LOL. so i lost against a mark1

Resurrected · 06-13-2009, 02:38 PM

Hey noob question here; Heres the story.

last night i was cruising with a budy of mine who bought an MK1 N/A, i have an MK2 N/A then we pulled up together on a red light(double lane)...GREEN! so we take off on a race.

i start pulling away on 1st and 2nd, going to 3rd gear the damn MK1 starts caching up and takes my ass like he was holding back at the start...

heres the question. (we both have N/A 5/speeds), is the mk1 engine stronger than the mk2 or what? because i didnt miss shift or anything.... he just left me in the dust.... or is there a problem with my car? my car recently got a master tune up and runs perfectly fine.... but he still wins?

hahaha.

TomsMR2 · 06-13-2009, 03:10 PM

well you know where he lives.. you can try to hook up with his mom or something. that'll get him!

mk2's are faster in the 1/4 than mk1's. na vs na, and sc vs turbo.

mk2's slouch in power quite a bit when they're out of tune. check your timing, replace your ignition bits, new air filter etc.

Resurrected · 06-13-2009, 03:51 PM

LOL!. i shall consider the mom part HAHAHA.

And good to know. i shall check my timming.

Don't Worry, It's Just Me · 06-13-2009, 06:22 PM

but how much do Mk1's weight compared to Mk2's?

TomsMR2 · 06-13-2009, 07:00 PM

not much less.. you'd be surprised. the lightest mk2 is a couple hundred pounds heavier than the lightest 85 na.

a SC is heavier than most mk2 na's. the lightest turbo is lighter than some sc's. theres a ton of overlap..

Don't Worry, It's Just Me · 06-15-2009, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomsMR2

not much less.. you'd be surprised. the lightest mk2 is a couple hundred pounds heavier than the lightest 85 na.

a SC is heavier than most mk2 na's. the lightest turbo is lighter than some sc's. theres a ton of overlap..

I did not know that. Learn somethin new everyday.

328FTW · 06-15-2009, 01:49 AM

You lost because the mkI are superdueceilisticexpialidocious. The mkI are also surreptitious, good at foray and have brobdignagian prowess. I know my gallimaufry cars do pretty good. Unfortunately my sentances are very incondite but you get how awesomely awesome the mkI is.

Maruki-kun · 06-15-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 328FTW

You lost because the mkI are superdueceilisticexpialidocious. The mkI are also surreptitious, good at foray and have brobdignagian prowess. I know my gallimaufry cars do pretty good. Unfortunately my sentances are very incondite but you get how awesomely awesome the mkI is.

GENESIS · 06-20-2009, 08:30 PM

are you sure it was a stock na,maybe he had a 20v or something else,your timing must be more retarded than 10btdc,try advancing it to 12-14 it helps off the line or maybe your just losing compression.now way a stock 4age would beat a 5sfe, the 2.2 just has more power n torque.

boycelaforest · 06-20-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GENESIS

are you sure it was a stock na,maybe he had a 20v or something else,your timing must be more retarded than 10btdc,try advancing it to 12-14 it helps off the line or maybe your just losing compression.now way a stock 4age would beat a 5sfe, the 2.2 just has more power n torque.

Right the 5sfe has more torque..
But these cars are about even with slight advantage to the mk1.

Stock early 85 MK1NA weighs from 2200-2280 and should dyno 95-100rwhp.
Stock MKII is 2300-2400lbs and should dyno 100-105rwhp.

This makes for a even to mk1 advantage depending on vehicle options, engine condition.
I have owned both. My stock 91NA (ttop 5spd,all power) would run a consistent 16.5s whereas my stock 86 MK1NA (sunroof, power) best run was a 16 flat.

Resurrected · 06-21-2009, 12:17 AM

just so you guys know, he smoked me because its a turbo.... he lied to me for the win.... LOL.

GENESIS · 06-22-2009, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boycelaforest

Right the 5sfe has more torque..
But these cars are about even with slight advantage to the mk1.

Stock early 85 MK1NA weighs from 2200-2280 and should dyno 95-100rwhp.
Stock MKII is 2300-2400lbs and should dyno 100-105rwhp.

This makes for a even to mk1 advantage depending on vehicle options, engine condition.
I have owned both. My stock 91NA (ttop 5spd,all power) would run a consistent 16.5s whereas my stock 86 MK1NA (sunroof, power) best run was a 16 flat.

i had an 4 mk1's the first ones i dynoed was my 85na it came out 93.7 hp
81ft-ibs at the rear.my stock 1.6 miata was dynoed also if i recall it was around 94hp with 85ft-ibs of torque and a whole lot lighter than an mk1 about 2150 and even that couldn't keep up with my stock 91 na there's just to much more torque of the line i agree though engine condition is a factor, at the time my 91 na got dynoed it was 197k and came out 113rwhp and 123-ft-ibs. the torque alone should overwhelm the 1.6,i have never done a quarter mile run on my 91na so i wouldn't know but i dragged my friend at a stoplight until the freeway and i was ahead all the time.i had a built 86 with itb and megasquirt that one will kill the 91na.

