Talk:Toyota MR2

Too many links
The External Links needs to be cut down a lot. I don't know what qualifies under WP:EL but if someone could help cut it down that would be great. SkylineBNR34 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1994+ Turbocharger designation
I'd love to see the source of the comment 'and a new CT26 (sometimes going by the misnomer CT20b) turbocharger'. I've heard the term CT20b used almost universally by people in the UK and Australia / New Zealand, but only by word of mouth and I've never seen it on anything official. I've never seen or heard anything to suggest it's called a CT26 either though. I once tried to buy one from the leading turbo charger reconditioner in the UK, and they refered to it by the number cast into the casting, '74040', but I imagine that was just a convenient way for them to identify the part rather than an official Toyota designation. I bought a new one from Toyota and as you can see from http://www.mr2turbo.info/pics/ct20b.html there's no mention of 'CT26' or 'CT20b' on the part itself. The original part that came off my 1994 car didn't have a CT designation either, unlike pre 1994 where 'CT26' is often clearly on the inlet casting. I heard there are 'CT20' turbos on other cars that are nothing like the turbos used on the MR2, but that in itself isn't proof the 94+ MR2 turbocharger doesn't have the designation 'CT20b'. --Robin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.28.120 (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Power figures
I think some of the power figures are wrong (i.e. not the official ones). A 1994 onwards Japanese Domestic Market MR2 GT / GT-S (turbo) has a max power 245 PS at 6000 rpm (source: a 1998 Japanese Toyota brochure amongst others), which I think is about 245 hp, not 240 hp as mentioned in the article. 245 PS is often quoted as 240 BHP. A BHP usually seems to be slightly more than an 'American' HP and this is probably where the confusion comes from. Similarly I think the earlier Japanese turbos were 225 PS but I've never seen this figure on official literature yet. As far as I can remember the American MR2 turbos are indeed 200 hp though. I've corrected the figure for the 1994 turbo but left the other figures as they are as I'm only 100.0% sure about the 245 figure. What I suggest is to try to find the 'PS' figures for the cars (preferably from Japanese brochures), as that seems to be the form that Toyota Japan uses (these tend to be equivalent to hp figures). Then multiply by 0.73549875 to get the kilowatt figures. You'll notice in the article the ratio between the hp figures and the kilowatt figure varies. The situation is further confused by Toyota GB occassionally quoting PS figures as 'BHP' figures in brochures. Also as far as I've heard the Japanese 3S-GEs have slightly higher figures than the UK 3S-GEs, which is probably due to Japan having higher octane fuel than the UK. --Robin


 * BHP refers to "brake" horsepower, as opposed to "wheel" horsepower - not "British" horsepower, as you allude. As such, there's no such thing as American Horsepower.  (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower_.28bhp.29)  Theoretically, if it's not to SAE spec, they may use BHP as opposed to "HP (SAE)".  There is a minor difference between PS and HP, however, which is why there is the 245PS vs. 240 BHP discrepancy.  100 DIN PS = 98.63 HP (SAE), so that would make 245PS = 241.6 HP (SAE).  (I'm not sure when this equation was true, as SAE recently changed their calculation specifications, which also take into account a motor installed in a chassis environment). --Michelmreid 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say the varying HP quotes are valid enough, as far as power measurements go. As such, all HP measurements should always be taken with caution though.... Beyond the varying definitions of a 'horse' power unit, the measuring rules provided by SAE, JIS, DIN etc are important to any given quoted engine HP. These are traditionally regional bodies, so different testing standards can apply in different markets as do different emissions and engine tuning requirements which affect performance too.

'Brake' HP measurements of a given engine will vary with the installed components, exhaust modification, exhaust gas recirculation, and many environmental factors. Even though these are governed by the standard of testing, the HP output of a given engine may vary according to rule application and quality of corrective calculations specified in the standard. Two different motors of identical design (subject to varying manufacturing tolerance, tuning and emission controls) become even less comparable! Some engine manufacturers are known to pick and choose test results to suit themselves, as well as make a mess of unit conversion, hence the great variation in quoted HP.

BTW Michelmreid, the SAE was initially an American society that has provided definitions for US manufacturers of a 'horse's power' and 2 standard methods for measuring engines to obtain the reading (which have changed over time). By my reckoning, there must be such thing as an American horsepower even though that is an impractical term :) (Just as BHP specifically does refer to British Horsepower in some cases - this is in the article you quoted BTW...) HMS DigDug (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

1994 changes
Regarding the 1994 changes, the US situation maybe should be mentioned. As far as I heard the US never got the later revision 3s-gte engines, even in 1994 and 1995 cars (this needs to be confirmed though). Of course the car ceased to be sold in the US after 1995 too, and the 1994 and 1995 sales figures were very low. As far as I know all cars sold in the US after 1995 needed to provide an emissions related diagnostic network (OBD II), but what the real reason for the 5 year MR2 black hole in the US is, I don't know. I've added a brief note that 1995 was the last year the car was sold in the US. --Robin

