Na Vs Turbo

[Guo]

In my other post, I ask about Rev1 vs Rev2. I have decided to go with Rev2. Thanks guys for helping me decide on it. Now I would like to ask the same help on deciding between a NA or Turbo. I would like to know which do you guys think is better?

[EmR2T]

To be honest - I can't see how anyone could say the N/A is better other than for age/insurance/costs reasons?

[mr2-79]

would say turbo even though i own a n/a. Only reason why i didn't get a turbo was that i wanted a uk car and i wouldn't trust myself in a turbo - too much power for my first rear wheel drive car.

[houston]

thats too broad a question

everyone wants a tubby, theres no easier way for power.

what u usin the car for? track racing, town driving, motorway cruising?

how many years no claims do you have? how old are you? can u afford to pay maintainence, petrol, repairs?

[Bryn]

Ive got a N/A two but i still voted turbo.

In terms of performance they are the far superior.

The reson i have a N/A is because i can't afford the insurance and i suppose it gives me a chance to learn how to deal with a car of this nature.

If and when i can afford a Turbo i will have to get one :D

[Guo]

thats too broad a question

everyone wants a tubby, theres no easier way for power.

what u usin the car for? track racing, town driving, motorway cruising?

how many years no claims do you have? how old are you? can u afford to pay maintainence, petrol, repairs?

←

I'm gonna use the car for everyday thing: driving to work, to stores, to restaurants, etc.

I'm 30 yrs old. Yes I can afford repairs but I rather spend money on other things :)

[Billy C]

Whats a better car, a fast car? or a faster car?

Stupid question really, one that only you can answer.

[Fizz]

define better?

MPG? Performace? Repair bills? Insurance?

What exactly you after?...

You said you would rather put your monies elsewhere with regards ro repair bills... so stick to the N/A... as you dont seem keen enough to want a tubby..

[Mr2dude]

I currently own both !

Rev 3 Standard NA had that for 3 years,

Rev 2 300BHP Turbo for a couple of months. (soon to be 400 bhp!)

I like them both to be honest, its not just the power difference.

When I got the Tubby it was like a completely different car. The noise, the power, the backends a bit heavier, so the suspension is harder.

The NA is a nice "quiet" smooth car, u can listen to the stereo while u drive, and take your grandma out in it. Its just about driveable to its limits and control whats happening. The Tubby is a beast, it would give your Grandma a heart attack, it will grab you by the balls and rip them off if you arent sensible in it !. I dont even dare go for some oversteer on public roads on it. So for the actual fun factor on your trip to Asda and back, an NA is more accessible. Although for a couple of hundred meters of full throttle (on a straight road !), nothing beats the noise of the turbine spooling up, the dump value letting off during gear changes, and the popping of flames out the down your straight through down pipe and out the twin 4'' pipes.

I've only had the NA on a track so far so i dunno how much more fun the tubby really is yet (Going there 2nd May, so I can learn what happens and to control it when adhesion levels break down)

Question has many answer really.

Tubby will kill you much easier than an NA.

My NA is going up for sale, I've just about give up driving the NA, its garaged, there's not much point.

If you buy an NA though, you'll probably wonder what a tubby would be like and eventually buy one anyway (or do an engine conversion).

I would recommend an NA as a first MR2, learn it and buy a Tubby later. But a monster 300+ bhp Tubby is a lot closer to super car performance.

Tubby has many more upgrade options in the engine bay if you are going to start looking for even more power, the NA is more of a buy and drive car as far as the engine is concenrned.

I Could be talking *****, but thats my take on it.

[Bibbs]

owned both .. tubby is better.

[jaxx]

the turbo is fanatastic, i had to have one and wouldnt settle for less when i test drove bibbs :P

only thing is you have to be gentle to be mental

must be regualr serviced with oil every 3k or so, must not thrash it when cold, must allow to cool when thrashed, brakes wear out quicker, and theres potentially more to go wrong with the turbo etc....

