Whats the power of a UK ZX non turbo?

Also what are the other difference between TT and Non tt?

Also whats the performance of the Auto and Manwel

0-60

0-100

 

and vmax

Originally posted by Welsh Beef

Whats the power of a UK ZX non turbo?

Also what are the other difference between TT and Non tt?

 

look here

 

:)

...from an American set of specifications the NA is 222hp, TT 300 both at 6400 rpm, Torque is 198 ft lb at 4800 for the NA and 283 ft lb at 3600 for the TT. Can't find 0 to 60 times on the info, but think it's 7.2 for the auto NA and 6.7 for the equivalent TT. Also think that the NA is about 12 stone lighter, but I stand to be corrected...

 

...so don't quote me on any of these, they are described as spec taken from the original 300zx brochure.

 

good luck

 

Jack

Performance stats

 

http://www.z32.org/html/z32perf.shtml

Why are the 0-60's so different on the years???.

Originally posted by kia99

Why are the 0-60's so different on the years???.

 

they are from different sources - perhaps some reviewers were worse drivers than others!! :slap:

 

also - not all are stock ;)

And don't forget, there is no such thing as a UK non turbo, they are all imports, all UK cars are turbo & 2+2

 

Paul:) :)

Also road testing is hardly scientific.

 

It can depend in how brutal / talented the tester is in dropping the clutch at the right time, road surface, temperature, tyres, fuel, whether the test car has been tweaked - easy to do with a turbo car. Skoda gave a discretely 220hp AudiTT chipped car for a road test comparison with 150bhp hot hatches including an Audi and VW Golf all with supposedly the same 150bhp engine - guess who won?

 

The 4.5sec to 60 GTZ beasts are something else and even the 5.9sec to 60 for a stock 90 auto.

 

They even have numbers for tests with intake only and intake and exhaust.

I still want a TT, but I am well happy with my NA now, after initial pangs of doubt. It is FAST, fast enough for me (well, maybe for the moment) and maybe I think for me it depends too on the condition of the car. I have got used to the one I have now, got comfortable with it over the last week and I don't think I could part with it now.

 

I read that Ray Hutton book and he said that the NA 'could' get off at the lights faster on occassion:

 

'driven lazily it [the turbo] can get blown off at the traffic lights by lesser cars,including a normally aspirated 300zx'

 

'...the regular car is light and easy to drive fast, the Turbo requires more effort and is more of an expert's car. The clutch is heavier, despite its servo.'

 

'...and or course, the engine has plenty of punch without the extra charge'

 

I think he said the NA can be nippier and handle better. Is he talking a load of old Sh**? I don't know.

 

I'm looking at it from the NA point of view, and well...I still really want a TT... that kind of says it all. Like some guy said on an old thread, nobody ever asks how to turn a TT into an NA, but the amount of time it's asked the other way around...

I had a 92 NA for three years. It was great reliable and incredibly fun to drive. I only sold because I moved back to the US and even then I thought about keeping it somewhere near Heathrow and driving whenever I was in the country. Good thing I didnt since I have not been back.

 

I bought a Porker 968 Cab 3 months ago, but every time I see a Z for sale, I still think about buying it.

 

I bought the 968 because I did not want to deal with the maintenance or insurance for the turbo. I did test drive a Stage 3 96 TT that was dynoed around 400 HP to the rear wheels with only 20k miles on it before I bought my NA. But I decided the NA was the car for me. Perhaps it is for you as well.

 

Manual vs Auto was a bigger issue for me. There was no way I was going to buy an auto NA or TT.