Misc
I removed this text: " The more cynical press accused the MR2 being a ripoff of Fiat's X1/9, but despite the similar design concept, the results were completely different. Where Fiat had failed, Toyota had created a huge success." Apart from being highly POV, it's inaccurate - Fiat's car was pretty successful, with many thousands sold and an almost 20 year lifespan. In fact in comparison the MR2 model didn't last one fifth as long. If you want to make a comparison, fair enough, but at least be reasonable. Graham 11:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Since writing that, I have been through the article with a fine-toothed comb and fixed up a lot of spelling and grammar issues. However, I also had to fix some of the more blatant NPOV issues - clearly the author is a great fan of the car and knows a lot about it, but tends to get a bit carried away. You have to stick to the facts - opinions about sales success, handling, its reception by the press, etc need to be factual. There are still numerous POV issues I've left in since I don't know the facts - but someone who does should make an attempt to fix/neutralise the text as necessary. Overall, I also think the article is too long and contains too much detail, but that's open to argument. One thing I definitely did change - "twincam" was not a term coined by Toyota for this car - the term has long pre-existed and I doubt its origins can be definitively traced. (e.g the Ford BDA twincam engine from the 70s, but I expect it goes back well before that). Graham 11:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do admit that the article is somewhat biased - I own an MR2 myself and I'm quite enthusiastic about it. The original, finnish language version of this article was written for the Toyota Club of Finland so that may contribute to the bias as well. Modifying the article towards a more neutral position would definately be a good idea but I think I might not be the right person to do this task. Regarding sales figures, from the information I've seen, approximately 170000 Fiat X1/9s were sold worldwide during it's 17-year production, beginning 1972. I only have MR2 sales figures from 1984 to 1999 and the 110000 were sold in Japan alone - 130000 cars were sold in North America. The worldwide total between those years appears to be approximately 300000. I don't know how well the MR2 has done from 1999 to the present but apparently not quite as well as the earlier models. --Jahalme 15:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the MR2 didn't outsell the Fiat, I was saying that you can't call the Fiat a failure. If I sold 170000 of anything I think that would be classed as an unparalleled success, don't you? Give the small size of the car and its limited production and market, 170000 seems pretty good. I have eliminated some of the more obvious bias, but there is still some which requires greater knowledge of the MR2 than I have to fix. I hope that in using the text from the Finnish MR2 club no copyrights were violated - if so, the whole thing will have to be scrapped and rewritten anyway. Finally - a minor point but one that really bugs me - please stop writing "it's" everywhere where you mean "its". Unless you mean "it is" or "it has", then the word never has an apostrophe. This is most of the the time. For an example of incorrect usage, see above - you wrote "it's 17-year production". See apostrophe. It's especially tedious to fix these errors because they're hard to see in the edit text sometimes. Anyway, forgive my carping, it's generally a pretty good article, and very informative. I like the MR2 as well and wouldn't mind having a Mk1 targa top as a classic runabout - they're cool :) Graham 04:40, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

All I'd like to add is to whom ever keeps changing the release date of the ZE powered car, please stop. The Supercharged car was available in Japan and southern pacific regions in 1987. The American market didn't get it till a year later. Stop changing it.

Is it a sports car?
Please vote (with a one-line answer, indented) on the following question:

Is this vehicle a sports car?
 * 1) Yes
 * 2) No - it's just a sporty coupe/convertible

--SFoskett 13:22, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. &mdash;Morven 18:39, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. SamH 17:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. WEKS 14:48, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
 * Yes. One of the best examples.--David R. Ingham 17:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Turbo charged mid engine layout rear wheel drive 2 seater.
 * Yes. Of course.
 * Yes. The definition of Sports Car is just an opinion, but the MR2 fits mine! --Hank Wallace 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * yes. But with a side not. I believe the MK1 and MK3 fit the description of a sports car while the MK2 fits the description as a GT car. At the bottom of the page it lists the Supra as a sports car when in fact it was always listed as a Pony Car, always tested against the Camaro/Firebird and Mustang type cars. The reason for the move to GT class for the Mk2 is the move by Toyota upscale in size and weight. Being mid-engine and rear drive is not a requirement for "sports car" status in the traditional definition. If it was, then where is the RX7? It is two seat and Mid-Engine as well. I think the term sportscar has been seriously smeared by marketing types in the last 25 or so years... I think it may have been started by Chrysler with the L-Body Omni 024/ Charger advertising campaign... if a Charger can be called a sportscar, then anything with 4-wheels and a fast trap speed can as well.

Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. In my definition a car that does 0-60 in under 8 seconds with sharp handling is a sports car, and if under 5 seconds a super car. (pp) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.68.36.114 (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Yes. How can a 2 seater-convertible-mid-engined-rear-wheel-drive-manual with no storage be anything else but a sports car? It is also C-stock (Mr2 spyder) for SCCA Solo 2 competition, putting it above a very wide verity of cars.

