ventured over to "car comparisons" part of af

[JCCR]

ara yall talking about the MR2 or the MR2 spider? if so that car only has like 138hp. whats so good about it that makes it a true sports car?

[JCCR]

Engine 2004 Toyota Echo
Type
1.8-liter, 4-cylinder, DOHC, 16-valve EFI, aluminum alloy block and head
Bore and Stroke 3.10 x 3.60 inches
Displacement 1,794 cc
Compression Ratio 10.0:1
Valve Train 4-valve/cylinder with VVT-i
Horsepower (SAE) 138 hp @ 6,400 rpm
Torque 125 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm
Ignition System S-Toyota Direct Ignition (TDI)
Fuel System Multi-point EFI
Recommended Fuel 87-octane unleaded
Emission Control LEV

Powertrain 5-Speed Manual 6-Speed Manual
Drive configuration Mid-engine/Rear-wheel drive
Transmission type 5-speed manual 6-speed sequential manual
Gear ratios ( :1)
1st 3.166 3.166
2nd 1.904 1.904
3rd 1.392 1.392
4th 1.031 1.031
5th 0.815 0.815
6th - 0.725
Reverse 3.250 3.250
Differential Ratio 4.312 4.312

check this website!! according to it the MR2 runs high 8s in 0-60 and high 17 in the 1/4 mile! what i'm missing that some of yall are talking about been a great car.

http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedco...&OORDERDIR=ASC

[freakonaleash1187]

where are you getting those numbers? the website you listed says 14.7 in the 1320 and 6.2 in 0-60.

-Jared

[JCCR]

1/4 mile car performance comparison. thats what i type under search

[longlivetheZ]

Originally Posted by kman10587

You act like it when you mercilessly talk shit about domestics. I'll dig up old quotes if I have to, but just because you believe your car is better than everyone else's doesn't mean you can talk shit as if it were.

I don't "mercilessly talk shit". If I did that, I'd be one of those morons that just go around mindlessly bashing everyone and everything that moves...which I do NOT do. I call it how I see it...and until someone presents something to me to change the way I see things, which I'm more than open to...I'm here to learn...then how I see things is just that...how I see things. I give credit where credit is due.

The newer Mustang for instance...I'll bring that up cuz I'm 99% sure this is what you're referring to. Do I like them? No. Why? Is it cuz I don't have one? No...I could if I wanted to. Is it cuz I rolled out of bed one day and decided to just hate them? No. I dislike them for many reasons...some personal reasons that are hard to explain, of which I try to leave out altogether, and the other 99.999% is because of facts. They are the definition of mediocrity. GT...Not a huge engine...SOHC...goes straight ok...doesn't handle great - live rear axle...boring interior...boring exterior...etc...yet there are SOOOO many people out there that love nothing more than to bash ME and start shit with ME about these cars. THIS is why I always end up getting into it with people about these damned cars...cuz, from my personal experience, some of the guys in the mustang forum are beyond stubborn. I'll present fact after fact, all of which resourced and credible, all to no avail. And in the end, *I* get called out for bashing other cars. What the fuck ever, dude.

[Hodo]

Musicsurfman, I have driven both the Elise and the MR-S and I can tell you the Elise is not loaded with HALF the crap that a MR-S has. The Elise I test drove at a Lotus/A. Martin/Volvo Dealership in Houston had 4 of them in the place and 1 was for test drives, I know a couple of sales and service people over there and one of them got ahold of the keys to let me drive it. It was a AWESOME car to drive it was spirited and nimble but a little to nimble at times, almost like a go-kart for lack of a better term. Its rear end would come around on you if you werent paying attention to your throttle control but it was still alot of fun. I did love the fact that it had NO carpeting, NO plastic dash peices, NO CD player, NO clock, NO AT, NO roof controls, NO radio (later added for the US market). It was a pure stripped sports car. I wont get one anytime soon becuase of 2 reason, I already have ENOUGH expensive hobbies, and 2- dear goddes my insurance would kill me.

As for the MR-S its a great car too, but I didnt like the fact that it does kind understeer now in comparison to the older MR-2s and its also not as well tuned suspesion wise compared to the Elise. And as for the exteriour styling I still cant get over the "girl" car looks of the MR-S, its just not real uh masculan of a car. It almost looks like it was aimed at the teenage to young single adult girl market, much like the Neon. And for a small car it did have a comfortable interiour to me (5'7" on a good day) . All in all they are both great cars in different market veiws if you are looking for a PURE sports car get the Elise, but if you cant afford the Lotus badge then settle for a MR-S or a Mazda Speed Miata(My personal favorite choice).

