best year - Toyota Nation Forum : Toyota Car and Truck Forums

NiGHTMaR3 · 02-06-2005, 08:26 PM

whats the best year for mr2 turbos?

NiGHTMaR3 · 02-06-2005, 08:27 PM

o and please make your decisions on facts not if you like that particulary year thanks

JekylandHyde · 02-06-2005, 08:39 PM

Best for what?

That really is too open ended of a question. The different years all have different benefits.

Best price? ... 1991
Best tranny 93+
Best Stereo? 93+
Best handling? 91/92
Best braking? 93+
Best Weight? 91/29
Rarest? 94/95
etc .... I could go on.

... there are really a lot of different factors ... it depends on what you want.

If you are building a budget, race car I would go for a 91.
If you want a pristinely nice car with maximum options, go for a '95 (if you can afford it and if you can find one).

For me, I went with the 91s. They are cheap and they have the fastest suspensions. I upgraded to the 93+ LSD tranny though.

L J · 02-06-2005, 09:43 PM

just curious... how much did you get your 93+ lsd tranny for?

todd0305 · 02-06-2005, 11:28 PM

Is 91 the heavy weight model?

JekylandHyde · 02-07-2005, 06:14 AM

The 91/92s are the lighter ones. The NAs arelighter than the turbos.

My 93 LSD was given to me (it was broken). I had it rebuilt.

I think you cna get a brand new 93 LSD tranny from Toyota for $1450 or so, but you will need the LSD axle inner stubs which will be about $400.

***MR2Jedi*** · 02-07-2005, 12:19 PM

hey Doc, what is it you like better about the '93 tranny?

JekylandHyde · 02-07-2005, 12:47 PM

Toyota drastically improved the syncros in 93.
The 93s also had the LSD option.

***MR2Jedi*** · 02-07-2005, 02:11 PM

are the gear ratios the same?

JekylandHyde · 02-07-2005, 02:56 PM

Yep.

Black93Turbo · 02-10-2005, 10:43 PM

"Best handling? 91-92" Um, maybe if you like spinning out into the weeds.

Maybe you don't agree. Maybe I'm wrong. You should at least acknowledge the debate, though - you know there's lots of threads about this topic on the MR2 websites (and I therefore don't propose to say more than this and start another one).

I think the pro 93+ arguments are more convincing, as do many other visitors to these boards.

Many agree with you.

So: Best handling? Hmm. Lets reserve on that one.

JekylandHyde · 02-11-2005, 09:50 AM

Are you defiing "best" handling as the quickest through a course or the least likely for the average driver to utilize?

The 91/92 have the best handling in the hands of a capable driver.
The 93+ was tamed down a bit to reduce the amount of oversteer the car has so the average driver would not be as likely to lose control.

There are many people who race 91 MR2s that do not spin out into the weeds.

So, yes, if you can't the 91 suspension geometry, the 93+ may be "best" for you.

Black93Turbo · 02-11-2005, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JekylandHyde

The 91/92 have the best handling in the hands of a capable driver.

. . . .
There are many people who race 91 MR2s that do not spin out into the weeds.
[/i]

Those ARE the debatable parts. Capable drivers did, in fact, spin out into the weeds. Factory racers and journalists, in particular, when these cars were first introduced, were losing control of them or not ckeeping up with the competition because they feared losing control. This happened because the suspension geometry was - and this was pointed out in the car magazines of the day - flawed.

The reason there are more 91s being raced now is that there are more of them and they are cheaper to buy (and to crash).

Also, remember that when raced by somebody today, the suspension of any of these cars is likely to be significantly modified. With the 91 or 92 it will often be to 93+ specs, which included a lowered ride height, bigger wheels and wider rubber (all of which are part and parcel of the suspension system) out of the box.

In sum, stock versus stock, there are many facts and arguments in favour of the 93+ being the better handling car - including tests of both versions of the car when new by car magazines.

Some say the 91-92 is more tossable in tight situations, and the 93 is better in long sweepers.

Maybe. But anything more than that is pure mythology.

Oh darn - See, now you got me doing what I said I wasn't going to be doing, which was re-hash a debate that has been going on for some time now and which in the best of circumstances has the debaters respectfully agreeing to disagree at the end.

To summarize, then, for the reasons set out above I very respectfully disagree with you and suggest you read some of the many threads on the topic..

JekylandHyde · 02-11-2005, 02:41 PM

Regardless, the one thing we can agree on is they are differen ... so what is "best" is up to each persons preference.

I have owned & raced both set ups and I prefer the 91.

I find "best" questions are almost alwasy a matter of opinion.

Black93Turbo · 02-11-2005, 02:55 PM

I agree that handling is far more subjective than most of the other things. For example, best weight is clearly the older car - they were just plain lighter - and best brakes clearly the later car with the bigger disks and fatter tires.

In fact, I agree with everything you said except the handling part because the facts back up what you are saying on all the other points.

One final fact (not opinion) about the handling part - the LSD works with everything else on the 93+ in most circumstances to improve handling. If you are less likely to spin a wheel coming out of a corner at maximum throttle, you can come out faster.

Subjectively, the older car may FEEL faster in those circumstances as it burns some rubber coming out ...

Oh, oh, I am doing it again.