Look to Buy an Na supra, advice please

[TubbyTwo]

Hi Guys,

 

firstly great forum

 

anyways im looking to move to an NA supra, and would just like to know a bit about them really. Im new to Supras so would like to start out NA and learn to drive it before going the TT route.

 

just after info on how they drive, specs, different models, mpgs, whp etc

 

im currently driving a 92 MR2 Turbo which is great fun, but im looking for somthing with more presence on the roads

 

any info would be greatly appreciated

 

thanks

 

Si

[Daston]

First point is I would go and test drive a TT as the NA will feel a lot slower than your tubby, I went from a NA MR2 to a NA supra and a year on I am craving more power

[TubbyTwo]

ok mate thanks i was considering the TT to start with but its going to be a daily driver so i figured the NA might not be so bad on fuel, insurance on both is not a problem either for some reason im the cheapest i can get insured on the MR2 turbo is £1k FC, whereas i can get insured on a TT supra for less than £600 a year fc. doesnt really make sense , but im not gonna argue

 

basically i need it to get me to work and back which is roughly 20 miles a day, now im currently doing £45 a week in fuel in the MR2 and have been told an NA supra would be about the same, not sure how true this is.

 

thanks

 

Si

[miko_supra]

tt supra will be less on insurance if it is a uk spec one. Your mr2 is more as it's an import. As many will say, fuel consumption difference between the n/a and TT is pretty much nil. If you can afford petrol on a n/a then you can with a TT. if i were you i would deffinatly go for a TT. with the market being so good at the moment, you can be spoilt for choice and get a good bargain.

[SuperSupra]

My brother has, well had an MR2 turbo but he had to get rid cos it was too much on fuel. Also the difference between the 2 in terms of performance is not that great. Sure there's no turbo, but with a few mods you can be into the low 6's 0-60 - still very quick!

 

Fuel consumption is great in mine, full tank does around 300 miles, or slightly more with long motorway journeys, I believe it's a 65 litre tank, may be wrong though.

 

Power wise, MR2 is 240bhp if I remember correctly, N/A Soop is 225bhp standard. Still plenty, and with the looks you get, you'll have something you don't already have with your MR2. Hey it sounds like I'm selling an N/A doesn't it!

 

Amazing to drive as well mate, cockpit like dash gets noticed by people all the time. BUY ONE!

[SuperSupra]

People always talk about "Oh mate get a TT not an N/A...." blah blah blah. Have to remember guys, not everyone wants one, or can afford the extra 3-4k for a decent TT.

[TubbyTwo]

thanks guys keep it comming :-)

[JonW]

I keep reading that the MPH is not that different between the N/A and the TT. Surely this can't be true. If you go for the higher powered TT then I assume it's because you want to use more power. More power = more fuel. So if I am heavy footed in my N/A surely I will use a lot less fuel than someone that is heavy footed in a TT....................am I missing something:search:

[mattanna]

ok mate thanks i was considering the TT to start with but its going to be a daily driver so i figured the NA might not be so bad on fuel, insurance on both is not a problem either for some reason im the cheapest i can get insured on the MR2 turbo is £1k FC, whereas i can get insured on a TT supra for less than £600 a year fc. doesnt really make sense , but im not gonna argue

 

basically i need it to get me to work and back which is roughly 20 miles a day, now im currently doing £45 a week in fuel in the MR2 and have been told an NA supra would be about the same, not sure how true this is.thanks

 

Si

I do 32 miles a day in a tt aristo on less than £40/week and same when i had my n/a. Average fuel consumption is only a difference of about 3 mpg(combined fig), if you were on boost all the time you would use more fuel, but you probably won't be especially if it's raining, n/a's use a lot of fuel if you cain them also.

[TubbyTwo]

thanks mattanna, mine is overfueling a bit at the moment, needs a new lambda me thinks, plus is got a few mods, 1.2bar boost, intercooler, downpipe, intake, exhasut. the usual really. most i have ever seen from a full tank was 287 miles.

 

whats are they like to drive around town out of interest? both NA and TT. thankfully i mostly do motorway miles so it shouldnt be too bad then by the sounds of it.

[dangerous brain]

A manual N/A is easier and cheaper to buy than a TT version for those that prefer manuals.

[lust2luv]

Some NAs come without ABS (that's a bad thing).

All NAs come without traction control (that's a good thing).

 

I've had 350+ miles from a tank when driving motorways / A roads. I reckon 400 is possible if you can really resist hitting the loud pedal (which incidentally is louder in an NA than a TT).

 

[dangerous brain]

Some NAs come without ABS (that's a bad thing).

All NAs come without traction control (that's a good thing).

 

I've had 350+ miles from a tank when driving motorways / A roads. I reckon 400 is possible if you can really resist hitting the loud pedal (which incidentally is louder in an NA than a TT).