I hate somethings about the Miata, like the steering wheel in my crotch but I can work around it sometimes..........sometimes.

[Manicknux]

Now, I'm a new member, but I just feel like commenting on this. I like the definition someone gave about sportscars as being roadsters. I'm a huge fan of roadsters from the Miata to the Shelby Cobra to Triumph and MG. I, though, own a Mercury Capri (edit: forgot to clarify, it's a 1991 Mercury Capri, not the Mustang equivalent Capri). Now, this is sort of a paradox of cars. It's a FWD 2+2 "roadster". Usually to classify a car as a sports car (or even a roadster) it should be RWD, and most likely a two seater. I love my car, but I have a hard time calling it anything but a "pseudo-roadster". I guess my main point is that lines can be crossed. The 300zx is mainly a touring car, but can be considered a sports car because of the RWD drivetrain, it's convertible option, and even the usual 2 seats. But that, I suppose, is just my opinion.

Anyways, because this is a 300zx topic, I feel obligated to say that the Z-series of cars have been my favorite series for years. Before I purchased my Capri, I was mainly looking for an 80's 300zx. However, due to cost and the fact that the Capri was a convertible, I went with the latter. Sometemes, though, I regret my decision...but then I tell myself that I'll eventually own one and I get back to crusing and enjoying the Capri.


Anyways, my two cents.

~Justin

[JCCR]

why people keep calling the z a touring car?!

http://www.cob.montevallo.edu/VascoF...ALTIMELINE.HTM

[longlivetheZ]

Real quick...Miata, S2000...convertables...Shelby Cobra...roadster. By definition, a car that has NO top is a roadster...Shelby Cobra (el drool), original Viper R/T, etc...if a car has some kind of roof that can be put on, it's a convertable...Corvette with the targa roof, MKIV Supra with the targa roof, Miata, and so on...there are biztrillions of convertables...not TOO many true roadsters because roadsters aren't quite as practical.

[Broke_as_****]

I really don't care much for labels but I consider the 300ZX a sports car because it will rip you a new asshole and leave your shit in ruins if you try to run against one at the track. But maybe thats me. If I do label cars in this fashion I base most of my labeling on performance.

BROKE_AS_****s CAR DICTIONARY:

Sports cars: Anything that has asswhipping performance stock. They don't have to be entirely unfunctional, they can down right comfortable. Examples: 300ZX TT, Corvette, 911.

Sporty cars: A definite daily driver but can still perform better than most cars. Examples: Eclipse GS, 240SX, Celica.

Bastards: Half-way inbetween, not quite as detuned and daily driverish as Sporty cars but not quite up to their Sport car big brothers. Examples: 300ZX NA, Eclipse GS-X, MR-2.

[longlivetheZ]

"Sports Car" is a kinda loose term to me. I have a big problem calling cars JUST built for the strip or whatever true "sports cars", though. They just go straight...that's all fine and dandy, but I think a sports car is meant to be well rounded and balanced.

[k3smostwanted]

i agree....to me a sports car is well rounded but can hold its own at anything. when it coems down to drag it holds its own against many cars stock. when it comes to handling...it also can take care of business. you name it, it does it.

[Z32TT_maniac]

this is the true definition..

super cars:
-3000GT twin turbo
-Lancer Evos
-300ZX twin turbo
-Skyline GTR
-Supra twin turbo
-Honda NSX
-Impreza WRX STI
-RX7 twin turbo

sport cars:
-FTO GPX
-Eclpise
-180SX
-200SX
-Silvia
-MR2 turbo
-Celica GT4
-Integra Type R

if u compare a 300ZX twin turbo to an MR2,its like asking a 7 year old boi to run with a 15 yeard old boi..and who will win?
-

[freakonaleash1187]

i think the super cars name should be just sports cars and the sports cars name should just be called faster than normal cars. i don't consider the STI or evo to be sports cars, they are just really fast economy cars to me. for a sports car to be a sports car, it has to be made as one in the first place, not a car based off of a economy car.

-Jared

[MR2Driver]

Wow, the word super car gets thrown around here too?

The RX-7 is a supercar? Wow you're making it seem like all sports cars are "supercars"

A Supercar was supposed to be the extreme exotic, the top end. The un attainable, few will ever see, fewer drive, and even fewer own.

Words like Zonda, Ferrari, Koenigsegg, come to mind when I think supercars or exotics. Not 1/2 a friggin college parking lot.

People throw the word supercar around way too much. Guys with sports cars call them supercars because grocery getter owners call their cars sports cars.

This is REALLY getting out of hand.