3GENJDM: Gen3 Debate

[EL PAALO]

Thanks for all the info, guys. It's good reading.

[Nacho]

Originally Posted by kblake

You are proving my point for me. I said that if you are going to keep the engine pretty close to stock, then go for the Gen 3. I don't deny it's a great engine, especially stock, and with bolt-ons. It's just not better than the Gen 2, once you replace the intake manifold and stock ECU/sensors.

Read my lips: I don't care. This discussion has nothing to do with Hondas, and nothing to do with racing. It's about which flavor of the 3SGTE is better, for which applications.

Making more power isn't for racing?

If you try to take information from economy cars, and apply it to sports cars, you are going to waste a lot of time and money. Are you planning to put a girdle on your 3SGTE? No? Why not? Hondas do it when they go forced induction.

All the DOHC VTEC motors come with girdles stock. No need to add one.

And there's a difference between the structural rigidity of one engine and what you can do to make that specific engine stronger and the way air moves in and out of a head. Again, pystics are physics. Air doesn't care who manufactures the engine.

300RWHP. You are showing me examples of Gen 3's making a whopping 16 more RWHP than that. The gen 3 has the same fuel pump, with the same limitations, despite the larger injectors. Either engine is running on the edge of safety above 275RWHP.

If the gains of the stock ECU vs a tuned ECU are 4 HP at the 300 WHP level, what makes you think they'll just significantly at higher levels? No one's really tested the limits of the stock gen 3 ecu that i know of.

And you can swap out fuel pumps for alot less than you can swap ecus. I don't see what the fuel pump limitations have to do with the ECU's allegeded inferiority.

Ahh, more anecdotal evidence. You're great at spouting hearsay, but a little short on facts.

That's not antedocal evidence, that's facts. gen 3. Stock ECU. 8+ months.
It made over 300 WHP. It made it for quite a while. At least 8 months. I don't feel like calling him solely to ask exactly how long his stock ECU was on the car before he got the Blitz. If i call him or talk to him online soon, i'll try to remember to ask if he remembers exactly how long.

Either way, you claim that the stock gen 3 ECU can't make power for long. I'd count 8+ months as a long time, not 'once or twice'

Oh please. There's no advertisement there. I was simply using ATS as an example to refute your argument. As I said in my original post, I always recommend a standalone, when it's in the budget. Sometimes it's not, and in that case, a ROM tune is better than relying on the stock computer.

You're using the products that you sell as a reason that the gen II ECU is better (even claiming that the AFM is better, which is a joke), just like you used to claim that a 2.5" DP was better than a 3' DP when you sold them for KO. Your 'tech' seems to mirror whoever you work for at the time's products.

I'll take a stock gen 3 ECU and it's MAP over a reflashed gen 2 ECU w/ AFM any day.

from: http://www.megaboost.co.uk/mr2/frames/techinfopage.htm

"Toyota MR2 - MKII Turbo (1989 - 1994)


Transmission: 5-speed manual, double-overdrive
Gear Ratios:
5th: 3.23:1
4th: 1.91:1
3rd: 1.32:1
2nd: 0.92:1
1st: 0.73:1
Final Drive Ratio: 4.29:1"

I wasn't able to track down anywhere that listed gear ratios for the Gen 3. Perhaps one of our Gen 3 owners will have the information.

In that case, i can find any gen II owner and compare them. I'll make sure to use the 15" rears and 225/50/15 tires as well so as to eliminate the gearing differences from different sized wheels.

[DavidV]

All I know is if I were anything but completely desititute, my engine choices in an MR2 would look something like this (and I would advise most people with reasonable financial means to look at them in this order):

(1) Gen III -- the ultimate 3SGTE for the MR2 (A fully up-to-date engine capable of hanging with the Evos and STis of the world with very minor tweaks. Unless you're poor, look no further).

(2) V6 SC - Brad Bedell showed the world what this could do. Great power with a nice, fresh and plentiful power plant.

(3) V6 NA - As simple and reliable to run as the 5SFE, only with some real grunt.

(4) Gen II - Kind of an also-ran in the higher HP MR2 engines. State-of-the-art in its day. Know and trust your engine builder, because this will likely have been torn apart and put back together at some point in its life or will soon need it.

-- DavidV

[kblake]

Originally Posted by DavidV

(4) Gen II - Kind of an also-ran in the higher HP MR2 engines. State-of-the-art in its day. Know and trust your engine builder, because this will likely have been torn apart and put back together at some point in its life or will soon need it.

-- DavidV

Most of the high HP MR2's in North America are running on some built version of the Gen 2 at the moment.

