View Poll Results: lets have it
Turbo II
127
38.84%
Naturally aspirated
43
13.15%
an RX-7 is an RX-7
157
48.01%
Voters: 327. You may not vote on this poll
NA vs. TII NOT A FLAME WAR!
09-25-03, 10:20 AM
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Louisville,Ky
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive thought of this.
TII if your drag racing or going in a straight line
N/A if your doing the twisties
S5 TII I thin is better then S4
And a GTUs is better then any S4 N/A (88 GTU, i dont like)
TII if your drag racing or going in a straight line
N/A if your doing the twisties
S5 TII I thin is better then S4
And a GTUs is better then any S4 N/A (88 GTU, i dont like)
09-27-03, 10:41 AM
#77
pistons=teh suck
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
id love to have a tII, but right now it just wouldnt be practical. my n/a suits me perfect for a daily driver. i dont have the money to have a non reliable car. i wish i could have one of each.
09-27-03, 10:05 PM
#78
Full Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering the TurboII is still underpowered in factory form (magazines back in 88 even said that with 100 extra hp it would be THE perfect car), I think the NA is lacking in the ***** department, despite being a great looking and handling fun car. The 87-88 T2 makes 182 hp and about 151 to the wheels. It is rare that bone stock TurboIIs run better than low 15s with average drivers. The best time I've ever seen out of an NA with intake, headers and exhaust is high 15s. Stock most of them run 16.5. That may have been competitive-ish 15 years ago but is pathetic now. So why is this even a question when the TurboII does EVERYTHING better than an NA -except- reliability and gas mileage? It you want those qualities so bad buy a Honda.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
joel(PA)
Group Buy & Product Dev. FD RX-7
8
10-04-15 06:07 PM
