Are NA Auto's really that slow??

[ripped_fear]

Lets get the facts right in his topic. N/a supra weights max 1500 kilos and it got 220hp, so it has a decent p/w ratio. N/a manual did go 0-60 in 6 sec and i don't believe that auto is that much slower in straight line.

 

I have test driven n/a auto once and it was a dog slow because of crappy box. Seller said that it is healthy box but i didn't believe it. Is changed gears so slowly that revs did drop way too down, under 2000rpms. It was also badly maintained car: old and cheap spark plugs, standard exhaust with noisy cat back (20+ year old cat just doesn't flow anymore) crap intake and so on. It just didn't rev. Overall it did feel totally different engine than my own car engine which is in good shape.

 

However, 2jz-ge standard ecu does go to the eco mode in between 3000-4000 rpm, and if you want to go faster you have to skip that. It gives you good fuel economy, but it doesn't rev or it doesn't make good torque in mid range. So i recommend for all n/a Supra owners that you change for aftermarket tuned ecu, like Mines, Tom's, Amuse or similar. It is superb modification, it makes the whole engine much better to drive and especially gives you a lot of more torque in mid range/more linear power output. It will fucked up fuel mileage tho, because throttle response is so sharp and it doesn't cruise that economically in highway speeds (60-70 mph).

 

Just thought Id add somthing to this post, I do 100% agree with the change in ECU post, when I swapped to a Mines it changed the car. Felt allot more responsive when cruising although on the quarter mile it didnt make a huge difference, but did a little. The only thing I disagree with is the fuel economy comment. It made next to no difference on mine. I would still be returning the same MPG. Or if it did change it was so minimal I didn't notice.

[j_jza80]

NA's don't do 0-60 in 6 seconds from the factory. It's more like 7+ secs for the manual and 8 - 8.5 for the auto. Edit: 1993 lexus GS300 is 8.3 secs, so bang on 8 should be about right for the NA Auto.

 

An EP3 Civic Type R will make short work of an NA, especially if there's a few bends on the road.

Edited November 12, 2015 by j_jza80 (see edit history)

[krisgowing]

NA's don't do 0-60 in 6 seconds from the factory. It's more like 7+ secs for the manual and 8 - 8.5 for the auto. Edit: 1993 lexus GS300 is 8.3 secs, so bang on 8 should be about right for the NA Auto.

 

An EP3 Civic Type R will make short work of an NA, especially if there's a few bends on the road.

 

Really?

 

Me and my friend where testing this on his private land, and got just under the 7 second mark in a NA auto on a few runs from a dead start, Used a few apps and a stopwatch to get as much accurate readings as we can. Completely stock except the exhaust

[LasseV]

NA's don't do 0-60 in 6 seconds from the factory. It's more like 7+ secs for the manual and 8 - 8.5 for the auto. Edit: 1993 lexus GS300 is 8.3 secs, so bang on 8 should be about right for the NA Auto.

 

An EP3 Civic Type R will make short work of an NA, especially if there's a few bends on the road.

 

Not true, i have a test drive reports from 1993 and motor journos did get 6.0 and 6.2 times for 0-60 (manual n/a). And i'm pretty sure that Supra is more cabable car in twisties than type r...

 

Anyway, GS300 is much more heavier car and the engine is tuned differently so not really a same thing at all.

[Scooter]

From 45-50mph, rolling on a dual carriageway and my old slowest of the slow NA auto aerotop, was even with a stock Clio 172.

 

It's really no good saying it 'feels' slower or quicker etc, you need to directly compare as it may be 10-15% down on power, the valve at 4000rpm ish might not be opening etc.

 

Granted they aren't quick per se but it may be that yours/hers has an issue making it worse.

[Dnk]

Might be worth giving it a full service, that may improve performance.

 

Does that include fitting a turbo

[LasseV]

Just thought Id add somthing to this post, I do 100% agree with the change in ECU post, when I swapped to a Mines it changed the car. Felt allot more responsive when cruising although on the quarter mile it didnt make a huge difference, but did a little. The only thing I disagree with is the fuel economy comment. It made next to no difference on mine. I would still be returning the same MPG. Or if it did change it was so minimal I didn't notice.

 

I know that there are different kind of tunes in Mine's ecu. Maybe mine is more aggressive? I did drive 1 year with standard ecu and i was constantly getting 31mpg and with Mines it is 28mpg (1 year period). Or maybe my driving style has changed?

