17kg/m of torque at less than 3000rpm. Hmm, the max torque of that torquey MR2 engine is. I'll leave it to you to research the toyota website (divide by 9.8 to convert Nm to kg/m). I wouldn't be surprised though if it was not much more than

Unless you tell me you have driven an s2000 then I don't think you are in the best position to comment - and having driven a 140hp celica I can certainly say they don't exactly blow you away low down.

Even with the turbo you suggest you get a max of about 25 kg/m of torque at 3500rpm, which is not much more that the n/a s2000 produces.

At the numbers suggest in a straight line that the MR2 turbo won't 'run circles' around the S2000 in a straight line - which in fact now that I think about it is a strange choice of metaphor. In fact quite simply it still won't be quicker - once both cars are on a roll the MR2 with TTE turbo will still fall back more and more as the speeds increases simply because it produces nearly 60 hp less.

Then if I want I can add a Comptech supercharger to the S2000 which is good for a reliable 340hp at the rear wheels, but then I guess you could add a jet turbine the MR2 to make it faster..

Please don't take this a knock on the MR2 because it isn't but I don't want you putting the guttless torqueless fallacy about the s2000 out there. It is as good or better than a lot of 2.0 petrol cars at low revs. Then it has vtec....

Now having said all that - I'm more than happy to let you have a spin in the s2000 just to back up what I am saying

Have a nice day

Ernie Ball

I also don't want to give the impression that I was dissing the S2000, which is a fantastic car. I was merely making the point that the car's considerable power is less accessible in the real world than is the MR2's more modest power. Several reviewers have made this point. Here's a dyno chart for the MR2 before and after TTE turbo:



Look at how flat that torque curve is on the stock car: close to peak torque at all RPMs. Now look at the S2000's dyno plot:



So I exaggerated when I said the S2000's torque curve was steeper than everest. It's still steeper than that of the MR2. Peak torque on the S2000 is at something over 8000RPM. On the '2 it's at 4400RPM. If we accept a common definition of the power band as running from slightly below torque peak to slightly above power peak, where is the S2000's power band? All above 6000RPM. On the '2 it's practically the whole rev range. Now, you say:

Mayshine wrote:

You'll see it is producing 17kg/m of torque at less than 3000rpm. Hmm, the max torque of that torquey MR2 engine is.

I'm not sure how meaningful absolute torque numbers are (rather than power bands), particularly for the subjective feel of a car. In any case, surely they have to be compared relative to weight. Never mind gearing...

Unless you tell me you have driven an s2000 then I don't think you are in the best position to comment - and having driven a 140hp celica I can certainly say they don't exactly blow you away low down.

I have not driven an S2000. But the comparison with a 1ZZ engine in a Celica is not germane: that car weighs a lot more than an MR2.

Even with the turbo you suggest you get a max of about 25 kg/m of torque at 3500rpm, which is not much more that the n/a s2000 produces.

At the numbers suggest in a straight line that the MR2 turbo won't 'run circles' around the S2000 in a straight line - which in fact now that I think about it is a strange choice of metaphor. In fact quite simply it still won't be quicker - once both cars are on a roll the MR2 with TTE turbo will still fall back more and more as the speeds increases simply because it produces nearly 60 hp less.

I think you're failing to take into account the weight of the car. The '2 weighs 975KG. The S2000 weighs 1275KG. The '2 with TTE turbo puts out 184PS, which is 135kW. The S2000 puts out 176kW.

135/975=.13846kW/kg 176/1275=.13804kw/kg. The S2000 would not pull away at all. It would very gradually fall behind (though there's not a lot in it).

But, odd metaphors aside, it was certainly an exaggeration on my part to say that the turboed MR2 would run circles around the S2000 in the straight. Let's say it's the equal of the S2000 in the straight and superior (due to the light weight) in the twisties.

Then if I want I can add a Comptech supercharger to the S2000 which is good for a reliable 340hp at the rear wheels, but then I guess you could add a jet turbine the MR2 to make it faster..

My point was about 'bang for the buck.' MR2 plus TTE turbo is less expensive than a stock S2000 (which, at the time I bought my '2, were going for more than twice the price of a stock MR2) and almost certainly a better performing car.

Now having said all that - I'm more than happy to let you have a spin in the s2000 just to back up what I am saying

You know, I may take you up on that!:) There was talk of a boards.ie motors meeting this summer...