Here's my built Gen 2 vs. a certain Gen 3. The Gen 3 is running 18psi to my 17psi of boost:



Ken

[kblake]

Originally Posted by Nacho

Making more power isn't for racing?

Not always. Some people want more power for bragging rights, some for spirited driving on a windy canyon road, some for the occasional stoplight drag...there are a myriad of reasons people want more power. My friend chipped his Powerstroke Diesel to get more power. Think he did it for racing?

Originally Posted by Nacho

All the DOHC VTEC motors come with girdles stock. No need to add one.

And there's a difference between the structural rigidity of one engine and what you can do to make that specific engine stronger and the way air moves in and out of a head. Again, pystics are physics. Air doesn't care who manufactures the engine.

That's nice. Heads from different manufacturers behave different, as do the rest of the engine. Why do 4G63's make more power on pump gas on the same turbos as us, when they are also DOHC, 16V 2.0L inline 4 cylinders? Why don't MR2's have problems with crankwalk. I've been around this community for 7 years now, and I've seen Honda and DSM guys come and go. They always think they're going to come in here, apply all of the same tricks that got them power on their previous car, and rewrite the power primer. Sometimes we manage to make them see reason, sometimes they have to blow up an engine or two before they see reason.

Originally Posted by Nacho

If the gains of the stock ECU vs a tuned ECU are 4 HP at the 300 WHP level, what makes you think they'll just significantly at higher levels? No one's really tested the limits of the stock gen 3 ecu that i know of.

The 316RWHP power level you are quoting is beyond the safe limits of the stock fuel pump, and close to the safe limits of the 540cc/min injectors. That means you won't be making any more power on that ECU, since there is no way to make it run larger injectors. For all intents and purposes, that IS the limits of the stock Gen 3 ECU, and that's only with an upgraded fuel pump.

Originally Posted by Nacho

And you can swap out fuel pumps for alot less than you can swap ecus. I don't see what the fuel pump limitations have to do with the ECU's allegeded inferiority.

I never said the Gen 3 ecu is inferior to the Gen 2. I was simply pointing out some facts that you are apparently not aware of, since your area of expertise lies with Hondas and not MR2's.

Originally Posted by Nacho

IIRC, RiddleMR2 ran on his for over a year. But I'm sure it was JUST about to blow up.

Originally Posted by Nacho

That's not antedocal evidence, that's facts. gen 3. Stock ECU. 8+ months.
It made over 300 WHP. It made it for quite a while. At least 8 months. I don't feel like calling him solely to ask exactly how long his stock ECU was on the car before he got the Blitz. If i call him or talk to him online soon, i'll try to remember to ask if he remembers exactly how long.

"If you recall correctly"??? First off, that's hearsay, not anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is where a trend is demonstrated, say, that 275RWHP is the safe limit of the stock fuel system and ONE GUY says: "Well I've made 320RWHP on the stock fuel system without blowing up" He is a statistical anomaly, trying to deny the statistic's validity by offering his one example that defies the statistic. Just because there is an exception to a rule, doesn't invalidate the rule.

Originally Posted by Nacho

You're using the products that you sell as a reason that the gen II ECU is better (even claiming that the AFM is better, which is a joke), just like you used to claim that a 2.5" DP was better than a 3' DP when you sold them for KO. Your 'tech' seems to mirror whoever you work for at the time's products.

I'll take a stock gen 3 ECU and it's MAP over a reflashed gen 2 ECU w/ AFM any day.

No. I NEVER said the Gen 2 ECU is better, you're putting words in my mouth. I pointed out that it could be modified, which is a service that is not availalable for the Gen 3. ATS Racing is not the only company selling Techtom ROM tunes, there are several companies out there that offer this service. ATS is the only one doing individual dyno tuning on cars using the ROM that I'm aware of, other than Yoshio, up in Canada. I'm also more familiar with ATS's products and services, so naturally I'd use them as an example.

I also never said that a 2.5" down pipe was better than a 3". Again, you are putting words in my mouth. What I said, was that the 2.5" is easier to install, fits better, and that 3 inches is not necessary until somewhere around the 300RWHP mark. News flash: The difference isn't all that great on a stock turbo, and KO still can't keep the 2.5" down pipes in stock.

Originally Posted by Nacho

In that case, i can find any gen II owner and compare them. I'll make sure to use the 15" rears and 225/50/15 tires as well so as to eliminate the gearing differences from different sized wheels.

Or you could do a little research, learn a little bit more about the car you own, and find out what the gear ratios are. I think you'll be surprised.

Let's have some Gen 2 vs. Gen 3 drags at NA2005 and see which is better.

