Given A Choice Would You Have Na Or Turbo

[wyldeSR]

What would most people go for

N/A or Turbo

Are there pro and cons of owing a turbo

I was told you always had to service turbo's and make sure you let them idle before switching off.

also, are they more expensive to maintain

N/a car can reach a good bhp level

but i suppose if you want power then turbo it is.

My main reason is ;)

I have a 1992 g limited and everyone i spoken to, said you should have bought a turbo model :(

and the N/A cars are ****, more power from a lada riva...................... :(

i cant sell my car and buy a turbo because i have only just got it and i do like it :)

Has anyone info on how to do a engine conversion from N/A to turbo

i have sourced a few turbo motor's but what do you need, a list of parts would be great.

I am thinking about the conversion so any info or any comments and idea' on this would help out

Thanks wylde sr

[EarL]

Turbo all the way!

I guess it depends on a couple of things. 1. Age (for insurance) and 2. Price (a comparitively same age N/A will cost roughly 3/4 that of a turbo the same age.

Bear in mind, the turbo might cost a little more, and be a little more expensive to insure, but the benefits are tenfold. Easier to tune, as you're starting out with around 50% more bhp than a N/A. It costs little more than a couple of hundred quid to get an extra 50-60bhp from a turbo, where it would cost three times that to do the same to a N/A.

Go turbo.

[BLOODUK]

4. PETROL OUCH :ffs:

[EarL]

4. PETROL OUCH :ffs:

...oh yeah... and there's the petrol. :(

[midmotorsteve]

I have had a turbo conversion. They are different beasts, i'll still admit that in an ideal world i'd have a TOMS n/a over a turbo, but not a stock n/a over a turbo.

Millway fitted my turbo bundle, rogue systems supplied the parts, if i didn't get lots of additional stuff it would have cost £550 fitting total, £1500 + vat parts

So for a rev1 swap it can be done £550 fitting total, £1250 + vat parts, not bad really when lots of people pay that for a full body kit and respray...

Turbos are no where near as responsive to throttle changes as n/a cars, but n/a cars have nowhere near the on boost torque

[wyldeSR]

Ah midmotorsteve

i read that you have had a engine conversion done

You may be able to help me out with a few things, if that's ok

i have a found a turbo motor on its own with gearbox and running gear

any idea's what else i need

The obvious i suppose is

ECU

INTERCOOLER

do you know if there is anything else that is needed and is the conversion hard to do, i have a mate who is a good mechanic

and could carry out the conversion

Realy looking for a list of things to consider and look to buy to make this happen

Thanks wyled sr

[shaf2000]

having driven both, i would opt for the turbo everytime unless money was an issue. it has more power, is easier to tune, sounds better (engine noises) and just puts a grin on your face everytime boost kicks in :D

for a turbo conversion from na you will need:

engine

gearbox

driveshafts

hubs

looms

ecu

and possibly some more bits :)

[projectprelude]

i dont see the point in converting an N/a to turbo you would be better off selling the NA and getting a turbo.

[wyldeSR]

Thought of that already

Just bought the car, and full leather seats and door cards

spent a bit on it.

A few TRD bits

plus rev 3 reat lights

I like it its mint for th year, i just wish it had a turbo motor in it

It cost me £2000

So i guess another £1000 or so will make it even better

[midmotorsteve]

i dont see the point in converting an N/a to turbo you would be better off selling the NA and getting a turbo.

I see a lot of point

1. I don't like T-Bars

2. I like the colour of mine (rare colour)

3. Full powerflex bushes fitted

4. H&R coilovers fitted

5. I know the history, i.e no crash damage

6. The rest of my cars in mint condition

7. 99% of cars that come off the ships are well tatty and need money spent on bodywork, tidying them up.

8. Buying an engine bundle from a car that has never been driven in the UK you know its never been run on supermarket premium.

9. Any parts that look worn can be replace at very low cost while the engine is out.

Lets face it the labour on my conversion cost less than i have heard some people pay for a tubby cambelt change :)

[qwertyuiop]

Turbo's boost more, obviously - they are turbo cars after all. However, me being 19 I am opting for an N/A.

1) Insurance purposes, insurers won't touch me on a turbo (Group 20)

2) Running costs, I have a lot of other things to bare in mind when it comes to budget.

3) N/A's are still fast, it's still a sports car and it will still perform as one.

4) I'm 19, take a look around at the market, what other car comes across half as impressive as an MR2? I say, have your saxo, your nova, your lada, or whatever, I'll take the MR2. It's self explanatory.

5) Maybe when I'm old enough, i.e. 21, I may well convert to a turbo, if it's only an extra £1000 then why not, if I did my car up like you said, I don't know whether I'd be bothered to go through the hassle of selling and re-buying. Come then though, who knows, I might be looking at something else.

As far as you go, at the end of the day £3000 for a turbo, that's in your ideal condition (rear lights etc.), is not that expensive really when comparing to turbo models for sale - if you want to do it, go for it.

[james1760]

i like my n/a for the following reasons

1, only cost £200 more to insure than my 1.3 mk6 escort

2. petrol

3. if i got a turbo i would more than likley modyify is spend ing lots of time +money

4. less thinks to break/maintain on the n/a

[wyldeSR]

Thanks for reply peep's

keep em coming

Wylde sr

[LORD_ED]

contact fensport they do a conversion for the celica (fitting a mr2 turbo lump in) for about £2500 it has to be chaper to do a conversion on an mr2 so contact them mate

ed

[mr2mk1g]

Ok, so first a little history: I drive an NA MR2Mk2, before that I had a Twin Turbo Supra. My car before that was an NA MR2Mk1.

