Scooby Vs MR2 Turbo
15 January 2003, 10:56 PM
#151
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In wrxshire
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realized the thread was moving more towards what was attainable in these machine I posted it to say yes by all means drive it flat out but there is a time and place and that should be on a private runway or track and not on public roads. If we are all honest we all know that and I didnt really need to post it just thought it might make people think.
15 January 2003, 11:19 PM
#152
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still unsure what cosworths problem is... the turbo can do 145 in rev 1 or 2, and 158 as an official figure.... what do you plan to gain from continuing this argument?? Either A) you don't beleive it will go that fast, or B) You hate to think that a little hairdressers car will go that fast, or C) You are an argumentative little idiot!
Which is it? peeps who have the turbos say it will go that fast... I am more inclined to beleive them over you, as I have seen these chaps on our forum, and they are certainly not boy racer types who bull**** to inlate their egos.
Which is it? peeps who have the turbos say it will go that fast... I am more inclined to beleive them over you, as I have seen these chaps on our forum, and they are certainly not boy racer types who bull**** to inlate their egos.
15 January 2003, 11:22 PM
#153
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosworth427 said:
And what does this prove? It proves that what you SEE on the SPEEDO is the actual speed you are going? Speedometers become increasingly inaccurate at high speeds, everyone else involved in this thread acknowledges that, why cant you?
It proves that a stock Rev 3 MR2 Turbo has more top end then an RB5! Whatelse do you think it means...DUH! This is considering you said MR2s have a top speed of *no more* then 140ish MPH and an Impreza has what...top end of 145 MPH according to some magazine! In any case if your so sure an MR2 has a top end of 140ish MPH subscribe to www.mr2dc.com , www.imoc.co.uk , and join the imoc-uk yahoo group list , and see what the rest of the owners are getting up top!
Cosworth427 said:
With THAT in mind, and how wrong you were about the MR-2's "worse" gearing and the WRX's HP figure, the more and more you post in here, the more you sound like a 17 year old kid who has been jerking off over Jordon too many times. You wanna resort to insults about "asses" rather than recite tangible facts to give some hope to your argument? I'd throw both of them right back at you, "boy".
I haven't ackonowledged once i was wrong about the gearing. You got the gear ratio wrong for the MR2 in the first place. Oooooh, since when were we talking about a WRXs HP figure? AFAIK they have about 260BHP and pull like 1.3 Suzuki Swift up top
If am a 17 year old kid, that makes you what? Yeah...not even a teenager yet. I have provided facts and figures, you've changed the subject on this thread more times then i've had hot dinners
Go back and see who started the ****** insults...THANKYOU!
By the way have you ever even sat in an MR2? And my data comes through my own personal experience with my MR2, and other *more* knowledgeable MR2 owners! Nothing compares to hands on experience You just stick to your "Opel"
Since your the one arguing
, can you please get back on track and make your point instead of going of on tangents
Oh, and just FYI all cars to come out of Japan are limited to 276BHP and 112MPH
And what does this prove? It proves that what you SEE on the SPEEDO is the actual speed you are going? Speedometers become increasingly inaccurate at high speeds, everyone else involved in this thread acknowledges that, why cant you?
It proves that a stock Rev 3 MR2 Turbo has more top end then an RB5! Whatelse do you think it means...DUH! This is considering you said MR2s have a top speed of *no more* then 140ish MPH and an Impreza has what...top end of 145 MPH according to some magazine! In any case if your so sure an MR2 has a top end of 140ish MPH subscribe to www.mr2dc.com , www.imoc.co.uk , and join the imoc-uk yahoo group list , and see what the rest of the owners are getting up top!
Cosworth427 said:
With THAT in mind, and how wrong you were about the MR-2's "worse" gearing and the WRX's HP figure, the more and more you post in here, the more you sound like a 17 year old kid who has been jerking off over Jordon too many times. You wanna resort to insults about "asses" rather than recite tangible facts to give some hope to your argument? I'd throw both of them right back at you, "boy".
I haven't ackonowledged once i was wrong about the gearing. You got the gear ratio wrong for the MR2 in the first place. Oooooh, since when were we talking about a WRXs HP figure? AFAIK they have about 260BHP and pull like 1.3 Suzuki Swift up top
If am a 17 year old kid, that makes you what? Yeah...not even a teenager yet. I have provided facts and figures, you've changed the subject on this thread more times then i've had hot dinners
Go back and see who started the ****** insults...THANKYOU!
By the way have you ever even sat in an MR2? And my data comes through my own personal experience with my MR2, and other *more* knowledgeable MR2 owners! Nothing compares to hands on experience
You just stick to your "Opel" Since your the one arguing
, can you please get back on track and make your point instead of going of on tangents Oh, and just FYI all cars to come out of Japan are limited to 276BHP and 112MPH
15 January 2003, 11:30 PM
#154
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MichaelG - I was only joking mate, just being beligerant (spelling?) because of a previous comment!
