89 MX-6 GT Turbo tell me about them

Hey guys,

I keep seeing this car on eBay,and it has got my attention. It looks to be in decent shape if not a bit overpriced,but cool none the less. What is this engine? It doesn't look to be a DOHC like in a Protege,GTX,or Miata,but maybe it is a different version of the same basic engine design. Is this one of those cars that when one of teh unique parts breaks the owner is SOL? Too much of a hassle for what it is?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/MX-6-GTs-4WS-TURBO-1-OWNER-ADULT-OWNED-ALL-ORIGINAL-CT-/260651833038?pt=US_Cars_Trucks

Chris

calling 93celicaGT2...93celicaGT2 please come in!

all I know is hearsay, but basically I know that with some ECU work, stock components can make stoopitpowah

In reply to Mazdax605: Wikipedia says it's similar to the Mazda B-Series truck motors. Therefore I would guess you can find parts.

Your engine code is F2T. Your car is mechanically identical to a Ford Probe of the same generation.

You can still get parts for it, and the bonus is that they're pretty cheap. They're EXTREMELY simple to work on, tons of room in the bay and otherwise.

That car is HUGELY overpriced, and i'm not convinced that it has 4WS, either, despite saying it does, and the sticker. To the best of my knowledge only the 626 GTs over here got 4wd, but i've been wrong before.

And as 4cylinderfury alluded to, you can go REAL fast in a hurry for cheap.

Intake, Evo 8 fmic setup (~$200), full 3" exhaust, boost controller, and a chipped ECU and you're looking at easy 13 second quarter miles, and more torque than you'll know what to do with. (As in.... 300wtq.)

The motors are damn near bulletproof. The seats are amazing. They handle decently, but it's nothing to write home about. They're great cruisers, and also great for destroying egos of pretty much any rice burner you'll come across.

I paid $900 for mine, and i'm currently still under the magic $2000 mark. I would expect it to break into the 12s in the quarter mile despite spinning all the way to the 1/8th mile mark. Stock, unopened 176k mile 20 year old motor.

Here's an example with a pretty simple setup: 50 trim turbo, lots of fuel, 2.5" exhaust, external wastegate, and megasquirt. STOCK UNOPENED 200K MILE MOTOR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MdRsu5ZA6M

Yeah. You saw that right. 458wtq.

I remember the turbo Probe a little better, but I really don't recall the Mazda with 4WS. That was a fad in the early 90's, Honda added it to the Prelude, Nissan had it on a few cars, and apparently Mazda tried it too. Lot's of technology packed into one car, pretty cool.

93celicaGT2 wrote: ...expect it to break into the 12s in the quarter mile despite spinning all the way to the 1/8th mile mark...

Thus the Achilles Heel of that model - open differential plus tons of torque equals huge wheelspin, especially in an autocross situation.

They didn't have rear wheel steering, but they did have Mazda's twin trapezoidal link independent rear supension that gave it some passive rear steering. They made the front bushings softer than the rear bushings, which caused it to toe in slightly under side loading. That way you could set the rear toe at zero or slightly out to give it a quick initial turn-in, then let it toe in a bit under load to keep it from oversteering.

This worked fine with street tires, but when you put R-compound rubber on it, the front bushings would bottom out hard and break traction on the rears, causing snap oversteer. Between that and the wheelspin, it's quite a handful to autocross.

I had an '88. Even stock, the torque steer is enormous.

pinchvalve wrote: I remember the turbo Probe a little better, but I really don't recall the Mazda with 4WS. That was a fad in the early 90's, Honda added it to the Prelude, Nissan had it on a few cars, and apparently Mazda tried it too. Lot's of technology packed into one car, pretty cool.

Other interesting technology present in that car:

1) Factory subwoofer mounted underneath the passenger seat
2) Oscillating center air vents. WIN!!!!!
3) In-cabin Electronically adjustable suspension. Modifies the dampening. YEARS ago there was a popular "hack" where you could mess with the actuators at the top of the strut to the point that they could actually lower the car with it.

jstein77 wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: ...expect it to break into the 12s in the quarter mile despite spinning all the way to the 1/8th mile mark...