MPG will obviously suffer, but then why own a turbo if your concerned about MPG and the environment! Mind you just noticed your in the states so you pay roughly a third for juice than we do!

Boost is adicitve! youll want more, and spend money

i dont think the turbo comes better equipped? i may be wrong but i do prefer the half leather rather that full in the 2, saves getting a sweaty backside or freezing cold in them winter months

personally im planning to get a nacker to potter around in and get to work, something i dont care about as long as it runs! and leave my MR2 for when its more appropriate, generally appreciate it more aswell!

[midmotorsteve]

owned both and they are quite different cars, if you live in the sticks and want to blat about the wind unclassified and b-roads then n/a is best, if its carriageways etc turbo is better. On track they are just as fun as each other.

The turbo's are more demanding on the twistys as you have to be carefull of the huge torque esp in the wet. n/a is a much safer car to push hard.

[shaf2000]

i have driven one mint na and loads of turbo's. i currently have 2 and to be honest when you compare the na to the turbo in terms of pure driver enjoyment, then the turbo puts the biggest grin on your face everytime :)

[Stu8]

Turbo or N/A

hmmmmm let me think.

;)

[Fitz]

Well, not been out in a turbo as yet, but I could have bought one. Insurance for me was only going to be £100 more. It was the jap nasp that was the killer on insurance.

I chose the nasp for the fact I figure there is less to go wrong and less expensive when it does go wrong. The turbo is putting more power through the block so in theory, putting more strain on it.

My reasons for MR2 ownership may be different to others though. My last car was a turbo and it was great, but after 6 months or so I was bored of racing round the place kicking in the boost and letting off to get a ptsssss noise. The petrol costs were more and I lost interest. I deceided to get something new and always liked the shape of the 2.

The nasp I bought is so quiet and soft in comparisom to my last car it has brought back the pleasure in driving. It has good power (though I do keep driving like I still think a turbo is going to kick in) and appears to handle well.

That said, it all depends on what you want from a car. If its power then the tubby wins, if it's just a pleasureable car that looks good but doesn't cost a great deal to run, the nasp surely wins.

[tallbloke]

Pete,

I can tell your getting old.....

Well I looked at both but chose Tubby in the end. One as Like Pete my previous car was a turbo, but I chose to stay true as I'm young enough to enjoy it. So while I can (ie before kids wife etc etc) I am.

As for Cost of running. If I had a NASP I'll probably cause more damage to it as I'd be driving it round missing the turbo power.

Anyways

Chris

<tubby boyo>

[spaceman]

never driven a N/A but turbo's are pretty good

[EarL]

Got to have BOOOOOSSST!

Turbo every time.

[silvasurfa]

i think... were all sayin tubby but he'd be happy with an n/a- the quote "id rather spend it on something else" made it clear!

[swales_p]

Ive drove them both and own a tubbie - the N/A MR2 to me is a dissapointment BUT the turbo'd version is a good larf to drive!

Enjoyment - Turbo

If your wanting to keep the car for a long period of time + drive plenty of miles in it per week - N/A.

Tubbies drink fuel like its going out of fashion!!!

Cheers

[boundsw]

ssshhhhhh......pppssstttttt evey time :D

[Karma Supra]

"An N/A engine is like a turbo engine with eternal lag"

[Fitz]

Well, I've yet to go out in Tallblokes's turbo but I know I will be impressed by the power. However, I just finished my first tank of petrol and told him how many miles I got out of the nasp and he replied with words I can't repeat here :D

I got 265 on about 45 litres and the low fuel light had just come on so in theory I had nearly 10 litres left. Then bear in mind it was my first tank load so I have been driving rather enthusiastically round town and too quick on the motorway so that was an uneconomical tank!!

I've been used to just scrapping 220 miles from the same amount of fuel in the Rover turbo so I'm very pleased.

[tallbloke]

Ahhh yes you have made me jealous on the fuel front mate.. However driving the turbo is a lot more .... exciting and after you watched me get the back end of the rover to slide out have a guess what driving style / choice of car will suit me better