2004 MX-5 Euphonic opinions

py2006

MX5! The greatest thing I have ever spent my hard earned money on! Apart from my 4 pints last night!

Great car to drive! Plus it has more storage space than the MR2.

TCP/IP

Lads i think we are moving away from the orginal thread, we can all slap on after market turbos and super chargers and chip the hell out of cars but for the majority of people they just use what they buy off the shelf. IMO the S2000 wipes the floor with all the machines we are talking about

Ernie Ball

Mayshine wrote:

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.

Yes, I'm arguing about fractions of a second. But that's because that's what the differences are either way. You put up stats for 0-100kmh that have the S2000 at 6.2 seconds and the MR2 turbo at 6.5, a difference of .3 seconds. But Toyota claims 5.9 seconds (and manufacturers tend to be pretty conservative with these numbers), which would make it the same difference of .3 seconds, but this time in favour of the MR2. So either the
.3 seconds matters or it doesn't. You seem to want to claim that it matters when it puts the S2000 ahead but that I'm being ridiculous when it puts the MR2 ahead.

I'm also not sure that 0-160 and 0-200 are that pertinent to sports car performance. More relevant are 40-70 times and braking performance.

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.

Yes, but you are making it even simpler than I am! I'm saying power is meaningless without taking weight into account. And you keep highlighting the HP numbers alone. It is of no relevance to performance in the real world (as opposed to at speeds approaching the top speeds of the vehicles) that the S2000 has 55 more hp than an MR2 TTE Turbo. The figure means nothing unless one brings other things into the equation. I'm all for bringing in more (gearing, for example) but we'd have to start with weight. That's the point of my Hummer example.

Anyway, there is 250kg between the cars, not 2500kg,

Actually, there's 300kg between them. That makes the S2000 30% heavier which is not insignificant for acceleration and deceleration.

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

Well, depends how much you value torque relative to horsepower. In a sports car, I would argue that the former is more important: it's not about top speed, it's about acceleration, particularly in the middle of the speed range. And the TTE Turbo has significantly more peak torque than a NA S2000, has it lower in the rev range, has a flatter torque curve and consequently a much larger power band: 188ft/lb. at 3500RPM for the TTE turbo compared to 153ft/lb. at 7800RPM for the S2000.

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.

Oh, you mean this?:



Not only would this car keep up with the Veyron, it would pass it and stay ahead until the Veyron reached close to its maximum speed. More importantly, it would outperform it on any real-world course.

Perhaps off the line for the first few meters, but as the speeds build the more powerful car will disappear into the distance.

I would say that that sort of responsiveness, rather than overall power, is more important in a sports car.

Its a reason top speed is more dependent on power than power to weight ratio.

Not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the weight doesn't matter at all? I know enough about physics to know that it matters less, but surely it matters some? Put a 250bhp engine in a car weighing one tonne and put the same engine in a 500KG car and we can expect them to have the same top speed? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's surprising if it's true.

But even if it's so, all that tells me is that the S2000 will get to top speed quicker and that its top speed will be faster. Of what possible use is that in a sports car (as opposed to a dragster)? You're not going to be driving 160kmh on twisty roads. As I say, I'd rather have more torque and acceleration where it counts.

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?

It may be something like that. I'd be interested to see some 40-70mph times on the TTE Turbo. I haven't been able to find any.

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 must say I'm puzzled by this response. I mean, turbo lag only matters because it means you've got to rev the engine before the turbo kicks in and you get your torque. But isn't that exactly the problem with the S2000 (and the Toyota 2ZZ engine)?: namely, that you've got to rev the thing like hell to get to the powerband? As it happens the TTE Turbo reaches peak torque at a lower RPM than does the NA 1zz engine: only 3,500 RPM as opposed to 4,400. I can't imagine that an engine that hits peak torque at 3,500 RPM is going to feel laggy relative to one that hits it at 7,500. Where am I wrong?

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

Except look how flat the torque curve is on both versions of the '2 relative to the S2000. The powerband on the naturally aspirated '2 goes from roughly 2,000RPM to 6,500RPM. On the turbo it's from 2,500 to 7,000. That's a much wider powerband.

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.

To be fair, I'm sure I'd love an S2000 too and this debate has been largely an academic exercise. But I still enjoyed it!