I have said in numerous posts that I think the Scooby is a damn good car - but I couldn't resist the Scooby Doo bit - its been a long day and I was easily amused. I did put only joking though!
They aren't everywhere around where I live and I'm certainly not bored of them, they make such a great exhaust noise in standard form.
Chris P - you still made a valid point and I'm not afraid to say about my dislike of speed in the wrong place. It should always be an organised legal event.
Well as far as this thread goes, I'm quite happy to knock it on the head - Respect to Mr Cosworth for his knowledge (not being funny)- you certainly know a lot about cars. I think that its a bit of a stalemate situation as far as the speed goes, and as for the list - well we'll say no more about it until we have hard evidence as well as people verifying they have seen it.
Should we agree that the Scooby and MR2 are both great pieces of machinery that are very fast for relatively cheap cars and are well respected and leave it at that?
B)
I have said in numerous posts that I think the Scooby is a damn good car - but I couldn't resist the Scooby Doo bit - its been a long day and I was easily amused. I did put only joking though!
They aren't everywhere around where I live and I'm certainly not bored of them, they make such a great exhaust noise in standard form.
Chris P - you still made a valid point and I'm not afraid to say about my dislike of speed in the wrong place. It should always be an organised legal event.
Well as far as this thread goes, I'm quite happy to knock it on the head - Respect to Mr Cosworth for his knowledge (not being funny)- you certainly know a lot about cars. I think that its a bit of a stalemate situation as far as the speed goes, and as for the list - well we'll say no more about it until we have hard evidence as well as people verifying they have seen it.
Should we agree that the Scooby and MR2 are both great pieces of machinery that are very fast for relatively cheap cars and are well respected and leave it at that?
B)
16 January 2003, 12:15 AM
#157
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MR2_rob
================================================== =================
"Why did you choose to quote the REV 1 Turbo de-restricted and leave the REV 3 out because of restriction? Was it because you knew that the REV 3 was faster but this destroyed your argument that MR2's top out at 145 de-restricted?"
================================================== =================
I didnt really single out one turbo model to suit my argument, I even gave benefit of the doubt that every stock Turbo MR-2 had 240+ HP, even with THAT much power in mind - it is not enough to reach the 165, 166.7 or the 172 MPH many people here have claimed.
I believe you that the MR-2 Turbo is capable between the 140 - 155 MPH range, it has the power, gearing and .Cd to acheive that, but I'm afraid this still not enough to reach the "top 20".
WRX_280
================================================== =================
"I haven't ackonowledged once i was wrong about the gearing. You got the gear ratio wrong for the MR2 in the first place. Oooooh, since when were we talking about a WRXs HP figure? AFAIK they have about 260BHP and pull like 1.3 Suzuki Swift up top"
================================================== =================
Do you actually know what "gearing" is?? The ratios I provided are "overal" ratios of both the MR-2 Turbo and 2002 215 HP WRX. Overal ratio is the gearing of top gear of each car, multiplied by the final-drive ratios. The ratios I calculated were from www.subaru.co.uk and from the Auto Manual I have that covers all cars between 1988 - 1990.
I'll demonstrate overal ratio again.
Subaru - WRX Impreza 2002
5th gear: 0.781:1
Final drive: 3.9:1
Overal ratio: 3.9 x 0.738 = 2.87:1
Toyota MR-2 Turbo 91 - 94
5th gear ratio: 0.731:1
Final drive: 4.176:1
Overal ratio: 3.05:1
http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~mcanny/frames/techinfopage.htm claims..
5th (mistakingly labeled as 1st): 0.73:1
Final Drive Ratio: 4.29:1
Overal ratio...worse, do the math.
Cased closed
================================================== ===============
"It proves that a stock Rev 3 MR2 Turbo has more top end then an RB5! Whatelse do you think it means...DUH! This is considering you said MR2s have a top speed of *no more* then 140ish MPH and an Impreza has what...top end of 145 MPH according to some magazine! In any case if your so sure an MR2 has a top end of 140ish MPH subscribe to www.mr2dc.com , www.imoc.co.uk , and join the imoc-uk yahoo group list , and see what the rest of the owners are getting up top!"
================================================== =================
????
You're only proving that Impreza cannot surpass its claimed top speed. Where does it prove that your magical MR2 can do 166+ MPH?
By the way I said this:
"MR-2 Turbo - 220-225 BHP/ MAX SPEED - 141 MPH (230 KPH)" Page 6 of the thread. BASED on official figures from independent testing from the Automotive Manual.
So what if an MR-2 can do 145+? My beef was with the claims that it could do over 165. Do I have to take your word for it? Or assume that your "videos" can prove that? Or what about that wonderful peice of software that "thinks" an MR-2 could?