Suspension changes
''...Toyota changed the 1992 model to include wider rear tyres and changed the rear suspension so that the car would be more prone to understeer, thus making it more difficult to push the car into snap oversteer. These changes also made the cornering abilities a bit worse...''

Any documentation to back this up? I have driven both a 91 and a 93 and I disagree. In fact I believe this is a point of contention among many MR2 owners. It should probably not be presented as a fact that the 93 suspension is worse. (Note: In the US, these changes took effect for the 1993 model year, are you using 1992 because that's when the JDM changes took place?)

I haven't found any _official_ documentation on the suspension changes, despite heavy searches. However, it's clear to see the figures for suspension geo/settings when comparing the Revision 1 cars against the Revision 2 cars (JDM as well as UK models). Having owned three different revision MR2s, the difference is most definately noticable; the rear of the Revision one models is definately more 'lively' and more prone to fishtailing.


 * There were changes to the suspension, but I suspect the 10% wider rear tyres made the biggest difference. 203.132.65.136 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Scion tC replacing the MR2?
I think this line should be removed from the article. Did someone from Toyota actually say this? The MR2 is a lightweight mid-engined rear-wheel drive convertible, while the tC is a heavy front-engined front-wheel drive coupe which costs $9k less. The same line is also in the Scion tC article.


 * Perhaps change it to something like ... replaced(?) by other exciting and youthful products from Toyota such as the Matrix and Corolla XRS, Solara sports coupe and recently(?) the Scion xA, xB and tC.? --WEKS 06:32, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
 * None of those are convertibles though. The Solara coupe has been around since 1999 and the convertible arrived in 2000. The Spyder may have a relatively small engine and cheap feel, but it's fairly pricey, 2x as much as the xA. The only car atleast in the U.S. that it compares too is the Miata, with the S2000 and Elise being the two cars Spyder owners upgrade too if they want another lightweight/low hp convertible.
 * I'd say that line from the press release refers more to the Celica, and it really doesn't say those are the replacement cars, just existing competition that added to the MR2's and Celica's demise. Something else that makes the Spyder unique is its low production/sales. Including the few hundred more they'll sell the rest of this year, the total sales from six years will be under 25,000. On the other hand, Toyota sold 28,000 tC's in it's first six months, and 70,000 through July '05 (13 months). --67.160.63.141 09:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm.... Yeah I get what you are saying, so then we should just say that Toyota doesn't have a car in it's current lineup to direclty replace the MR2. Or something along those lines, or just leave it as it is? --WEKS 07:36, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

AW11 Weights
Could somebody find and include the average weight for the AW11 model? The first section indicates that it was lightweight, that the SW20 was much heavier, and that the ZZW30 "dropped under a ton again," implying that the AW11 was <2,000 lbs. Could somebody get the actual value? I believe that SW20 is around 3,200 lbs.


 * I think the "under a ton" is referring to a metric ton (1000kg), meaning the ZZW30 was under 2200 lbs. The SW20 weights I've seen published are around 2850 lbs for the Turbo and 2700 lbs for the NA model. These are the nominal weights without options, as I understand it. Since most of the cars came heavily optioned from the factory, most SW20s will weigh more.


 * IIRC, the AW11 weight was somewhere around 2300-2400 lbs. the gze was slighty heavier24.240.19.71 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As a (no longer running) Lotus Seven owner, I consider the weight to be a very important figure that should be in a table, as in the Mazda MX-5 article. The height would be good to have there too, as these figures summarize the compromise between performance and comfort and space that defines the term "sports car".


 * From Road and Track, November 1984, I get 2050–2320 # and 49.2". It says "Toyota's philosophy did not result in a particularly light car, with Japanese models ranging between 930 – 960 Kg (2050–2115 lb.), which is approximately the same as the larger Corolla front engine coups ... U.S. MR2 should come in at about 2320 lb."  David R. Ingham 19:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1040kgs dry - ex AW11 SC owner.

I've got 1050kg written on my registration papers. 203.132.66.152 04:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Toyota's published documentation says 2350 for a 1985 US-market MR2. If I remember correctly the 1987-1989 normally aspirated US-market cars were published at 2380lb curb weight. Road and Track tested a Japanese market car in November 1984 and published a 2095lb curb weight; in October 1987 they tested a US-market 5-speed Supercharged car and published a 2620lb curb weight. Bdc101 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally found the specific document: http://www.toyotapart.com/1988_MODEL_MR2_SPECIFICATIONS_T-PG009-87.pdf
 * It says 2350 for a 1988 hardtop 5-speed, with the T-tops adding about 40lbs, supercharger adding about 100, and auto tranny adding 40 to 70 lbs. Not sure about the 1985/86 cars though. Bdc101 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

T-Bar/Targa Top?
The AW11 section states that a targa top was available in Japan. Is this a reference to a true targa top (where the entire roof section is removable) or is this in reference to the T-bar top (with a bar running down the centre)? Big difference, as the T-Top was standard on some US models.