 

 

MMM some "real hardcore" drivers reckon ABS is a bad thing and that "they" can brake better without it, but some N/A's do indeed come with ABS also with 6 speed boxes. N/A's seem to be holding their value a bit better than TT's at the mo. If you want bone stock an N/A is a better bet as most TT's have some sort of tweak but if you want a car someone else has spent a fortune on then a TT is gonna win. An N/A with no traction is just as likely if not more likely to bite the hand that feeds it than a TT with RLTC

 

For me having had both cars the last of which was a BPU+++ TT I just don't feel quick in an N/A regardless of how quick it actually is. The MK3 I now have is probably speed and uptake similar to the N/A but as its turbo charged it feels quicker.

[Dave]

i think the n/a is less likely to have things go wrong than the tt

look in the tech section and see how many posts there are for tt

i am not saying there unreliable but they got more bits to go wrong .plus if youve got twin tubbies your gonna use em .i ve had my n/a for two years and had no probs at all .n/a is the better choice for a daily driver.but like all n/a owners a year down the road youll want a tt or a visit to turbofit.

[squiffy]

i think the n/a is less likely to have things go wrong than the tt

look in the tech section and see how many posts there are for tt

i am not saying there unreliable but they got more bits to go wrong .plus if youve got twin tubbies your gonna use em .i ve had my n/a for two years and had no probs at all .n/a is the better choice for a daily driver.but like all n/a owners a year down the road youll want a tt or a visit to turbofit.

 

i have had my manual n/a about 5 months, it handles great but just lacks the power, it is a quick car at the end of the day but doesnt really feel it,

im now looking for a tt now!!

[CardiffSupra]

Obviously if you can aford it go for a TT if not its a n/a. Welcome and good luck fella

 

Don't forget its much easyer to mod a TT with bpu(400bhp ish) where as with a n/a you won't be able to find much more power

[Whitesupraboy2]

I was happy with my NA for 3 yrs and i only got my TT because it was a special one. I was happy with the power, it was a great daily driver and very reliable. The difference between the TT and NA in running costs is quite a bit. It has shocked me and theres only one reason why... you cant help make the turbos come online and get the power. With my NA i could happily put foot down (not all time) and not have to worry about mpg dropping loads.

 

Both would be a reliable daily runner, it is totally up to you whether you mind not having amazing power. By sounds of it your wanting some road present but a daily driver which is reasonable to run.

 

By way i have an NA for sale

[twijesiri]

HI Mate

 

I am also quite new to all this. I had my NA about 14 days, and am loving it. it is true to say that the NA doesn't feel faster of the lights. but once it gets going it pretty mean.

 

now I went for the NA cus I thought fuel economy would be better, not really true unless you have a heavy foot. In that case the TT drinks . Second the insurance was a little better on the NA. but the main reason was the price you can pick up a good for around 5k 6k, but tts you are looking at 8k easy. remember servicing, my local garage doesn’t wont to touch a TT and they are honest about it. At least the NA is a simple engine.

 

Having said all that I think the NA is a great every day car and I would probably say the TT to, but I think we all like to put our foot down when we get behind that wheel and its that, that will cost you.

 

I would go for TT if you afford it, but if you cant an NA is a great way of owning a supra and in any case there’s a place in Milton Keynes that does an NA turbo conversion.

 

Sean

[dangerous brain]

Run an N/A for a bit and watch the TT prices fall some more. Then sell it and go TT

[mattanna]

Run an N/A for a bit and watch the TT prices fall some more. Then sell it and go TT

 

I agree with dangerous, n/a is fine and a good tutor, once past 3000 rpm they really feel good, and are good around town, do not discount the auto's the box is awesome and unlike any other auto i have driven

[CardiffSupra]

The white ones are the fastest btw mate. Good luck

[TubbyTwo]

Thanks for the help chaps, i have driven a TT and it was a weapon! but im thinking i will go NA first and learn how the car handles etc, much the same as i did with my MR2, i started off NA.

 

thanks again for the help chaps, already been reading through the for sale section on here!

 

Si

[dangerous brain]

If you are prepared to travel you will find a nice one. I can't imagine there being as many over in east anglia as there is on the south coast. I can definitely tell you the one WSB2 has for sale is a very nice well looked after motor. Mine is OK I guess but given the choice between the two I'd honestly buy his (sooner his sells the sooner mine will lol)

[Twin Turbo Jim]

tt supra will be less on insurance if it is a uk spec one. Your mr2 is more as it's an import. As many will say, fuel consumption difference between the n/a and TT is pretty much nil. If you can afford petrol on a n/a then you can with a TT. if i were you i would deffinatly go for a TT. with the market being so good at the moment, you can be spoilt for choice and get a good bargain.

 

Ive got both a n/a and a manual tt. The n/a is brilliant on fuel and a full tank can easily last me 2 weeks but the tt drinks it, a full tank might last a week and i drive them both the same, fast and hard.

[supra-lover]

hang on one moment people,,,,,just a thought here,,, if the TT didn't exist you would think the n/a was a very fast car!!!!! am i rite???