Chris's MR2 Turbo project

Please note is that while the car looks blue in these pictures, it is actually a green-blue (teal) also known as Toyota Turquoise Pearl Metallic. It must has do with the way my particular digital camera processes colors. I have seen pictures of the same color MR2 from other MR2 enthusiasts, and theirs' look the same.

February 2008: I got to ride in an ELECTRIC powered MR2! and V8 Project continues

January 2008: Electric fan conversion of my F250 (in the background in the photo at the top of this page)

MR2 modifications (pretty light this month). Be sure to see the latest on my V8 Project. Lots of photos on the Motorgeek thread!

V8 UPDATE: The chance of fitting this motor is good enough that I have now committed to the project! I purchased a GM transaxle, and an Audi V8, which are now in transit to me! This is going to be a very big, and very challenging project, but I think it will be very rewarding. To date, NO ONE has fit a V8 into the Mark 2 (2nd Generation, or 1991-1999) MR2 AND made a driving car. A couple people have attempted to put on in, and even went so far as to actually stick a V8 (usually a Toyota/Lexus V8 called the 1UZ-FE), and found they had to SEVERELY cut the car and I mean cutting structural stuff like subframe and shock towers. This is unacceptable to me. I decided to take a different approach: I went looking for a V8 that would fit the car. Check out the links below.

My new rare-cars-for-sale searching site: I got my new Car Searching Site up and running! Check it out here: RareCarSearch.com

I am using it to find rare and semi-rare sports cars that are for sale in Craigslist, EBay, AutoTrader, Hemmings, etc. etc across the nation! Craigslist is great but it won't let you search everywhere for a car. For example, I bought my MR2 from an Indiana resident. Check out my site, and use the "Contact Us" page to send me suggestions, like if you want a particular car added.

V8 baby! There is a REMOTE chance that we found a V8 to fit the MR2. If you are a MR2OC.com member (free to join) See the discussion thread I started, to explore this possiblity here.

If you are not a member, or do not wish to join, you can see most of the same info (mostly just my posts from the MR2OC) here.

November 2007: I installed my Apexi AVCR electronic boost controller, my Apexi intake kit, and my new alarm system with pager, remote start, and turbo timer.

July 2007: I decided to change the format of my site, and make individual pages for each entry.

I also removed my Motor, freshened it with new gaskets, seals and hoses, reinstalled and installed a few upgrades

Well, for the past year, I have been pretty busy with work, and other things, so no dedicated webpage for February 2006. This is it.

I drive the MR2 whenever I get the chance, and I have autocrossed it at the SCCA autocross (solo 2) at the Stead Airport (near Reno). I just purchased some parts for the car, and I am also watching a guy do a V8 conversion on the MR2. His discussion is here.

Anyway, right now I am looking for after market springs. I compiled a word document of spring rates and some prices. Download SpringRates.doc

I installed new Eibach Sportline springs, Koni Adjustable struts, replaced all rubber suspension bushings with urethane bushings, installed new ball joints at all 4 corners, and installed new tie rod ends on my steering.

Why an MR2? Well, there is a lot to love about MR2's. First of all, they are still affordable (under $10K to buy), although prices are starting to CLIMB on the Mark 2 cars (1990-1995). They are mid-engined, so the have a very low polar moment of inertia. This means, that because the heavy parts of the car--the engine, transmission, and rear axle, are all mounted behind the driver, and just ahead of the rear axle--that it will turn quicker, especially in a transient situations, such as slalom or autocross.

Parts are very cheap (compared to most other mid-engine exotica--such as Ferrari, McLaren (sic), and even DeTomaso Pantera. The only other mid-engine car that is cheaper is the Fiero (don't even talk to me about those). The brakes work better than an equivalent weight and size front engine car, because the rear brakes do more of the stopping than in a front engine car.

Ok, so what is "polar moment of inertia" ? Well its one of those technical thingy's engineers use (I am a Mechanical Engineer). I will use a simple example to illustrate. Imaging picking up a dumbbell with one hand. Now, attempt to rotate it by twisting your wrist. Change the direction of the rotation rapidly, so you are spinning it clockwise, then counterclockwise, and repeat (be careful not to break your wrist, or hit anything with the dumbbell!) You will find that changing the rotation is difficult, due to the inertia of the weights out at the ends.

The polar part of "polar moment of inertia" is the axis of rotation (your wrist). The inertia part is caused by the mass (or weight) of the weights out at the ends. The Moment part is the distance each weight is from the axis of rotation. Now imaging taking that same dumbbell and moving the weights to the center. Now pick it up and do the same back and forth rotation (I know, there is no place to grab the dumbbell, so imagine it in your mind). Now the dumbbell is MUCH easier to rotate and change direction! We reduced the moment (the distance) so we have decreased the polar moment of inertia!

Ok, now for some car examples. The Engine and the Trans are the two heaviest (densest) parts of a car. Look at a 96+ Corvette. The engine is in front, the transaxle is in the back, and it looks (and acts) just like a dumbbell! Same with the Porshe 928, 944, and 924 (any year). Same with Ferrari's of the 40's/50's. I call these the "dumbell" cars. HA!

So then, if this dumbbell effect is so bad, why are these cars this way? Its simple, most everyday cars have the engine AND Trans in the front of the car (easier and cheaper to build). Think of having a dumbell with BOTH weights at one end! Now try the rapid back-and-forth rotation, while holding the dumbbell at the center! Also, another important criteria for car handing--the weight balance front to rear is all messed up on a front engine/front trans car. Ideal is 50/50. That is, 50% on the front wheels, 50% on the rear wheels. The front engine/front trans car is usually 60 to 70% weight on the front, and 30 to 40% on the rear.