 * It had a T-Top. For some reason Toyota refers to a true targa as an "aero top", for example as used on the JZA80 Supra. 203.132.65.136 08:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

collectibles
I'm putting in collectible article for Toyota, but some editors says Wikipedia has no place for such an article and will remove any attempt to write about toy MR2 or a toy anything. Thoughts?? I'm a toy car collector. --matador300 07:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me that an article for the collectible is notable, but feel free to add a Collectibles section to this article! Scott Paeth 07:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

mk 1.5?
there is no mention in the article of a mk1.5. i definitely think this deserves some sort of honorable mention.

I agree, the Mk1.5 should be mentioned along with the history of it. Starting with Deno Plumley in America. http://www.mk1point5.com/ Also point out the modded V6 and V8 MK1s that are being built or have been built. Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fiat X1/9
Even though Justanother appears to have some complex where he must remove all references to the Fiat X1/9, to be a truly correct article, there should be discussion that the original MR2 was designed based off the X1/9. There are accounts of Toyota essentially buying an X1/9 and enlarging it by 10%. Those who race both X1/9s and Mk1 MR2s can tell you that the mechanicals are nearly identical. To be blunt, Toyota copied the Fiat/Bertone vehicle -- designed in 1972!
 * Then just follow wikipedia rules and write a well-referenced article see WP:V and WP:NOR. You don't get to write original material here. Sorry but you can put your original writings on your personal blog. ps I am not the first to remove this exact sort of material. But please do not think that I am disputing your claim, I am not. It sounds like an interesting story and, if true, one that deserves to be told. It is, however, a claim that needs to be cited so just follow the rules and contribute to the article. And consider creating an account, it is free and anonymous. --Justanother 15:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked around a bit and found little to support that the 10% thing is more than a rumor. It can certainly be reported as such if you source it. But I think the better approach is to give props to the X1/9 as producing an early flyweight (or lightweight) mid-engined sports car. The MR2 is an improvement on the theme of lightweight mid-engined sports car, not a "copy" or a "version" of the X1/9. X1/9 was not the first either, see Lotus Europa. --Justanother 17:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I must jump in here as well. The MR2 was definitely a copy of the X1/9.  I actually have raced X1/9s, and now 1st gen. MR2s, in SCCA.  The MR2 is/was almost a carbon-copy of the X1/9.  I don't know about the 10%, but it is indeed slightly larger in most dimensions.  Actually the most interesting item is that the X1/9 is still the more involving car to drive, which should say a lot to just how far ahead of its time it was.  The Lotus Europa was a completely different class of car given the price range and size, sorry.  One might make a better argument with the Porsche 914, though this car was still quite expensive in its day.  For all intents and purposes, the X1/9 started the affordable mid-engine sports car market.  The MR2 and Fiero followed this, where the first MR2 was in fact nearly a carbon copy.  I havn't had the chance to tear down a Fiero, so I don't know with regards to that car.  Do I have sources?  No; good luck.
 * I agree about the props due the X1/9. I am not an expert on X1/9 or 1st gen MR2 but from my reading it seems to be a case of Toyota got it right?? Inflammatory words, I am sure. I really can't say about the "copying" thing but to me that would means, same suspension set-up, same geometry. Same, same, same; lots more than that they both have a transverse 4-banger and a transaxle. That is not "copying". But what do I know, maybe Toyota did copy. I think that you can give props without getting into this "bought an X1/9 and made it 10% bigger" thing. But even that can be mentioned as rumor. Go for it. --Justanother 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, car enthusiasts love to banter about what is better than the other, i.e., your comment that Toyota got it right. I will tell you though that the SCCA makes it much tougher now to race an X1/9 because how competitive it is; not the same with the MR2 (hence, why I now must race the MR2).  You'll just have to trust me that the copying is not down to generalities like the engine placement.  The suspension set-up is indeed the same.  Really, it is just plain uncanny in many places; the car is essentially a knock-off of a car designed over a decade prior.  From my experience, I would lend much credit to the rumour that Toyota essentially bought an X1/9 and started photocopying. That's fine, it isn't the first nor the last case of this in the automotive industry.  It is just an interesting historical note at this point.  Wish I could better document this, but then I see this might be the original research you mention. regards.
 * Yes, I was engaging in a bit of deliberate "chain-pulling" there. I am, in fact, quite the Italian car aficionado myself anyway. But I encourage you to write the article you want to write and source it as best you can. I found sources that related the rumor as rumor so it could certainly be presented that way. You can also reference fan pages that speak of the similarity. And you are certainly not limited to internet sources; I would imagine the car mags covered the similarity. --Justanother 22:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The claims of the X1/9 copy are totally unfounded. Anyone who'd "driven both" would quickly realise the only similarities are the fact that the engine is in the back end. The inspirations for the MR2 come from Lotus cars like the SAX and "Lotus Toyota" project. The only reason the woeful Fiat got any attention in the media was because critics were looking for a comparison to use against the MR2 and the X1/9 was the only thing available that was in a similar price bracket.

