louisjames Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 It'll be the cheapest way to get more power though mate. Honestly, you wouldn't be the first guy to throw away thousands trying to make a NA as fast as a stock TT (let alone a BPU) and then give up and buy a proper Supra. Or the last. some people dont buy "proper supras" as you call it because maybe they are fed up taking it in the ass from the government on fuel? i bought an na because i wanted lower running costs as i use and abuse my car daily. i sold my escort coss recently and other turbs and fueling annoyed me, although fun the novelty wore off. and neofuture, its your car mate, if yu wana spend 5k on it, go for it. im sure there are plenty of cars on here not worth what they cost to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 As others have said making your car faster by adding power is going to be expensive. Why not make it faster point to point with better suspension and brakes ? for the money i would get Chris wilson suspension and uk brakes this will make the car faster point to point. If you can keep the speed through the corners and brake later you will easily be quicker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 (edited) As others have said making your car faster by adding power is going to be expensive. Why not make it faster point to point with better suspension and brakes ? for the money i would get Chris wilson suspension and uk brakes this will make the car faster point to point. If you can keep the speed through the corners and brake later you will easily be quicker As already stated you are not going to get big gains in performance from the engine. Performance wise I would fit a decent quality stainless steel exhaust, fit a decat pipe in place of the second cat and fit a tubular exhaust manifold. These parts will give you modest gains in terms of power, but should help make the car feel more responsive and lively. http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8473/p1030161sa4.jpg http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7632/dsc00305dl3.jpg I would also give the car a thorough service, ie. change of fluids, plugs, filter, oxygen sensors, timing belt, etc. (see service manuals attached). This way you'll know it is running as well as it can do. I agree with Col, getting you car set up and handling as good as it can, would be what I'd spend my money on, once properly set up it'll be faster, handle better and be more satisfying to drive. Suspension I would go for a set of new Bilstein dampers and a set of lowering springs (Eibach, Tein, etc.) Also get the suspension components (arms, bushes, joints, etc.) checked for wear. Completely overhauling the suspension components with new OEM parts will absolutely transform the handling of the car. Brakes Most NA Supras come as standard with the smaller spec 2pot front/1pot rear brakes. I would upgrade to the larger spec 4pot front/2 pot rear brakes (see pics/details HERE). Spend a decent amount of money on some quality brake pads, fit a set of braided brake lines and decent brake fluid. Better braking will make the car faster. Handling A decent set of performance tyres will make a big improvement in traction, handling and ride. As you have an aero top, I'd also consider fitting a set of front and rear tower bars, floor and rear braces, to help tighten things up a little when cornering. http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9085/attachmentphpbp4.jpg http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8665/picture1px4.png http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2640/picture2az3.png http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4286/picture3xj5.pngMA.pdfSCHEDULED_SERVICES_NON_TURB.PDF Edited November 5, 2010 by Nic (see edit history) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 some people dont buy "proper supras" as you call it because maybe they are fed up taking it in the ass from the government on fuel? .... The weight is almost the same, engine block and cyl head, aerodynamics too. The tyres are almost the same, both have aircon, so I don't see where the fuel consumption benefits would come from:eyebrows: If anything, the TT will have lower figures because it is more thermally efficient (reuses waste exh energy, quite a bit of it too!) Of course we are comparing like for like, say steady-state driving at 70mph or such. The funny business starts when you realise that even the insurance benefits of the n/a are not always clear, neither is the lower depreciation you'd expect. Not the regular servicing costs (however TTs often suffer from self-inflicted injuries!) Not even the lower initial outlay (if you care to shop around a bit) Only thing that's left is the embarassment when hot hatches try it on. Back to the subject, Nic's exh manifold looks good and it should give some solid power gains, although they'll be peanuts by TT tuning standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Raven Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 "proper supras" Thats quite insulting right there. As for the Aero issues enjoy what you have my friend the point of the Aero is to pose, cant do that when the your going to fast. And for the record i own a N/A and its RED!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 NA Performance = Oxymoron. F me. I saw the thread title and I thought I'd just post "it's an oxymoron". D'oh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaymdee Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 From what I've read on here, JohnA's post sums up the cost issue. You can now buy a TT for maybe £1k more than an NA, insurance is less (cos NA's were never a UK car), MPG is about the same (unless hooning it ), servicing the same, tyres etc the same, depreciation is terrible for both (at the moment). Unless you have access to a late 6 speed NA and a TT lump, the bext thing is to buy a TT - if you want the power. If you aren't bothered (and lots aren't) then the NA is still a quick car, just not as quick as some of the new hot hatches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 some people dont buy "proper supras" as you call it because maybe they are fed up taking it in the ass from the government on fuel? i bought an na because i wanted lower running costs as i use and abuse my car daily. i The NA is no more economical than the TT buddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 From what I've read on here, JohnA's post sums up the cost issue. You can now buy a TT for maybe £1k more than an NA, insurance is less (cos NA's were never a UK car), MPG is about the same (unless hooning it ), servicing the same, tyres etc the same, depreciation is terrible for both (at the moment). Unless you have access to a late 6 speed NA and a TT lump, the bext thing is to buy a TT - if you want the power. If you aren't bothered (and lots aren't) then the NA is still a quick car, just not as quick as some of the new hot hatches. Good post!! I have a NA and I'n not interested in massive performance as I would be unlucky enough to lose my licence and subsequently my job!! If people are choosing the NA based on fuel consumption then they are going to be in for a shock as there is very little difference! I bought an NA so I can have the "Sports car" experience but not bankrupt myself in the process!! The costs of fixing turbo related problems terrified me quite frankly! I have a good looking car and get lots of admiring glances and the car has cost me next to fook all in comparison to some on here!! H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozz Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 I bought an NA so I can have the "Sports car" experience but not bankrupt myself in the process!! The costs of fixing turbo related problems terrified me quite frankly! I have a good looking car and get lots of admiring glances and the car has cost me next to fook all in comparison to some on here!! H. Exactly my thoughts with the NA. Saying they are not performance cars when they hit 0-60 in around 6 seconds is rubbish (IMO). Thats hardly sluggish. The handling is awesome, I throw it round and it responds much better than RWDs I've had in the past. Everyone comments on my car in work, mostly from the sound it make - and the sound/stlying is the main reason I love my supra. I am more and more tempted by the TT but purely as its always been on my tick list to get a Turbo'd car. But, on average I see 1-3 police cars a day so its not like I could benefit from the extra performance. Plus the amount of cameras everywhere now. So...if road conditions tend to dictate a certain driving style and therefore you are unlikely to get away slamming your foot down on a TT everyday - what is the point of owning one? Great if you are tracking everyweekend but not many owners can afford that. (and that is a serious question as I am torn between a newer NA and a older TT). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackie Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 on my n/a: cat by pass lightened pulleys hks iridum plugs hks induction kit lots of people say this stuff dont work but i have rolling road proof of it does, mines now 247 bhp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
movistar Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Neofuture play nice you have jakes steering wheel on your car;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 on my n/a: cat by pass lightened pulleys hks iridum plugs hks induction kit lots of people say this stuff dont work but i have rolling road proof of it does, mines now 247 bhp is that before and after on the same rr ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louisjames Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 The weight is almost the same, engine block and cyl head, aerodynamics too. The tyres are almost the same, both have aircon, so I don't see where the fuel consumption benefits would come from:eyebrows: If anything, the TT will have lower figures because it is more thermally efficient (reuses waste exh energy, quite a bit of it too!) Of course we are comparing like for like, say steady-state driving at 70mph or such. The funny business starts when you realise that even the insurance benefits of the n/a are not always clear, neither is the lower depreciation you'd expect. Not the regular servicing costs (however TTs often suffer from self-inflicted injuries!) Not even the lower initial outlay (if you care to shop around a bit) Only thing that's left is the embarassment when hot hatches try it on. Back to the subject, Nic's exh manifold looks good and it should give some solid power gains, although they'll be peanuts by TT tuning standards. lol, your saying a tt is more economical??! i dont think so mate. read the threads on tts and how turbos work. and second a tt is more to insure. thats that. anyone who claims a tt is cheaper to run than a na is talking from their rectums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louisjames Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 The NA is no more economical than the TT buddy. i had a tt 4 years ago, and have a na now. im telling you and so will anyone whos run both that a na is more economical. it has to be, less weight and no turbos! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 i had a tt 4 years ago, and have a na now. im telling you and so will anyone whos run both that a na is more economical. it has to be, less weight and no turbos! i agree, there may not be a massive difference but its definitely there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko_supra Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 yawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackie Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 is that before and after on the same rr ? thats after, im guessing it was 225 bhp when i started Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 thats after, im guessing it was 225 bhp when i started A few years ago there was a big argument on the 964 forum because somebody was "promoting" a tuning company and as proof of their products was quoting dyno figures. But - he only had after dyno figures, and would not accept that he needed before dyno figures to prove that these mods had made any difference. Without before figures on the same dyno there is no proof that your car really makes that power or that those mods made any difference whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartworm Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 i had a tt 4 years ago, and have a na now. im telling you and so will anyone whos run both that a na is more economical. it has to be, less weight and no turbos! I notice very little difference between the TT I had and now my n/a, even insurance wise I don't notice a difference (sadly ) but i knew this when buying the car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackie Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 A few years ago there was a big argument on the 964 forum because somebody was "promoting" a tuning company and as proof of their products was quoting dyno figures. But - he only had after dyno figures, and would not accept that he needed before dyno figures to prove that these mods had made any difference. Without before figures on the same dyno there is no proof that your car really makes that power or that those mods made any difference whatsoever. fair comment, in that light the mods may make no difference at all, but it deffinatly is 247 bhp as the dyno says, it may have been 246 bhp before and chucking all the parts and money at it may of just given it 1 bhp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 i had a tt 4 years ago, and have a na now. im telling you and so will anyone whos run both that a na is more economical. it has to be, less weight and no turbos! I drove an NA manual for a little while. The trips form Manchester to Blackpool used up pretty much the same amount of fuel.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 fair comment, in that light the mods may make no difference at all, but it deffinatly is 247 bhp as the dyno says, it may have been 246 bhp before and chucking all the parts and money at it may of just given it 1 bhp No, it's not. That's why people say "on the same dyno". Since I assume you're not quoting RWHP, the dyno operator's apply correction factors (e.g. for transmission loss). It's 247 bhp after the calculations that this particular dyno operator made. If I had a dyno, I could use a transmission loss figure that meant your car made 500 fwhp. Unless you had a before plot - which would prove my figure was rubbish because it would show your stock car also had an unrealistic high figure - the figure doesn't mean much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackie Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 No, it's not. That's why people say "on the same dyno". Since I assume you're not quoting RWHP, the dyno operator's apply correction factors (e.g. for transmission loss). It's 247 bhp after the calculations that this particular dyno operator made. If I had a dyno, I could use a transmission loss figure that meant your car made 500 fwhp. Unless you had a before plot - which would prove my figure was rubbish because it would show your stock car also had an unrealistic high figure - the figure doesn't mean much. so your basicly saying its a guesstimate? and it would vary from dyno to dyno depending on the opperator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 To some extent, yes - FWHP always is. The point of before / after plots is that they will use the same figures, so you can see whether there is a real gain. A one off reading (even without mods) is of limited use - although useful for comparing the power of different cars. 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.