Mayshine

As regards the celica - its the same engine, even in heavier car I can feel that it needs to be revved, its not a torquey engine and its not going to be any different in the MR2. Is just that the engine is moving less weight so the acceleration numbers are faster than the celica. The way it is achieved is the exact same

Does a lighter car always corner faster - Of course not, while weight is an important facter there are others at play too suspension settings, chassis stiffness, weight distribution, centre of gravity all have a lot to do with it.

An obvious example is that a Ferarri 360 which weighs plenty more than an MR2 will still go around corners faster.

So do we want to go down that road. One way to test it is to look at the skid pan max gs - It gives and idea of the cornering force the car can sustain (assuming using the manufacturer recommended tyres and a dry day. The S2000 I know has been tested at 0.86G. I just cannot find an MR2 time just now but if you can find me one I'd be interested.

Found data
test results

In fact even though the toyota is lighter than the competition, it slalom, lane change a skin pan results are less than most of the heavier cars and are less than the S2000 for all the results. In fact where the MR2 excels is braking at 99 ft from 60-0 although the S2000 is just 3 feet behind, so not in fact a difference that could be appreciated in the real world

So this tells me that the MR2 in stock suspension trim is not a quick in the curves as perhaps you have let yourself to believe - This can be hard when you own the car in question but there you go. I'm in the same boat when it comes to a porshce boxter S

As for the acceleration, your simple maths hides most of the story (especially at higher speed where air resistance comes into play

Ah but the results do differ. Now for the definitive evidence go to
MR2 TTE test results
0-100 km/h 6,5 s
0-130 km/h 10,5 s
0-160 km/h 17,1 s
0-200 km/h 34,2 s

And the S2000
Honda S2000 ( 240 PS Supertest in sport auto 1/2000)
0 - 80 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 8,7 s
0 - 140 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 14,6 s
0 - 180 km/h 19,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 24,5 s

MR2 TTE is 10 seconds slower than the honda to 200kmh (124mph). Thats simply a monster distance

As regards the boards meet - I hope they sort something out for June. Hopefully then you'll realise that the honda is not gutless and when you need it to move fast and redline it will go considerably faster than a turboed MR2. In fact that is one of the reasons it costs more.


Apologies to the original poster for taking this off topic

Ernie Ball

Mayshine wrote:

As regards the celica - its the same engine, even in heavier car I can feel that it needs to be revved, its not a torquey engine and its not going to be any different in the MR2.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Your statement contradicts both my experience and the dyno plots for that engine.

In fact even though the toyota is lighter than the competition, it slalom, lane change a skin pan results are less than most of the heavier cars and are less than the S2000 for all the results. In fact where the MR2 excels is braking at 99 ft from 60-0 although the S2000 is just 3 feet behind, so not in fact a difference that could be appreciated in the real world

Frankly, looking at the data you've linked to, I don't see that there's any difference that can be appreciated in the real world. The difference between .85gs and .82gs is negligible, as are the slalom results.

So this tells me that the MR2 in stock suspension trim is not a quick in the curves as perhaps you have let yourself to believe - This can be hard when you own the car in question but there you go. I'm in the same boat when it comes to a porshce boxter S

Oh, I think I have a good sense of how quick the MR2 is in stock suspension trim. That's why I've been upgrading my chassis in anticipation of a new suspension. I am surprised that the S2000 is apparently its equal.

But, again, the question is bang for the buck. And my main point remains: all things being equal and assuming a willingness to upgrade things, a base MR2 plus upgrades (suspension and power) will still come in cheaper than an S2000 and equal or exceed its performance.

As for the acceleration, your simple maths hides most of the story (especially at higher speed where air resistance comes into play

Ah but the results do differ. Now for the definitive evidence go to
MR2 TTE test results
0-100 km/h 6,5 s
0-130 km/h 10,5 s
0-160 km/h 17,1 s
0-200 km/h 34,2 s

And the S2000
Honda S2000 ( 240 PS Supertest in sport auto 1/2000)
0 - 80 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 8,7 s
0 - 140 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 14,6 s
0 - 180 km/h 19,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 24,5 s

I don't know what sort of sources you're quoting but the autobild.de figures from 0-100 for the MR2 Turbo are a full .6 second slower than what Silverstone Performance claim. This discrepancy ought to be explained. Unfortunately I don't read German well enough. Is it possible they are testing a car using the much slower SMT transmission?