Beams
I think it would be suitable to mention the limited BEAMS engine as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.147.244 (talk • contribs).
 * It is mentioned, second last para of the first section under the SW20 heading 203.132.65.136 08:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Collector car?
quote: The SW20 has become a major collector's car since the 2003 Ultimate Street Car Challenge win of Brad Bedell and his yellow V6-powered MR2. The 1MZ-FE motor, that comes from the V6 powered Solara and Camry, has quickly become a popular modification as the expense of switching to the V6 motor is roughly in line with installing a turbocharged motor into a formerly naturally aspirated car.

Now Brads victory was an awesome success, tried by a handful of MR2 owners before. But I am pretty certain that the MR2 is NOT a major collector car. The resale prices of late model MK2 turbo MR2s has gotten a bit out of hand for a few years, the prices were climbing well before Brads victory. And a modified MR2 would not increase the value of stock model. That quote just does not make sense. Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Modified MR2s
I think there should be a section showing the following MR2s: The Group S TTE Rally MR2. I have specs and images of the Toyota Museum car and also of the other that is located in Germany.\ History of this car is rampant with internet rumour. It would be nice to finally get a detailed inventory of the actual history of the car. here is the white Museum car. I have more as well, including inside shots and engine shots of the black TTE rally car. http://mr2ownersclub.com/groups.asp

The Convertible MK1 (MR2 Spider) http://www.mr2ownersclub.com/mk1convertible/

MK2 Bonneville jet car along with the Tri-Jet MK1

Bob Norwoods Turbocharged 4AGE powered MK2 MR2 http://www.bobnorwood.com/The%20Fastest%20Little%20Sports%20Car%20in%20Utah.htm

Bob Norwood also has a book that basically shows how to make the V6 MK2 MR2 - forget the publisher, but it is a big tuning manual for aftermarket ECUs. This was done back in the late 90s to early 2000s.

Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening statement
"It is a common misconception that the MR2 was Lotus-designed but assembled and distributed by Toyota. In actuality the Lotus M90 (a.k.a. the X100) project was scrapped after a single prototype was built"

This kills me... this Lotus was actually closer related to the RWD Corolla GT (AE86) as it used the engine and drivetrain from this car. It may outwardly look like a triangle form and the Mr2, hell, even the TVR and the X1/9, but it is a front engine rear drive. ref: http://python.rice.edu/~arb/arbmotorsports/arbmotors_2003/lotus_elan_m90.html

so basically this car has nothing to do with the MR2 and should never even be mentioned in the same sentence. It would be closer related to the Corolla Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the language "...was something no one had expected from any Japanese car manufacturer, known for their economical and practical cars." to "...was something no one had expected from Toyota, known for their economical and practical cars." Nissan and Mazda, to name two Japanese makers, had produced sports cars well in advance of the MR2. Of course Toyota made the 2000GT, but it's debatable that this was a production car. Citroënist (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

4AGe power ratings and injection type
"The engine was also equipped with a Bosch L-Jetronic type multi-point fuel injection and a variable intake geometry (T-VIS), giving the engine a maximum power output of 128 hp (95 kW). US engines were rated at 112 hp (84 kW), European engines at 124 hp (93 kW), Australian engines at 118 hp (88 kW) and Japanese engines at 130hp (97 kW)."

This is wrong. Not all engines used the L-Jetronic injection system. Only countries that required strict emissions standards used the L-Jetronic. The D-Jetronic was used on non-emissions built cars. These cars also did not come with catalyst. This explains why the non-North American cars made more more power. In place of the Cat a resonator was placed. Other changes were related to fuel quality and compression rations (I believe that secondary timing also played a small difference in relation to fuel quality.) Power ratings also changed with the rev2 change to the Supercharged block with the wider bearings and heavier components. Simplify build by just using one component instead of many.

There is also reference to the Mk1 C50 transaxle. There was an article written in a car magazine in the mid-80s about Toyota quality. About how Toyota sent engineers to dealerships to review warranty cases like the weak transaxle issues that the MR2 was seeing. One of the benefits of this was that the engineers would see what was breaking and how, then get this info to the factory engineers so that they could implement changes to the production models. They made these changes on the fly. Something that other companies like GM and Ford could not do at the time. I do not have reference to the magazine, it could have been Autoweek or one of the other big guns in the states. Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ijection system was not built by Bosch. It was licensed by Toyota from Bosch and actually was a major improvement of the Bosch L-Jetronic system. Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

...frequently called the "Mister Two."
Is this a North American thing? They're quite common here in the UK, and I don't think I've ever heard them called "Mister Two". Loganberry (Talk) 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

