MR2 Owners Club Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
At least it's a little more concrete. We can thank the success of the BRZ / FR-S / GT-86 if the MKIV MR2 comes to fruition. And possibly side-by side engineering with Tesla. I truly don't see why it wouldn't come to market. 5 model years from now puts it at a 2018 model, which would be for sale in 2017, which theoretically is only 4 years away? Makes me giggle to see if they actually do it.

Please Toyota, for us!!!

Blog #1

Blog #2

-Josh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Although I've lost confidence that Toyota can design a car which I find asthetically pleasing, I'm excited by the prospect of this news and hope that they will prove me wrong.

I hope that Toyota / Yamaha develop a new petrol powered sports engine. Before we all end up driving hybrids / electric sports cars, I'd just like to see one more traditional engine from them which makes use of lift and modern engine tech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
RJ Priest said:
I'd just like to see one more traditional engine from them which makes use of lift and modern engine tech.
please let there be a turbo... one last time. Honda made a turbo production engine in the past 5 years why cant toyota? It wasn't in a sports car either, a 2 ton luxury C/SUV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
MR2 slotted lower than the FR-S? Ugh, the MR-S was already slotted around the FR-S price range, I wouldn't want anything smaller/lower quality than my MR-S. I wish they'd bring the MR2 back as a 370Z competitor - if I were to buy a new MR2 I'd want a more upmarket car than an FR-S.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,255 Posts
Apokryphos said:
please let there be a turbo... one last time. Honda made a turbo production engine in the past 5 years why cant toyota? It wasn't in a sports car either, a 2 ton luxury C/SUV.
Turbos are actually becoming more popular as ever and many manufacturers are leaning that way more than towards hybrid technology. Unfortunately Toyota had to be the ones to get super sucked into this hybrid fad which honestly I believe was a marketing ploy more than anything. Toyota surely did the math and realized early on a Prius would need to drive 200k miles before it's emissions carbon footprint balanced out tie carbon footprint of making the thing compared to a conventional car. But it was all in the name of science and research and more importantly marketability. They were able to market it as a green thing and all the Mac loving Birkenstock wearing rich yippies would eat it up without ever questioning the deeper "truths" of the matter.
Same reason why the Chevy Volt pisses me off to no end. It's not the car or the principle of the car but the outright dishonest marketing of the car and the hype to make uneducated eco freaks wet their shorts. The commercials make it sound like when it's running on electricity it's magic energy that comes at no cost either monetarily or environmentally. If you have a solar home and only charge it there then yeah it's great. If you charge it on the grid then someone will have to pay for that. Moreover you loose a stupid amount of efficiency when you have to create the energy then transport it over power lines over hundreds of miles, convert it a couple times, store it in batteries, and finally transfer it to electric motors that make the car go. The carbon footprint of powering an electric car off the grid is at least as inefficient as a modern ICE.

Anyway sorry for the sidetracked rant. My point is I think we will be seeing a lot more turbo cars in the near future but I don't feel like Toyota will be on that train. At least not initially. If turbos and maybe even hybrid turbos and such become more common they may start to sway eventually. Probably not though in the limited time we have left for the ICE.

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/turbocharging-new-hybrid.html

I would like to see the ICE continue to move forward. I would like to see small runs of sporty ICE engines mad specifically for enthusiasts and racers. They should still maintain high emissions standards. With these vehicles limited to the people who really cared I don't feel the environmental impact would be severe enough to be of concern.
 

·
engineer4me
Joined
·
2,730 Posts
yoshimitsuspeed said:
Turbos are actually becoming more popular as ever and many manufacturers are leaning that way more than towards hybrid technology. Unfortunately Toyota had to be the ones to get super sucked into this hybrid fad which honestly I believe was a marketing ploy more than anything. Toyota surely did the math and realized early on a Prius would need to drive 200k miles before it's emissions carbon footprint balanced out tie carbon footprint of making the thing compared to a conventional car. But it was all in the name of science and research and more importantly marketability. They were able to market it as a green thing and all the Mac loving Birkenstock wearing rich yippies would eat it up without ever questioning the deeper "truths" of the matter.
Same reason why the Chevy Volt pisses me off to no end. It's not the car or the principle of the car but the outright dishonest marketing of the car and the hype to make uneducated eco freaks wet their shorts. The commercials make it sound like when it's running on electricity it's magic energy that comes at no cost either monetarily or environmentally. If you have a solar home and only charge it there then yeah it's great. If you charge it on the grid then someone will have to pay for that. Moreover you loose a stupid amount of efficiency when you have to create the energy then transport it over power lines over hundreds of miles, convert it a couple times, store it in batteries, and finally transfer it to electric motors that make the car go. The carbon footprint of powering an electric car off the grid is at least as inefficient as a modern ICE.