MR2 TTE is 10 seconds slower than the honda to 200kmh (124mph). Thats simply a monster distance

How much slower is it to 500kmh? :rolleyes: You're cherrypicking the top-line figure (and from a totally unverifiable source--some guy on a forum--I might add). But you're also making my point about the real world. I have no interest in driving to 200kmh and I don't trust the numbers you've supplied in part because they contradict what we know about the power outputs and weights of the respective vehicles. I don't believe that the S2000 is that much more aerodynamic than the '2.

That said, if I were really troubled by this, well, there are several other turbos I could get that put out well over 240bhp and still be cheaper than a stock S2000. I only chose the TTE as my example because its a Toyota product.

As regards the boards meet - I hope they sort something out for June. Hopefully then you'll realise that the honda is not gutless and when you need it to move fast and redline it will go considerably faster than a turboed MR2. In fact that is one of the reasons it costs more.

Whoah. Slow down there. Where did I ever say the Honda was gutless? Given that it has the most hp per litre of pretty much any engine out there, it'd be foolish for me to make that claim. You've shown me some places where I've been mistaken about the S2000 (handling, mainly). But you've done nothing to disprove my main claims:

1) You can get an MR2 and make minimal mods to equal or exceed the performance of an S2000 for less than the cost of a stock S2000. I might've considered an S2000 when I bought my '2 but for the fact that they were all selling for over €40,000 and my budget was €20,000. The €20,000 between the two cars will buy a lot of performance and the '2 is a great platform to build on.

2) The powerband of the S2000 starts at a very high RPM. Honda appeared to recognise the problem and changed the engine in North America for 2004 to one that had more or less the same specs but lowered the torque peak by about 500RPM. Still too high for the real world where the car will not be as responsive as an MR2. And remember, the original poster asked about a car as a daily driver. You'll find any number of reviews that say exactly the same thing I'm saying. For example, this:

Plus, using the S2000 as a daily driver meant ripping around town way up high in the powerband where the engine made all of its thrust, or bopping about in the lower rev ranges where the motor possessed all the muscle of a Mazda Miata.

To resolve these issues, Honda made several changes to the S2000 for the 2004 model year. A larger displacement, 2.2-liter engine with a broader powerband improves around-town responsiveness.

Or:

When operated like an ordinary car at low revs, the S2000 could be driven economically. However at low RPMs, the torque the engine could provide was limited until the car could be pushed beyond 6000 RPM in order to engage the VTEC system. This made driving under normal conditions more strenuous than in a more conventional car since rapid and frequent gear-changes were needed to keep the engine in the "power-band".

In 2004, Honda developed a variation of the engine for the North American market (designated the F22C1) in response to complaints about a lack of low-down torque. Honda lengthened the stroke of the engine which increased the displacement to 2.2 L and resulted in not only more peak torque, but more low-down torque as well.

Unfortunately, apparently, the European versions never got that new engine.

In the real world what this means is that its that much harder to keep the Honda in its power band than it is with the MR2. Which means it's more difficult to wrestle high performance out of the car. So whatever about horsepower stats and drag-racing contests. In the real world, the S2000 is tough to drive well.

As for hijacking the thread: well, nobody is stopping anyone from resuscitating the original topic. One thing to note from the chart you linked to is that, as of 2000 at least, the MX-5 clearly underperforms the S2000 and the MR2, particularly in stopping distance and slalom speed.

Mayshine

Ernie Ball wrote:

Frankly, looking at the data you've linked to, I don't see that there's any difference that can be appreciated in the real world. The difference between .85gs and .82gs is negligible, as are the slalom results.

I'll let you reread your first statement first

Ernie Ball wrote:

Then you can run circles around the S2000 and not just in the curves.

What I have shown is that in a verifyable quantifiable test the MR2 does not 'run circles' about the S2000. In fact the S2000 is the quicker car

Ernie Ball wrote:

Oh, I think I have a good sense of how quick the MR2 is in stock suspension trim. That's why I've been upgrading my chassis in anticipation of a new suspension. I am surprised that the S2000 is apparently its equal.

Ernie Ball wrote:

But, again, the question is bang for the buck. And my main point remains: all things being equal and assuming a willingness to upgrade things, a base MR2 plus upgrades (suspension and power) will still come in cheaper than an S2000 and equal or exceed its performance.