1985 mr2 needs fuel pump
wear is the pump? in tank?e-mail-deangraham1@hotmail.com

Midship Runabout
MR stands for "Midship Runabout." An example of the Japanese market MR2 badge: http://www.mrs-passion.com/catalog/images/BadgeJSpec.jpg 124.176.22.162 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you open the hood (front) of the MR2 spyder, "Midship Runabout" is written on the spare tire hatch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.33.39 (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

MR2 in French
This edit diff brought to my attention that someone disagrees with what MR2 sounds like in French. If it's simply someone trying to censor it or not, I don't know. I looked up "est merdeux" in a translator and it gave me "is filthy". If someone can make sure this is correct, that would be great. In the meantime, I have reverted the edit. --Leedeth 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MR2 totally sound like "est merdeux". The literal translation would be "is full of shit/shity" but "filthy" is closer from the french use of this word.
 * It can also sound like "et merde!" (literally "and shit!") wich is a common swearing.
 * In france, the car is sold as "MR", not "MR2"
 * I'm much better in french than in english, so I'll let you add those precious informations in the article. --Madlozoz (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MR2-Ferrari355.jpg
Image:MR2-Ferrari355.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Related?
These "related" sections in the infoboxes are getting out of hand, for example "Pontiac Fiero" in the SW20 box?! The MR2 shares engines with many other cars but that's the end of any similarities. I've removed them. 124.176.49.201 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Competition Over Images
I know all of us are proud of our cars, and put the picture of the car in there, but this isnt a competition, this is an uncyclopedia, therefore, an image of the car in PERFECT conditions must be posted for informational purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmorabrenes (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree - it is a bit silly. The current picture at the top of the article has a MR2 with a damanged (unable to fold correctly) roof. 203.59.168.239 (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Future section.
Autotrader has MR2 on its up coming list for a 2012 release.(Morcus (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

"Mark I/II/III" Naming Scheme
Where did this originate anyways? Many Toyota enthusiasts use it for the Celica, Supra, and MR2, but where did it come from? Is there any Toyota literature supporting this naming scheme? We probably should either remove it or include a note if it's not a Toyota term. Bdc101 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Updates
I made some changes and removed quite a bit of text from the article -- mostly excessive or unverifiable information, and I removed an entire paragraph from the MkII section that basically repeated the previous paragraph in someone else's words. The MkII section in particular had lots of grammar errors and bad info. I'd like to bring this article up to "B" article standards, so please chime in if you have an opinion. Bdc101 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Article quality standard
Hi all,

I've been asked by bdc101 to give an opinion about the quality of this article. Here's what I've noticed after a short look.


 * 1) References are few and far between, especially for the early years. Of the few that are there, many of them are to fan sites. Fan sites are very weak as references. Every major fact must be backed up by a reference to a credible source (eg books, Toyota manuals/brochures/microfiche, official Toyota websites). Remember that anything on toyota.com is for the US market, not worldwide.
 * 2) Years. It is not clear if these are calendar years or US style model years. Best if both year and month are given (ie calendar year). US model years should be explicitly prefixed with 'US model year' (or 'MY' for infoboxes). The 'Revisions and Model Year Changes' section is not clear about whether it is using calendar years (the standard for WP, except for American only vehicles) or US style model years. A typical American will see the words 'Model Year' in the section title and automatically assume that it means US style model years. Should add the model years field for the infoboxes - otherwise Americans keep bumping the years in the 'production' field up by one.
 * 3) The infoboxes should be simple summaries. They are currently way too complicated. There is no need to list every variation possible. Don't put Japan only, UK, US, Australia, etc in the infoboxes - list the variations in the main text instead. Moving the HP/PS/kW figures into the main text (perhaps as a table) will simplify the infoboxes.
 * 4) Naming. The text sometimes says Mk I or generation 1 but sometimes mentions AW10 or AW11 without explaining what this code means. You need to tell the casual reader that AW10 means the 1.5 L 3A first gen model and AW11 means the 1.6 L 4A first gen model. Does the 'Second generation (MkII) SW20/SW21/SW22 (1990-1999)' section also cover the Japanese only AW20? The Toyota Camry article is a good example to follow.
 * 5) Consistency. The bugbear of all WP articles with multiple editors. The style of each section should be the same. Choose one style and keep to it. Don't make the early model sections different to the late model sections. This includes how you do tables, list models, engines, trim level, etc.

More will follow as I find time. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Do you have any opposition to removing the "MkI/II/III" naming scheme altogether for now? As I mentioned above, this seems to just be a nickname made up by the enthusiast crowd. I'll clarify the production vs model years. I'll also spend some time on the infoboxes and probably will altogether remove the SARD MC8-R infobox, since it's basically empty and its racing career is hardly worth mentioning.