Ken

[DavidV]

Originally Posted by kblake

Most of the high HP MR2's in North America are running on some built version of the Gen 2 at the moment.

Here's my built Gen 2 vs. a certain Gen 3. The Gen 3 is running 18psi to my 17psi of boost:

Ken

That's cool. I've seen that chart before. It doesn't change my rankings or opinion. Gen II was nice back when it was the only game in town. Fortunately, there are some newer and more interesting options available for those of us with an aversion towards "built" motors.

-- DavidV

[AndrewMcG]

So Ken, it's obvious that your motor is superior to this "certain" persons Gen3 but doesnt this prove David's point? Your motor has been built and rebuilt how many times? Both mine and David's motors are unopened and putting out similar numbers. Fair enough, we have more lag.

[kblake]

This motor has been built once, by ChrisK. I had an earlier Gen 2 rebuild that failed, because the block had a hairline crack in one of the bores that the machine shop missed.

It does prove his point about knowing your machinist. I'd also add, "know the source of your engine block". I bought mine cheap from a guy in Sacramento, and lived to regret it.

The building doesn't necessarily increase peak numbers, it adds durability. In theory, the amount of CFM the turbo can flow will be the ultimate determinant of the peak numbers, not "which engine is better".

Which engine is better will show in area under the torque curve, which is also affected by properly sizing your turbo to your engine, an area where both you and David erred, IMHO.

You can buy a Gen 2 and build it to similar specifications to mine for what a Gen 3 clip costs. If you are already planning EMS, bigger turbo, cams, and an intake manifold, it would be a waste of money to buy a Gen 3 to build, instead of a Gen 2. That is really my only point in this thread. Except in that single circumstance, you are most likely better going Gen 3. If you are going to build though, don't waste the extra money getting a Gen 3 to build.

[kblake]

Originally Posted by DavidV

That's cool. I've seen that chart before. It doesn't change my rankings or opinion. Gen II was nice back when it was the only game in town. Fortunately, there are some newer and more interesting options available for those of us with an aversion towards "built" motors.

-- DavidV

Actually, that's the first time I've overlaid my ChrisK motor with your plot. The one you saw before was Kris Osheim's stock Ve Gen 2 overlaid on your Gen 3 plot:



Kris didn't have cams, or an extrude honed stock intake manifold, so you eventually caught him on the top end, unlike me. That overlay is not as clear a victory for the Gen 2 as mine is, but it provides a better picture of stock gen 2 against stock gen 3, with only bolt-on power adders.

[DavidV]

Originally Posted by kblake

Actually, that's the first time I've overlaid my ChrisK motor with your plot. The one you saw before was Kris Osheim's stock Ve Gen 2 overlaid on your Gen 3

Kris didn't have cams, or an extrude honed stock intake manifold, so you eventually caught him on the top end, unlike me. That overlay is not as clear a victory for the Gen 2 as mine is, but it provides a better picture of stock gen 2 against stock gen 3, with only bolt-on power adders.

Then this chart is mislabeled, apparently.

The dyno plot on my car is an Apexi turbo kit, not Blitz.

Also, both plots seem to indicate that my set-up is holding better power on the top-end. This is why it is frustrating for me to keep looking at these comparisons.

The plot you have from me was a very conservative tune designed to carry the car through a grueling Time Attack competition. The tune itself was on 91 octane on an unopened motor. Hell, the fact that you could compete in a Time Attack shoot out with a stock, unopened motor says something about the Gen III in my book (and let's put aside the wastegate failure I had there -- during warm up, we were at least on par with the WORKS Evo and passing the Power Enterprise Supra). As a matter of fact, wasn't Brad's USCC motor also completely stock internally?

Anyway, the point is, it comes as no surprise that my car does not have the area-under-the-curve of the two you are comparing against, and that has next to nothing to do with the fact that it is a Gen III and everything to do with having a large Apexi turbo that is just coming into its power range at 17-18 psi. I would guess that the sweet spot on that turbo is 22-25 psi.

I have little doubt that with a stiffer wastegate spring, a set of cams, and some race gas, my current set-up could support 400+ whp. But then, I kind of have this general distaste for bench racing and have no such mega-power aspirations at present, so for now, let's leave it at that.

-- DavidV

[kblake]

Ah, my bad-I didn't have your setup memorized. The top end power difference between my plot and yours is negligible, especially in light of the fact that you were running 1 more PSI of boost than I am.

You are holding a fair bit more power on top than the stock Gen 2, showing the benefits of the larger intake cam and better intake manifold. Nonetheless, both Gen 2's have more area under the torque curve, despite your slight top end advantage. Both Gen 2's are running conservative street tunes, designed to last for at least 100k miles.