The dumbbell cars are closer to 50/50, so that is why they are this way. Now, getting back to mid-engine cars, the weight balance is usually 45%-50% front, and 50-55% rear, and the weight is concentrated at the center of the car. It all comes together on a mid-engine car! (The downside is packaging, only room for 2 to 3 people in a mid-engine car, and usually, there is no trunk--but there are exceptions to this (can you say MR2?)

I have this problem with sports cars: I am a hardcore purist. I believe that a proper sports car should be mid-engined, and lightweight. Most Americans see convertibles as sports cars, however, they are heavier than their hardtop siblings (to make up for the missing roof--excepting Corvette), and frame flexes more because of the missing roof.

The most pure incarnation of my ideal car is the McLaren F1. However, at $1.7 million used, its a little rich for me (but only a little!). Incidentally, the Sultan of Brunei owns 3 McLaren's. Must be nice to have more money than God!

Most other sports cars are pretty damn heavy. 96+ Corvette, 93-98 Supra Twin-Turbo, 90-96 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo's are all pretty heavy at 3500 lbs or more. A notable exception is the 1993+ RX7 Twin Turbo, but then you have to deal with Rotaries, and a very expensive car to buy (1993 RX7 TT's go for $13,000+).

Remember, that I am looking for a 2nd car as a toy. Our daily drivers are a Durango and Ford truck, so any sports car I have is strictly a toy, and not a primary means of transportation. If I used the car for everyday stuff, I could buy a newer, more expensive car, but would have to get something more practical than a mid-engine car, such as a Subaru WRX turbo, or a Mitsubishi Lancer EVO 7 Turbo.

I prefer having a daily driver practical car (such as an SUV or truck) and having a pure sports car as a toy/project. This way, there is no pressure to have the car operational at all times, and I can take my time when I am modifying it.

The problem is that mid-engine and affordable do not usually go together. You can buy a used 1999 C5 Corvette for only $21,000, and that's a damn impressive car. You can buy a 1974 (30 years old!) DeTomaso Pantera for $37,000, and it will probably need some minor work.

A 1991 Acura NSX is around $26,000. Granted, the NSX is a VERY good car, but you better have the financial resources to maintain and insure it. Of course, there is always the Fiero.... but I won't go there (ick). I have looked closely at Fieros, and the quality on these cars was HORRIBLE. So, this leaves the MR2.

The 1980's MR2 Mk1's (Mark 1, or 1st generation) are very inexpensive, and I might get one for weekend autocross. They handle like a go-cart. The current version MR2 Spyder (2000-2005) Mk3's are kinda funky, and don't have a lot of power, but they are super light and handle great.

I like the 2nd gen Mk2's the best. They are a bit larger than the Mk1 and Mk3, and have more power. I think they look the best as well. They are nicknamed the "baby Ferrari" for these reasons.

For lots more info on all MR2's check out the MR2 Owners Club and mr2.com As my site progresses, I will put a proper link page up.

Right out of the box (totally stock) the MR2 has impressive performance numbers:

(note that these numbers were from a test in 1993, with 1993 tires, shocks, brake pads, etc.)

As you can see, the 1993 MR2 is pretty impressive, especially when you consider that it is over 16 years old! As you can see, it would be easy to get more performance with simple add-ons: Tires, brake pads, suspension tuning, and some engine tuning.

In 1994, Toyota retuned the motor (1990-1993 Turbo cars all have the same power and torque). Power went up to 245 Hp. This is easy to achieve with the earlier cars like mine, by simply turning up the turbo boost. Incidentally, the 1993 Turbos received upgraded brakes, and revised suspension, and a limited slip differential which makes them a lot more desirable than the 91-92's. One interesting bit of trivia is that Toyota imported so few MR2's in 1995, that they stopped doing it from 1996 to 99. However, they kept building MR2's for Japan (Japanese Domestic Market, or JDM), and for other markets, such as Australia and the UK.

My car is unmolested, and completely stock, with 83,500 miles on it, so I will be going through the whole car and replacing everything that is rubber, critical, and/or worn.

Power:		200 Hp @ 6000 RPM Inline DOHC 4 with turbo @ 7psi boost (easy to bump horsepower up by going up to 14psi boost) Redline is 7000 RPM
Torque:		200 ft-lbs of torque @ 3200 RPM
Weight:		2800 lb curb weight (wet) While lighter than most cars, I will be working on decreasing this.
Skidpad		.89 G's on the skidpad. Now that's impressive, and its easy to get 1.0+ with current technology tires!
Weight Distribution		47% Front, 53% rear (like most supercars)
Luggage capacity:		5.5 cubic ft. That's 5.5 more than most Ferraris
Fuel Economy (city/Hwy):		20/27 mpg !!

0-60 mph:		6.33 sec (not bad, but this will go WAAAY down)
0-100 mph:		16.51 sec (see above)
1/4 mile:		14.61 @ 95 mph (impressive, but I want it in the 12's or 11's)
Top Speed:		134 mph (this needs work)
Braking: 60 mph to 0:		137 ft (this is easily shortened to 110 ft with current technology tires -- I have seen some MR2's that can stop at 99ft)
Braking: 80 mph to 0:		236 ft (see above)