 * I'll copy edit the article again with your input, thanks for spending the time. Bdc101 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did you hear about a Japan-only AW20? I've never heard mention of it in any Toyota literature or any the MR2 books I've read. Google returns literally no information on it, save typos. I'm as certain as I can be that it does not exist, but I've been wrong before. Bdc101 (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. I had a vague memory of either a SW10 or AW20 (ie one of the generations with the engine commonly used in the other generation) and I only did a quick google search without actually checking out the links. Sorry for the wrong lead.  Stepho   (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob, you had me confused for a second, I tend to second-guess myself when the internet is my major source of info. Maybe you were thinking of the AT160/AT180 Celicas, anyways. I've had a hard time convincing a few people those existed. Bdc101 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Finished another big round of edits. Feel free to comment or discuss. Bdc101 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Generation titles
I would argue for naming the sections simply "First generation (W10)", "Second generation (W20)", and "Third generation (W30)", leaving production years out of section headings - as they are often subject to constant changes by people who favor model years or have some other ideas. I am going to try and dig up some reliable early info too.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a fair point. But their have been a number of vehicles where there were arguments about the generation number depending on which generation it was introduced in different countries and under which name. Eg is the Prius XW11 first or second gen, is the Cressida X30 the first gen even though it is almost identical to the Japanese Mark II X30 (which also has an argument over whether its first gen is the T60 or the X10), does the Camry start at the A40 Celica Camry (a variant of the Carina) or at the V10? Their is no real argument over the MR2's generations but I'd like to keep the Toyota articles to the consistent format that was hammered out at Talk:Toyota Camry. I'd like to leave the calenader years in because many new readers don't know what W10 means but most know roughly what year their vehicle is. I've found that even when Americans change the titles to match model years, they most accept my reverts with the summary 'Revert good faith edit. Using internationally understood calendar years instead of US specific model years'. There are always a few die hards who believe that US model years are the one and only system allowed, with no other system allowed but most seem content to allow calendar years to stand once the international angle is pointed out to them. And I'm quite prepared to continue correcting them - like I've been doing for the last few years. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears this discussion has moved over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead image
I'm starting to get dizzy from the lead image changing daily. Let's discuss it here first. I have a personal preference to the first generation but no generation has any official preference. But I'm not keen on that red first gen image because the truck in the background makes it look cluttered. The black image is much cleaner - but a less front-on angle would show it's lines better. Any other comments?  Stepho  talk 22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I think that the red image is a lot better as an illustration, but would be more than happy with a better one.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sequential Manual Transmission
Timeline is/was US centric. ZZW30 clearly introduced in Australia 13 October 2000 as SMT only, while article cites 2002 as SMT introduction. Google, in its infinite wisdom keeps giving me Australian sources. Can a US editor confirm that SMT only became available in USA in 2002, or that 6 speed SMT was available a year earlier than Australia, whichever is correct, and edit accordingly?? Unclear to me as article stands. Seasalt (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Toyota MR2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ichiba.geocities.jp/seiyaa_desk/sardmc8-seiyaaaz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Toyota MR2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615080649/http://autozine.org/classic/toyota.htm to http://autozine.org/classic/toyota.htm#MR2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626173224/http://www.mr2mk1club.com:80/_newsite/index.php?currPage=mr2mk1 to http://www.mr2mk1club.com/_newsite/index.php?currPage=mr2mk1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121034759/http://www.racecar-engineering.com:80/articles/rallycar/275877/group-s.html to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/rallycar/275877/group-s.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714090906/http://www.midengine-motorsports.com/Competition/Toyota/MR2/MC8R.htm to http://www.midengine-motorsports.com/Competition/Toyota/MR2/MC8R.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422000106/http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com:80/2000-to-2005-toyota-mr2-spyder-7.htm to http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2000-to-2005-toyota-mr2-spyder-7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Toyota MR2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_editorial.jsp?navRoot=toyota_1024_root&edname=Heritage_MR2_Main&catname=%2Ftoyota_1024_root%2Fmain_nav%2Fused_cars&menuid=91022&zone=Zone+MR2&id=Heritage_MR2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/rallycar/275877/group-s.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127180929/http://www.groupbrally.com/toyota.shtml to http://www.groupbrally.com/toyota.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2000-to-2005-toyota-mr2-spyder-7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead image 2
Nbvolks@undefined and GreenGhost74@undefined keep changing the lead image. Can you two (and any other interested parties) please discuss here instead of flip-flopping the article daily. For my 2 cents, I would be happy with either image.  Stepho  talk 09:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for engaging in too many reversions, I was not aware of how BRD is supposed to work. My thinking behind replacing the lead image is to offer a better representation of the stock (factory spec) vehicle. The previous image from Nbvolks@undefined depicted a Rev3 MR2 with Rev5 MR2 wheels and turns signals, which is not representative of how the vehicle was ever sold. While I've been writing this, the lead image appears to have been changed again to a the same Rev3 MR2 with more Rev5 MR2 updates, but it also appears to have an aftermarket brake kit. My hope is just to supply a high quality image of an unmodified 100% factory-spec MR2. I would also appreciate some sort of reasons being given for why my revision keeps being reverted. GreenGhost74 (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * GreenGhost's image seems best to me, but it is always hard to claim impartiality about one's own photo, presumably of one's own car. But the blingy black photo is not so good.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The white image or the first black image are both fine by me. The white image has aftermarket wheels and the black image is slightly harder to make out details of the body lines - I could live with either. But that last black shiny image has way too many reflections - I can barely make out any of the body line details (esp. around the side gills).  Stepho  talk 09:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The white image actually depicts the car with the stock 1993 wheels. The paint on the center caps is a little worn, but they're stock. I really just wanted to supply a nice, high quality image of an unmodified SW20 MR2 for the article. I'm not very partial to it being a photo of my car, as I don't even intend to keep my MR2 completely stock much longer. That said, I'm considering completely photoshopping out the license plate in the photo and re uploading it to better showcase the car. GreenGhost74 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * [EDIT] I went ahead and tried photoshopping the plate out, and I personally think it makes for a better photo. GreenGhost74 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * My preference is to leave the number plate in - more indicative of what we see on the street. But it doesn't bother me much either way.  Stepho  talk 22:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with Stepho on this one, that's how the majority of cars look, after all. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, makes sense to me. GreenGhost74 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure the image you uploaded is your own? It look like it you photographed it from some 90s magazine or publicity shot. The recent date where it was took and the exif data, you seem to have done just that. --Vauxford (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm actually flattered that a recent photo of my car has been mistaken for a real promo shot from the 90s, because that's essentially the look I was going for. Feel free to take a look at this forum topic [link ] where I semi-frequently post photos of my car. On August 22nd 2018 I even posted two alternate shots from the same date/time/location as the photo I've uploaded to Wikipedia commons. All the best, GreenGhost74 (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Akio Yoshida
Hi I'm new to Wikipedia and am an MR2 enthusiast, I noticed that when you click on Akio Yoshida's name it brings you to a page of a Japanese soccer player. From the research I've done it seems like these are different people should this link be taken off or should a page be created for Mr. Yoshida? Thanks (Sk8kid99 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC))