I'll concede this one too you but the fault it at Honda Irelands door for over inflating the price of the car compared to the rest of Europe. Not the case in other markets however

Ernie Ball wrote:

I don't know what sort of sources you're quoting but the autobild.de figures from 0-100 for the MR2 Turbo are a full .6 second slower than what Silverstone Performance claim. This discrepancy ought to be explained. Unfortunately I don't read German well enough. Is it possible they are testing a car using the much slower SMT transmission?

autobild.de are a propular german car magazine similar to CAR and Top gear in the UK - they are considered reliable. The car was a manual transmission that they tested.

Ernie Ball wrote:

How much slower is it to 500kmh? :rolleyes: You're cherrypicking the top-line figure (and from a totally unverifiable source--some guy on a forum--I might add). But you're also making my point about the real world. I have no interest in driving to 200kmh and I don't trust the numbers you've supplied in part because they contradict what we know about the power outputs and weights of the respective vehicles. I don't believe that the S2000 is that much more aerodynamic than the '2.

The source is a from a german road test in 2000 - I can get you the original if you want to be pedantic about it. Just to back up the numbers - search for "Honda S2000 quarter mile" in google, the times that come up are about 14.5/14.6 at approx 99.x mph which is perfectly consistant with 0-160kmph (0-100mph) time that I linked too

Ok I really don't want to bring out the physics, but you asked for it. Power to weight will give an indicitive measure of acceleration. However given two cars of equal power to weight ratio and similar aerodynamics the car that makes more power will have a higher top speed. Its a fact - lets not argue it. It is because torque gets the car moving / hp keeps it moving. Go read a physic book if you are interested

The measument of aerodynamics in car is Cd - the coefficient of drag. Soft top convertables are usually worse than fixed top cars. I'm sure you can understand why. The two cars are similar and much worse than a soloon or coupe

The MR2 is 0.35 link here - go to the bottom

The S2000 number I cannot find, but its fair to say its not going to be any higher. I'll post it when I find it

As regards cherrypicking, I included 0-100, 0-160 aswell. The S2000 was quicker in both these cases too. Its meerly illustraighting a point you are not willing to see. That point being that in a straight line, the stock S2000 is significantly faster than the TTE MR2.

To put it more simply

1/ You see its torque that determines acceleration,
2/ however gears are just torque multipliers
3/ bigger gear ratios mean more torque at the wheels where it counts

Undestand! Good

That mean that having torque low down mean lower engine rev at max torque
therfore smaller gear ratios are required for a given road speed, therefore less torque at the wheel - where it provides acceration force

If I had the same amount of torque at higher revs than I can use a larger gear ration for the same road spead and produce more torque at the wheels and greater acceleration.

Hopefully you can understand that and understand why the S2000 will out accelerate you 185hp MR2 turbo.

It will also hopefully give you an idea of why an F1 car with a 2.4 litre V8 producing no more torque than the MR2 turbo will accelerate so fast, it because it produces it at 18000rpm.

Physics lesson over. Whew. Hard work that

Ernie Ball wrote:

That said, if I were really troubled by this, well, there are several other turbos I could get that put out well over 240bhp and still be cheaper than a stock S2000. I only chose the TTE as my example because its a Toyota product.

Oh this is how it works. Once your arguement is debunked you just produce another one.

The TTE turbo is fair enough becuase it is a toyota warenteed part but you still have to pay labour for the istall. For the link you proved is us$4000 + import taxes - lets say euro4000 minimum+instalation another 1k + dyno time and tuning and at a minimum you are looking at 5.5-6k. Now factor in that you will get very little of this back when you go to sell your car and all of a sudden it doesn't look so cheap anymore. Not to mention invalidating you warentee

Ernie Ball wrote:

Whoah. Slow down there. Where did I ever say the Honda was gutless? Given that it has the most hp per litre of pretty much any engine out there, it'd be foolish for me to make that claim. You've shown me some places where I've been mistaken about the S2000 (handling, mainly). But you've done nothing to disprove my main claims:

1) You can get an MR2 and make minimal mods to equal or exceed the performance of an S2000 for less than the cost of a stock S2000. I might've considered an S2000 when I bought my '2 but for the fact that they were all selling for over €40,000 and my budget was €20,000. The €20,000 between the two cars will buy a lot of performance and the '2 is a great platform to build on. [/QUOTE]

What I'll say is the the S2000 is overpriced in Ireland, hence the reason I bought mine in the UK. For me my car will cost 24k euro for a 2001 car fully registered in Ireland. Its a pity that Honda Ireland have inflated the price of the car unneccessarily however an import will sort that out.