Thus the Achilles Heel of that model - open differential plus tons of torque equals huge wheelspin, especially in an autocross situation. They didn't have rear wheel steering, but they did have Mazda's twin trapezoidal link independent rear supension that gave it some passive rear steering. They made the front bushings softer than the rear bushings, which caused it to toe in slightly under side loading. That way you could set the rear toe at zero or slightly out to give it a quick initial turn-in, then let it toe in a bit under load to keep it from oversteering. This worked fine with street tires, but when you put R-compound rubber on it, the front bushings would bottom out hard and break traction on the rears, causing snap oversteer. Between that and the wheelspin, it's quite a handful to autocross.

Agreed for the most part.

The torque is something that has to be felt to be believed. I don't think i've driven another FWD that has the insane torque-feeling of this thing. Even from factory, they were rated at 145hp and 190tq. It was later found that these are in fact ratings TO THE WHEELS, and most cars will actually crack 200ftlbs to the wheels if you strap them to a dyno.

As for autocrossing one?

Well....

http://www.mx6.com/forums/1g-mx6-other-performance/209716-gavins-1st-gen-mx6-dsp-autocross-build.html

http://www.mx6.com/forums/gallery/232274-my-summer-vacation-what-i-learned-lincoln-ne.html

http://www.mx6.com/forums/1g-mx6-other-performance/52979-gavins-all-out-suspension-mods.html

And there's plenty more threads out there on this particular car. Go to MX6.com and search for threads started by "Gavin."

I loved my '88 626 turbo, easy to service, all around great save for mine eating transmissions and the torque steer was massive. I gutted the cat after it started to clog and I put a drop-in K&N air filter in the thing, otherwise it was completely stock and it still embarrassed a number of people at the lights. Plus it would regularly pull 32 to 35 mpg on highway runs, my best being 40 mpg on a four hour run across KS.

It's one of those cars that still makes me wonder why the kids went to Hondas in the 90's.

In reply to pres589: Prolly cause a new Honda Civic in 1991 was cheap and a Mazda MX6 was closer to BMW prices.

MrBenjamonkey wrote: In reply to pres589: Prolly cause a new Honda Civic in 1991 was cheap and a Mazda MX6 was closer to BMW prices.

91 Civic Si = $10,470
91 MX6 GT = $16,715

These cars did indeed have a rear steering rack if you ordered the "right", I'm glad mine didn't have that since I never felt like the thing wouldn't rotate properly (growing up on rock roads, this thing taught me how to get the tail out by getting off the throttle, tap the brakes, then back on the throttle at speeds I considered safe) and I believe their unobtanium at this point. Mine also lacked ABS and the digital dash. Basically the perfect grouping of options with a sunroof.

93celicaGT2 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: In reply to pres589: Prolly cause a new Honda Civic in 1991 was cheap and a Mazda MX6 was closer to BMW prices.

91 Civic Si = $10,470 91 MX6 GT = $16,715

91 E30 = 18,210

I'm not knocking the MX6 GT, I'm just pointing out its a much higher end car than a Civic, Sentra or Celica.

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

MrBenjamonkey wrote: In reply to pres589: Prolly cause a new Honda Civic in 1991 was cheap and a Mazda MX6 was closer to BMW prices.

91 Civic Si = $10,470 91 MX6 GT = $16,715

91 E30 = 18,210 I'm not knocking the MX6 GT, I'm just pointing out its a much higher end car than a Civic, Sentra or Celica.

I know what you meant, i was just posting the prices because i found them interesting.

Though i would argue the Celica.

Top of the line MX6 is the GT = $16,715

Hell, the 91 Celica GT was $15,388, and there was more models to go UP.

91 Celica GTS = $17,518
91 Celica GT Convertible = $19,998
91 Celica AllTrac = $21,508

I do have to be brutally honest: The Celica is a better car, even if it isn't as fast in a straight line.

What is a fair price on this car assuming(and that is a big assumption) that it does not have any rot on it,and it does in fact have the 4WS? I am pretty sure it has the 4WS as I don't think the seller would go into all that detail about an option it didn't have. I love that it has a normal insrument cluster. As cool as the digital is, I just imagine it is a nightmare if,and when it quits working.

So the engine is not related in any way to the GTX,Protege,Miata aside from they are from the same company?

Fancy electronic suspension,and rear rack are unobtanium at this point as well? Maybe this isn't a good buy at all.

