Talk:Toyota MR2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cars Portal This article is supported by Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of Automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is part of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to various sports car racing series throughout the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Shortcut: WP:SCR

This article is part of WikiProject World Rally, an effort to create, expand and improve World Rally Championship -related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.

Contents 1 Power figures 2 1994 changes 3 Misc 4 Is it a sports car? 5 Suspension changes 6 Scion tC replacing the MR2? 7 AW11 Weights 8 T-Bar/Targa Top? 9 collectibles 10 mk 1.5? 11 Fiat X1/9 12 Beams

[edit] Power figures

I think some of the power figures are wrong (i.e. not the official ones). A 1994 onwards Japanese Domestic Market MR2 GT / GT-S (turbo) has a max power 245 PS at 6000 rpm (source: a 1998 Japanese Toyota brochure amongst others), which I think is about 245 hp, not 240 hp as mentioned in the article. 245 PS is often quoted as 240 BHP. A BHP usually seems to be slightly more than an 'American' HP and this is probably where the confusion comes from. Similarly I think the earlier Japanese turbos were 225 PS but I've never seen this figure on official literature yet. As far as I can remember the American MR2 turbos are indeed 200 hp though. I've corrected the figure for the 1994 turbo but left the other figures as they are as I'm only 100.0% sure about the 245 figure. What I suggest is to try to find the 'PS' figures for the cars (preferably from Japanese brochures), as that seems to be the form that Toyota Japan uses (these tend to be equivalent to hp figures). Then multiply by 0.73549875 to get the kilowatt figures. You'll notice in the article the ratio between the hp figures and the kilowatt figure varies. The situation is further confused by Toyota GB occassionally quoting PS figures as 'BHP' figures in brochures. Also as far as I've heard the Japanese 3S-GEs have slightly higher figures than the UK 3S-GEs, which is probably due to Japan having higher octane fuel than the UK. --Robin

BHP refers to "brake" horsepower, as opposed to "wheel" horsepower - not "British" horsepower, as you allude. As such, there's no such thing as American Horsepower. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower_.28bhp.29) Theoretically, if it's not to SAE spec, they may use BHP as opposed to "HP (SAE)". There is a minor difference between PS and HP, however, which is why there is the 245PS vs. 240 BHP discrepancy. 100 DIN PS = 98.63 HP (SAE), so that would make 245PS = 241.6 HP (SAE). (I'm not sure when this equation was true, as SAE recently changed their calculation specifications, which also take into account a motor installed in a chassis environment). --Michelmreid 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1994 changes

Regarding the 1994 changes, the US situation maybe should be mentioned. As far as I heard the US never got the later revision 3s-gte engines, even in 1994 and 1995 cars (this needs to be confirmed though). Of course the car ceased to be sold in the US after 1995 too, and the 1994 and 1995 sales figures were very low. As far as I know all cars sold in the US after 1995 needed to provide an emissions related diagnostic network (OBD II), but what the real reason for the 5 year MR2 black hole in the US is, I don't know. I've added a brief note that 1995 was the last year the car was sold in the US. --Robin

