Forget the snap oversteer, these early ones handle the best (like an MR should)!!

Very nice though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wiz
Ha-ha---then why do so many owners do mods to reduce the snap oversteer on the earlier models?

---

Because they are poor drivers who are not used to typical mid-engined handling characteristics and are scared of "sudden" and "unpredicatable" oversteer (i.e. "snap" oversteer). I take my car through the hills at pace frequently and have never ever experienced anything out of the ordinary - its what Toyota intended the car to do. I do have uprated suspension (Eibach + Koni) and tyres (215s and 225s 17s) which does help though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wiz
The later ones in turbo and n/a had their suspension factory improved

---

Your definition of "improved" and mine, obviously, differ.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wiz
safer and handle a hell of a lot better than the earlier models IMO.

---

If you mean safer as in more understeer then yes. More understeer is safer for a novice driver - and trust me I still almost killed myself in a Camry!!

-"The only 93-on I drove, handled like crap. It understeered a lot and my modified Integra could outhandle it."
hahahahahaha!

I beg to differ:

-"With an experienced driver the '91 has better rold holding capabilities. With its shorter arms, the car is VERY responsive to all movements. It is ADVANTAGEOUS to have control over the rear-end in or out. In corners the '91 holds MUCH, MUCH harder than a comparably set up '93 suspension if IF you keep the gas on. Let up once and the tail will wake you up and tap you on the shoulder. My feelings with the '93 is that for the general public the suspension changes were an improvement. SCCA drivers typically drive the '91-92 models if they have a choice. I feel Toyota made the car to fit the vision of a production racer. Realizing the general public needs saftey built into their cars (because they aren't competent enough drivers) Toyota made the suspension changes."

-"The tendancy for the back end to break loose before the front is what makes the 91 and 92 real driver's cars."

-"The nay-sayers of the 91-92 MR2 have never really driven one hard. It requires a special finesse that rewards a skilled driver."

This puts me off ever buying a later model but each to their own. I invite you to follow me through the hills in your standard 1997.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MRTurbo

quote:

---

Originally posted by wiz
Ha-ha---then why do so many owners do mods to reduce the snap oversteer on the earlier models?

---

Because they are poor drivers who are not used to typical mid-engined handling characteristics and are scared of "sudden" and "unpredicatable" oversteer (i.e. "snap" oversteer). I take my car through the hills at pace frequently and have never ever experienced anything out of the ordinary - its what Toyota intended the car to do. I do have uprated suspension (Eibach + Koni) and tyres (215s and 225s 17s) which does help though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wiz
The later ones in turbo and n/a had their suspension factory improved

---

Your definition of "improved" and mine, obviously, differ.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wiz
safer and handle a hell of a lot better than the earlier models IMO.

---

If you mean safer as in more understeer then yes. More understeer is safer for a novice driver - and trust me I still almost killed myself in a Camry!!

-"The only 93-on I drove, handled like crap. It understeered a lot and my modified Integra could outhandle it."
hahahahahaha!

I beg to differ:

-"With an experienced driver the '91 has better rold holding capabilities. With its shorter arms, the car is VERY responsive to all movements. It is ADVANTAGEOUS to have control over the rear-end in or out. In corners the '91 holds MUCH, MUCH harder than a comparably set up '93 suspension if IF you keep the gas on. Let up once and the tail will wake you up and tap you on the shoulder. My feelings with the '93 is that for the general public the suspension changes were an improvement. SCCA drivers typically drive the '91-92 models if they have a choice. I feel Toyota made the car to fit the vision of a production racer. Realizing the general public needs saftey built into their cars (because they aren't competent enough drivers) Toyota made the suspension changes."

-"The tendancy for the back end to break loose before the front is what makes the 91 and 92 real driver's cars."

-"The nay-sayers of the 91-92 MR2 have never really driven one hard. It requires a special finesse that rewards a skilled driver."

This puts me off ever buying a later model but each to their own. I invite you to follow me through the hills in your standard 1997.