Anyway sorry for the sidetracked rant. My point is I think we will be seeing a lot more turbo cars in the near future but I don't feel like Toyota will be on that train. At least not initially. If turbos and maybe even hybrid turbos and such become more common they may start to sway eventually. Probably not though in the limited time we have left for the ICE.

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/turbocharging-new-hybrid.html

I would like to see the ICE continue to move forward. I would like to see small runs of sporty ICE engines mad specifically for enthusiasts and racers. They should still maintain high emissions standards. With these vehicles limited to the people who really cared I don't feel the environmental impact would be severe enough to be of concern.
Compared to the transmission of fossil fuels from an oil field, to a refinery, to distribution centers? As far as moving energy around, it's hard to beat electricity for efficiency. Typical high power lines are 93% efficient. I have no idea how much energy is used in the infrastructure of moving fossil fuels from the source to my gas tank, but I have a very hard time believing it comes close to rivaling electricity.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,255 Posts
pablo said:
Compared to the transmission of fossil fuels from an oil field, to a refinery, to distribution centers? As far as moving energy around, it's hard to beat electricity for efficiency. Typical high power lines are 93% efficient. I have no idea how much energy is used in the infrastructure of moving fossil fuels from the source to my gas tank, but I have a very hard time believing it comes close to rivaling electricity.
The power lines are a small part of the equation.
www04.abb.com/.../Energy+efficiency+in+the+power+grid.pdf
The efficiency of generation varies widely with the technology used. In a traditional coal plant, for example, only about 30-35% of the energy in the coal ends up as electricity on the other end of the generator. So- called ?supercritical? coal plants can reach efficiency levels in the mid-40?s, and the latest coal technology, known as integrated gasification combined cycle or IGCC, is capable of efficiency levels above 60%. The most efficient gas-fired generators achieve a similar level of efficiency.
Then you have the loss in the power lines, more important than that is stepping down to houshold voltage then from there stepping down again to the charging voltage of the vehicle. I don't know how efficient the chargers are. A quick search on stepping power supplies showed some numbers in the 88-93% range.
Then there is the power lost in charging the batteries. and finally power lost in running the electric motor.
I would have to do a lot more research to make an educated guess at the actual efficiency of the system as a whole but I do know it's not as ideal an answer as the marketing teams make it out to be. It would be much more so if the US ran on a high percentage of renewable energy but it's really a very small percentage that is wind, solar, hydro and such.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,173 Posts
DarkMousy said:
MR2 slotted lower than the FR-S? Ugh, the MR-S was already slotted around the FR-S price range, I wouldn't want anything smaller/lower quality than my MR-S. I wish they'd bring the MR2 back as a 370Z competitor - if I were to buy a new MR2 I'd want a more upmarket car than an FR-S.
the MR2 is not a Z competitor to begin with. The Supra was always the competitor for the Z. If they sell the Supra for $60k, I think they will be screwing up. It needs to be in the price range with the 370Z. The GR engines can make more than enough power and I think if they can keep the weight down some and use a 7 speed stick like Porsche and the C7 Vette will use, they can get the mpg up too. Of course if we get the car it will probably be a heavy ass hybrid with either an automatic or some kind of flappy paddle gearbox and not a real stick. It will probably also be in the $60k range and under perform.

The "next" MR2 should be small, light weight, nimble, and inexpensive. Let's remember what the original idea of an MR2 was. Not what the MK2 was.
 

·
MR2+ES300V6=MR300?
Joined
·
227 Posts
scottgas said:
The "next" MR2 should be small, light weight, nimble, and inexpensive. Let's remember what the original idea of an MR2 was. Not what the MK2 was.
The original MR2 (MK1) was basically a Fiat/Bertone X1/9 that ran. (As the Mazda Miata was a Fiat/Pininfarina Spider that ran)

Compared to the X1/9 the MKI had a far superior engine, was a little bigger, taller, and heavier, but most of all, it ran practically all the time, and everything worked. Unless you broke it. As it usually is with Toyotas.