Who's changing the subject, WRX? I know I'm not. I've explictly made it clear that no stock MR-2 can qualify in the top 20 fastest production cars, not with 200 HP, not with 220HP and not with 241 HP. My list shows the amount of unrestricted and RESTRICTED cars that are ALL faster than an MR-2. It was you decided to claim that an MR-2 in all her mythical-japanese-dragon-power 241 HP special model could reach the same top speed many 300+ HP cars with only 241 HP and a 0.31 Cd body!
Me change the subject??? I dont think so.
================================================== =================
"Why did you choose to quote the REV 1 Turbo de-restricted and leave the REV 3 out because of restriction? Was it because you knew that the REV 3 was faster but this destroyed your argument that MR2's top out at 145 de-restricted?"
================================================== =================
I didnt really single out one turbo model to suit my argument, I even gave benefit of the doubt that every stock Turbo MR-2 had 240+ HP, even with THAT much power in mind - it is not enough to reach the 165, 166.7 or the 172 MPH many people here have claimed.
I believe you that the MR-2 Turbo is capable between the 140 - 155 MPH range, it has the power, gearing and .Cd to acheive that, but I'm afraid this still not enough to reach the "top 20".
WRX_280
================================================== =================
"I haven't ackonowledged once i was wrong about the gearing. You got the gear ratio wrong for the MR2 in the first place. Oooooh, since when were we talking about a WRXs HP figure? AFAIK they have about 260BHP and pull like 1.3 Suzuki Swift up top"
================================================== =================
Do you actually know what "gearing" is?? The ratios I provided are "overal" ratios of both the MR-2 Turbo and 2002 215 HP WRX. Overal ratio is the gearing of top gear of each car, multiplied by the final-drive ratios. The ratios I calculated were from www.subaru.co.uk and from the Auto Manual I have that covers all cars between 1988 - 1990.
I'll demonstrate overal ratio again.
Subaru - WRX Impreza 2002
5th gear: 0.781:1
Final drive: 3.9:1
Overal ratio: 3.9 x 0.738 = 2.87:1
Toyota MR-2 Turbo 91 - 94
5th gear ratio: 0.731:1
Final drive: 4.176:1
Overal ratio: 3.05:1
http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~mcanny/frames/techinfopage.htm claims..
5th (mistakingly labeled as 1st): 0.73:1
Final Drive Ratio: 4.29:1
Overal ratio...worse, do the math.
Cased closed
================================================== ===============
"It proves that a stock Rev 3 MR2 Turbo has more top end then an RB5! Whatelse do you think it means...DUH! This is considering you said MR2s have a top speed of *no more* then 140ish MPH and an Impreza has what...top end of 145 MPH according to some magazine! In any case if your so sure an MR2 has a top end of 140ish MPH subscribe to www.mr2dc.com , www.imoc.co.uk , and join the imoc-uk yahoo group list , and see what the rest of the owners are getting up top!"
================================================== =================
????
You're only proving that Impreza cannot surpass its claimed top speed. Where does it prove that your magical MR2 can do 166+ MPH?
By the way I said this:
"MR-2 Turbo - 220-225 BHP/ MAX SPEED - 141 MPH (230 KPH)" Page 6 of the thread. BASED on official figures from independent testing from the Automotive Manual.
So what if an MR-2 can do 145+? My beef was with the claims that it could do over 165. Do I have to take your word for it? Or assume that your "videos" can prove that? Or what about that wonderful peice of software that "thinks" an MR-2 could?
Who's changing the subject, WRX? I know I'm not. I've explictly made it clear that no stock MR-2 can qualify in the top 20 fastest production cars, not with 200 HP, not with 220HP and not with 241 HP. My list shows the amount of unrestricted and RESTRICTED cars that are ALL faster than an MR-2. It was you decided to claim that an MR-2 in all her mythical-japanese-dragon-power 241 HP special model could reach the same top speed many 300+ HP cars with only 241 HP and a 0.31 Cd body!
Me change the subject??? I dont think so.
16 January 2003, 02:04 AM
#158
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosworth427,
Do you actually know what "gearing" is?? The ratios I provided are "overal" ratios of both the MR-2 Turbo and 2002 215 HP WRX. Overal ratio is the gearing of top gear of each car, multiplied by the final-drive ratios. The ratios I calculated were from www.subaru.co.uk and from the Auto Manual I have that covers all cars between 1988 - 1990.
I'll demonstrate overall ratio again.
Subaru - WRX Impreza 2002
5th gear: 0.781:1
Final drive: 3.9:1
Overal ratio: 3.9 x 0.738 = 2.87:1
Toyota MR-2 Turbo 91 - 94
5th gear ratio: 0.731:1
Final drive: 4.176:1
Overal ratio: 3.05:1
http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~mcanny/frames/techinfopage.htm claims..
5th (mistakingly labeled as 1st): 0.73:1
Final Drive Ratio: 4.29:1
Overal ratio...worse, do the math.
