Spec info required.

Good evening all.

I have had a look through the site but i can seem to find the performance time differences betweent the N/A and the TT (o-60 etc etc). I was wondering if you could help me out here as im trying to weigh up which i should buy and if i can live with the N/A.

Thanks

Will

hi mate

na 0 -60 = 6.4

TT - about 5.1 to 5.4 figures vary

i can handle having a NA

exhaust, induction kit and De-cat

will allow you to kill all hot hatches

but if your wanting a ferrari killer then TT way to go

and dont even bother saying i wont be modding it....we all do it

well at the moment i have a crx del sol vtec..........the logical step if i wanted a larger version would have to be a targa supra.

My freind had the N/A and always said mine little CRX felt quicker, however i never got to drive his Supra. I have been in a few TT and i know that they are rediculously fast.

The honda is quick for what it is but im getting fed up with having to rev the ass out of it to get any kind of speed.

Thanks for the info....much appreciated!

Oh.....and i fully intend to modify! :flame Dev

Originally posted by hamps_w

I was wondering if you could help me out here as im trying to weigh up which i should buy and if i can live with the N/A.

 

Thanks

 

Will

Will, why are you considering the NA, is it for reliability, running cost or purchase cost considerations etc?

0-60 is not the supra's best point and IMO the NA and TT are as standard not too far apart (certainly closer than the figures say) but the TT is in a different league in the acceleration at 50+.

An NA is a match for the audi TT, BMW Z4 class of motor. A TT in stock trim is more of a match for the (NA) porsches & M3's sort of cars, and a modded BPU TT will keep up with nearly everything except true exotica.

Saying that if you just want a great looking RWD car that your happy to just drive, without worrying if you can beat x y or z car should you happen to cross paths then an NA may well be fine for you, especially as £10K will get you a good condition late 97/98 model NA compared to an ok 94/95 TT.

Originally posted by hamps_w

well at the moment i have a crx del sol vtec..........the logical step if i wanted a larger version would have to be a targa supra.

 

My freind had the N/A and always said mine little CRX felt quicker, however i never got to drive his Supra. I have been in a few TT and i know that they are rediculously fast.

 

The honda is quick for what it is but im getting fed up with having to rev the ass out of it to get any kind of speed.

 

 

Thanks for the info....much appreciated!

 

Oh.....and i fully intend to modify! :flame Dev

Well if you buy an N/A aero (they aint targa's in the supra world) Then you will get one for not a huge amount more than a hard top N/A. However if you want a TT aero get your bank loan out now fella as they are significantly more expensive than their equivalent age/condition hard top counter parts. Also the aero's only come in J-spec so you don't get the option of the arguably better UK car ??? There are some fools that think they are better on here LOL (ducks for cover quack quack:p ). Be prepared for about £13k for a TT aero where as reasonable hard tops can be had for £8k or less. The Del Sol will feel a bit quicker than an N/A supe up to legal limits and is probably a lot more confidence inspiring in the twisties but not wanting to be rude fella it is a tad girly. The time the supe starts to show its real blood is around 90 leptons and really gets going around 120 leptons. Feel free to post a few more questions on here or more ideally get yourself to a meet like a guy did last weekend to our SEM then you can ask all the questions you like and will find us a right welcoming bunch.

Originally posted by hamps_w

My freind had the N/A and always said mine little CRX felt quicker, however i never got to drive his Supra. I have been in a few TT and i know that they are rediculously fast.

I used to share a route into work with someone who has a VTEC Del Sol. I've got an NA aerotop and I used to kick her ass regularly.

Terrific engines, but you are right, you have to rev the nuts off them to get them to go, but that's the whole point of VTEC (or that version of it) isn't it?

Both fast cars, the N/A is 6.4 to 60, and the TT is 4.9 to 60.

Which one you go for depends on what you want, and how much you want to spend.....The N/A looks gorgeous but your limited to what you can do to it, where as the TT you can go mental with so can cost you loads, as once you get power, then more power, you'll eventually want more power!! And spending more money in the process, iv'e spent much more on my TT than i did on my N/A

Paul

Thats alot more response than i was expecting....thanks guys okay here goes:

I am tempted in the way of the N/A due to a variety/combination of reasons.

1. Insurance (the big decider)

2. Running costs, maintenance....the fear of turbos going wrong

3. I could afford a Aero without having to save like scrooge

4. dont want any more points

However i know in my heart that if i dont buy the turbo i will crave one nearly straight after havng the N/A........im just that kind of person.

And yes....the CRX is a little on the afeminate side..........but its a fun car none the less. Its more girly with the roof off......so i tend to keep it on.

The only way you'll want a TT is if you go in one, i loved the N/A when i bought it and it was fast as f**k, then i went in a local Bpu Supra and......well i had to have one

So if i hadn't of met anyone with TT's i'd probably still have the N/A

Paul

You'd be suprised how close the running costs are. The NA isn't that much more economical, and maintenance costs should be the same. There's no more reason for turbos to go wrong than any other mechanical part - they were designed to last the lifetime of the car if looked after properly. Of course if you up the boost you'll stress them out more. From what NA owners say the insurance isn't that much cheaper either - get some quotes from some of the specialists.