It was 1985. Good year for cheap mid engine cars. Sure, the 914 dropped out in 1976. The Bertone X1/9 was struggling to survive. It also struggled with having less than 100 bhp. But here came Pontiac and Toyota to fill the void.

Sadly GM decided to go real cheap with the production Fiero, and the MK1 MR2 ate it's lunch. And just when the Fiero ended production, the MR2 offered a supercharged model. Ouch.

Next it's 1990, Mister2 gets longer, wider, heavier, and more powerful. The Fiero is gone, and Honda decides to offer twice the car for four+ times the money.

US sales drop, MR2 pulls out, rather than reconfigure to meet 1996 US ODB2 regulations. Sadly the 1MZ V6 was in 1994 the first US OBD2 compliant engine. As I have one in my 1993 daily driver, I can say it is sad Toyota never had a V6 MR2. They most likely though it would cut into Supra sales.

In 2000, Toyota with 15 years more inspiration from it's Lotus collaborations, went lightweight. Lighter still than the MK1 MR2 and a rag-top to boot. Marketing problem here was... convertible... only??? no turbos? and no 2ZZ engine option? the Celica has one... and it got the 6 speed manual when I didn't. That's not fair... blah, blah, blah. Oh, yeah, the front trunk is even smaller, and the rear one, is... gone. Seriously, you can grocery shop in a MK2. Also, I'd rather be mistaken for a Ferrari, than a Porsche any day.

If you need a 2013 MR2, contact Lotus.

Sorry but that's all we have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,173 Posts
2 biggest problems with the MK3.
1. no real trunk
2. 1zz instead of 2zz
power fixes cars. When GM has a lagging model what do they do, drop an LS in it.
I think the MK3 being a ragtop would have been fine if it would have had some real power in it. I know they are faster than stock MK1s, but that isn't saying much and today people expect more power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
The Supra was a slot above the 350/370 class car as was the 300zx and the R32. It was a vette competitor, not a Mustang competitor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,173 Posts
DarkMousy said:
The Supra was a slot above the 350/370 class car as was the 300zx and the R32. It was a vette competitor, not a Mustang competitor.
What you need to know about all of the Japanese higher end sports cars of the early-mid '90s, except for the NSX is that they were all a level above the current cars. I realize most of them don't exist anymore. But the RX7tt was a level above the RX8, the 300ZXtt was a level above the 350/370Z, if Toyota decides to do a MK5 Supra it needs to do the same. It needs to be in the same class as the current 370Z if they want it to sell in any numbers. I think if Toyota puts the MK5 Supra in the $60-$70k class they will be screwing up.
You are too young to remember the Japanese "super cars" of the early-mid '90s, but all of the Japanese companies went all out, for the times, when they brought their then current generations out. All of them were great cars, but all ended up being just to expensive to build/buy by the end of their lives.
Toyota:MK4 Supra tt
NIssan:300ZX tt
Mazda:RX7 tt
Mitusbishi:3000GT VR4 (tt)
Dodge:Stealth R/T (tt) same as the 3000gt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
scottgas said:
What you need to know about all of the Japanese higher end sports cars of the early-mid '90s, except for the NSX is that they were all a level above the current cars. I realize most of them don't exist anymore. But the RX7tt was a level above the RX8, the 300ZXtt was a level above the 350/370Z, if Toyota decides to do a MK5 Supra it needs to do the same. It needs to be in the same class as the current 370Z if they want it to sell in any numbers. I think if Toyota puts the MK5 Supra in the $60-$70k class they will be screwing up.
You are too young to remember the Japanese "super cars" of the early-mid '90s, but all of the Japanese companies went all out, for the times, when they brought their then current generations out. All of them were great cars, but all ended up being just to expensive to build/buy by the end of their lives.
Toyota:MK4 Supra tt
NIssan:300ZX tt
Mazda:RX7 tt
Mitusbishi:3000GT VR4 (tt)
Dodge:Stealth R/T (tt) same as the 3000gt
I'm actually well aware of the quality/standard of the 90's Japanese "super cars", what would lead you to assume that I'm not aware of it? What does my age have to do with my supposed ignorance concerning the matter? The internet is a great resource for learning and more information about said cars is available at my fingertips than what was likely available to the layman in the 90's when those cars were current. Furthermore, NONE of them exist anymore outside of the Z family, meaning there aren't any downmarket cars for them to be a level above. The RX7tt isn't comparable to the RX8 period. Aside from the fact that they are both rotary powered rwd Mazdas they're completely different cars catering to completely different crowds. The MKIV Supra is well on its way to being a collectors car - love it or not it has earned a ton of respect for its capabilities and has an iconic sort of status among the 90's Japanese cars. The 300ZX doesn't have the following or desirability of the Supra and the car's value reflects that.

