pvt.Cowboy

Now let me get this straight... in order to have a turbo you guys recomend that you start with a turbo car to begin with. That means starting with a car that after 11 years and probably more than 80k will probably need a motor. To make serious performance I will have to replace the turbo, intercooler, exhaust manifold, engine management, injectors, and fabricate a few parts along the way for all the aftermarket upgrades. So why not start with a non-turbo car with at the same mileage will have a healthier engine? What is going to remain of the factory turbo car that you have to have? Anyway.. don't flame me I'm just confused on why you need to start with the factory failure prone turbo...

Scott 89t2

because 99.9 % of the parts are different on a turbo II then N/A... it's more then just a turbo added on.

fcturbo2

Scott 89t2 is right. Also you have to think about your rear and tranny. Im not sure how much stress the N/A tranny and rear can handle. Adding the parts you listed are serious and will make alot of horse power. EMS is a must!!!...

NZConvertible

That's a huge assumption... Failure prone? Nope. Most turbo engine failures are related to poor modification; taking advantage of the much higher potential a turbo provides and simply going too far. A stock or near-stock turbo should have no more problems that a comparable NA.

BoostedRotors

So you feel that buying a 15 year old NA and replacing everything on that instead is the answer?