We all know that what wins a race is more "the nut behind the wheel" than which car has more power. If you were beating those other cars, it is likely that it's because you are a better driver than the guys driving those other cars.

[DavidV]

Originally Posted by kblake

We all know that what wins a race is more "the nut behind the wheel" than which car has more power. If you were beating those other cars, it is likely that it's because you are a better driver than the guys driving those other cars.

Yeah... only I wasn't the one doing the driving.

I can thank Hayashi for that. No way was I qualified to run against the likes of Tarzan.

Anyway, the front straight times was what I was going by, and I think there is a lot less driver skill there than other parts of the course (safe assumption being most everyone is mashing the throttle to the floor at that point).

-- DavidV

[AndrewMcG]

Originally Posted by kblake

Which engine is better will show in area under the torque curve, which is also affected by properly sizing your turbo to your engine, an area where both you and David erred, IMHO.

We got PWN3D!!!

I still like mine.

[DavidV]

Originally Posted by 93smgturbo

We got PWN3D!!!

I still like mine.

Nah... been there and done that with the Ct20b and Blitz K1 (properly sized turbos that were being worked close to their max potential). I was ready for a turbo that gave me enough head room to actually get the most out of those 850cc injectors and big bore rail some day... just not any day soon....

-- DavidV

[Nacho]

Originally Posted by kblake

Most of the high HP MR2's in North America are running on some built version of the Gen 2 at the moment.

Here's my built Gen 2 vs. a certain Gen 3. The Gen 3 is running 18psi to my 17psi of boost:

[img]
Ken

You still running the 2.3L?

Additionally, the only real way to compare apples to apples with dyno plots is to put at least the same turbo kit on both engines in comparison.

[Nacho]

Originally Posted by kblake

You can buy a Gen 2 and build it to similar specifications to mine for what a Gen 3 clip costs. If you are already planning EMS, bigger turbo, cams, and an intake manifold, it would be a waste of money to buy a Gen 3 to build, instead of a Gen 2. That is really my only point in this thread. Except in that single circumstance, you are most likely better going Gen 3. If you are going to build though, don't waste the extra money getting a Gen 3 to build.

SW20 MR2 (2nd Gen) - Includes 3S-GTE Engine, 5-Speed LSD Transmission, and Fuel Pump $2,895
SW20 MR2 (3rd Gen) - Includes 3S-GTE Engine, 5-Speed LSD Transmission, and Fuel Pump $3,995

Engine builds only cost 1.1k?

[Nacho]

Originally Posted by kblake

Not always. Some people want more power for bragging rights, some for spirited driving on a windy canyon road, some for the occasional stoplight drag...there are a myriad of reasons people want more power. My friend chipped his Powerstroke Diesel to get more power. Think he did it for racing?

Given that you tout these as the pinnicle of sports cars all day, i thought you'd actually be racing them. Sorry.

BTW, stoplight drags are a form of racing. "Spirited driving' is still similar, but most people who do that don't want raw power numbers, and an overpowered car.

That's nice. Heads from different manufacturers behave different, as do the rest of the engine. Why do 4G63's make more power on pump gas on the same turbos as us, when they are also DOHC, 16V 2.0L inline 4 cylinders? Why don't MR2's have problems with crankwalk. I've been around this community for 7 years now, and I've seen Honda and DSM guys come and go. They always think they're going to come in here, apply all of the same tricks that got them power on their previous car, and rewrite the power primer. Sometimes we manage to make them see reason, sometimes they have to blow up an engine or two before they see reason.

Yes heads behave differently. But it's due to which has better head designed for airflow.

Oh, and MR2s and Supras have experienced crankwalk before. Not enough to get the reputation for it, but it's happened

The 316RWHP power level you are quoting is beyond the safe limits of the stock fuel pump, and close to the safe limits of the 540cc/min injectors. That means you won't be making any more power on that ECU, since there is no way to make it run larger injectors. For all intents and purposes, that IS the limits of the stock Gen 3 ECU, and that's only with an upgraded fuel pump.

What's his stock ECU have to do with a stock fuel system again?

I never said the Gen 3 ecu is inferior to the Gen 2. I was simply pointing out some facts that you are apparently not aware of, since your area of expertise lies with Hondas and not MR2's.

I still love that you think that having more experience than JUST MR2s is a bad thing. I really find it humerous.

"If you recall correctly"??? First off, that's hearsay, not anecdotal evidence.

The IIRC was directed at the exact length of time which he made the power, not the fact it happened.