Its important to note you don't see much money back on modification so when you go down that route the TCO (total cost of ownership) increases drastically - just be aware if you are going that way. So if you plan on dumping money in your MR2, you ain't going to see much of it back

Also since when is the addition of a large turbo a minimal mod.... :rolleyes:

Go down this route and I guarentee that your TCO will be a lot higher than mine. No arguements

Ernie Ball wrote:

2) The powerband of the S2000 starts at a very high RPM. Honda appeared to recognise the problem and changed the engine in North America for 2004 to one that had more or less the same specs but lowered the torque peak by about 500RPM. Still too high for the real world where the car will not be as responsive as an MR2. And remember, the original poster asked about a car as a daily driver. You'll find any number of reviews that say exactly the same thing I'm saying. For example, this:



Or:

You write as if the S2000 has now power outside of its powerband, which is patently rediculout. Even if I never vtec'ed the S2000 it would not lag behind the MR2

The car is actually a good daily driver. It is ecomomical for it power around town, will pootle around never complaining has cheap enough servicing considering its a fast sports car, an easy clutch, slick gear change and will pull from low revs without complaining. Daily driving involves traffic or cruising most of the time and the S2000 more than happy at that too.

Ernie Ball wrote:

Unfortunately, apparently, the European versions never got that new engine.

There is not many S2000 owners in the UK who would take the 2.2 to be honest - They are all enjoying the ability to rev to 9000. You see having a special engine can put a smile on your face. Again - I'm happy to give you a spin in one just so you can have some first hand experience

Ernie Ball wrote:

In the real world what this means is that its that much harder to keep the Honda in its power band than it is with the MR2. Which means it's more difficult to wrestle high performance out of the car. So whatever about horsepower stats and drag-racing contests. In the real world, the S2000 is tough to drive well.

When every statement regarding performance and handling is dispelled this is always the last stand arguement that is given.

Firstly, how can you say it is tough to drive if you have never driven one. The car is doddle to drive, not as hard as you might think to keep in the powerband if you can change gear albeit, harder than an MR2.

[QOUTAs for hijacking the thread: well, nobody is stopping anyone from resuscitating the original topic. One thing to note from the chart you linked to is that, as of 2000 at least, the MX-5 clearly underperforms the S2000 and the MR2, particularly in stopping distance and slalom speed.

Ernie Ball

Mayshine wrote:

Again - I'm happy to give you a spin in one just so you can have some first hand experience

I would've taken you up on it but for the fact that you've now stooped to being a condescending knob. I like these kinds of sparring sessions but I don't see any reason for them to get personally insulting (e.g., 'go read a physic [sic] book,' 'hopefully you can understand that,' etc.). So, thanks but I'll pass.

Firstly, how can you say it is tough to drive if you have never driven one.

Simple:

1) Virtually every reviewer says this;
2) Honda North America revised the car precisely because reviewers were saying this;
3) If dyno plots are relevant (and you're the one who first brought them into the thread), it stands to reason that a car whose powerband is from 6000 to 8000RPM will be difficult to wring performance from.

As regards cherrypicking, I included 0-100, 0-160 aswell. The S2000 was quicker in both these cases too. Its meerly illustraighting a point you are not willing to see. That point being that in a straight line, the stock S2000 is significantly faster than the TTE MR2.

Yes, but the autobild.de data you cited have the TTE MR2 at 6.5 seconds from 0-100km and the S2000 at 6.2 seconds. However, TTE itself claims 5.9 seconds for the MR2. You can see why this might make a difference. The numbers you cite make the MR2 slower than the S2000; the numbers I cite make it faster than the S2000. Without an explanation for this discrepancy I cannot accept the claim that the S2000 is at all faster in a straight line than a TTE '2, let alone 'significantly faster.' Especially when you consider that the power/weight ratio also confirms that this should be the case. So I don't accept that you've 'debunked' my argument.

As for the charge that I'm changing my argument: the main point has always been about bang for the buck. The TTE turbo was just an example: I could've started talking about the Hass turbo from the beginning and everything I claimed (better performance for less money) would be true.

As for the total cost of ownership, well, you're wrong about that too. The depreciation on many of the mods, including the turbo, is probably less than on the car itself, provided you are willing to take them off and sell them separately.