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

I'll look for it. You never know!

Mayshine

Hi Ernie,

Some points, excuse the messy disorganised response though

You say that in a sports car acceleration is the most important factor and more torque is a better thing, which is true to an extend. What you mean to say is that it is torque AT THE WHEELS that gives the real acceleration for a given speed. This is dependent on gearing of course. By producing more torque high in the rev range the S2000 takes advantage of gearing to put down a lot more torque at the wheels for a give speed compared to the TTE MR2. I explained this to you in an earlier post. If what you say about torque is true we should just stick a diesel engine in our cars.

I accept you point about having to rev the car. No need to revisit that one. I don't mind this though so I am happy to rev the car to exploit the power, and am quite fond of the sound that is produced also, other drivers including yourself may not be

You keep going on about weight being the most important factor. However ceratinly in the top speed and acceration when air resistance comes into play (lets say > 60 mph) I say actually power. If you are interested here is the physics of it, its an interesting read and towards the end of the article it explains why peak power is very proportional to top speed.

Some physics

The other point to remember is as the speed increased the effect of a lighter car becomes less in relation to a heaver car. This is because air resistance is the primary influence as the speed increases

Read this artice to understand. Towards the end there is a table which show the air resistance as a force against a car. It will help you see why air resistance is of primary importance

air resistance


From the link you posted. I read the stats.

Projected top speed is listed at ">200". The veyron is 253+
0-60 is at <2.5 seconds, The veyron is timed here at 2.46.

veyron details

Now the interesting one the weigth is given at 500kg and power at 500hp giving a pwr/weight ratio of 1 hp/kg

The veyron is approx 1000hp and almost about 1955kg from the link earlier. This gives a power to weight ratio of just over 0.5hp/kg

Yet despite this the veyron has the highest top speed by a mile. Seems like your example backs up my statement very well. Wouldn't you agree



For some of your other points, it is horsepower and gears that are most important in true track and racing cars (i.e. racing cars). Depends on how true a sports car you want I guess. Look at the pinicle of the sport in F1 to bear this point out. Also, why do track cars come with torqueless motorcyle engines for instance. They are light and can still produce excellent power for their size. I guess it all depends on where you drive you sport car. But if you are a good driver and keep it in the S2000 powerband then its a pretty damn quick car. And it is nice to have a small challenge when driving I guess

As regards the 0-60, what I am saying is that over this distance there are too many variables to be a useful measurement, so I simple chose another universally accepted measurement which limits these variables and gives a truer picture. I don't see why you should have a problem with this. This is why I'm not going to bother commenting on the 0-62 times anymore.

As for the 300kg remark I have shown you a road test where the MR2 stopped from 60-0 in 99ft and the S2000 in 102ft. Similar enough for me to say that even with a 300kg advantage the MR2 is not really any better at braking either.

40-70 times will only be useful if both cars are tested in appropriate gears, not in fixed 4th for instance as most tests do. In this case then the numbers you will see will show the same relationship as all the other numbers I have shown you. This is becase the best 40-70 is just a time segment of that portion of the 0-200kmh run.

Thats why diesel drivers claim such good in gear figures, they test in a fixed gear that is weighted unfairly towards the diesel peak power rpm and not the petrol equivalent they run against

In regards the turbo, I prefer the crisper throttle response of a n/a engine, not the lag and torque burst of a turbo. Thats all. Its not how much you have to rev the engine, its how the engine produces its power. I'm not a big fan of a turbo thats mall, especially as you talk about adding a bigger turbo to crack 240 hp, but that just means more lag. Look at clarksons review of the EVO MR400 on top gear to understand what I mean. I remember driving a group N impreza rally car and the on/off turbo was not exactly the most fun thing. Because the turbo has to be so big, it reduced the powerband as it took quite a lot of revs to spool up. Something to bear in mind if you go for big power from the MR2. The smaller TTE turbo won't suffer from this too much luckily enough because it only adds about 45hp

Ernie Ball

TCP/IP wrote:

IMO the S2000 wipes the floor with all the machines we are talking about

A minute ago you were saying it was 'boring' and lacked 'passion and heritage.' So which is it?