---

My '97 was an n/a not a turbo so you should win but I would be careful making challenges like that as a few forum members who know me would attest to.
In any case I am not talking about '93 SW20's. The later models I am referring to are the '96 + ones which had Bilstein shocks as Bionkil suggests. And the mods you have done to your car would certainly make a difference.
I would agree that the earlier ones certainly were drivers cars but how many of us want to risk spinning out every time we take a corner at excessive speed. I would suggest that there are not many drivers who are confident of correcting snap oversteer when it occurs so why flirt with danger?

On topic... this car looks great! Can't wait to turbo mine!

quote:

---

Originally posted by wiz



My '97 was an n/a not a turbo so you should win but I would be careful making challenges like that as a few forum members who know me would attest to.
In any case I am not talking about '93 SW20's. The later models I am referring to are the '96 + ones which had Bilstein shocks as Bionkil suggests. And the mods you have done to your car would certainly make a difference.
I would agree that the earlier ones certainly were drivers cars but how many of us want to risk spinning out every time we take a corner at speed. I would suggest that there are not many drivers who are confident of correcting snap oversteer when it occurs so why flirt with danger?

---

Being a turbo mine would also be heavier but this is not a "power" debate. An n/a of equivalent year, in the right hands, should keep up to a turbo on a relatively flat road.

I would agree that Bilstein shocks would be far better than “Toyota” shocks from 1993.

I am not denying that having decent shocks and springs (+tyres) makes a HUGE difference to the handling of my car. The original suspension on the car after 20 years would be outright scary!

You wont be risking spinning out at taking a corner at speed, unless you go into a corner at an insane speed (which would be dangerous in any car). When I first got mine I took it for a drive in the rain with really bad tyres and yes the back did let go on occasion, but it was pretty predictable and easy to control especially with the throttle.

I do admit I have a lot of respect for the car and its characteristics and never push it to the point where it could potentially be dangerous or unpredictable. The previous owner did give me some tips on how to handle the car before I bought it which also helps! I am confident in correcting oversteer but not snap oversteer because I feel that “unexpected” and “sudden” oversteer does not exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wiz

You obviously know the characteristics of the car and how to predict the handling which is a good thing, but unfortunately there are a lot of guys who have no idea and are not prepared to get used to the way these cars handle before pushing them regardless of year. When I first got my '91 n/a I made the mistake at throwing it too hard into a corner and I can assure you that I certainly experienced 'snap oversteer'. I have had extensive track experience with all sorts of cars and there was no way I could prevent it doing 180 degrees.
As you say once you learn how the car behaves you should not have a problem.
Maybe that's why Toyota made the handling more 'subtle' in the later models.

---

Knowing the characteristics of the car did not happen overnight and I was well aware of the stigma surrounding the early models handling traits. This obviously was always was in the back of my mind from when I first turned the key in this fantastic car (and still is!).

Obviously throwing any car into a corner will often resulting in “plough understeer” or “snap” oversteer as some might call it or an mixture of both! All are bad. I guess from your experience, once the weight in the back is already moving you probably backed off the throttle and the thing kept moving in that same direction, thus 180 degrees. Can happen to anyone and would take a leap of faith and a lot of balls to keep the throttle nailed in an attempt to bring it back again!

I think Toyota made the handling more “subtle” in the later models to make it safer for average drivers pushing beyond theirs and the cars limits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MRTurbo
I think Toyota made the handling more “subtle” in the later models to make it safer for average drivers pushing beyond theirs and the cars limits.

---

There's no "thinking" needed, the reason for the changes was well publicised at the time they were made. Many motoring journos came unstuck in the SW20 and soon proclaimed it an unsafe car, prompting Toyota to "dumb down" the handling. Now journos are not the greatest of drivers, the opinions of experienced drivers were somewhat different.

The AW11 was the first affordable car that could consistently generate over 1G of lateral cornering force in its showroom form, and the SW20 followed this trait. The SW20's looks made it a MUCH more popular car, and therefore it ended up in the hands of many drivers that couldn't handle it.

Bottom line is the early SW20 and AW11 handle like true mid engined sports cars, the later SW20s don't. If you think the later ones are better you're simply not driving them properly.