My N/A - 2k insurance fully comp

UK TT - 600 quid fully comp

Yep, running costs are vortually indentical. Insurance can be just as much - sometimes even more (although my NA quote was lower than q TT quote from the same company). Oh - and I had a clean license for 14 years until I got my NA

Originally posted by hamps_w

And yes....the CRX is a little on the afeminate side..........but its a fun car none the less. Its more girly with the roof off......so i tend to keep it on.

Hey I never said the CRX was effeminate I just said I know a gal who has one, and I can beat her in a race. I think they are great cars.

I had my fair share of hairdresser jokes when I had my white MK1 MR2, but it was one of the best cars I ever had.

Well before tesco went all funny about quoting for imports online i was getting quotes around the £850 fully comp mark.......i doubt it will be that far off that now. Thats for a TT.

So im not greatly concerned by insurance if it stays arounfd that figure.

I dont intend to go playing with the boost......and hopefully will find a nice standard engine. SOOO......i think you may of sold me on a TT.

I suppose i had better start doing some overtime. I will probably keep the CRX for the remainder of the year and get another years no claims, then start looking.

Thatnks for all your help and responses, im greatly impressed!

Oh.......the crx may not be that afeminate but the Mx5 i had before was! however they are GREAT fun to drive!

Oh and Darren...it wasnt you that said it was girly..dangerous brain did.......but then his profile does say he is opinionated:)

Hi Will,

I recently bought a NA Aerotop so understand where you're coming from. I previously had a hardtop NA MR2 which I had for about 3 years. All the time I owned it, I regretted not getting the T-Bar or the Turbo version. So when looking to get a Supra I was admant i'd get a TT Aerotop, then saw the prices they were fetching . So it was down to a choice of what would I rather have, a (kind of) convertible or a hardtop that looks exactly the same, but goes faster.

When I first got the car I was impressed with the performance, but have got used to it far too quickly. On a couple of occassions I've had people sat up my a**e and thought "I'll show you matey" and booted it only for them to keep up with me (e.g. rep in a 328i BMW. oh the shame!!!)

I think it all depends on what you personally want from a car, if you want good looks, reasonable performance and a summer cruiser then the NA Aero is perfect. If you lean more to the performance side then the TT is the one to have. Or if you want both and you're a rich jammy git then get an Aerotop TT.

I think it would be worth test driving a few of both the NA and TT so you can be sure you're making the right decision.

Oh and BTW insurance is way cheaper on the UK TT than the NA for me too!

Matt

Originally posted by hamps_w

 

I am tempted in the way of the N/A due to a variety/combination of reasons.

 

1. Insurance (the big decider)

2. Running costs, maintenance....the fear of turbos going wrong

3. I could afford a Aero without having to save like scrooge

4. dont want any more points

 

However i know in my heart that if i dont buy the turbo i will crave one nearly straight after havng the N/A........im just that kind of person.

 

1. Insurance WILL be cheaper for a uk spec TT than an NA guaranteed, and it's often cheaper for a import TT over the NA (strange but true)

2. Some bonus's are,

petrol costs particularly as you can run the NA's on regular unleaded rather than super/optimax stuff.

and maintenance, here i'm talking about the fact that you are comparing cars that cost the same but of say 5yrs apart and therefore things like heater matrix's, SMIC's, viscous fan, radiators etc are in general more likely to need attention on the older cars.

saying this i agree that the turbo's shouldn't really be a problem IF you keep it stock

3. Search and be patient and you will find an Aero TT for £9-10K

4. then buy a Yaris:)

Originally posted by AeroMatt

Hi Will,

 

On a couple of occassions I've had people sat up my a**e and thought "I'll show you matey" and booted it only for them to keep up with me (e.g. rep in a 328i BMW. oh the shame!!!)

 

 

Matt

I had the exact same issue today with some nause in a 328i!.....and to make matter worse he kicked up a load of shit over my new paint.

I do tend to lean to the performance side....and im more interested in having 2 turbos rather than a roof that comes off............although thats nice!

TT uk cars are not the easiest to come by though are they?

And do all TT's HAVE to be run on optimax all the time?

Optimax, nahh! Bpu Supra yes but not a stock Supe. These were made in 1993 when Optimax wasn't even thought of. I run Optimax all the time though, it's a much better fuel

Paul

i think its ok in a UK spec car to use regular, but with import TT's I think it is the norm to use optimax, as the regular petrol in Japan is of a higher octane than ours afaik.........

Oh yeah of course! Totally forgot about that, i allways ran Optimax in my N/A.

Cheers for clearing that up Scooter

Originally posted by hamps_w

The honda is quick for what it is but im getting fed up with having to rev the ass out of it to get any kind of speed.

 

 

That's VTEC for you matey, personally coming from bikes (12k redlines) I'd love that kind of thing but for most car drivers it's just too demanding for everyday use and a PITA.

It is good...and a 1.6 with over 160bhp is very impressive. But after 2 years it becomes a little tiresome.............in fact i would rather have a bike!!!!