How is having shorter gearing worse? It allows for better acceleration doesn't it? Something that Scoobies lack towards the top end! So everything is in the Scoobies favour according to you. Longer gearing, BHP, etc etc, and it *still* has less top end then an MR2 (with shorter gearing)
Cased closed
Closed
????
?
You're only proving that Impreza cannot surpass its claimed top speed. Where does it prove that your magical MR2 can do 166+ MPH?
Well am glad you admit it has more top end then 145MPH , i was getting the impression i couldn't get that through your head. Well am glad its sunk in now . I haven't hit a 166MPH. I've seen 155MPH on a stock Rev 3 Turbo on a GPS counter. Car was still pulling (not mine personally), though i've seen more then 160MPH on my speedo!
By the way I said this:
"MR-2 Turbo - 220-225 BHP/ MAX SPEED - 141 MPH (230 KPH)" Page 6 of the thread. BASED on official figures from independent testing from the Automotive Manual.
"Independent Testing from the Automotive Manual" ... by whom? Sidney F*ckin Sheldon? You gotta be more precise there mate.
So what if an MR-2 can do 145+? My beef was with the claims that it could do over 165. Do I have to take your word for it? Or assume that your "videos" can prove that? Or what about that wonderful peice of software that "thinks" an MR-2 could?
I think i've proved it in 3 ways. Myself, GPS and Java calculator . You haven't proved to me how it CAN'T do 166MPH. You just don't wanna believe it! Why? Cos its faster then your SRi
Who's changing the subject, WRX? I know I'm not. I've explictly made it clear that no stock MR-2 can qualify in the top 20 fastest production cars, not with 200 HP, not with 220HP and not with 241 HP. My list shows the amount of unrestricted and RESTRICTED cars that are ALL faster than an MR-2.!
Well i think we've been fighting over different arguments. I didn't claim the car to be in the top 20, even though the car has a top speed of around the 160MPH + mark
It was you decided to claim that an MR-2 in all her mythical-japanese-dragon-power 241 HP special model could reach the same top speed many 300+ HP cars with only 241 HP and a 0.31 Cd body!
Prove to me it doesn't So far you've just gone on figures, and since you have NO real life experience of the car, you can't come to these conclusions.
Me change the subject??? I dont think so.
Yeah you...i know so...neh neh neh neh
[Edited by WRX_280 - 1/16/2003 2:06:06 AM]
Do you actually know what "gearing" is?? The ratios I provided are "overal" ratios of both the MR-2 Turbo and 2002 215 HP WRX. Overal ratio is the gearing of top gear of each car, multiplied by the final-drive ratios. The ratios I calculated were from www.subaru.co.uk and from the Auto Manual I have that covers all cars between 1988 - 1990.
I'll demonstrate overall ratio again.
Subaru - WRX Impreza 2002
5th gear: 0.781:1
Final drive: 3.9:1
Overal ratio: 3.9 x 0.738 = 2.87:1
Toyota MR-2 Turbo 91 - 94
5th gear ratio: 0.731:1
Final drive: 4.176:1
Overal ratio: 3.05:1
http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~mcanny/frames/techinfopage.htm claims..
5th (mistakingly labeled as 1st): 0.73:1
Final Drive Ratio: 4.29:1
Overal ratio...worse, do the math.
How is having shorter gearing worse? It allows for better acceleration doesn't it? Something that Scoobies lack towards the top end! So everything is in the Scoobies favour according to you. Longer gearing, BHP, etc etc, and it *still* has less top end then an MR2 (with shorter gearing)
Cased closed
Closed
????
?
You're only proving that Impreza cannot surpass its claimed top speed. Where does it prove that your magical MR2 can do 166+ MPH?
Well am glad you admit it has more top end then 145MPH
, i was getting the impression i couldn't get that through your head. Well am glad its sunk in now . I haven't hit a 166MPH. I've seen 155MPH on a stock Rev 3 Turbo on a GPS counter. Car was still pulling (not mine personally), though i've seen more then 160MPH on my speedo!By the way I said this:
"MR-2 Turbo - 220-225 BHP/ MAX SPEED - 141 MPH (230 KPH)" Page 6 of the thread. BASED on official figures from independent testing from the Automotive Manual.
"Independent Testing from the Automotive Manual" ... by whom? Sidney F*ckin Sheldon? You gotta be more precise there mate.
So what if an MR-2 can do 145+? My beef was with the claims that it could do over 165. Do I have to take your word for it? Or assume that your "videos" can prove that? Or what about that wonderful peice of software that "thinks" an MR-2 could?
I think i've proved it in 3 ways. Myself, GPS and Java calculator
. You haven't proved to me how it CAN'T do 166MPH. You just don't wanna believe it! Why? Cos its faster then your SRi Who's changing the subject, WRX? I know I'm not. I've explictly made it clear that no stock MR-2 can qualify in the top 20 fastest production cars, not with 200 HP, not with 220HP and not with 241 HP. My list shows the amount of unrestricted and RESTRICTED cars that are ALL faster than an MR-2.!