One thing I loved about my Mk1 was that I could thrash the **** out of her and she’d still be begging for more. When I moved to the Supra I missed that, because the turbo power meant that if I thrashed it I could suddenly find myself doing 120mph in town… not good. Or I could push her round a corner to have the turbo kick in and suddenly I’m staring at a hedge… even worse.

So when it came to buying a Mk2, one of the things I considered was whether or not I wanted to be able to hammer my car occasionally, really putting it through it’s paces and having some fun in it, or if I wanted to always be holding some back, rarely really pushing the car, always careful with the accelerator, never really trying to get the absolute most out of her.

To me, that second option just seems a little depressing. I may be going slower in my NA, but I can really push her to the max getting there. A turbo could cruise past me… but they wouldn’t really have to try. You get the most fun out of life if you make yourself push hard occasionally.

Just my take on it anyway.

Oh... and would I have got the turbo if my insurance co would look at imports...? Probably, yeah. :P

[DeusMR2]

Turbos are no where near as responsive to throttle changes as n/a cars, but n/a cars have nowhere near the on boost torque

Agree with that 100%, even my dads carina E 1.6 has better throttle response below 2500rpm! I've got a new dizzy cap and rotor coming this week so hopefully that'll improve the response a bit.

Having said that the boostage more than makes up for the lack of response You dont really feel it in the city but out when youre cruising, having that turbo whistle/jet engine roar behind you reminds me of why i bought a turbo in the first place! 15psi here i come... :hokus-pokus:

[midmotorsteve]

Ok, so first a little history: I drive an NA MR2Mk2, before that I had a Twin Turbo Supra. My car before that was an NA MR2Mk1.

One thing I loved about my Mk1 was that I could thrash the **** out of her and she’d still be begging for more. When I moved to the Supra I missed that, because the turbo power meant that if I thrashed it I could suddenly find myself doing 120mph in town… not good. Or I could push her round a corner to have the turbo kick in and suddenly I’m staring at a hedge… even worse.

So when it came to buying a Mk2, one of the things I considered was whether or not I wanted to be able to hammer my car occasionally, really putting it through it’s paces and having some fun in it, or if I wanted to always be holding some back, rarely really pushing the car, always careful with the accelerator, never really trying to get the absolute most out of her.

To me, that second option just seems a little depressing. I may be going slower in my NA, but I can really push her to the max getting there. A turbo could cruise past me… but they wouldn’t really have to try. You get the most fun out of life if you make yourself push hard occasionally.

Just my take on it anyway.

Oh... and would I have got the turbo if my insurance co would look at imports...? Probably, yeah. :P

I agree, in a perfect world i'd have a TOMs engine N/A 235bhp, 235bhp of n/a power would be fantastic, i'd dump the turbo for that.

[Bibbs]

I've owned both .. an NA for over a year .. and my tubby over 2.5 years.

Tubby 100% ..

[CraigT]

Owning an N/A is the only option for me because:

* I have 2 cars

* I have a daughter

* I have a house

* Insurance is higher on a tubby

* Petrol consumtion is higher on a tubby

* Tubbys are more expensive to maintain (?)

My MR2 is mainly to get me back and forth to work as its not suitable as a 'family' car so there'd be no point in me owning a turbo.

If I had more spare cash tho and didnt have other things to consider Id probably be the owner of a rev5 turbo :D

[Funkadelic]

Turbo. It's what the nasp MR2 always wanted to be IMO.

My 175bhp G Limited suffers from a lack of torque, and you only get that real kick-in-the-back at the top of the rev range in second gear, whereas in the turbo model you get it pretty much constantly.

Having said that, I have a nasp MR2 because:

It's cheaper to insure.

Cheaper (but by no means inexpensive) to run whilst I save for my RX7.

There's less danger of getting seriously out of shape if it's your first mid engined, rear wheel drive care, and it's therefore easier to explore the limits and safely exploit RWD handling. :D

[Cally007]

I'd love a turbo but was getting silly quotes on them plus I am a poor student so I am looking for an n/a till i finish my course then onto the turbos.

[dawolf]

Having owned an RS Turbo in the past I have to admit turbo's are fun and the kick they give is great. Main problems are insurance, petrol useage and parts tend to wear quicker due to being under more strain. Plus, obviously turbochargers themselves are not cheap to replace. The N/A is okay BUT if I could afford all of the above I'd get a turbo for sure.

For now I've got the MR2 for it's gorgeous looks rather than performance.

[JohnnyC]

NA, due to turbo boost being the last thing you want mid-corner!

However, as the mk2 is a bit lardy, I'd like more power - I'd LOVE a 200bhp BEAMS VVTi thank you very much :)

[dawolf]

Yeah agreed, another 50bhp would be nice for the N/A. My previous cars, an RS Turbo and 106 GTI both felt slightly quicker on acceleration because of their lightweight. Still, I love the look of the mk2.

[Jimlad]

Turbo... Turbo !!!

Got to be... someone said poor throttle response ?? Just drop a gear and floor it then... insta turbo power !! ... so much fun. Can't beat slamming it into 3rd at 60mph to overtake some folks... ooohh.. neck pain.

Saying that tho I've never driven a N/A to date so not got anything to compare it with. All I know is that I've got this tuby pushing out 275bhp and I'll be getting more as soon as I have finished with the bodywork... if I ever do... lol.