Top Gear

[John R]

Just had a drag race between the Mk1 and the Mk3...

[Bibbs]

wonder why they didn't put in an MR2 Turbo :D

[midmotorsteve]

do you know what mk3 it was, i was under the impression all mk3s were over 8 sec to 60? i thought it would be closer than it was. A N/A sw20 rev1 or 2 would have been faster

[Bibbs]

would have been a non SMT as they are slow .. think the 2nd revision of the Mk3's are quick-ish ..

[ZeroBlade]

Did u all want the "older" cars to win?

Cos i did, hehe :)

And i agree, i woulda loved the SC mk1 to go up against the mk3.

-Z

[Bibbs]

I saw that out of the 2 turbo's - both won easily .. forced induction rules ..

[ZeroBlade]

haha, twin turbo nissan was a little slow on the acceleration tho.

Still i AM going to stay n/a, and go along w. my master plan of gettin that black top ;)

[Bibbs]

off the line? Defo - it weighs about twice the amount of the 350z !!

(But still won over 1/5th of a mile .. imagine over 1/4 mile - even bigger gap)

[midmotorsteve]

i wanted the old ones to win, new ones alway 'seem' tamed.

[MR-S Turbo]

I would of liked the mk1 MR2 to win over the new one.

[Jimlad]

I can't beleive I missed it !?!?!

Is it repeated on another channel ?? IE... BBC three or something ?

[GSB]

would have been a non SMT as they are slow .. think the 2nd revision of the Mk3's are quick-ish ..

The second gen Mk3 is simply a facelift, plus some suspension tweaks, 16"rear wheels and a six speed box (overdrive 6th - all other ratios remain the same) The SMT is slower off the line than the manual version.

The Mk3 is quoted as 8.0 sec 0-60 by Toyota, but most magazine testers have achieved low 7's and some private owners high 6's. With a kerb weight of less than 1000kg (Power to weight ratio of 140bhp per tonne), the MK3 will give any N/A Mk2 a run for its money. B)

[SMiFFAD]

It was good if not a little fixed :D

Cozzy/rs focus was a little optomistice to the tune of about 100BHP :D

As was the 300 v's 350.....300 weighs as much as a small contry but once the twins start blowing it shifts!

Mk11 v's Mk111 MR2 would have been more interesting cos im sure the mk3's slower....

[John R]

The markII n/a is 7.7 0-60 I think.

[ZeroBlade]

off the line? Defo - it weighs about twice the amount of the 350z !!

(But still won over 1/5th of a mile .. imagine over 1/4 mile - even bigger gap)

didnt know about the weight ratio difference, but i guess it is a bigger car...

I almost missed it 2 Jimlad, good thing my bro called me dwn for the drag races :D

And i loved the slaggin off of the AudiTT, sed exactly what i've been saying about that car, Clarkson's a ledge!

[Jimlad]

The markII n/a is 7.7 0-60 I think.

I have a 1990 Autocar and Motor magazine with the MKII review in it... perfect condition.. just bought from someone on eBay. Nice read.... anyway...

it states it as 7.6 seconds 0-60mph .

[John R]

Even better

[ZeroBlade]

7.6 aint too bad at all. That specific to rev1 rite?

I'm guessing the other rev's'l b different...

[Jimlad]

yeah... rev1 n/a

[ZeroBlade]

Cool, mite hav to put tha t2 the test.

Wonder how much a diff the mongoose will make, considering low end torque's been reduced?

[Trevor]

Its just so very typical of (biased) British Television programs NOT to show imports in a good light.

There was no MR2 Mk1 Supercharger or MR2 Mk2 Turbo cars on the show simply BECAUSE they are imports to the uk and where never officially available here! Lets remember that the BBC has an appauling "anti-imports" record so much so that you'll never get them to admit or show imports in a good light.

So much for 'impartial' reviewing... if you ask me all the presenters and program makers must be on the pay rolls of the uk official manufacturers...

T

[Bibbs]

They mention the FTO.. and that was import only. That's about it ..

[Stef Derner]

Rev 1 and 2 N/A 7.2 0 - 60 if manual. Rev 1 and 2 had more low down torque thanks to Tvis system.

Rev 3 on 7.6 or 7.7 depending on power. Rev 5s had more emission control.