[SupraP-Z]

NA's are tractors, i've just learned to come to terms with this. After owning one for 7 years now, i'm just plain angry at how slow it is. For a three litre engine, and the power it produces toyota could have made it so much better - but this is 20 year old technology we are dealing with here. Sounds amazing, but it isnt as fast as you would expect especially when trying to keep up with the newer diesel turbos of today. I mean its not a slouch, it does shift but a two litre diesel turbo can easily outrun/keep up with a non turbo supra upto about 100mph, at which point the NA is still slow lol. The 2jz really comes into its own with forced induction. They should have made the NA 300bhp and the twin turbo 400bhp IMO

[j_jza80]

Not true, i have a test drive reports from 1993 and motor journos did get 6.0 and 6.2 times for 0-60 (manual n/a). And i'm pretty sure that Supra is more cabable car in twisties than type r...

 

Anyway, GS300 is much more heavier car and the engine is tuned differently so not really a same thing at all.

 

Can you post some links to these test drive reports?

 

I have owned loads of cars with 0-60 times in this ballpark, including my current Corrado VR6, and previously both a NA 6 speed Supra and a GS300. I know for a fact that the Civic and my Corrado are comfortably fasterbthan an NA manual, probably up to about 80-100 when the NA would probably start reeling them in.

 

And according to Swampy442 on here, who's an admin on The Aristo forum, there isn't that much of a weight difference.

 

Have you any evidence to show the GS300 engine is tuned differently? As far as I'm aware, they're identical. The certainly look identical, and feel identical to drive.

 

And no, on a twisty Road a well driven type R would leave amost NA Supras for dead. They are very capable little cars, being circa 300kg lighter, and having far better brakes than the Na Supra. Especially of we're comparing it to the superior JDM EP3, which has a decent LSD as standard and 220hp from the factory.

[j_jza80]

They should have made the NA 300bhp and the twin turbo 400bhp IMO

 

If you want a 300hp NA, an E36 M3 evolution or Z3M is a good shout. Although not as easy to tune as the 2JZ, that engine is a masterpiece.

[Kendo11]

Na's aren't "slow" (although mines a manual) but most modern day hatches would embarrass them.

[j_jza80]

Some of the current crop of hatches will trouble a stock TT. Namely the new Focus RS.

[Mike2JZ]

[video=youtube;b6vb-mht-XA]

 

You can definitely get the N/A to 60 quicker than 7 seconds, I recorded my attempts earlier this year. Took it to santapod the other week, loaded with a full boot and camping gear and was doing 14.9's as my best time, which could probably be improved if I spent some time setting the car up for drags.

 

They are slow cars no doubting that, but every autobox na that I've sat in feels sluggish in comparison to a manual box. I'd put the supra on the dyno to see if you are really underperforming or it's just the way the car feels in comparison to a TT.

[j_jza80]

Your car isn't standard though, and "setting it up for drags" is further modifying it.

 

Interestingly, a stock GT86 does a quarter mile in just under 15 secs, and that has a 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds. I should think the GT86 and the NA have a similar power to weight ratio.

[Mike2JZ]

Your car isn't standard though, and "setting it up for drags" is further modifying it.

 

Interestingly, a stock GT86 does a quarter mile in just under 15 secs, and that has a 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds. I should think the GT86 and the NA have a similar power to weight ratio.

 

An larger exhaust and an air filter is about as far as my performance "mods" go, I'm pretty sure they make no difference to my 1/4 time.

[j_jza80]

Aftermarket suspension? Wider tyres?

[Mike2JZ]

Aftermarket suspension? Wider tyres?

 

Aftermarket front springs isn't going to change anything? And wider semi slick tyres completely unsuited for drag use, what is your point?

Edited November 12, 2015 by Mike2JZ (see edit history)

[jim]

Can always rely on an n/a bashing thread to stir things up a bit

[j_jza80]

We aren't talking about drag use, the discussion was on factory 0-60 times.

 

And for the sake of the conversation, it you were to do the same mods as yours to an EP3, it would widen the performance gap, as those Civics really benefit from an aftermarket cat back system and filter swap.

 

I'm not NA bashing by the way, I think they're great cars. But they weren't that quick by 90s standards, never mind against modern cars. The way some people talk about the NA you wonder why Toyota ever bothered fitting turbos.

[Mike2JZ]

We aren't talking about drag use, the discussion was on factory 0-60 times.

 

And for the sake of the conversation, it you were to do the same mods as yours to an EP3, it would widen the performance gap, as those Civics really benefit from an aftermarket cat back system and filter swap.

 

I'm not NA bashing by the way, I think they're great cars. But they weren't that quick by 90s standards, never mind against modern cars. The way some people talk about the NA you wonder why Toyota ever bothered fitting turbos.