GENESIS · 06-22-2009, 07:09 PM

i thought the stock mk1 weighs around 2500ibs my 91 na only feels a little heavier,

Mark_Dorman · 06-22-2009, 08:08 PM

I believe the MK1 NA weighs around 2400+ lbs (with no options)...MK2 AN is around 2600+ lbs. The MK3 only weights around 2200 lbs

328FTW · 06-22-2009, 08:29 PM

I want to weigh my full option mk1 SC just to see what it weighs, it is a little porker.

Mark_Dorman · 06-22-2009, 08:36 PM

^I'd be interested to know...

328FTW · 06-22-2009, 08:42 PM

I'm going to post when i do get around to it, car mats boot lining and all. I have a 91 T-top n/a that would be good for comparision. The mkI feels a whole lot quicker off the line, the mkII handles better though with the tyres and suspension its running, rides rock hard.

boycelaforest · 06-23-2009, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Dorman

I believe the MK1 NA weighs around 2400+ lbs (with no options)...MK2 AN is around 2600+ lbs. The MK3 only weights around 2200 lbs

My stock 1985 with options weighed 2280 lbs and 3/4 tank.

But a optioned out 88/89 SC can get around 2500lbs.

Mark_Dorman · 06-23-2009, 11:13 AM

Yeah, I just found a post by someone else who said theirs weighs around 2250. Guess the stats I read were a little off. That's kind of exciting though...22XX lbs is pretty dang light.

curvesrgood · 06-23-2009, 12:09 PM

My mk1 N/A will pull on several of my buddy's similarly modded mk2 N/A's. That doesn't sound surprising at all to me. Also that's after adding a few lbs of weight due to the body mods on my N/A. The car is tuned up well and runs like a top... only has HKS muffler, cone filter and upgraded coil. My suspension was still worn out even (replaced most everything this past month).

Here's a fun one... take a N/A mk1 sunroof chassis... supercharged motor, N/A transmission (lighter and better gear ratio, but with an upgraded clutch/flywheel) and a few other goodies (pulley, hard pipes, pusher fan on intercooler, etc.), then you've got a lot of fun in a fairly light package still. At least that's what I've got out back

.

06-13-2009, 02:38 PM	#1 (permalink)
Resurrected I Drift Mine's Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Idaho Posts: 240 Thanks: 1 Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts iTrader Rating: (1/100% )	LOL. so i lost against a mark1 Hey noob question here; Heres the story. last night i was cruising with a budy of mine who bought an MK1 N/A, i have an MK2 N/A then we pulled up together on a red light(double lane)...GREEN! so we take off on a race. i start pulling away on 1st and 2nd, going to 3rd gear the damn MK1 starts caching up and takes my ass like he was holding back at the start... heres the question. (we both have N/A 5/speeds), is the mk1 engine stronger than the mk2 or what? because i didnt miss shift or anything.... he just left me in the dust.... or is there a problem with my car? my car recently got a master tune up and runs perfectly fine.... but he still wins? hahaha.

06-13-2009, 03:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
TomsMR2 Still not heraldo. Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Pineapple under the sea Posts: 4,910 Thanks: 18 Thanked 404 Times in 301 Posts Blog Entries: 1 iTrader Rating: (4/100% )	well you know where he lives.. you can try to hook up with his mom or something. that'll get him! mk2's are faster in the 1/4 than mk1's. na vs na, and sc vs turbo. mk2's slouch in power quite a bit when they're out of tune. check your timing, replace your ignition bits, new air filter etc. __________________ Science fact: If you took all the veins from your body and laid them end to end, you would die.

06-23-2009, 12:09 PM	#20 (permalink)
curvesrgood three mk1's Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: NC Posts: 499 Thanks: 8 Thanked 33 Times in 28 Posts iTrader Rating: (1/100% )	My mk1 N/A will pull on several of my buddy's similarly modded mk2 N/A's. That doesn't sound surprising at all to me. Also that's after adding a few lbs of weight due to the body mods on my N/A. The car is tuned up well and runs like a top... only has HKS muffler, cone filter and upgraded coil. My suspension was still worn out even (replaced most everything this past month). Here's a fun one... take a N/A mk1 sunroof chassis... supercharged motor, N/A transmission (lighter and better gear ratio, but with an upgraded clutch/flywheel) and a few other goodies (pulley, hard pipes, pusher fan on intercooler, etc.), then you've got a lot of fun in a fairly light package still. At least that's what I've got out back . Last edited by curvesrgood; 06-23-2009 at 12:15 PM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-13-2009, 03:51 PM	#3 (permalink)
Resurrected I Drift Mine's Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Idaho Posts: 240 Thanks: 1 Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts iTrader Rating: (1/100% )	LOL!. i shall consider the mom part HAHAHA. And good to know. i shall check my timming.