Well i think we've been fighting over different arguments. I didn't claim the car to be in the top 20, even though the car has a top speed of around the 160MPH + mark
It was you decided to claim that an MR-2 in all her mythical-japanese-dragon-power 241 HP special model could reach the same top speed many 300+ HP cars with only 241 HP and a 0.31 Cd body!
Prove to me it doesn't
So far you've just gone on figures, and since you have NO real life experience of the car, you can't come to these conclusions.Me change the subject??? I dont think so.
Yeah you...i know so...neh neh neh neh
[Edited by WRX_280 - 1/16/2003 2:06:06 AM]
16 January 2003, 10:19 AM
#162
Scooby Regular
I'll have a bit of that in my MR2 NA - we should organise a run between us all at Elvington. Would love to see what I can do in it, acceleration and top speed wise.
The Cosworth427 shootout Seriously
The Cosworth427 shootout
Seriously
16 January 2003, 11:18 AM
#163
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im all in favor of that, just to put an end to this.
Stock MR2 vs Stock Scooby
Would like to see the outcome but in all honestly both are good if you like them. I mean, when I got my 1st car which was a brown 1L Nova saloon I thought it was good so each to their own. Everyones tastes are different, if they wernt we would only have one car on the roads and how boring would that be?
The witty(?) little remarks have been entertaining along the way and Cossie's comments have been something, he sure knows his stuff.
The only way to put a stop to this is to have the track day and see for ourselves. Maybe run a feature in Max Power so they can have something good in their mag lol.
So, bottom line is, someone organise something and then we can all have a great day out.
Stock MR2 vs Stock Scooby
Would like to see the outcome but in all honestly both are good if you like them. I mean, when I got my 1st car which was a brown 1L Nova saloon I thought it was good so each to their own. Everyones tastes are different, if they wernt we would only have one car on the roads and how boring would that be?
The witty(?) little remarks have been entertaining along the way and Cossie's comments have been something, he sure knows his stuff.
The only way to put a stop to this is to have the track day and see for ourselves. Maybe run a feature in Max Power so they can have something good in their mag lol.
So, bottom line is, someone organise something and then we can all have a great day out.
16 January 2003, 12:28 PM
#165
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.sxoc.com/site/events/tsd2/index.php
Independently verified top speeds. Any of you guys know the owners and what mods are on the cars? I think there's a thread on the SXOC forum with some stuff. What about at TOTB? There were some scoobs there, not sure about MR2s. That will give you some PROVEN figures, case closed, no more arguements.
Only downsides of an MR2 Tubbie IMO were
2 Seats - Much as I want to leave the kids at home, the g/f had other ideas...
Insurance - Even more than a scoob in my case!
There's a nice black Rev 3 not far from me, and it's f*****g quick!
Independently verified top speeds. Any of you guys know the owners and what mods are on the cars? I think there's a thread on the SXOC forum with some stuff. What about at TOTB? There were some scoobs there, not sure about MR2s. That will give you some PROVEN figures, case closed, no more arguements.
Only downsides of an MR2 Tubbie IMO were
2 Seats - Much as I want to leave the kids at home, the g/f had other ideas...
Insurance - Even more than a scoob in my case!
There's a nice black Rev 3 not far from me, and it's f*****g quick!
16 January 2003, 01:36 PM
#166
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRX_280
================================================== =================
"How is having shorter gearing worse? It allows for better acceleration doesn't it? Something that Scoobies lack towards the top end! So everything is in the Scoobies favour according to you. Longer gearing, BHP, etc etc, and it *still* has less top end then an MR2 (with shorter gearing)"
================================================== =================
Exactly, shorter gearing emphasises quicker accelleration, taller gearing permits higher speed in that given gear. Yet you say:
================================================== =================
"Your saying that a 145MPH 4WD car, with a WORSE CD and GEARING then an MR2 has *MORE* top end then a car, which has over more then 50WHP more. Please tell me you are talking *pants*."
================================================== =================
I dont see how taller gearing is "worse" for high speed than the shorter geared MR-2. Yet you think that using that gearing difference as if a shorter geared car (MR-2) can go faster that a taller geared car (WRX), when in science and reality it is the other way round.
================================================== ================
"Prove to me it doesn't So far you've just gone on figures, and since you have NO real life experience of the car, you can't come to these conclusions."
================================================== =================
I just dont have to drive an MR-2 at 142 MPH to know it cannot do near 170 MPH speeds because I KNOW how much power and drag it has. I dont have to believe that an MR-2 can do 150 JUST because I saw that number reached on the speedo. I said this before and I'll say it again, speedos are inaccurate at high speeds, you will NOT get any accurate measure of speed at over 120..