But speaking of changing arguments: the fact that the S2000 is cheaper in other jurisdictions is irrelevant. I concede that were we living in the UK, the comparison would stack up differently. But even today, an S2000 costs €20,000 more than a comparably equipped MR2 (€45,000 vs. €25,000 for comparably equipped '04 models). But just for the sake of argument, if you buy the S2000 in the UK and the MR2 in Ireland, you might end up paying €10,000 more for the S2000 after VRT.

€10,000 spent on an MR2 will buy:

1) Full TRD chassis bracing (front and rear strut towers, antiflex plate, member braces) plus TRD quickshifter: approx €1,000
2) TTE Turbo plus dual exhaust: approx €6,000
3) TTE antiroll bars, more robust end-links and electronically damped Tein coilovers (€2,000)

And you'll still have another €1,000 toward some lightweight wheels.

Such a car, I continue to maintain, is at least a rival to the S2000 in virtually every domain. And the used market in most of those mods is solid enough that you won't take too bad a beating when you sell the car.

But, of course, MR2s are also cheaper in the UK, so if we really want to make the comparison I should get another 3 grand to play with.

Mayshine

Hi Ernie,

Certainly didn't mean to insult you - apologies if I did. However its quite frustrating for me because you seem not to be acknowleging any of the points I make, just keep throwing yours at me

To be brief - now you are telling me to get the MR2 to handle as well as the s2000 (or if I believe you better) and to give it 185 hp, which is still 55+hp down on the the honda , I need to spend 9k + labour on top of list, of which whatever you might believe you will be lucky if you can get 60% back on. Perhaps you will do it and then we can really find out. Not mention the hastle of deinstalling and private sales, and with the number of MR2s in Ireland, it not exacty a big market.

The next point is that you are making all these claims but have never driven either an MR2 TTE or an S2000.

All the numbers point to the S2000. to argue over .3 of a second on the 0-60 when there is 10 seconds difference on 0-200 or 3.5 seconds on the 0-160 is futile. It serves no purpose other than to decive from the real point

And if you want to argue over the 0-60, I can find plenty of road tests that put the honda at 5.5-5.7 0-60, measured, verified. The german road test was 0-100kmph, which is 0-62mph. So that will about for some of the discrepencies, and other on th 0-60 such as the how hard the car was lauched etc will account also.

On the price, I say that honda Ireland has inflated the base price compared to the rest of europe, hence the reason I say you get good deals in the UK on the honda. As far as I am aware toyota does not do this. This is my point, not that cars are cheaper in the UK.

Ernie Ball

Mayshine wrote:

Certainly didn't mean to insult you - apologies if I did.

No bother.

However its quite frustrating for me because you seem not to be acknowleging any of the points I make, just keep throwing yours at me

Not so. I've conceded on several points, if you'll reread the thread.

To be brief - now you are telling me to get the MR2 to handle as well as the s2000 (or if I believe you better) and to give it 185 hp, which is still 55+hp down on the the honda

You know that this is a misrepresentation. HP doesn't mean anything in the abstract. Try putting your 240bhp engine in a 3 tonne Hummer and see how it performs. In other words, body weight matters. And the point is that I can get a better performing car for roughly the same money and probably a good bit less. Unless you think that all of those mods I described aren't going to improve the car substantially from its already excellent performance base.

I need to spend 9k + labour on top of list,

Not plus labour. The chassis mods are bolt-on (I've done them). The turbo and exhaust price is all in. Only the coilovers would require paying extra for labour and what's that likely to be? €200 tops.

Not only that, but for less than the price of the turbo, you can get a 190bhp 2ZZ from the Celica GT-S and put it in the car and have an almost exact match to the dyno plot (relative to the body weight difference) of the S2000 (i.e., narrow powerband, high revving engine). If that's your thing. Meself, I'd rather have a wider powerband as I suspect I'd find it a drag having to shift constantly to keep the engine on the boil. That said, I hear great things about the S2000's gearbox and clutch.

Perhaps you will do it and then we can really find out.

You may well find out. I'm thinking about it and when my SSIA matures next year, the temptation will be great.:eek: Then again, maybe I'll sell the '2 and buy an S2000...;) There is a guy in the North who has the TTE turbo.

The next point is that you are making all these claims but have never driven either an MR2 TTE or an S2000.

Just as you are making claims and have never driven an MR2 or an MR2 TTE. I am using the same sorts of sources you are. And I know plenty of people who have driven both.