Mazdax605 wrote: What is a fair price on this car assuming(and that is a big assumption) that it does not have any rot on it,and it does in fact have the 4WS? I am pretty sure it has the 4WS as I don't think the seller would go into all that detail about an option it didn't have. I love that it has a normal insrument cluster. As cool as the digital is, I just imagine it is a nightmare if,and when it quits working. So the engine is not related in any way to the GTX,Protege,Miata aside from they are from the same company? Fancy electronic suspension,and rear rack are unobtanium at this point as well? Maybe this isn't a good buy at all.

Surprisingly, the digital clusters are pretty reliable, believe it or not.

I'd say fair price would be $2000. $2500 at best simply because you're in New England and this car doesn't look like it's about to return to earth.

I don't think there's a lot of the 4ws parts around anymore, there's a reason everyone on the forums stockpiles those parts. That said, i don't think it's a huge job to convert over to the standard stuff, either.

And no, the engine isn't related. ALTHOUGH: Wherever you can stick a BP (1.8 DOHC), you can fit an F2T for the most part.

The F2T is a 7.8:1 compression SOHC 12v motor. It's a dinosaur. A STRONG dinosaur, but a dinosaur.

93celicaGT2 wrote: And no, the engine isn't related. ALTHOUGH: Wherever you can stick a BP (1.8 DOHC), you can fit an F2T for the most part. The F2T is a 7.8:1 compression SOHC 12v motor. It's a dinosaur. A STRONG dinosaur, but a dinosaur.

That would make for an interesting GTX or Miata. Imagine a Miata with 300 lb ft ...

MrBenjamonkey wrote: That would make for an interesting GTX or Miata. Imagine a Miata with 300 lb ft ...

Doesn't Keith have like 12 of those?

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: And no, the engine isn't related. ALTHOUGH: Wherever you can stick a BP (1.8 DOHC), you can fit an F2T for the most part. The F2T is a 7.8:1 compression SOHC 12v motor. It's a dinosaur. A STRONG dinosaur, but a dinosaur.

That would make for an interesting GTX or Miata. Imagine a Miata with 300 lb ft ...

What do you think i'm doing with mine when/if i crash it or the rest of the car disintegrates around the motor? It'll either go in a Miata, a B2200, or an FC RX7.

It always amused me where Mazda "hid" some of their strongest motors.

I've always thought that engine with the 5spd and some light mods (200 bhp?) would be sweet in my MPV. I may have to try that someday.

Something to remember is that the Mazda F motor is considered the "big block" of Mazda four cylinder engines, and started out life as a diesel, so the longevity (especially at such low factory boost and compression levels) shouldn't be surprising.

And comparing an MX-6 Turbo to a Celica... that seems kind of odd. I can't really see how the Celica could be considered "the better car" if you can forget about the difference in aftermarket parts support and improvements available. Even beyond my biases against the H-type trans I think I would rather have an MX-6 or 626 in my driveway vs. a tin top Celica.

pres589 wrote: Something to remember is that the Mazda F motor is considered the "big block" of Mazda four cylinder engines, and started out life as a diesel, so the longevity (especially at such low factory boost and compression levels) shouldn't be surprising. And comparing an MX-6 Turbo to a Celica... that seems kind of odd. I can't really see how the Celica could be considered "the better car" if you can forget about the difference in aftermarket parts support and improvements available. Even beyond my biases against the H-type trans I think I would rather have an MX-6 or 626 in my driveway vs. a tin top Celica.

Handles better, ergonomics are better, brakes better, just as bulletproof, interior holds up better, percieved build quality is higher, and it's sexier.

Of course, most of those could be subjective. I was mostly just replying to the statement that the MX6 is in another class, illustrating that it's really not.

I happen to have both a Celica and MX6 of the same generation as the 91 example. It's hard to compare the two, honestly. The MX6 would be the lumbering "muscle car" and the Celica would be the equivalent of the Miata.

But even with the pitiful aftermarket... you wanna go REAL fast for cheap and Celica and MX6 are your choices? MX6 all the way.

Yeah now i want one...

driver109x wrote: Yeah now i want one...

Get one! You can find them for cheap everywhere, including the 1g Probe GT variant.

There's a VERY clean 1g probe GT in Louisville for $1000.

GET IT. (I wish i could justify buying it right now.)

http://louisville.craigslist.org/cto/1878578727.html