GO FASTER

Just discovered this forum, an oasis in a desert.

sorry to jump on the thread but..

I'm looking at two cars this weekend and this thread interests me because one's a turbo the other n/a and I'm a bit concerned the GTA performance is bit poor, say compared to some modern h hatches up to 60mph.

Are n/a easier to tune or should I get a turbo and do above?

It will be a 2nd/weekend car.

Cheers

Mike

Definitely go for the turbo....tuning atmo engines is always harder work and more expensive. Spend £1000 on the turbo engine and you'll be looking at over 260 BHP........you could get that out of an atmo, but it would cost you many times as much to acheive.

I have a GTA turbo and love it!!! Its my first turbo car, after spending loads on 'n/a' cars. The performance benifits are endless and the sound of that turbo 'kicking in' behind you when you drive the GTA is fantastic and well worth the extra cost over the 'n/a', in my opinion...

I dont know...ive got a GTA turbo and a 610, but I still rate the N/A Gta as an easier car to drive fast. Its low end pick up and torque is better than any thing else ive driven, and the power is smooth right through to the redline.

I know what....drive them both and then make you mind up...but try not to get too swayed by the Turbo's kick in the back...even though it is very impressive!!

I had a turbo, and it was bloody good fun, irresistable giggles on boost.... but now I have an atmo.... wanted the direct power/low end torque. Certainly not quite as quick but still fast even standard. Air filter and exhaust are supposed to release about another 10 hp leving it only about 20 short of the turbo....
And it weighs less by about 150kg I think.
Much simpler to work on.
Exhaust note sounds better too as it isn't muffled by the turbo
Just my opinion!

Although it will only see the track a couple of times a year I do want something that won't embarrass me at traffic lights with a 205 gti.

I don't need a distance cruiser/traffic crawler, that's what my faithfull mondeo does.

Also it would appear the turbo has more scope for improved performance. Dare I say it, up to that of maybe a 944 turbo/s2!

I will try both cars, but I can't see me having a problem with off/on turbo shove. From a post I read today a bigger turbo may eleviate this somewhat anyway.

Main thing is getting a gooden.

Cheers guys

Have you ever driven a GTA yet?

You can always put a 3.0litre injection from the Laguna, Safrane, 406, Citroen XM in these put out getting on for 200bhp with exhaust filter and ecu mods and are cheap and readily available. Also the 24v V6 that was fitted in the 605 sve and XM 24v is basically the same engine with 24v heads. A friend of mine had his GTA converted in France and uses it for sprints and hillclimbs. Filters exhaust and ecu remap gives 240 ish bhp with no lag and I been in it and its much quicker than a standard turbo. Or you can do what I'm doing and put a 3.0 turbo in for the best of both worlds.

Tony, now that's got me thinking!

David, I take your point. At present I'm totally clueless, I don't even know if I'll like the driving experience of either car.

All I will say is the GTA fits 90% of my criteria and not much else does

I've always liked them and now I'm in a position where I can run one and not worry about costs.

I've just been looking at standing quarter times for both cars and I think that's more revealing than the 0-60 times. Having said that I would like the potential to make it quicker if I keep getting embarrassed by the Weston Chavs.

Cheers

Ignore all the figures you see in books! On the road they are alot quicker than their piers. The GTA Turbo does st.qu in 14.4 secs, but it it cant hit the 100 mark in third gear, it has to change into fourth to cross the quarter mile, and the fourth on this car is spaced very long, its like most other peoples fifth!. So the car will storm up quicker than most other things to 90 odd, but then lose the next couple of mph with another gearchange and a drop in revs. Same with the 0-60, the GTA does only 58 in second, so it needs three gearchanges to 60. But this makes is quicker on the road than a car that does the same 0-60 with only two changes. The GTA n/a actually has a shorter fourth than the Turbo, thats why its not far behind...and...the GTA n/a will rev to about 6500, good in third and fouth to hold off other drivers. In my old N/A which was only tweaked to 170bhp, the only thing that ever started to pull away from me on a stint (and his car was howling at high revs)..was a 355 Spider, and this guy had at least a 15mph rolling start on me. Lesser cars such as cosworths and subarus, couldnt even match the n/a.

David,

Thanks for that and it's actualy made a difference to my thinking. There's a black one on atrader and I wasn't going to bother and just see a blue turbo up north, but I think I must investigate this and experience it for myself.

It's interesting that people who have had both cars still have an affinity for the na car.

I'd still like to tinker mildly with it though.

Thanks

The only thing to remember with the Turbos is that 250 bhp is really your limit of tuning affordably. To do this you need a new exhaust, 14psi boost and chip, preferably slightly bigger turbo. 14psi is the max the ecu will cope with before it cuts the engine. The fuel injectors are maxed out at this level. You can fit larger injectors from a R21 with more boost and adjusting the chip, but then it overfuels off boost. The problems with GTAs is there not really suited to being turbocharged, you know, with the engine in the back and all the heat. When you turn up the boost, you are just making it a lot hotter. To get anywhere near 300-350 bhp you would need a T3/T4 turbo (about £600-800), 260 degree cams (£350) fully mappable ecu (£800-1200) and a decent intercooler system and about 20psi of boost. And then get somebody to fit it all.

250bhp is fine. I'd spend any spare cash on a performance driving course.

and tyres!