Secondly, if you are still reading, there is NOTHING special about an MR-2 that I have to "prove" with videos that 220 - 241 HP isnt enough for 166+ MPH with 0.31 cd. Drag is something that affects ALL manufacturers and no matter how many speedos you look at, you cannot re-write physics. You want real life examples of drag and how top speed is limited?
The face lifted Honda NSX with 290 HP was improved in drag to increase top speed. Originally with 0.32 Cd acheives a top speed of 168 MPH. That's with 0.01 more air resistance than an MR-2, but with 50 HP more over an MR-2. Yet you think that with the 50 HP deficit, the MR-2 can match the NSX in top speed??????
The face lifted Honda dropped by 0.02 Cd, now 0.30 and top speed is a commendable 175 MPH @ 290 HP.
The Porsche 996 C4 tops out at 174 MPH @ 320 BHP with 0.33 Cd. Again, how can a car with only 0.02 Cd LESS and 80 HP LESS be within 5 MPH of a Carerra 4's top speed?
Even "offical" Toyota figures (knowing that most manufacturers like to exagerate) shows that the MR-2 cannot reach 160 MPH, so what makes YOU or any of your friends a valid source of information on a car when you demonstrated absolute ZERO consideration to the facts about cars.
This thread is DONE. Over. And nothing you can say or claim will make a difference to the reality of the MR-2.
================================================== =================
"How is having shorter gearing worse? It allows for better acceleration doesn't it? Something that Scoobies lack towards the top end! So everything is in the Scoobies favour according to you. Longer gearing, BHP, etc etc, and it *still* has less top end then an MR2 (with shorter gearing)"
================================================== =================
Exactly, shorter gearing emphasises quicker accelleration, taller gearing permits higher speed in that given gear. Yet you say:
================================================== =================
"Your saying that a 145MPH 4WD car, with a WORSE CD and GEARING then an MR2 has *MORE* top end then a car, which has over more then 50WHP more. Please tell me you are talking *pants*."
================================================== =================
I dont see how taller gearing is "worse" for high speed than the shorter geared MR-2. Yet you think that using that gearing difference as if a shorter geared car (MR-2) can go faster that a taller geared car (WRX), when in science and reality it is the other way round.
================================================== ================
"Prove to me it doesn't So far you've just gone on figures, and since you have NO real life experience of the car, you can't come to these conclusions."
================================================== =================
I just dont have to drive an MR-2 at 142 MPH to know it cannot do near 170 MPH speeds because I KNOW how much power and drag it has. I dont have to believe that an MR-2 can do 150 JUST because I saw that number reached on the speedo. I said this before and I'll say it again, speedos are inaccurate at high speeds, you will NOT get any accurate measure of speed at over 120..
Secondly, if you are still reading, there is NOTHING special about an MR-2 that I have to "prove" with videos that 220 - 241 HP isnt enough for 166+ MPH with 0.31 cd. Drag is something that affects ALL manufacturers and no matter how many speedos you look at, you cannot re-write physics. You want real life examples of drag and how top speed is limited?
The face lifted Honda NSX with 290 HP was improved in drag to increase top speed. Originally with 0.32 Cd acheives a top speed of 168 MPH. That's with 0.01 more air resistance than an MR-2, but with 50 HP more over an MR-2. Yet you think that with the 50 HP deficit, the MR-2 can match the NSX in top speed??????
The face lifted Honda dropped by 0.02 Cd, now 0.30 and top speed is a commendable 175 MPH @ 290 HP.
The Porsche 996 C4 tops out at 174 MPH @ 320 BHP with 0.33 Cd. Again, how can a car with only 0.02 Cd LESS and 80 HP LESS be within 5 MPH of a Carerra 4's top speed?
Even "offical" Toyota figures (knowing that most manufacturers like to exagerate) shows that the MR-2 cannot reach 160 MPH, so what makes YOU or any of your friends a valid source of information on a car when you demonstrated absolute ZERO consideration to the facts about cars.
This thread is DONE. Over. And nothing you can say or claim will make a difference to the reality of the MR-2.
16 January 2003, 01:49 PM
#167
Scooby Regular
Yeah, but we are all going down hill to get these speeds
Any hill gradient in your measurements
Anyway, whos gonna organise a do then? Not me, cos I'm crap and have a wedding to organise.
Any hill gradient in your measurements
Anyway, whos gonna organise a do then? Not me, cos I'm crap and have a wedding to organise.
16 January 2003, 02:08 PM
#168
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In wrxshire
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have short gearing on mine 7500rpm redline but has a 8250rpm rev limiter and so I have been told it will go to the limiter in 5th, so its 19.7mph/1000rpm so I make that just over 160mph. Not too sure how long the engine would last though .
