Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't let the FWD thing put you off. The Civics are about the most RWD FWD you can get. My first ever drive of mine was a track day at LAkeside, and I must say it's the most fun I've had in a car for years (have just stepped out of an RX2 gravel rally car).

Also, the FWD's may understeer if you try to drive them like a RWD, but on slippery surfaces they will match much more powerful RWD's if you drive them right - they are a fantastic khana car. In fact, the FWD driving style lends itself to attacking each corner faster than you should, and if you look like overcooking it, then you have to push it even harder (as opposed to a RWD where you ahve to dance on the throttle to balance it)

For your budget you could pick up a complete rally car (Civic, Corolla, Swift) with allthe hard work done, including LSD, CR gearbox and maybe even some Murrayflex / DMS suspension. This will be as much fun as just about anything else on the track, and will also be fairly competitive in the tight twisty stuff.

While my times were 10 sec off the fastest cars of the day, I know there are a good 2-3 sec left int he car without doing any changes (and it's still riding on the tall, soft gravel suspension). I was feeling my way around the track, learning the car and I haven't a lot of tarmac experience so was nowhere near the limits of the car. Besides, I managed to get within 0.7 sec of a Porsche 911 (997) so I was pretty happy with that. I don't care if he wasn't trying hard. that's not the point.

Anyone who thinks that FWD's are boring should have a look at this.

Edited by warps
definitely no motor swaps on the cards... I was just wondering why its not more popular

Alfas are great but I'm just wary of them from a reliability point of view... my old man has had many over the years and they aren't cheap to fix... but then again would be no worse in that area than the E30

I thought about 32GTSt but everyone asks stupid prices for them or they have rubbish mods (or both) and at the end of the day its a turbo RWD so will go through tyres and I'll end up upping the boost or doing something silly with it

Had a 33GTSt and they're great but too heavy for what I want... I want sub 1200kgs... sub 1000kgs would be ideal

if I was to go turbo it would be an S14... but I don't want another turbo... I wanna have some n/a fun... I like AE86's too but the prices people want for them are hilarious

From what i've heard its a massive f**k around with the transmission tunnel and whatnot.

are we allowed to make MX5 jokes here ?? the driving regs allow mx5's to wear arseless chaps at track days :]

sorry .. they are a great car and a good value track choice .

shame you specced RWD . we've just done a fwd track car renaultsport clio 172 . 7k to buy in top nick with logbooks and 12 months rego . the motors run forever . we put coilovers on / rotors n pads / rear bolt in cage / stripped out interior / harness / sticky tyres / and a LSD we got at a great price .. while fitting lsd got gearbox checked over and fitted new drive shafts just in case .

it now drives like new , paint shnes like new , weighs under 1000kg , has 106kwatw stock except for intake , handles like a dream and owes bugger all .

its fully regoed , looks stock so the plod dont give it a second look . does easy 12's with a reasonable driver at wakefield . maybe into 10s with a good steerer .

a pleasure to own and drive ...

Edited by rob 240

As a former 3S owner I can say that a straight drag between a 3S-GE and an SR20DE stock for stock shows the Toyota engine to be willing NA performer.

Not as cheap to mod as the SR though and service/repair costs for the rest of the car are higher.

I still say go Nissan, but couldn't resist chirping in about the Toyota offerings.

Thats because MR2's are: a) slow b) 3S motors like to go pop more than RB's do c) Expensive for what they are.

d) hard to work on

e) rear heavy (snap oversteery)

f) constant under performers

which means

g) shit track cars

After i cant remember how many years of track days i'm still waiting to see a fast one.

I was really put off a couple of years back when a few mr2's came along to an autosports day i attended and all of them ended the day coated in mud and dirt from the arse end coming around on them constantly

d) hard to work on

e) rear heavy (snap oversteery)

f) constant under performers

which means

g) shit track cars

After i cant remember how many years of track days i'm still waiting to see a fast one.

I was really put off a couple of years back when a few mr2's came along to an autosports day i attended and all of them ended the day coated in mud and dirt from the arse end coming around on them constantly

spoken for truth. spoke to a couple of guys at track day with them and couldnt wait to get rid of them, Way too twitchy was the consensus.

d) hard to work on

e) rear heavy (snap oversteery)

f) constant under performers

which means

g) shit track cars

After i cant remember how many years of track days i'm still waiting to see a fast one.

I was really put off a couple of years back when a few mr2's came along to an autosports day i attended and all of them ended the day coated in mud and dirt from the arse end coming around on them constantly

Agreed,

I followed a few around Barbagello over the years.....in general the arse is so twitchy on those things they remind me of old 911's......but at least the Porche owners knew to back off around a corner :D .

We've proven with the St185 GT4 we have that the 3SGTE is (unless mega-dollar specced), is a wart of an engine. The things have more oil control issues than the king of oil control issues, the RB26.

A willing engine, but pale beside the might of a 200,000klm RB20. The 3S doesn't rev, doesn't go, and in an MR2, is just plain slow due to appalling untrustworthy handling.

Can you tell I'm a fan?

At least the St185 GT4 doesn't try to kill you, but neither is it fast, as even our lightened and stripped one verifies, they really are a heavy pig of a thing. AND, it looks like a Corgi lying on its back.

Edited by Marlin

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...