All the numbers point to the S2000. to argue over .3 of a second on the 0-60 when there is 10 seconds difference on 0-200 or 3.5 seconds on the 0-160 is futile. It serves no purpose other than to decive from the real point

Not so. Look, you came up with a set of numbers. The first of them--the 0-60 time--contradicts information that I have from the manufacturer. Given that, there's no reason to believe that all the other numbers aren't equally flawed. So I'm not just arguing over the 0-60: I'm arguing that there's a discrepancy and because of that I can't take the rest of your numbers on faith.

And if you want to argue over the 0-60, I can find plenty of road tests that put the honda at 5.5-5.7 0-60, measured, verified.

We can all do that. I know guys who claim under 6 seconds in NA MR2s. It's not relevant.

The german road test was 0-100kmph, which is 0-62mph. So that will about for some of the discrepencies

No, because the TTE figure was 5.9 seconds 0-62.

On the price, I say that honda Ireland has inflated the base price compared to the rest of europe, hence the reason I say you get good deals in the UK on the honda. As far as I am aware toyota does not do this. This is my point, not that cars are cheaper in the UK.

Toyota does do it. Just not as much. You can get an MR2 for substantially less in the UK.

By the way, when it comes to total cost of ownership, the insurance on a €45,000 S2000 with a 2-litre engine (and a plastic back window) has to be substantially higher than on a 1.8-litre MR2 that costs half that (and has a glass back window).

Mayshine

Surely you can understand how 0-62 times are produced and the variences that are inherent depending on how hard the car is launched, which is why in todays world where cars are quicker than 20 years ago it is not a good measurement and many european magazines test of longer distances.

If you genuninely believe what you are saying fair enough. No much more that I can do to make you change you opinion. You are still arguing over fractions of a second in distance that is not long enough to produce a clear difference but constantly dissing that times that I have given. Perhaps if you have a search you can find some MR2 times for the 0-160 aqnd 0-200 runs, which are far more indicitive of performace.

FOr the S2000 here are a couple more pages that certainly do not disprove anything I have said before
0-200 26.8s
0-200 24.5s

The point I continue to have to make is that you are mistaken with you power to weight arguement - Real physics is not a simple as you are making it out to be.

Anyway, there is 250kg between the cars, not 2500kg, so the point about the hummer, while making a point, is not relevant to this discussion, because using your maths the pwr/weight rations are very similiar. Therefore you are incorrect to conclude better performace for the MR2

I'm not going to get into it anymore unless you want me to, suffice to say that using your simplistic arguement (which by the way has not been backed up with any useful numbers - please show me 0-160, 0-200 or quarter mile times) we could conclude that 500kg lightweight car with 250hp could keep up with a Bugati Veyron. Perhaps off the line for the first few meters, but as the speeds build the more powerful car will disappear into the distance. Its a reason top speed is more dependent on power than power to weight ratio. And why once the speed increases beyond 60mph the S2000 will be ahead of the TTE MR2, and increase the distance.

So can we then conclude that the MR2 TTE will be as nippy as the S2000 between 0-60mph, but after that not so. Would that be fair?

Like I say if you ever get your turbo, I'll be more than happy to demonstate the principle you you. I think you should stick n/a though and got for the VVTLi celica engine, much purer instant throttle repsonse. None of this turbo lag malarky

I don't deny that the S2000 requires you to work the gearbox, but not much more than than any other car when you a in spirited driving mode. Like in the Mr2 you'll try keep the revs between 3 and 6k, I'll keep them between 6-9k. Once they are in this band then I really only change between 2nd and 3rd gear (45-90mph) to keep it going. The number of revs in each cars powerband seem pretty similar to just over 3000

Its more when you are cruising and need to overtake etc, that you need to drop a cog or two to get max attack

Cannot really say about the insurance in you situation, but for me its not very much. I guess it depends on you age and circumstances. Perhaps yours are differnt than mine. I presume that adding a turbo to your car will adjust the insurance upwards anyway, so your point is moot.

By the way the S2000 has a glass window from MY2002 onwards.

Lets not let this turn into a dissing match anyway. Not sure how much more of this I can do. The MR2 is a good value car for how much it costs and performs, I prefer the S2000, you like the toyota. C'est la vie.

BY the way if you are genuinely interested in the S2000, mine will probably be for sale in a few months as I think my fiance wants to move back to Singapore this year. It will be at a very good price of well under 30k