06-13-2009, 06:22 PM	#4 (permalink)
Don't Worry, It's Just Me I'll have skills someday! Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Hopkins, MN Posts: 922 Thanks: 23 Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts iTrader Rating: (5/100% )	but how much do Mk1's weight compared to Mk2's?

06-13-2009, 07:00 PM	#5 (permalink)
TomsMR2 Still not heraldo. Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Pineapple under the sea Posts: 4,910 Thanks: 18 Thanked 404 Times in 301 Posts Blog Entries: 1 iTrader Rating: (4/100% )	not much less.. you'd be surprised. the lightest mk2 is a couple hundred pounds heavier than the lightest 85 na. a SC is heavier than most mk2 na's. the lightest turbo is lighter than some sc's. theres a ton of overlap..

06-15-2009, 01:49 AM	#7 (permalink)
328FTW Crazy Nasty Honey Badger Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 5,222 Thanks: 24 Thanked 266 Times in 239 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (1/100% )	You lost because the mkI are superdueceilisticexpialidocious. The mkI are also surreptitious, good at foray and have brobdignagian prowess. I know my gallimaufry cars do pretty good. Unfortunately my sentances are very incondite but you get how awesomely awesome the mkI is.

06-20-2009, 08:30 PM	#9 (permalink)
GENESIS Gate keeper of Redwood rd Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: dublin,ca Posts: 778 Thanks: 4 Thanked 23 Times in 24 Posts iTrader Rating: (4/100% )	are you sure it was a stock na,maybe he had a 20v or something else,your timing must be more retarded than 10btdc,try advancing it to 12-14 it helps off the line or maybe your just losing compression.now way a stock 4age would beat a 5sfe, the 2.2 just has more power n torque.

06-21-2009, 12:17 AM	#11 (permalink)
Resurrected I Drift Mine's Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Idaho Posts: 240 Thanks: 1 Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts iTrader Rating: (1/100% )	just so you guys know, he smoked me because its a turbo.... he lied to me for the win.... LOL.

06-22-2009, 07:09 PM	#13 (permalink)
GENESIS Gate keeper of Redwood rd Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: dublin,ca Posts: 778 Thanks: 4 Thanked 23 Times in 24 Posts iTrader Rating: (4/100% )	i thought the stock mk1 weighs around 2500ibs my 91 na only feels a little heavier,

06-22-2009, 08:08 PM	#14 (permalink)
Mark_Dorman So long MR2's... Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pasadena, CA Posts: 4,666 Thanks: 97 Thanked 86 Times in 82 Posts Blog Entries: 1 iTrader Rating: (26/100% )	I believe the MK1 NA weighs around 2400+ lbs (with no options)...MK2 AN is around 2600+ lbs. The MK3 only weights around 2200 lbs

06-22-2009, 08:29 PM	#15 (permalink)
328FTW Crazy Nasty Honey Badger Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 5,222 Thanks: 24 Thanked 266 Times in 239 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (1/100% )	I want to weigh my full option mk1 SC just to see what it weighs, it is a little porker.

06-22-2009, 08:36 PM	#16 (permalink)
Mark_Dorman So long MR2's... Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pasadena, CA Posts: 4,666 Thanks: 97 Thanked 86 Times in 82 Posts Blog Entries: 1 iTrader Rating: (26/100% )	^I'd be interested to know...

06-22-2009, 08:42 PM	#17 (permalink)
328FTW Crazy Nasty Honey Badger Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 5,222 Thanks: 24 Thanked 266 Times in 239 Posts My Google Map iTrader Rating: (1/100% )	I'm going to post when i do get around to it, car mats boot lining and all. I have a 91 T-top n/a that would be good for comparision. The mkI feels a whole lot quicker off the line, the mkII handles better though with the tyres and suspension its running, rides rock hard.

06-23-2009, 11:13 AM	#19 (permalink)
Mark_Dorman So long MR2's... Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pasadena, CA Posts: 4,666 Thanks: 97 Thanked 86 Times in 82 Posts Blog Entries: 1 iTrader Rating: (26/100% )	Yeah, I just found a post by someone else who said theirs weighs around 2250. Guess the stats I read were a little off. That's kind of exciting though...22XX lbs is pretty dang light.