Well, ive decided to not spend any more money on my zed.

After all the work thats been done to it, and all that money, its no better off than when i first bought it!

 

I do want a zed, but ive had enough. Hence me thinking to get an N/a.

 

I know its not the same, but as i dont drive fast on the road anyway, it might make sence.

 

Anybody gone from TT - NA?

 

I could always rebuild my engine over time and do a TT conversion if i need the power..

Na are really slow imo and you would hate it. you just need to buy a good TT and have done with :biggrin:

there not that slow lol and still should muster over 200bhp (and before the question comes up) yes i have drove a tt ;)

 

as you say though i dont think many go the other way i have the n/a and will hope to do the swap in the end :D

Na are really slow imo and you would hate it. you just need to buy a good TT and have done with :biggrin:

 

You cheeky bugger.......lol, NA's are not really slow......:no:.....come out for a spin in mine, see if I can change your mind after a drive in a NA with a police trained advanced driver......hee hee. Betcha I can change your mind....lol, and in an auto too.......:punk:

Go test drive one, see what you think.

 

I've owned 2x TT Manuals, 1x NA Manual, 1x NA Auto , and driven and worked on far more Z's than i can remember over the years .....and IMO :

 

Getting out of a TT and into an NA, yes the NA feels a lot slower. But its not like that if your getting out of a regular car and into the NA. It still a relatively quick car on the road and fun to drive.

 

0.60 is 6.5-7 secs, about 145mph topspeed

 

The NA needs to be revved harder than the TT to go quickly, you dont get that effortless turbocharged torque pulling it along but the difference in how they feel is greater than the actual on the road difference. Stock for Stock anyway.

 

You can thrash them through the bends and out of roundabouts with less concern about it biting you back and they are lighter and more responsive than the TT.

 

The 3 downsides are :

1. Its very difficult and expensive to make it any quicker than it already is.

2. The TT will see off just about any car your likely to come across on the road, but the NA will have to fight with Hothatches and fast saloons.

3. Your friends will always have a look of dissapointment in there eyes after they ask you if its a Turbo

 

Its a bit more economical and 'potentially' more reliable, although the TT can be more economical on long motorway journeys than the NA and most Z reliablity faults are not directly turbo related.

 

Personally i would take an NA Manual over a TT Auto anyday though.

 

I would'nt go for an NA auto....while the TT manual vs Auto performance is quite close , the NA manual vs Auto difference is more noticable.

Edited April 30, 201114 yr by Yowser

Go test drive one, see what you think.

 

Getting out of a TT and into an NA, yes the NA feels a lot slower. But its not like that if your getting out of a regular car and into the NA. It still a relatively quick car on the road and fun to drive.

 

0.60 is 6.5-7 secs, about 145mph topspeed

 

The NA needs to be revved a harder than the TT, you dont get that effortless turbocharged torque pulling it along but difference in how they feel is greater than the actual on the road difference though. Stock for Stock anyway.

 

You can thrash them through the bends and out of roundabouts with less concern about it biting you back and they are lighter and more responsive than the TT.

 

The 3 downsides are :

1. Its very difficult and expensive to make it any quicker than it already is.

2. The TT will see off just about any car your likely to come across on the road, but the NA will have to fight with Hothatches or fast saloons.

3. Your friends will always have a look of dissapointment in there eyes after they ask you if its a Turbo

 

Personally i would take an NA Manual over a TT Auto anyday.

 

I would'nt go for an NA auto though....while the TT manual vs Auto performance is quite close , the NA manual vs Auto difference is more noticable.

 

love it!!

I went from a TT Manual to an NA Auto and they're fine. I've driven a TT Auto and they're enjoyably mental when the turbos do their stuff and she just heads for the hills while the autobox swops cogs for you. TBH I felt more out of control with the TT Auto compared to the TT Manual - just hang on, shut your eyes and pray. Well, maybe not shut your eyes.

 

But for a daily driver in commuterville (eg A40/NCR), the NA Auto is a much better choice than either manual or turbo:

1. turbos not cooking themselves or the wiring harness or just everything else under the bonnet while you sit in a traffic jam
   
2. left knee not shot to ribbons after a hour of into first, edge a few yards, back into neutral, repeat until you get past the target roundabout
   
3. mileage about 10% - 15% better even given the auto
   

 

If I ever stop commuting, I'll go back to a TT Manual but wouldn't turn down a TT Auto.

 

The advice given to me back then was that there is less to go wrong or need maintaining with an NA compared to TT (no HICAS, no Turbos) and things under the bonnet don 't get so overheated. My experience is there are different things to go wrong almost as expensively on an NA! aargh. Well, perhaps not quite so expensively as shot turbos but a steering rack rebuild is much the same either way.

 

It is just as easy to put points on your licence with either as both are capable of illegal speeds quite quickly. The actual difference between a TT and NA in everyday use is not that big and you'd really have to be driving like a numpty full time to think it made that much of a difference.

 

Expect the performance from a 230bhp (TT 280bhp) 10 - 20 year old car and you'll be happy - I am.

Very informative replies !!

 

It all depends on whether its your weekend warrior, daily commute etc, etc ??