[edit] Misc

I removed this text: " The more cynical press accused the MR2 being a ripoff of Fiat's X1/9, but despite the similar design concept, the results were completely different. Where Fiat had failed, Toyota had created a huge success." Apart from being highly POV, it's inaccurate - Fiat's car was pretty successful, with many thousands sold and an almost 20 year lifespan. In fact in comparison the MR2 model didn't last one fifth as long. If you want to make a comparison, fair enough, but at least be reasonable. Graham 11:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Since writing that, I have been through the article with a fine-toothed comb and fixed up a lot of spelling and grammar issues. However, I also had to fix some of the more blatant NPOV issues - clearly the author is a great fan of the car and knows a lot about it, but tends to get a bit carried away. You have to stick to the facts - opinions about sales success, handling, its reception by the press, etc need to be factual. There are still numerous POV issues I've left in since I don't know the facts - but someone who does should make an attempt to fix/neutralise the text as necessary. Overall, I also think the article is too long and contains too much detail, but that's open to argument. One thing I definitely did change - "twincam" was not a term coined by Toyota for this car - the term has long pre-existed and I doubt its origins can be definitively traced. (e.g the Ford BDA twincam engine from the 70s, but I expect it goes back well before that). Graham 11:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do admit that the article is somewhat biased - I own an MR2 myself and I'm quite enthusiastic about it. The original, finnish language version of this article was written for the Toyota Club of Finland so that may contribute to the bias as well. Modifying the article towards a more neutral position would definately be a good idea but I think I might not be the right person to do this task. Regarding sales figures, from the information I've seen, approximately 170000 Fiat X1/9s were sold worldwide during it's 17-year production, beginning 1972. I only have MR2 sales figures from 1984 to 1999 and the 110000 were sold in Japan alone - 130000 cars were sold in North America. The worldwide total between those years appears to be approximately 300000. I don't know how well the MR2 has done from 1999 to the present but apparently not quite as well as the earlier models. --Jahalme 15:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say the MR2 didn't outsell the Fiat, I was saying that you can't call the Fiat a failure. If I sold 170000 of anything I think that would be classed as an unparalleled success, don't you? Give the small size of the car and its limited production and market, 170000 seems pretty good. I have eliminated some of the more obvious bias, but there is still some which requires greater knowledge of the MR2 than I have to fix. I hope that in using the text from the Finnish MR2 club no copyrights were violated - if so, the whole thing will have to be scrapped and rewritten anyway. Finally - a minor point but one that really bugs me - please stop writing "it's" everywhere where you mean "its". Unless you mean "it is" or "it has", then the word never has an apostrophe. This is most of the the time. For an example of incorrect usage, see above - you wrote "it's 17-year production". See apostrophe. It's especially tedious to fix these errors because they're hard to see in the edit text sometimes. Anyway, forgive my carping, it's generally a pretty good article, and very informative. I like the MR2 as well and wouldn't mind having a Mk1 targa top as a classic runabout - they're cool :) Graham 04:40, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

All I'd like to add is to whom ever keeps changing the release date of the ZE powered car, please stop. The Supercharged car was available in Japan and southern pacific regions in 1987. The American market didn't get it till a year later. Stop changing it.

[edit] Is it a sports car?

Please vote (with a one-line answer, indented) on the following question:

Is this vehicle a sports car?

1. Yes
2. No - it's just a sporty coupe/convertible

--SFoskett 13:22, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. —Morven 18:39, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. SamH 17:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. WEKS 14:48, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Yes. One of the best examples.--David R. Ingham 17:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Turbo charged mid engine layout rear wheel drive 2 seater.

Yes. Of course.

Yes. The definition of Sports Car is just an opinion, but the MR2 fits mine! --Hank Wallace 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspension changes

...Toyota changed the 1992 model to include wider rear tyres and changed the rear suspension so that the car would be more prone to understeer, thus making it more difficult to push the car into snap oversteer. These changes also made the cornering abilities a bit worse...

Any documentation to back this up? I have driven both a 91 and a 93 and I disagree. In fact I believe this is a point of contention among many MR2 owners. It should probably not be presented as a fact that the 93 suspension is worse. (Note: In the US, these changes took effect for the 1993 model year, are you using 1992 because that's when the JDM changes took place?)

I haven't found any _official_ documentation on the suspension changes, despite heavy searches. However, it's clear to see the figures for suspension geo/settings when comparing the Revision 1 cars against the Revision 2 cars (JDM as well as UK models). Having owned three different revision MR2s, the difference is most definately noticable; the rear of the Revision one models is definately more 'lively' and more prone to fishtailing.

There were changes to the suspension, but I suspect the 10% wider rear tyres made the biggest difference. 203.132.65.136 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scion tC replacing the MR2?

