Guest mikes Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Hi Can anyone enlighten me as to the 0-60 of the Supra Auto (non turbo) Supra Auto (Twin Turbo) Supra Manual (non turbo) and the Supra Manual (Twin Turbo) please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishman Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 supra manual 0-60 around 4.9 seconds... (turbo) non-turbo is around 6-6.5 seconds ive heard... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul372 Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 i think twinturbo auto 0-60 is 5.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mikes Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Nice, well I think opting for a Twin Turbo is a bit over ambitious with my budget and I've seen some really nice non turbo's and wondered if they'd satisfy my lust. I'd just like to know it's not slower than my Rover 220 tomcat...which its not!!! Stop laughing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkTheBoy Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Nice, well I think opting for a Twin Turbo is a bit over ambitious with my budget and I've seen some really nice non turbo's and wondered if they'd satisfy my lust. I'd just like to know it's not slower than my Rover 220 tomcat...which its not!!! Stop laughing I'd go TT Auto if you have to compromise, its got manual mode for the spirited moments and the 'go' when you need it (or want it ) An N/A would still be a lovely car but i'd be kicking myself if id got one instead of my TT. I always wanted a 6sp TT, just like everyone else and just like almost everyone else I had to compromise. I'd rather have supra power and supra looks instead of a clutch and a chav whooping my ass in a focus. All imo of course, try a few and see what you think. Happy hunting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez_p Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 mikes, speak to one of our members called Steb He recently made the move from a Rover 220 Coupe turbo (also modified too) to a manual twin turbo & he was not disappointed Common reasons i've heard for choosing an N/A over a TT are insurance costs, fuel costs or actual price of purchasing one. If you can afford each of these then i'd recommend the TT, since most of us still end up trying to make those go faster after a short while!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmark Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 i think twinturbo auto 0-60 is 5.1 Well I got my Auto TT BPU to 5.14 (using a G-meter) with no fcd so could not floor it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wez_p Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Well I got my Auto TT BPU to 5.14 (using a G-meter) with no fcd so could not floor it. i think this is the stock statistic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mas Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 I'd just like to know it's not slower than my Rover 220 tomcat...which its not!!! Stop laughing You kidding right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Restorer Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Someone correct me if I'm wrong but officail stock figures for the UK car were 4.5s for the manual and 4.9s for the auto. With the manual though, the driver would need to do a spot on gear change to get that figure. The auto, well it does it itself and has much larger ratios, which helps it in the 1/4 mile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mikes Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Thanks for your feedback people, I think Marktheboy hit a nerve saying i'd always regret getting an N/A as I have an N/A coupe as opposed to the turbo, although its in a different league to the supra I'm sure u can relate the my point which is, its so so much faster and that does get to me lol If im honest I want to make an ultimate point in 'one-up-manship' as my cousin has a escort cosworth and I dont like Fords, so my options are... to like Fords... nah ur alright! Get a suburu impreza... what, like every chav in every town centre? Get a mitsi, wouldnt say no to a IV but then i'd always want a V or a VI and if i had either of them i'd always want a newer one etc so on and so on and Hondas, as great as they are, arent punchy enough, plus my favourite video is 'Getaway in Stockholm' featuring the Supra and the Escort Cosworth and I just want a car that amazing lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boombastictiger Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 The ONLY reason I never got a TT was because of insurance costs AT THE TIME....I always wanted the turbo The Na is a great car....great engine, smooth power....and yeah it is fast...I love my na to bits.. Ill be really hounest and realistic... In the na expect the Clio sports, ford st, civic type r's etc etc to easily keep up with you and sometimes beat you... IN a TT you can really be playing with the big guns (ferrari lambos etc)..and beating them however like I said the na is an amazing car...its engine is great, and is level with most 3.0l cars like the BMW 330c, a few jags etc...You will and can have alot of fun i nthe supra, but it will never WOW you like a TT Its down to you...do you want POWER or SUPER POWER? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mikes Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 OK so say i went for a manual TT, there's a couple of cheaper alternatives 300zx and RX7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayixer Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 I think you will find the insurance is about the same for the TT as for the N/A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letmeshowyou Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 insurance was more expensive for my N/A than my TT (and a lot of people find that too) so you can possibly rule insurance costs out. Also, since I've changed my lambda sensor, my TT is WAY better on fuel than my N/A was. I don't see running costs being a major issue, more so purchase price in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChin Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Insurance does go on the diserability to be stolen or modified, and how many claims it has had in the age group when you insure. Im 20 years old, been driving since september last year, my insurance for the supra was £1600 fully comp, bit high you might say but considering a MKIII Golf GTI was the same. It's all about the insurance risk of the car, the car is a UK, not an import. Another factor you have to think about when purchasing, yes the imports are cheaper, usually come with more bits to play with but the insurance is a stinger. Oh and while on the insurance factor, a R5 GTTurbo was £3499 fully comp for a 1.4 turd!! It all depends on how much you are willing to spend, not in your wallet but in your heart. I'd say never compromise, if you have a car now and cant afford it now, keep the car you have and save up so that when you do want to buy a supra you're in a better financial situation, nothing has to be NOW NOW NOW. And with a supra, finding one is bloody hard. They're are the ones out there that you look at and think, ooh i like that you think i can get that for £11,000. It's only when people are in financial difficulty that you get truly fantastic cars for rock-bottom prices. Keep on looking, don't go for the 300SX. Very lump cars with a twitchy back-end and only pushing 280bhp when it came out the factory. RX-7's are lovely cars and a true delight to drive, small and very nifty cars, used mostly in the drift scene but again a nice car to drive. For an RX-7 it depends on exactly what one you get, like most performance cars, especially the supra the big thing is to go single. You'll see alot of single RX-7s on Pistonheads and Gaybay for less than £10,000 but the mileage might be high, you pay for what you get. If UK TT Manuals were less than £10,000 with very good mileage, this club would be called the MKIV Manual UK TT Owners Club.... Oh and for the RX-7, the fact about it being an import also hinders the fact of cheaper insurance for those younger! That's my 2c, back to work i think the boss is watching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twin Turbo Jim Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 I have an n/a and a 6 speed TT both are imports and the insurance is about £100 a year difference. But the n/a seems very slow up against the TT but the TT does drink more fuel. If your new to the rear end power go for a n/a for 6 months or so and get used to it first before upgrading to a TT, theres no point getting your dream motor only to wrap it around a lamp post. And the n/a is more forgiving in the wet, my TT is very trigger happy on the rear. Its fun once you get used to it and can control it. It took me a while to get used to it and still catchs me out some times. Both the n/a and TT are fantastic cars that wont disapoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billybig1 Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 (edited) "Oh and while on the insurance factor, a R5 GTTurbo was £3499 fully comp for a 1.4 turd!!" Oh man... My R5GTT has kicked SO many N/a's asses. I always have to stick up for R5s. Both of mine have been wicked. Edited July 14, 2009 by billybig1 (see edit history) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.