Those cars were made at a time before the Japanese brands had solidified their respective places in the automotive food chain. Fast forward to today and Lexus has the LFA, Nissan the GTR. Why would Toyota need to sell the Supra in numbers? They have the FR-S for that and potentially the next MR2 if that gets the green light. The Z is Nissan's entry level sports car and the only one aside from the GTR; there's no more 240SX. Many current and past MKIV owners would likely be interested in an MKV and if they can afford to buy and modify an MKIV at the inflated prices we've seen in the past decade, a $60-70k MKV would likely be in the cards for them.

I don't see how Toyota could fail with a $60-70k+ Supra if it looks ok and can perform on par with the competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
Apokryphos said:
please let there be a turbo... one last time. Honda made a turbo production engine in the past 5 years why cant toyota? It wasn't in a sports car either, a 2 ton luxury C/SUV.
keep an eye out wednesday for la auto show news, you may just get your wish...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,173 Posts
DarkMousy said:
I'm actually well aware of the quality/standard of the 90's Japanese "super cars", what would lead you to assume that I'm not aware of it? What does my age have to do with my supposed ignorance concerning the matter? The internet is a great resource for learning and more information about said cars is available at my fingertips than what was likely available to the layman in the 90's when those cars were current. Furthermore, NONE of them exist anymore outside of the Z family, meaning there aren't any downmarket cars for them to be a level above. The RX7tt isn't comparable to the RX8 period. Aside from the fact that they are both rotary powered rwd Mazdas they're completely different cars catering to completely different crowds. The MKIV Supra is well on its way to being a collectors car - love it or not it has earned a ton of respect for its capabilities and has an iconic sort of status among the 90's Japanese cars. The 300ZX doesn't have the following or desirability of the Supra and the car's value reflects that.

Those cars were made at a time before the Japanese brands had solidified their respective places in the automotive food chain. Fast forward to today and Lexus has the LFA, Nissan the GTR. Why would Toyota need to sell the Supra in numbers? They have the FR-S for that and potentially the next MR2 if that gets the green light. The Z is Nissan's entry level sports car and the only one aside from the GTR; there's no more 240SX. Many current and past MKIV owners would likely be interested in an MKV and if they can afford to buy and modify an MKIV at the inflated prices we've seen in the past decade, a $60-70k MKV would likely be in the cards for them.

I don't see how Toyota could fail with a $60-70k+ Supra if it looks ok and can perform on par with the competition.
Dude calm down. I wasn't trying to insult you or call you ignorant. I merely meant that going by your posted age you were not exactly to remember them while they were being built.
Just because a sports car is a given companies entry level sports car doesn't mean that it is an entry level car. The Gallardo is Lamborghini's entry level car, but it isn't exactly entry level now is it. There is a huge gap in performance between the FRS and a 370Z in stock form. Yes the FRS has potential to beat a Z, but the Z has potential for HUGE power and performance. Toyota likes to be up market. The next Supra really should be in the Z's class. It will give them a direct competitor to the Z. They can always do a $100k class car either as a Toyota or Lexus. Or scrap the LFA and make the next one $100K.
I love the MK4 Supras, but if the MK5 is $70k, I would have to look else ware.
For $70k I would have to either go Boxster S or Cayman S, or go C7 Vette and have a little left over for back tires. Going by the last few sports cars Toyota has put out, they don't try to beat the competition performance wise. They merely try to make them adequate. And now days they want to make everything a hybrid.
The next Supra should be front engine, rear drive, true stick shift, and a version of the GR engine. They could easily make the needed power in n/a for or super/turbo if needed. Or do 2 models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,483 Posts
scottgas said:
What you need to know about all of the Japanese higher end sports cars of the early-mid '90s, except for the NSX is that they were all a level above the current cars. I realize most of them don't exist anymore. But the RX7tt was a level above the RX8, the 300ZXtt was a level above the 350/370Z, if Toyota decides to do a MK5 Supra it needs to do the same. It needs to be in the same class as the current 370Z if they want it to sell in any numbers. I think if Toyota puts the MK5 Supra in the $60-$70k class they will be screwing up.
You are too young to remember the Japanese "super cars" of the early-mid '90s, but all of the Japanese companies went all out, for the times, when they brought their then current generations out. All of them were great cars, but all ended up being just to expensive to build/buy by the end of their lives.
Toyota:MK4 Supra tt
NIssan:300ZX tt
Mazda:RX7 tt
Mitusbishi:3000GT VR4 (tt)
Dodge:Stealth R/T (tt) same as the 3000gt
Its been known that these cars were beyond there times. Hell both the supra and rx7 were released same year carrying both hefty price tags. Supra at 40.5 and rx7 in the high 30. Lot of money for that current year.

