Quick Maestro

The_One · 30 Jul 2007 at 19:14

Love the old maestro turbs, my mate had a red one that was standard but still felt pretty rapid :cool:

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/205338.htm

Howard · 30 Jul 2007 at 19:25

5 grand for that? Good lord

Joe T · 30 Jul 2007 at 19:46

Some of that grammar and spelling is awful!

thepharcyde · 30 Jul 2007 at 19:55

Are those rear drum breaks capable of stopping it? & yes mad price.

LewisStuart · 30 Jul 2007 at 19:55

They might be rare as hell ... but £5K!! hes proberly spent double that on it too :eek:

Lopéz · 30 Jul 2007 at 20:00

thepharcyde said:
Are those rear drum breaks capable of stopping it? & yes mad price.

Brakes. And yes, they are perfectly adequate. People really obsess over rear discs when they are generally utterly unecessary from a performance point of view. Rear discs do very little for overall braking power really.

Howard · 30 Jul 2007 at 20:01

thepharcyde said:
Are those rear drum breaks capable of stopping it? & yes mad price.

No but I'm sure the front ones are, which is kinda what matters

insane200 · 30 Jul 2007 at 20:10

that looks exactly like my mates old one.

Third Opinion · 30 Jul 2007 at 21:04

If that is an origianl MG turbo it is indeed extremely rare Tickford designed car, less than 500 made. Doesn't sound at all original to me and certainly not worth 5k.

Scania · 30 Jul 2007 at 21:56

maestro 2lt turbo 314 bhp

500bhp injectors

Give me strength! :rolleyes:

commited · 30 Jul 2007 at 22:19

Lopéz said:
Brakes. And yes, they are perfectly adequate. People really obsess over rear discs when they are generally utterly unecessary from a performance point of view. Rear discs do very little for overall braking power really.

Agree entirely.

BigglesPiP · 30 Jul 2007 at 23:27

LMAO, it's still a heap.

Top gear did a bit on them, they couldn't get it to stop in frame, it may not need rear disks, but it needs something doing with the front ones. I'm afraid the Maestro heritage shows.

JayMax · 30 Jul 2007 at 23:30

I'm easy either way on sleepers, but if I had that car I'd deliberately make it look shabby and dirty just for the fun of it.

Lopéz · 30 Jul 2007 at 23:33

BigglesPiP said:
LMAO, it's still a heap.

That would annihilate your Punto, for example, in every concievable way apart from "being liked by girls" perhaps

AmDaMan · 30 Jul 2007 at 23:43

Lopéz said:
Brakes. And yes, they are perfectly adequate. People really obsess over rear discs when they are generally utterly unecessary from a performance point of view. Rear discs do very little for overall braking power really.

Not if you take the bias valve off

R124: He probably means cc if not he means injectors good for 500BHP

Quite cool imo.

BigglesPiP · 30 Jul 2007 at 23:51

Lopéz said:
That would annihilate your Punto, for example, in every concievable way apart from "being liked by girls" perhaps

Of course it would it has a turbo, it's made for a different job, now if I had a Punto GT on the other hand the tables would be well and truly turned.

It's still a complete shed tho.

Edit: And what's wrong with girls liking your car?

Berger · 30 Jul 2007 at 23:54

Old top gear video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYB0TOVMjiU

That car is now running 281bhp/302lbft torque on Emerald R/R

now if I had a Punto GT on the other hand the tables would be well and truly turned

No, you would still get blown into the weeds, you simply wouldnt see which way it went.

I dont think you really grasp how fast 300bhp in a car which weighs very little will be, insane quick just about covers it. A Punto GT has 130-140bhp depending on the mk' which is adequate for what it is, but its not in the same league as the maestro turbo, even a standard one nevermind one with a full engine transplant thats been worked on.

BigglesPiP · 30 Jul 2007 at 23:59

Berger said:
No, you would still get blown into the weeds, you simply wouldnt see which way it went.

How d'you figure?

Despite having more peak power and being lighter the MG Maestro is only fractionally quicker to 60. Good ol' wide FIAT power band.

Plus a Punto GT can actually stop, and change direction.

Berger · 31 Jul 2007 at 00:04

BigglesPiP said:
How d'you figure?

Despite having more peak power and being lighter the Maestro is only fractionally quicker to 60. Good ol' wide FIAT power band.

Plus a Punto GT can actually stop, and change direction.

Performance facts and characteristics:

Punto Stats:

Engine Position: 4 cylinders in line, fitted transversally
Capacity: 1372 cc

Max power: 136 HP at 5750 rpm (1st series)
Max power: 133 HP at 5750 rpm (2nd series)
Max power: 130 HP at 5600 rpm (3rd series)
Torque: 204 Nm at 3000 rpm
Tyres 185/55 R14

Consumption At 90 kmh: 6.1 l/100 km

Performance Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 7.9 seconds

Ok then Maestro Turbo stats.

Well the 2L engine is dropped in from the later Rover 220 turbo, which as standard was ~6.5 seconds to 60, 200bhp, 175lb/ft, 150mph and 1150kg.

Then the maestro above has over 100bhp more, torque to match, fully worked on to get it there, lighter than the rover turbo.

At a guess it would do 0-60 in mid 5's depending on traction and just not give up pulling until redline in just about every gear.

BigglesPiP · 31 Jul 2007 at 00:08

Not faster enough to blow a GT away. Despite it's 600cc advantage. Give me a B road.

I don't care about the tuned one, you can tune a Punto too, up to about 1.85bar of boost.

Edit: Nearly forgot, It's still a dustbin of a car. BL at it's worst.