 

Your idea of the factory 0-60 times are still incorrect. The EP3 isn't even a supra so not sure why you are bringing that into discussion.

[j_jza80]

Can you provide some evidence for the 0-60 times from either Toyota or a well known magazine?

 

I didn't bring the EP Civic up, Brom did on page 2

[LasseV]

Can you post some links to these test drive reports?

 

I have owned loads of cars with 0-60 times in this ballpark, including my current Corrado VR6, and previously both a NA 6 speed Supra and a GS300. I know for a fact that the Civic and my Corrado are comfortably fasterbthan an NA manual, probably up to about 80-100 when the NA would probably start reeling them in.

 

And according to Swampy442 on here, who's an admin on The Aristo forum, there isn't that much of a weight difference.

 

Have you any evidence to show the GS300 engine is tuned differently? As far as I'm aware, they're identical. The certainly look identical, and feel identical to drive.

 

And no, on a twisty Road a well driven type R would leave amost NA Supras for dead. They are very capable little cars, being circa 300kg lighter, and having far better brakes than the Na Supra. Especially of we're comparing it to the superior JDM EP3, which has a decent LSD as standard and 220hp from the factory.

 

I don't have a link, i have a book. It's called Toyota Supra Performance portfolio by Brooklands Books. Sadly there is no n/a auto test drive, but there is few manual ones. Few interesting tested performance figures from long term test report (by John Phillips):

0-60 6.0s

0-100 16.5s

Street start 5-60 6.5s

1/4 mile 14.7s

Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.92g

70mph to 0 159ft

 

These results are made with 16" tyres.

 

Comparing Golf GTI DSG from 2010:

Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 sec

Zero to 100 mph: 16.1 sec

Zero to 110 mph: 20.5 sec

Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.7 sec

Standing ¼-mile: 14.7 sec @ 96 mph

Top speed (governor limited): 124 mph

Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft

Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2010-volkswagen-gti-3-door-dsg-instrumented-test

 

Old lady did put quite good numbers to the table back then, and i don't believe that vr6 corrado is faster than manual n/a Supra. Of course driver was a 90's motor journo, and those guys were very good drivers. Some n/a's (SZ-R) did come from factory with turbo model suspension+wheels and LSD, and it would be nice to know how much that affected to performance numbers. At least we know that turbo model roadholding was 0.95g-0.98g, which is quite impressive even today.

 

People often forget that toyota did wondferful job to keep Supras weight down. Mine weights 1490 kilos with driver (80 kilos) and fuel (45-50l), so dry weight is around 1370 kilos. Stock body, with hks cat back and spare wheel delete. Soarer, Aristo, GS300 all weights a LOT more and civic is not a 300 kilos lighter.

 

I know that most n/a's are in bad shape and their performance is mediocre at best. But it is not a cars fault that people doesn't upkeep their cars properly. It cost money and all that kind of shit...

[cered]

I've found this with my Fiesta, had a 150BHP turbo diesel Alfa GT and ofcourse a BPU Supra. So going to an NA Fiesta felt like walking pace compared to both. Put my foot down in third at 30mph and nothing happens. Alfa & Supra would shoot off.

 

 

However it does have a bit of pull at the very top of the rev range (Turbo cars tend to be low-mid). Keep it in manu and hold it high through the gears if you want to get any power out of it I guess. N/A petrols with low power just need to be worked very hard

[Mike2JZ]

snip

 

Also from the autochannel

 

 

Base Price $ 33,900

Price As Tested $ 35,161

Engine Type I-6, dohc - 24v - smpfi

Engine Size 3.0 liter/183 cid

Horsepower 220 @ 5800 Torque (ft/lbs) 210 @ 4800

Wheelbase/Length 100"/178

Transmission five speed manual w/od Curb Weight 3260

Pounds per Horsepower 15

Fuel Capacity 18

Fuel Requirement Unleaded premium (91 oct)

Tires Goodyear Eagle GS-C Front: P225/50ZR16 Rear: P245/50ZR16

Brakes anti-lock standard disc/disc

Drive Train front engine/rear drive

PERFORMANCE EPA Economy - miles per gallon, city/highway/observed 18/23/19.1

0 to 60 mph 5.9 sec

1/4 mi (E.T.) 14.6 sec

Coefficient of Drag (Cd) .31

[j_jza80]

There's no way I believe these figures, I'm guessing they're American? According to that, the turbo Supras weigh 150kg more than the NA. In reality it's more like 70-90kg, as per this thread: http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?204765-List-of-stock-items-weights