Turbo MR2 or Fiero
 

i was talking to liz about this yesterday. i think all things considered, MR2 > Fiero. but since her family runs the national fiero museum, of course she thinks differently.

they're both mid engine, rwd. the fiero is a turbo i4 with i think 200 hp, the fiero is the crappy 2.8 with probably less power (160 i'd guess, but i'm sure i'll be corrected).

anyway, what do you think...

MR2
http://www.mr2-toyota.com/res/img/14.jpg

or

Fiero

http://www.boingy.org/~david/cam/car...o/fiero-02.jpg

sorry the pics are big, i'm too lazy to scale them down...

The MR2 def. has more power than the Fiero (2.8 MPFI is actually rated at 135 hp 165 tq. most years).

I still think the Fiero looks way better, and the 60 degree v6 motors are durable enough to throw some serious power at them.

Plus, the Fiero is domestic :)

- Justin

that's all i needed to know. i've owned two fieros in my colorful past. unfortunately, they suffered ailments that all fieros do and i was not in a financial position to be able to help them out. besides, i was too young to be thinking about their value down the road and i needed a car that ran that i could depend on. alas, neither of my MRs were it.

i say fiero...looks like a mini-third gen!

I've never gotten a ride in a Fiero, but I have been in an MR2 turbo before and I must say, those things are fun as hell! I vote for the MR2.

MR2 fo sho

me being a former Toyota owner ('90 celica), I'll have to say MR2 Turbo. the 3S-GTE engine is capable of 400 HP on stock internals, and that goes MUCH higher if forged internals are used.

to give an example of how good this engine is, the GT500 Supras over in Japan use the I4 3S-GTE instead of the I6 2JZ-GTE twin-turbo engine. not only is the 3S-GTE capable of just as much power as the 2JZ, but it is also smaller and lighter. this allows the engine to be placed more towards the center of the car, effectively making it a mid-engined car.

fiero is definately the cooler car. i have been in both, ride is equal, about teh same size, handle very similar. the mr2 has more power but it is also a worse built car. they had aboput a million recalls on them and parts are pricey. fieros are good cars, and you can get parts anywhere since teh whole thing was built out of the gm parts bin. reallyt the only unique things on the car are the console, dash, and body work.

later
tim

Whats that someone said LT-1 In a Fiere!?

go fiero and drop in a 3.8 turbo v6 out of an 86-87 grand nat, or a 89 TTA, or even and earlier model grand nat or t-type. then go from there...you wont be dissapointed. The V8 swaps have cooling system issues. but the 3.8 should almost be at home in there since the gt6 fieros had the 6cyl 2.8, most base models came with the 4cyl though. My friend just got his 93 mr2 on the road, dropped in a 95 JDM 3sgte turbo motor, its nice but not my taste(thats sounds odd coming from me, a person who cut off the roof of a 90 eclipse and installed full fiberglass ground effects and bumpers and supra headlights...oh well :twisted: )

Stock for Stock...I guess I gotta go with MR2.

But the new MR2's....OMG PUUUUUUUKE! And they are slow as all hell.

Liz...remember. Turbo-powerd 2.2 Ecotec.

So i voted for the fiero. Duh.

The MR2 beat the fiero in the quarter mile by about a second. So it's faster. (we have this on tape too if anyone wants to see this comparison.)

However if the fiero came with a turbo, it'd kill the MR2. The MR2 has help, and yes it's factory standard turbo, but if it didnt have that, it'd be a dog. Come on now, it's one second faster. BFD. Easy tweaking on the fiero could put it up to speed. You're comparing a turbo to a plain 2.8. That's just not fair. Pat, grow some balls and stick to domestics :fluffy: . You'd go import for a car one second faster? Psh. And for calling it a crappy 2.8, you're not getting a ride in it now. Unless you need some serious convining that the fiero is much cooler. Go ask some tart for a ride in his MR2 instead.
:P :finger:

Liz, I think Fiero's are cool....