 * I can't find an article about the engineer, nor do I have any information to create one. So I guess we just have to delink his name.  Stepho  talk 22:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

SARD MC8 update
Found some info on the disappearing SARD MC8 at https://shakotantoday.com/home/2019/9/14/sard-mc8

Not sure how accurate or verifiable this is but it gives us something to trace.  Stepho  talk 11:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a fan of the current lead image for the 1st gen, let's vote on it.
I wasn't a fan of the current 1st gen MR2 lead image so I changed it to the image with the second image I linked but it got reverted. Which image do you guys think is better overall? I think the composition, spec of the car and quality of the second shot overcome it having a small rope in front but what do y'all think? I'll also include 3 other alternate options as well. TKOIII (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I vote #5, but they all have problems.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added two more options (doesn't have to be red), now I vote #7.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I still vote #2 TKOIII (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added the original photo to the list of candidates.
 * 1 - not bad but has slightly distracting background.
 * 2 - has a very distracting red chain across the front and a pole centre front - awful !
 * 3 - not bad but feels claustrophobic. The kid in the green shirt in the background is a little distracting.
 * 4 - cluttered.
 * 5 - good angle, background is not too distracting. Cropped a bit tight.
 * 6 - cluttered.
 * 7 - not bad but a bit glary for the windows.
 * 8 Support - good angle, the background is distinct from the car but not distracting, no glare, no distracting people/objects.  Stepho  talk 13:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * But #8 is of the second gen? Is this regarding the main photo or just the W10 infobox? I still believe we should remove the two photos of cars with aftermarket wheels (1 and 3).  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oops, my mistake, strike out #8 - late night editing ☹️.
 * 9 is not bad but the other car in the background is mildly distracting. OEM wheels are better but aftermarket wheels don't bother me much. #5 is my new favourite.  Stepho  talk 21:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * So have we come to any sort of consensus yet? My tier list of them would have to be from best to worst: 2, 5, 7, 3, 9, 6, 4, 1 TKOIII (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No consensus so far. Your best is my worst and your worst is close to my best but 5 and 7 score high for both of us. Best to worst: 5, 7, 1, 3, 9, 4, 6, 2.  Stepho  talk 06:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm just gonna change it to 5 then since no one else seems to be chiming in here and it seems to be the most popular between us. TKOIII (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem.  Stepho  talk 10:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Production Date
The W20 was produced in Japan in December 1989, and was subsequently released to other markets (such as the USA and UK) 1990, therefore the production date of 1990 is incorrect and false information. I corrected the date but someone keeps changing it back. 82.4.137.39 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oops, that would be me. Somehow I thought your change was from 1989 to 1990 - ie, a common American move to US style model years. I have undone my bad revert. My apologies.  Stepho  talk 23:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)