I think this line should be removed from the article. Did someone from Toyota actually say this? The MR2 is a lightweight mid-engined rear-wheel drive convertible, while the tC is a heavy front-engined front-wheel drive coupe which costs $9k less. The same line is also in the Scion tC article.

Perhaps change it to something like ... replaced(?) by other exciting and youthful products from Toyota such as the Matrix and Corolla XRS, Solara sports coupe and recently(?) the Scion xA, xB and tC.? [1] --WEKS 06:32, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

None of those are convertibles though. The Solara coupe has been around since 1999 and the convertible arrived in 2000. The Spyder may have a relatively small engine and cheap feel, but it's fairly pricey, 2x as much as the xA. The only car atleast in the U.S. that it compares too is the Miata, with the S2000 and Elise being the two cars Spyder owners upgrade too if they want another lightweight/low hp convertible.

I'd say that line from the press release refers more to the Celica, and it really doesn't say those are the replacement cars, just existing competition that added to the MR2's and Celica's demise. Something else that makes the Spyder unique is its low production/sales. Including the few hundred more they'll sell the rest of this year, the total sales from six years will be under 25,000. On the other hand, Toyota sold 28,000 tC's in it's first six months, and 70,000 through July '05 (13 months). --67.160.63.141 09:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm.... Yeah I get what you are saying, so then we should just say that Toyota doesn't have a car in it's current lineup to direclty replace the MR2. Or something along those lines, or just leave it as it is? --WEKS 07:36, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

[edit] AW11 Weights

Could somebody find and include the average weight for the AW11 model? The first section indicates that it was lightweight, that the SW20 was much heavier, and that the ZZW30 "dropped under a ton again," implying that the AW11 was <2,000 lbs. Could somebody get the actual value? I believe that SW20 is around 3,200 lbs.

I think the "under a ton" is referring to a metric ton (1000kg), meaning the ZZW30 was under 2200 lbs. The SW20 weights I've seen published are around 2850 lbs for the Turbo and 2700 lbs for the NA model. These are the nominal weights without options, as I understand it. Since most of the cars came heavily optioned from the factory, most SW20s will weigh more.

IIRC, the AW11 weight was somewhere around 2300-2400 lbs. the gze was slighty heavier24.240.19.71 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As a (no longer running) Lotus Seven owner, I consider the weight to be a very important figure that should be in a table, as in the Mazda MX-5 article. The height would be good to have there too, as these figures summarize the compromise between performance and comfort and space that defines the term "sports car".

From Road and Track, November 1984, I get 2050–2320 # and 49.2". It says "Toyota's philosophy did not result in a particularly light car, with Japanese models ranging between 930 – 960 Kg (2050–2115 lb.), which is approximately the same as the larger Corolla front engine coups ... U.S. MR2 should come in at about 2320 lb." David R. Ingham 19:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1040kgs dry - ex AW11 SC owner.

I've got 1050kg written on my registration papers. 203.132.66.152 04:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-Bar/Targa Top?

The AW11 section states that a targa top was available in Japan. Is this a reference to a true targa top (where the entire roof section is removable) or is this in reference to the T-bar top (with a bar running down the centre)? Big difference, as the T-Top was standard on some US models.

It had a T-Top. For some reason Toyota refers to a true targa as an "aero top", for example as used on the JZA80 Supra. 203.132.65.136 08:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] collectibles

I'm putting in collectible article for Toyota, but some editors says Wikipedia has no place for such an article and will remove any attempt to write about toy MR2 or a toy anything. Thoughts?? I'm a toy car collector. --matador300 07:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mk 1.5?

there is no mention in the article of a mk1.5. i definitely think this deserves some sort of honorable mention.

[edit] Fiat X1/9

Even though Justanother appears to have some complex where he must remove all references to the Fiat X1/9, to be a truly correct article, there should be discussion that the original MR2 was designed based off the X1/9. There are accounts of Toyota essentially buying an X1/9 and enlarging it by 10%. Those who race both X1/9s and Mk1 MR2s can tell you that the mechanicals are nearly identical. To be blunt, Toyota copied the Fiat/Bertone vehicle -- designed in 1972!

