I used to have a TT (auto) and I found it pretty impractical for living in London. I only really got the turbo happening properly on straight motorway type roads and the car always felt like it wanted to 'go' more round town which I found frustrating if I'm honest. I know there is a big difference in power but is the N/A still a 'good drive' and fun?

Yep. "only" 50hp difference. NA auto still 230hp. London (A40 / A406) is exactly why I changed from a manual TT to an NA Auto. Very happy.

Thanks Gio, I'm thinking I need an N/A manual but that's really good to know (A40/A406) is exactly my part of town too (Ealing)

 

Cheers!

I've got both :

 

NA is a manual and my TT is an auto!

 

I have serious fun in them both but nipping about town in the NA

is easier and sounds great compared to the TT !!

Own a N/a and driven tt's :cowboy:

Thanks Gio, I'm thinking I need an N/A manual but that's really good to know (A40/A406) is exactly my part of town too (Ealing)

 

Cheers!

My Zed's a daily driver and how I get to/from work so wave if you see a blue NA with GIO on the plates. Because it's a commute, I quickly got bored with the clutch on the manual when Hanger Lane seizes up and my left knee has now forgiven me thanks to the auto.

 

And I'm sure having two turbos pumping out heat with no airflow wasn't doing anything under the bonnet any good. So bye bye turbos and hello auto. Better mpg too.

n/a's were 220hp from new so i be most of them are only around 200hp now

n/a's were 220hp from new so i be most of them are only around 200hp now

 

you mean 230bhp ;) but yeah if its around 200hp now it would be an average loss, i remember a member though with decats ss pipes and a k&n mustered 218 on a dyno :)

My Zed's a daily driver and how I get to/from work so wave if you see a blue NA with GIO on the plates. Because it's a commute, I quickly got bored with the clutch on the manual when Hanger Lane seizes up and my left knee has now forgiven me thanks to the auto.

 

And I'm sure having two turbos pumping out heat with no airflow wasn't doing anything under the bonnet any good. So bye bye turbos and hello auto. Better mpg too.

 

I'll look out for you mate!

i have my zed as a daily driver, when the a406/a40 is nice and quite its brlliant, and if your worried about being stuck in traffic etc not sure why an auto tt is still a problem.

 

no matter what anyone says there still is a big difference from an na/ to a tt ive diven an n/a and there is a massive difference obviously only when putting your foot down but the difference is still there.

 

the sound is nicer on the n/a. still a zed is a zed and depends what you want it for. some people are happy with around 220 and just the looks do i for them. the n/a is still very nice to drive and hootle about in, especially on those short journeys.

Edited May 8, 201114 yr by indian_zx

I have to be honest the NA does sound nice and crisp when revving, but I reckon the TT trumps it once boost kicks in!

you mean 230bhp ;) but yeah if its around 200hp now it would be an average loss, i remember a member though with decats ss pipes and a k&n mustered 218 on a dyno :)

 

230??? 1st ive ever heard of it :lol:

Ive been looking at both but really fancy the TT. Its hard to tell sometimes wether or not its an NA or a TT.

 

For the experts out there how can you tell the difference between an NA and a TT apart from looking in the engine.

 

Am I wrong in thinking that the TT had the front grill with the slits in at both ends and had a spoiler. Where as the NA did not...? Would be nice to know the difference.

 

Dave

Looks for the intercooler vents on the bumper or the boost guage on the clocks.

 

But the obvious bit is the extra turbo pipes on the engine !

nahh its just every time i'd say 220 i get no it's 230 stock but that was back in 91 or what not

 

i just wanted to get it in there first mate! :lol::lol:

Ive been looking at both but really fancy the TT. Its hard to tell sometimes wether or not its an NA or a TT.

 

For the experts out there how can you tell the difference between an NA and a TT apart from looking in the engine.

 

Am I wrong in thinking that the TT had the front grill with the slits in at both ends and had a spoiler. Where as the NA did not...? Would be nice to know the difference.

 

Dave

 

With so many zeds being broken up these days it wouldn't surprise me some NA's out there have TT front bumpers too !

 

Far as the spoiler goes they come with and without and theres a few varations.

nahh its just every time i'd say 220 i get no it's 230 stock but that was back in 91 or what not

 

i just wanted to get it in there first mate! :lol::lol:

 

Na it was 222hp from factory and the supra was 225hp

 

Dosnt bother me anyway 220 or 230 its still slow :lol::lol::lol:

mate i've heard the lot 220/222/225/230 but after checking it looks like 222 is correct so hat off and that lol,.....still a bm beater though my 325/328 where below 200 for sure

my gsi and 330d would leave an na . well there quicker than the supra was.

mate i've heard the lot 220/222/225/230 but after checking it looks like 222 is correct so hat off and that lol,.....still a bm beater though my 325/328 where below 200 for sure

 

Your 325i and 328i though were 192 and 193bhp respectivly... I admit the 328i were strangled (although a manifold will see them around the 220bhp mark) however the 325i does have a higher specific output per litre than an NA 300zx ;) 74 vs 77 or so

ok so as standard an n/a z is covered but with (little) tweaking the odds are turned allot! very intersting that, i'd love to go all out N/a wise just to say it can be done ......but it looks very expensive!

ok so as standard an n/a z is covered but with (little) tweaking the odds are turned allot! very intersting that, i'd love to go all out N/a wise just to say it can be done ......but it looks very expensive!

 

Put a turbo on it, hell infact go all out and put 2 on... wait a minute :D ;)

Enthusiast's Companion says 222bhp (=225ps) for NA and 280ps for TT.

But 1999 brochure (attached) says 230ps (=227hp) for NA and 280ps for TT

 

If you can tell the difference between 225ps and 230ps (or even 220 vs 230) in everyday use, you're telling porkies :D

Quavey thats somin i've thought off as in the single turbo route with other supporting mods uprated throttle bodies fuel rail etc...but then i just thing hang on could have bought a TT!!!

 

Gio lol on that !!!!

Quavey thats somin i've thought off as in the single turbo route with other supporting mods uprated throttle bodies fuel rail etc...but then i just thing hang on could have bought a TT!!!

 

Gio lol on that !!!!

 

To be fair, even with a few lbs of boost on an NA engine would have a huge impact, obviously being such higher compression than a TT is going to make a huge difference, infact wasnt there an NA converted using a rear mounted turbo, STS was the company? That was a fair project! Easy to change the turbo as well :D

In regards to a stock NA vs TT - Its not so much about the 50hp difference.....but the 90 Ib/ft of Torque difference that's really relevant.

 

I thought the U.S NA is 225 ps, and the Import is 230ps. Either way, it doesn't make any difference.

 

Im a fan of the NA, they can be great fun. But ultimately I always missed the power of the TT and its tuning potential, although I didn't get a Z to commute around town and sit in traffic with. Ddepends on your own needs and from what you said the NA may well suit your requirements better.

Edited May 8, 201114 yr by Yowser