Anecdotal evidence is where a trend is demonstrated, say, that 275RWHP is the safe limit of the stock fuel system and ONE GUY says: "Well I've made 320RWHP on the stock fuel system without blowing up" He is a statistical anomaly, trying to deny the statistic's validity by offering his one example that defies the statistic. Just because there is an exception to a rule, doesn't invalidate the rule.

Lots of things are where something is stated as the limits, but then 'one guy' lies outside that rule. Then another one does. And another. And another. And finally, you're forced to reevaluate the old 'rule'

No. I NEVER said the Gen 2 ECU is better, you're putting words in my mouth. I pointed out that it could be modified, which is a service that is not availalable for the Gen 3. ATS Racing is not the only company selling Techtom ROM tunes, there are several companies out there that offer this service. ATS is the only one doing individual dyno tuning on cars using the ROM that I'm aware of, other than Yoshio, up in Canada. I'm also more familiar with ATS's products and services, so naturally I'd use them as an example.

Other companies offer the service, but you failed to mention them. You sure did make it sound like the gen II was superior simply because you can reflash it.

Sounds like a salesman to me.

I also never said that a 2.5" down pipe was better than a 3". Again, you are putting words in my mouth. What I said, was that the 2.5" is easier to install, fits better, and that 3 inches is not necessary until somewhere around the 300RWHP mark. News flash: The difference isn't all that great on a stock turbo, and KO still can't keep the 2.5" down pipes in stock.

Great. 3" is still better, even if 'not necessary'

Or you could do a little research, learn a little bit more about the car you own, and find out what the gear ratios are. I think you'll be surprised.

I'll get right on that. As soon as the community isn't filled with disinformation from salesmen pushing their products.

Let's have some Gen 2 vs. Gen 3 drags at NA2005 and see which is better.

Ken

If i attend. It all hinges on my friend with his Lotus showing up to the track day.

I assume you'll bring out all your built gen 2s (2.0-2.3L) to compete against the unopened gen 3s.

[kblake]

Ok. I can see I'm getting nowhere here. It must be something in the water in Kentucky.
Every time I put one of your arguments to bed, you find another nit to pick. I don't have time to enlighten your ignorance. I think I'll put you on my "ignore" list.

I think I've accomplished my original goal in contributing to this thread, which was to keep it from being a one sided Gen3 > Gen 2 thread. I'm sure anyone who reads it now will see that Gen 2 is at least as good as Gen 3 if you are going for a built engine/big numbers, and from an economic standpoint, is a clear winner.

Ken

[rhouck]

The problem I am seeing is whether it actually IS more economical to choose to swap a Gen2 vs a Gen3 (as in BUYING a JDM clip, which should a person buy)

Once you get your Gen3 clip, you can sell of the ct20b (~$700-800) and 94 JDM (! lol) tails ($300-400). That gains you $1000-1200 back right there.

Then consider going to an EMS. You don't have to buy new sensors to convert from AFM to MAP system. That's a decent amount of money right there.

For the actual EMS you can just plug a PowerFC (proven to power MR2s into the 9s) and voila! nothing else needed.

I think Ken's point is valid from the standpoint of:
"I just blew my Gen2 and need to buy a new motor or rebuild" -OR- "My Gen2 works fine but I went to build a 400+ rwhp MR2 and thus need to build SOMETHING".

For both of these points, it makes little sense to scrap the Gen2 and buy a Gen3. Sure there are advantages but it will still be cheaper to go with rebuilding/building the Gen2. Though with the quality of many rebuilds (as you can attest to Ken), many people are nervous to rebuild and prefer an OEM replacement. In this instance they are offered the choice of buying a new OEM shortblock or swapping a new motor. A shortblock is what, ~$1400?

So what needs to be done is look more carefully at the price of Gen3 swaps. If you can get a clip for $3500 (and then sell off the "goodies") then I see NO reason to either rebuild back to stock or buy a Gen2.

For people doing NA swaps I see ZERO reason to buy a JDM Gen2 over a Gen3.

In summary....

one should go Gen2 if:
1. They already have one
-AND-
2. They want big power

one should go Gen3 if:
1. They have NO motor / NA motor
-OR-
2. They have a blown motor and don't plan on building their motor internally

[kblake]

Hi Ryan,
You are mostly in agreement with what I am saying. However, you are ignoring the fact that there are a lot of used, high miles Gen 2's available right here in the U.S. for very little money. A lot of turbo owners have swapped out perfectly good, or at least rebuildable, high miles 3SGTE's to get the Gen 3 motor, or even to get a low mileage Gen 2 JDM motor. Pat Signorino, in your local group did that very thing. When you add that into the equation, you really should go Gen 2 any time you plan to do internals, from an economic standpoint.