Then just follow wikipedia rules and write a well-referenced article see WP:V and WP:NOR. You don't get to write original material here. Sorry but you can put your original writings on your personal blog. ps I am not the first to remove this exact sort of material. But please do not think that I am disputing your claim, I am not. It sounds like an interesting story and, if true, one that deserves to be told. It is, however, a claim that needs to be cited so just follow the rules and contribute to the article. And consider creating an account, it is free and anonymous. --Justanother 15:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked around a bit and found little to support that the 10% thing is more than a rumor. It can certainly be reported as such if you source it. But I think the better approach is to give props to the X1/9 as producing an early flyweight (or lightweight) mid-engined sports car. The MR2 is an improvement on the theme of lightweight mid-engined sports car, not a "copy" or a "version" of the X1/9. X1/9 was not the first either, see Lotus Europa. --Justanother 17:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I must jump in here as well. The MR2 was definitely a copy of the X1/9. I actually have raced X1/9s, and now 1st gen. MR2s, in SCCA. The MR2 is/was almost a carbon-copy of the X1/9. I don't know about the 10%, but it is indeed slightly larger in most dimensions. Actually the most interesting item is that the X1/9 is still the more involving car to drive, which should say a lot to just how far ahead of its time it was. The Lotus Europa was a completely different class of car given the price range and size, sorry. One might make a better argument with the Porsche 914, though this car was still quite expensive in its day. For all intents and purposes, the X1/9 started the affordable mid-engine sports car market. The MR2 and Fiero followed this, where the first MR2 was in fact nearly a carbon copy. I havn't had the chance to tear down a Fiero, so I don't know with regards to that car. Do I have sources? No; good luck.

I agree about the props due the X1/9. I am not an expert on X1/9 or 1st gen MR2 but from my reading it seems to be a case of Toyota got it right?? Inflammatory words, I am sure. I really can't say about the "copying" thing but to me that would means, same suspension set-up, same geometry. Same, same, same; lots more than that they both have a transverse 4-banger and a transaxle. That is not "copying". But what do I know, maybe Toyota did copy. I think that you can give props without getting into this "bought an X1/9 and made it 10% bigger" thing. But even that can be mentioned as rumor. Go for it. --Justanother 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, car enthusiasts love to banter about what is better than the other, i.e., your comment that Toyota got it right. I will tell you though that the SCCA makes it much tougher now to race an X1/9 because how competitive it is; not the same with the MR2 (hence, why I now must race the MR2). You'll just have to trust me that the copying is not down to generalities like the engine placement. The suspension set-up is indeed the same. Really, it is just plain uncanny in many places; the car is essentially a knock-off of a car designed over a decade prior. From my experience, I would lend much credit to the rumour that Toyota essentially bought an X1/9 and started photocopying. That's fine, it isn't the first nor the last case of this in the automotive industry. It is just an interesting historical note at this point. Wish I could better document this, but then I see this might be the original research you mention. regards.

Yes, I was engaging in a bit of deliberate "chain-pulling" there. I am, in fact, quite the Italian car aficionado myself anyway. But I encourage you to write the article you want to write and source it as best you can. I found sources that related the rumor as rumor so it could certainly be presented that way. You can also reference fan pages that speak of the similarity. And you are certainly not limited to internet sources; I would imagine the car mags covered the similarity. --Justanother 22:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The claims of the X1/9 copy are totally unfounded. Anyone who'd "driven both" would quickly realise the only similarities are the fact that the engine is in the back end. The inspirations for the MR2 come from Lotus cars like the SAX and "Lotus Toyota" project. The only reason the woeful Fiat got any attention in the media was because critics were looking for a comparison to use against the MR2 and the X1/9 was the only thing available that was in a similar price bracket.

[edit] Beams

I think it would be suitable to mention the limited BEAMS engine as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.147.244 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

It is mentioned, second last para of the first section under the SW20 heading 203.132.65.136 08:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)