But at the same time the tag carried latest tech just how its done now.All the cars that followed those cars were no more then the mfg trying to revive the name because back then those cars sold well. Total failure. Just like what gm is doing with there cars now bringing back the charger challenger etc.

Trying to combine the name with the latest tech just ruins it really. A car like the supra for example has some big shoes to fill. Same went with the rx7 which is why the rx8 a lot of people were disappointed when it came out.

Rumors for years now about a new supra coming out and its gonna stay rumors. Toyota now is all about econo boxes and family cars. Sadly but with the way things are going I dont think toyota will make another sportcars in a while. Besides its kinda hard to when the supra is still out keeping up or surpassing the newer generation cars.

Angel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,173 Posts
Yes the last gen jap cars were beyond their times all of fhe is was also,drove the price.up ultimately killing.them a lot of.builders now.are.trying to us the.same platform,to many cars.from which is.fine.but.not.always.great.cor a sports car. It helps control,cost making.the.sports car possible but.not.necessarily a great sports car current camaro,shares platform with Cts which is too big challenger the same thing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
scottgas said:
Dude calm down. I wasn't trying to insult you or call you ignorant. I merely meant that going by your posted age you were not exactly to remember them while they were being built.
Just because a sports car is a given companies entry level sports car doesn't mean that it is an entry level car. The Gallardo is Lamborghini's entry level car, but it isn't exactly entry level now is it. There is a huge gap in performance between the FRS and a 370Z in stock form. Yes the FRS has potential to beat a Z, but the Z has potential for HUGE power and performance. Toyota likes to be up market. The next Supra really should be in the Z's class. It will give them a direct competitor to the Z. They can always do a $100k class car either as a Toyota or Lexus. Or scrap the LFA and make the next one $100K.
I love the MK4 Supras, but if the MK5 is $70k, I would have to look else ware.
For $70k I would have to either go Boxster S or Cayman S, or go C7 Vette and have a little left over for back tires. Going by the last few sports cars Toyota has put out, they don't try to beat the competition performance wise. They merely try to make them adequate. And now days they want to make everything a hybrid.
The next Supra should be front engine, rear drive, true stick shift, and a version of the GR engine. They could easily make the needed power in n/a for or super/turbo if needed. Or do 2 models.
If they were to do that, an NA GR engine could be an entry level with a range topper with either an FI GR or something like an ISF V8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,173 Posts
I agres an na gr could easily be tuned to 350hp or more especially the direct injected model. Could probabaly easily hit 400 hp in na form i think tt v6 would fit the character of the car more then it would be more of a direct challenge to the gtr just not awd just my opinion. I dont think the ISF motor would bring enough to the party. It is onle rated at 400 hp so it would need a serious redo or forced induction. That and the weight of the V8 would make the front heavy i think a punched out gr with di would suffice with a tt 3.5 for up rated model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
What does the ISF v8 weigh?

MWR is making 320 whp NA on a 2gr with I/H/E and mild cams/valve springs and revving up to 7500+ rpm. I'd imagine 400whp should be attainable with a bore/aggressive cams/head work/better throttle body if fuel and oiling are addressed.

That being said, the range topper should be FI, preferably turbocharged. I hope they'd leave the ECU a bit less difficult than the current ones.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top