TCP/IP

It is still boring and without any heritage, but for sheer practaciality and reliabality it does indeed wipe the floor infact just look at the top gear car survey for the last two years the number 1 car is the S2000

prospect

Is it my imagination, or are ye all comparing 30 grand(ish) cars, MX5 & MR2, with a 50 grand(ish) car?
Why not throw in the Porsche Boxster or 360 spider into the equation aswell?

From what the OP has expressed, he/she wants to stay up in the years, so the S2000 is out of the question. So it boils down to the MX5 the MR2 and possible the MGTF.

Forget about the rest of the horse****e...

Mayshine

Actually the S2000 does have heritage, it follows the S500 (1963) and S800 (1965-1970)

That S800 had a fantastic 800cc DOHC engine outputs an amazing 70bhp and 8000rpm and the engine has been known to rev to 11000rpm without self destructing

All this in 1965.

The S2000 was built for Honda 50th aniversery and traces it lineage to the two cars

Hope this help

Mayshine

I think the original poster knows this, however Ernie and I are having a discussion, which is reasonably interesting, so we'll keep going with it for now

The OP is free to ignore this part of the post of course

Ernie Ball

Similar story about the heritage of the MR2 Mk3. From Road and Track magazine:

Concept cars have a way of getting under your skin. At the Tokyo Motor Show in 1995, Toyota rolled out a gem called MRJ. This one-off, mid-engine descendent of the MR2 featured a hardtop that retracted into the trunk—an idea that Mercedes-Benz applied to its SLK230. Sadly, Toyota deemed that MRJ would be too expensive to build. Two years later, the MR-S concept made its debut at the Tokyo show. This time around, Toyota took its inspiration not from the MR2, but from the Sports 800, a tiny roadster built from 1965 through 1969 for the Japanese market. With a soft convertible top that folded manually under a hard tonneau cover, MR-S looked like a shoe-in for production.

mmenarry

The Euphonic is my favourite of the Mk2 MX5 "specials" - very well finished & kitted out nicely inside. One of our new members on www.mx5ireland.com has one, he was down at the meet last month.

In the MX5-MR2-S2K debate, these are very different approaches to the same thing (light two seater sports) and all three feel very different to each other.

I have a '5 myself, so I'm bound to be biased, but here's a rough summary:

Bad points:

MX5 - not enough ooomph for speed demons
MR2 - Zero boot space, engine a PITA to work on
S2K - VTEC, you really have to rev the nuts off it

Good points:

MX5 - arguably the easiest car to drive of all three, excellent feedback. Highly recommended as a first RWD car, can be used as a daily driver (mine is, as are many other club members)
MR2 - Light & powerful (in turbo form), excellent on tracks
S2K - VTEC, you really have to rev the nuts off it

All three will get the "hairdresser" comments, but none of the owners of any of these give a rats @ss! All fun cars. Drive 'em, then make your choice.

I've only driven the MX5 & MR2 (both NA & Turbo), so can't really comment on the daily drivability of the S2K. I found that the MR2 is less good at giving feedback (weight is all in the middle, can be difficult to "move it around"), so I prefer teh 5 to drive. Mine is a daily driver too, so I need the bootspace (yeah, I know, what bootspace! )

M.

ambro25

To OP, any update?

Got my '5 out of its tarped cocoon this morning, first ride to work in months (top down of course... what is it with all these people with a convert who only take the top down between 1st August and 15th August ).

Given as I'd polished it to mirror-finish just before tarping it, you ought to see the looks all the way from D16 to D6 ('tis a 98 as well - looks better than most '04/'05 cars on road ). Never fails to get complimented by kids any time I take it out: now, what better compliment can you get for your car than from a common-garden 11-year old?

Forget any "girly" pre-conceptions... (i) there's a Dutch Elise somewhere in Amsterdam that can vouch a 1.8L MX-5 ain't no slouch when it matters and (ii) one thing you will learn once you've got any of the MX-5, MR2, MGTF or whatnot, is how envious your common Joe Sap in his repmobile can be... (you'll nearly get to like Skangers in their Mobiles - because they at least will give you some respect, so to speak :eek:) and, least but not least (iii) WTF cares about 0-60 and kitting out, what with Gardai on look out for points, fines, etc...? Just get out there, drop your ragtop & enjoy