Can I go for a ride in the Fiero?!?! :D

Sure Al. haha

a few things.

1. the 2.8 IS crappy. seriously.
2. you sound like all my ls1 friends... "but the cobra has a blower, put a blower on an ls1 and it'll kill a cobra"
3. you're still gonna give me a ride because i'm a major hottie

that is all

Sweeeeeeet. 8) Get to pop my Fiero cherry. 8)

The MR2 had 140 HP, the turbo model had 180HP, if I recall. It's been a while since I've been in the import world. Anyways, I vote for the MR2 being that the Fiero has a very common problem with being a fireball.

Dave

Not the GT - that was only the earlier 4 bangers.....

- Justin

not to mention, all were recalled and repaired. unless the owner was a tart and didn't take it to get it fixed. chances are you wont find that problem any more in any of them, even though it was only the 84-85 4 cyl that had the engine fires.

1. that 2.8 is just fine in that car.
2. I like your friends.
3. No, absolutely not.

And another thing, the MR2 that came out in fiero years is ugly as sin. you have a new picture on there. they also didn't handle as well as the fiero. And pat, is IS a supercharger, not a turbo. At least the MR2's of the fiero generation are supercharged, that is.

Formula Fiero 1/4 mile is 15.7, MR2 with supercharger is 15.4. I have this on tape for proof. Motor Week test.

i jsut got hoem from island, and after seeign 3 or 4 retards with their mr2's(at least 2 of them were turbo cars) smoke down teh 1320 in a shade under a minute i wanna know what professional driver dragged a whole second over teh fiero in one of those **** boxes. one of them was running 14.7ish all night, but it was obvious he had a ton of work into the car(engine and hardcore ricer crap)
get a fiero, do basic mods(the free and cheap stuff) and go smoke ricers domestic style.

later
tim

'86-89 MR2's were either N/A or supercharged, the supercharged ones putting out 160 HP. the SC'd engine code is 4A-GZE.

the 1990-95 MR2's were either N/A or turbocharged. the N/A version had the 5S-FE engine, putting out 130 HP and 140 ft./lbs. of torque. My old celica GT had the same engine.

The turbos, on the other hand, were a different story. they had the 3S-GTE engine, 200 HP and 200 ft./lbs. of torque. and like i said earlier, that engine can put out 400 HP on stock internals. the nickname for the MR2, when it was still around, was "the Poor Man's Ferrari".

the new MR2's are a disgrace. it looks like the retarded cousin of the Porsche Boxster, and it's performance is horrible. Toyota is going down the tubes in terms of performance. 1993 was their best year, with a turbo Celica, MR2, and Supra in the line-up. after that, it just went downhill. Toyota has NO cool cars now. they are all about 108-hp starter cars, family sedans, and hybrid POS's.

doesnt the bonneville supercharger bolt up to the fiero motor or something..just something i heard once..

the 3.8 is a 90* V6 where teh 2.8 V6 is 60*...wont fit.

the 2.8 wasnt exactly desirable in an F-body, but considering how small it was in a car that size, it didnt do too badly. My first car was a 2.8 87 firebird. That thing wasnt too fast, but it was indestructable. I couldnt kill it, and believe me. I tried. Yea, the MR2 is gonna have a little more power, but when the car breaks down, its gonna be a lot more expensive to fix. I have an 86 trans am and i just had a rebuilt 305 stuck in there for 4800 dollars. my neibor has a mitsubishi montero, a new one, and his engine siezed. (not the cars fault. When he took it in for service, the idiots at mitsubishi forgot to put the oil back in the car) he had his engine rebuilt. same engine, just rebuilt, which is supposed to be cheeper than having a new engine put in, and it ran him almost twice what mine was. Everything they needed to rebuild it had to be shipped over from japan, and they passed on the price to him. I say, go with the Fiero. Domestic cars are almost always cheeper to fix when something happens.