[Edited by chrisp - 1/16/2003 2:10:34 PM]
.[Edited by chrisp - 1/16/2003 2:10:34 PM]
16 January 2003, 02:14 PM
#169
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
================================================== =================
"I have short gearing on mine 7500rpm redline but has a 8250rpm rev limiter and so I have been told it will go to the limiter in 5th there in 5th so its 19.7mph/1000rpm so I make that just over 160mph. Not too sure how long the engine would last though."
================================================== =================
Lol. How can you assume the top speed by multiplying what your car does at 1000 RPM by 8.25? The problem that makes your multiplication theory difficult to trust is once again, that old chestnut called drag. Air resistance becomes 4 times worse when you double the speed of a car, what you did at 1000 RPM is considering low levels of drag, but push the car to 39.4 MPH and you'd have 4 times as much air resistance. Stick your hand out of the window when driving at 40 and you'll know what I am talking about.
"I have short gearing on mine 7500rpm redline but has a 8250rpm rev limiter and so I have been told it will go to the limiter in 5th there in 5th so its 19.7mph/1000rpm so I make that just over 160mph. Not too sure how long the engine would last though."
================================================== =================
Lol. How can you assume the top speed by multiplying what your car does at 1000 RPM by 8.25? The problem that makes your multiplication theory difficult to trust is once again, that old chestnut called drag. Air resistance becomes 4 times worse when you double the speed of a car, what you did at 1000 RPM is considering low levels of drag, but push the car to 39.4 MPH and you'd have 4 times as much air resistance. Stick your hand out of the window when driving at 40 and you'll know what I am talking about.
16 January 2003, 02:45 PM
#170
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In wrxshire
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didnt say it would , just what I have been told, by guys running 8000+rpm on German motorways. BTW 19.7mph/1000rpm 5th ratio is a lot shorted than a standard impreza gearbox , and of course I have the full 280PS engine as well, which helps .
, just what I have been told, by guys running 8000+rpm on German motorways. BTW 19.7mph/1000rpm 5th ratio is a lot shorted than a standard impreza gearbox , and of course I have the full 280PS engine as well, which helps .
16 January 2003, 05:25 PM
#172
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My cars better than your car. No mine is better than your's! What the fu*k is happening?
Organise a fu*king event or something and prove it! End of story.
And Cosworth, dont got writing a fu*king 10 page essay about any of the posts. You bore us all to death with them.
Someone organise something and put a fu*king lid on it.
We have all seen the figures, gear ratios, claims of top speeds etc.. and we have all discussed them (or written a fu*king novel on them in Cosworths case). So why do they keep on poping back up. The only way the Scooby owners will ever realise that there is something other than a Scooby out there thats a good, affordable, fast car is to see for themselves, so show them.
MR2 owners cant prove they are right, Scooby owners can't prove they are right. So someone get a fu*king event sorted out.
Organise a fu*king event or something and prove it! End of story.
And Cosworth, dont got writing a fu*king 10 page essay about any of the posts. You bore us all to death with them.
Someone organise something and put a fu*king lid on it.
We have all seen the figures, gear ratios, claims of top speeds etc.. and we have all discussed them (or written a fu*king novel on them in Cosworths case). So why do they keep on poping back up. The only way the Scooby owners will ever realise that there is something other than a Scooby out there thats a good, affordable, fast car is to see for themselves, so show them.
MR2 owners cant prove they are right, Scooby owners can't prove they are right. So someone get a fu*king event sorted out.
16 January 2003, 06:20 PM
#174
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread gets funnier by the day! Here’s some more petrol to throw on the fire!
Someone on here (not sure who now) was claiming that physics could prove his point. Well, as an ex-phycisist I couldn’t resist checking to see. The aerodynamic equation describes drag as:
Drag = 0.5 x CD x density of air x V squared x frontal area
Power is defined as P = drag x velocity
Thus it is easy to see from these two equations that the power required to propel a vehicle through the air is proportional to its velocity cubed. (This means, for example, that to double top speed, you need to multiply engine power by a factor of eight). So….
P = c x (V^3)
Where ‘c’ is a constant that describes the efficiency with which a particular body shape can cut through the air. It’s easy to work out what ‘c’ is for any production car so long as you have the maximum power and speeds for both cars. Let’s take the example of the UK version of the MR2, and the UK version of the first Impreza, as the figures for both of these are much less controversial!
UK NA MR2: Power – 158bhp; Top speed – 137mph.
UK Scooby: Power – 218bhp; Top speed – 144mph.
Thus, ‘c’ for an MR2 is 0.00006145, and ‘c’ for a Scooby is 0.00007301. Why is the MR2 value lower? Three reasons – lower cross sectional frontal area, two wheel drive (reduced transmission losses), and more aerodynamic shape.
Reversing the earlier equation allows us now to calculate the projected top speed of both body shapes for a particular engine output.
V = cube root (P/c)
Interestingly, this provides the top speed for an Impreza Sport as 118mph, and for an MR2 coupe (a rare UK model with only 120bhp) 125mph. These values are pretty much spot on for both of these lower power variants.
