Steve W2

I didn't say they behaved differently. I inferred that the NA's reduced power in my opinion better suited it to a manual gearbox. I think all auto's are much better when coupled with a car that has a good deal of torque. The less power/torque a car has the worse the autobox will be IMO. I wasn't massively impressed with the TT performance either, but that's not the point.

Problem is mine is in Japanese, there is also two differnt pressures. They are also stated in Bar so you will need to multiply that by 14.7 to get psi.

I like pic 1 by the way.

Please don't buy this book if you ask as many questions as Trev now does............

I have been in an NA auto and wasn't impressed. I have an auto TT as well, so that speaks for itself. I'm not saying the autobox is crap because I have a a fear of auto's, I just don't think it comes into it's own until there is a bit more power to play with. The quarter mile times from standard NA's are normally around 15 seconds in a manual to around 16 in an Auto.

It would explode in a ball of flames.....okay, maybe not. But (unwanted) explosions would take place in your cylinder head at high boost, WOOT situations. Pre ignition of the air/fuel mixture before its expected isn't a good thing.

Mine is 5sp. I would just prefer the 6sp facelift version. 5 gears or 6, I'll whoooooooop your ass though

If your on a budget get an N/A. I would also go for a facelift SZ-R 6sp. I don't like the idea of an auto NA.

Sart off high and see what they say, like Lust said, claim RRP prices for consumables and service costs from Toyota. You can then save money on boyh of them too. I would ask for 55p a mile. I'd be well impressed if you got that, but, it's a starting point! If you don't ask, you don't get............ Are you getting 40K+ now then?

Plus you car is NA, charlie's is a TT and shouldn't use anything less than Super unleaded. Good information though dude. These are sort of performance facts that we need.

Yeah, if you click on the link in my sig, go to stuff for sale, then click on the picture of the SZ-R. They aren't vey recent, the front sits lower now and the shocks were set up for the extra weight of the TT, and have now been adjusted. I should also point out that I have chrome badges, and a proper number plate on the back, getting rid of the crappy fog light.

The money it would cost to replace the suspension in the Supra would be a lot less than the depreciation of the Type R.

I don't think it is, then again my car is lower by about 40mm anyway so that will help, and I have firm TEIN shocks not wishy washy UK ones The jap brakes are fine for normal driving, no comparison to the UK's in terms of stopping ability and feel. They do fade very quickly but are good for a single high speed stop 100mph+

To be honest mate, a lot of those could would have had noticable signs when you bought the car in September. Wishbones, tyres, leaking oil, broken amplifiers etc. Last oil changes should have been indicated on the SH of the car that you surely got with a UK? At least now that you have replaced them you will hopefully be okay

It comes do to cost again. The Supra isn't dangerous without one, it's just better with one. A bit like the brakes, it would be safer if the standrad brakes were 356mm cross drilled with 6 pots, but they aren't. They do the job. The stability issue would never stand up in court as the speed you would need to be going for it to have a proper effect would be more than the allowable speed limit anyway. I also think that the extra downforce the spoiler cretaes does help make the car feel more solid. Not that it feels unsafe without mind, just a little less 'planted'.

All that extra weight has to take at least 3 seconds off your 0-60, I say bin it

I'm not the one worried about my MPG. I was providing information in answer to to the original post of the thread, backing it up with actual data taken from both of my cars. The whole 'if you want good MPG go buy a diesel' thing is bollocks. You say you don't care about your fuel consumption because it's a lovely car, but I bet you would if you were getting 2 MPG. It wouldn't be lovely then, it would be broken, and that it part of the reason that people are alos interested in the cars fuel consumption. Likewise, if you bought a diesel, you wouldn't just say 'it's a shit car but will have ace MPG' and forget about it. You would want to know what MPG you were getting out of your diesel.

Thats very helpful not knowing what car you have, what mods you have, what petrol you using and how many miles you do a week

Depends if the biggest restriction is the cats or baffle in the rear section of the standard exhaust. On a TT the cats are the most restrictive. Unless the design if that different for an NA.

Using that calculator I got 24.3, I only entered 60 litres in as thats all it takes to fill up. My 60 litres is cheaper than yours though (if your running a TT). £6 Less per fill up

Doing almost identical trips to work and back until I ran out of fuel from a full tank the mileages were as follows: 1993 GZ TT Auto = 244 Miles 1994 SZ-R Manual 5sp = 308 Miles Both cars completely stock engine wise, except for RSR exhaust on the NA. But it still has its cats in so probably no real change in consumption. The TT was running on a tank of Optimax and the NA running a tank od Sainsbury's normal unleaded. You should also note there was a significant difference in the cost of the petrol as well.

No No No No NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!