 

Nothing is simple about the Zed, not even choosing one !!:chinese:

 

Alan..........

Thanks for the replies fellas. Was more helpful than i expected.

TT it is..

Yeah you just need to take your time, this way you can find a minter and save while your waiting :)

I cant save!

But i'll put all i get from breaking mine towards what ive already got..

Personally I like the idea of an N/A because I started out in N/A cars and have had some bloody fast ones, my 2.8i V6 Capri and my BMW 525i Sport to name just two of them, I've had some pretty quick Autos as well, my MkIII Supra and my Jaguar 5.3 V12 XJS (The supra had a turbo, the Jag didn't need one, in fact I'm scared to think what it would have been like, with one!) to name two again, but to be honest, I just love it, when I knock it into second and my turbos kick in, causing my Z's rear end to go f3ckin ape-merde!

I suppose if I could... I'd have 1 of each, but the TT would have to be a shorty slicktop with manual box.

what about a single turbo?

What about a single turbo?

I've had two TT auto LWB's, and two NA manual SWB's - I prefer the NA's but that could be down to the SWB manual bit. It is nice to just jump in, crank her up and go without the worry of warming up/cooling down the tubs :)

Youve still got to warm it up..

I went from a TT Manual to an NA Auto and they're fine. I've driven a TT Auto and they're enjoyably mental when the turbos do their stuff and she just heads for the hills while the autobox swops cogs for you. TBH I felt more out of control with the TT Auto compared to the TT Manual - just hang on, shut your eyes and pray. Well, maybe not shut your eyes.

 

But for a daily driver in commuterville (eg A40/NCR), the NA Auto is a much better choice than either manual or turbo:

1. turbos not cooking themselves or the wiring harness or just everything else under the bonnet while you sit in a traffic jam
   
2. left knee not shot to ribbons after a hour of into first, edge a few yards, back into neutral, repeat until you get past the target roundabout
   
3. mileage about 10% - 15% better even given the auto
   

 

If I ever stop commuting, I'll go back to a TT Manual but wouldn't turn down a TT Auto.

 

The advice given to me back then was that there is less to go wrong or need maintaining with an NA compared to TT (no HICAS, no Turbos) and things under the bonnet don 't get so overheated. My experience is there are different things to go wrong almost as expensively on an NA! aargh. Well, perhaps not quite so expensively as shot turbos but a steering rack rebuild is much the same either way.

 

It is just as easy to put points on your licence with either as both are capable of illegal speeds quite quickly. The actual difference between a TT and NA in everyday use is not that big and you'd really have to be driving like a numpty full time to think it made that much of a difference.

 

Expect the performance from a 230bhp (TT 280bhp) 10 - 20 year old car and you'll be happy - I am.

 

I think this a great reply; and have also had TT and NA in both auto/manual, and although I now have a TT Auto, I still think the NA car felt like a nicer car to drive.

single turbos have been done and is an interesting idea for an N/a owner but if your gonna go turbo imo i'd go just for a TT lump and do a manual conversion at the same time if its an auto but hey thats just me!! :)

what about a single turbo?

 

Short answer: because Nissan didn't build a single turbo 300ZX Z32 and they mostly knew what they were doing.

 

Long answer (as usual from the essential refence book 300ZX The Enthusiast's Companion, sadly out of print):

Each cylinder bank has independent inlet and exhaust systems. This is desirable for gasflow, but so would be short inlet tracts, and on the ZX the pipework is long and convoluted. It had to be to fit under the low bonnet. Masataka Nakajima says that the 'packaging' of the intake system is the aspect of the engine of which the engineers are most proud.

It is, indeed, a masterpiece of plumbing - all the more so in the Turbo which has to direct inlet air from the single front-mounted air cleaner back to the turbochargers either side of the engine, and then forward again to the intercoolers in the nose and back to the so-called cross-ram manifolds, feeding to the opposite cylinder bank.

The exhaust is a true dual system from engine to twin tailpipes, with catalytic converters either side of the car's centreline under the seats. The Turbo also has small supplementary catalysts built into the downpipes which heat up quickly to ensure catalytic action directly after a cold start.

So the 300ZX Turbo has twin inlets, twin throttles, twin exhausts and twin turbochargers. Previous Z Turbos have used only one turbocharger. There was a layout logic in fitting two on the new one, but mostly the decision was dictated by the desire to achieve a high power output and good low and mid-range response.

Two turbo chargers mean that each can be smaller, and thus have less inertial mass, so that is spins more readily. This reduces 'turbo-lag', the irritating delay between the driver pressing the throttle and the engine providing boosted performance. In achieving the optimum size, Nissan engineers chose a hybrid of Garrett AiResearch turbochargers - the exhaust-driven turbine from the small T2 with the air compressor of the larger T25. In common with other Japanese manufacturers, Nissan have developed lightweight ceramic turbocharger rotors and used them in production cars, including a domestic market version of the old 300ZX. But with the smaller turbines of the twin-turbo installation, they could achieve their performance goals without such space-age components. The over-boost control system is also kept simple, using mechanical wastegates instead of complicated electronics.