Now extending the equation to higher engine outputs, the top speed of an MR2 is (so long as gearing is adequate):
158 bhp - 137 mph (Standard UK NA car)
200 bhp - 148 mph (Standard Yank car)
220 bhp - 153 mph (Standard Rev1)
240 bhp - 157 mph (Standard Rev3)
280 bhp - 166 mph
300 bhp - 170 mph
350 bhp - 179 mph
For an Impreza, the numbers work out as follows:
218 bhp - 144 mph (Standard UK NA car)
240 bhp - 149 mph (RB5?)
280 bhp - 157 mph
300 bhp - 160 mph
350 bhp - 169 mph
Happy fighting!
Someone on here (not sure who now) was claiming that physics could prove his point. Well, as an ex-phycisist I couldn’t resist checking to see. The aerodynamic equation describes drag as:
Drag = 0.5 x CD x density of air x V squared x frontal area
Power is defined as P = drag x velocity
Thus it is easy to see from these two equations that the power required to propel a vehicle through the air is proportional to its velocity cubed. (This means, for example, that to double top speed, you need to multiply engine power by a factor of eight). So….
P = c x (V^3)
Where ‘c’ is a constant that describes the efficiency with which a particular body shape can cut through the air. It’s easy to work out what ‘c’ is for any production car so long as you have the maximum power and speeds for both cars. Let’s take the example of the UK version of the MR2, and the UK version of the first Impreza, as the figures for both of these are much less controversial!
UK NA MR2: Power – 158bhp; Top speed – 137mph.
UK Scooby: Power – 218bhp; Top speed – 144mph.
Thus, ‘c’ for an MR2 is 0.00006145, and ‘c’ for a Scooby is 0.00007301. Why is the MR2 value lower? Three reasons – lower cross sectional frontal area, two wheel drive (reduced transmission losses), and more aerodynamic shape.
Reversing the earlier equation allows us now to calculate the projected top speed of both body shapes for a particular engine output.
V = cube root (P/c)
Interestingly, this provides the top speed for an Impreza Sport as 118mph, and for an MR2 coupe (a rare UK model with only 120bhp) 125mph. These values are pretty much spot on for both of these lower power variants.
Now extending the equation to higher engine outputs, the top speed of an MR2 is (so long as gearing is adequate):
158 bhp - 137 mph (Standard UK NA car)
200 bhp - 148 mph (Standard Yank car)
220 bhp - 153 mph (Standard Rev1)
240 bhp - 157 mph (Standard Rev3)
280 bhp - 166 mph
300 bhp - 170 mph
350 bhp - 179 mph
For an Impreza, the numbers work out as follows:
218 bhp - 144 mph (Standard UK NA car)
240 bhp - 149 mph (RB5?)
280 bhp - 157 mph
300 bhp - 160 mph
350 bhp - 169 mph
Happy fighting!
16 January 2003, 06:56 PM
#178
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not gonna post any more proper arguments as its run its course but I have always found that manufacturers usually under-rate their performance incase someone sue's them.
This is especially the case with VW, I think they rated my dads Scirocco 1.8 GT2 at 111mph tops which seems particularly poor for a sports coupe with a reliable strong engine using the same basic block as the Golf GTi.
As for drag co-efficients, I'm certainly not going to argue with Cletterridge as he seems to be pretty up on his knowledge there!!!
This track day won't mean anything because the cars are reasonably old and one might be better maintained than another, have a worn component, be not fully tuned etc. They would have to have been done in 1999 when the last Turbo rolled off the line. And even then its mostly going to be down to the driver.
Still an amusing thread to read though!
This is especially the case with VW, I think they rated my dads Scirocco 1.8 GT2 at 111mph tops which seems particularly poor for a sports coupe with a reliable strong engine using the same basic block as the Golf GTi.
As for drag co-efficients, I'm certainly not going to argue with Cletterridge as he seems to be pretty up on his knowledge there!!!
This track day won't mean anything because the cars are reasonably old and one might be better maintained than another, have a worn component, be not fully tuned etc. They would have to have been done in 1999 when the last Turbo rolled off the line. And even then its mostly going to be down to the driver.
Still an amusing thread to read though!
16 January 2003, 07:35 PM
#179
Scooby Regular
Big up cletteridge - absolute quality stuff So what about top speed on my Rev3 NA then, with 174bhp as standard? Cant do all that working out stuff.
steve G MAN - not being funny, but why do your posts make you sound like your 17 and have never driven a day in your life, and whats with no punctuation or grammar, and all this lol, lol, lol, looool business?
Not related to super_si perchance?
So what about top speed on my Rev3 NA then, with 174bhp as standard? Cant do all that working out stuff. steve G MAN - not being funny, but why do your posts make you sound like your 17 and have never driven a day in your life, and whats with no punctuation or grammar, and all this lol, lol, lol, looool business?
Not related to super_si perchance?