Jump to content


Photo

Difference In 2.0 Vs 2.2


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 scottjamesm

scottjamesm

    Member

  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 May 2020 - 09:09 AM

Hey all,

 

Just a quick one... obviously the engine is different in the two models, but are there any key body differences... presume they are the exact same shell ?

Cheers

Scott 



#2 martinroger

martinroger

    Super Member

  • PipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich

Posted 08 May 2020 - 09:20 AM

The inside of the rear clam is a bit different.

#3 scottjamesm

scottjamesm

    Member

  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 May 2020 - 09:31 AM

Ah thanks. Like longer in size or?

#4 martinroger

martinroger

    Super Member

  • PipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich

Posted 08 May 2020 - 09:39 AM

Different trunk shape

#5 scottjamesm

scottjamesm

    Member

  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 May 2020 - 09:41 AM

Thought it was. Looks shorter or something in the 2.2



#6 martinroger

martinroger

    Super Member

  • PipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich

Posted 08 May 2020 - 10:07 AM

Actually I think the turbo one is shorter.maybe different subframe too.

#7 scottjamesm

scottjamesm

    Member

  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 May 2020 - 11:11 AM

 

Actually I think the turbo one is shorter.maybe different subframe too.

 

Thanks : )

#8 techieboy

techieboy

    Supercharger of Doom

  • 22,794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 08 May 2020 - 11:24 AM

2.2 NA

 

Larger boot.

Smaller boot/engine cover air vents

Flush side air inlets

No front "splitters" (originally)

Silver headlight/rearlight shrouds

Front chav lights were initially optional

Optional hardtop was originally silver to match screen surround

 

Turdo

 

Smaller boot

Different boot/engine cover with larger air vents

Sticky Outy side vents/ears (therefore different sill sections)

Standard rear spoiler

Front "splitters" standard

Uglier wheels :D

Black headlight/rearlight shrouds

Front chav lights were standard

Optional hardtop was body coloured

And a bonus extra dose of lard

 

 

Plus a myriad of variations that people have done themselves over the last 20 years.



#9 scottjamesm

scottjamesm

    Member

  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 May 2020 - 11:35 AM

2.2 NA

 

Larger boot.

Smaller boot/engine cover air vents

Flush side air inlets

No front "splitters" (originally)

Silver headlight/rearlight shrouds

Front chav lights were initially optional

Optional hardtop was originally silver to match screen surround

 

Turdo

 

Smaller boot

Different boot/engine cover with larger air vents

Sticky Outy side vents/ears (therefore different sill sections)

Standard rear spoiler

Front "splitters" standard

Uglier wheels :D

Black headlight/rearlight shrouds

Front chav lights were standard

Optional hardtop was body coloured

And a bonus extra dose of lard

 

 

Plus a myriad of variations that people have done themselves over the last 20 years.

Thanks !

Just deciding between the two... age old topic ! 

Looking at the two models and it's 2k£ more for the turbo one... Just wondering if i should just get the 2.2 and use the 2k for mods :S

 

 



#10 techieboy

techieboy

    Supercharger of Doom

  • 22,794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 08 May 2020 - 11:59 AM

£2k in mods on the 2.2 won't deliver the additional performance that the turbo gives as standard, if that's your key benchmark.

 

2.2 (at least as long as it's suspension/steering have been looked after) is a better/sharper drive from a handling and purity point of view. It's also plenty quick on real world roads but will suffer from an outright speed point of view when compared with modern point and shoot hot'ish hatches, let alone proper silly hot hatches like AMG A45's or RS3's. Tuning it to a similar level as a standard or light'ishly breathed on turbo (stage 2) is not cheap.

 

The turbo is also much cheaper to tune up to a reasonable level if that's a potential future need.

 

When I bought mine back in the dim and distant past, I tried both (and a similarly aged K series S2 Elise) back to back and preferred the NA and the £4k'ish price saving at the time. But, unless you're careful you end up in the BHP race and to use Boris' phrase, spaff a lot of money on "improving" things and for me at least, lose some of it's fun.


 



#11 scottjamesm

scottjamesm

    Member

  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 May 2020 - 12:08 PM

£2k in mods on the 2.2 won't deliver the additional performance that the turbo gives as standard, if that's your key benchmark.

 

2.2 (at least as long as it's suspension/steering have been looked after) is a better/sharper drive from a handling and purity point of view. It's also plenty quick on real world roads but will suffer from an outright speed point of view when compared with modern point and shoot hot'ish hatches, let alone proper silly hot hatches like AMG A45's or RS3's. Tuning it to a similar level as a standard or light'ishly breathed on turbo (stage 2) is not cheap.

 

The turbo is also much cheaper to tune up to a reasonable level if that's a potential future need.

 

When I bought mine back in the dim and distant past, I tried both (and a similarly aged K series S2 Elise) back to back and preferred the NA and the £4k'ish price saving at the time. But, unless you're careful you end up in the BHP race and to use Boris' phrase, spaff a lot of money on "improving" things and for me at least, lose some of it's fun.

 

Thanks ! Tough decision indeed. 

 

At the moment, looking at it from aesthetic point of view. Doubt will be able to take it for a proper "spin" as I live in London and don't get out of it much ! 

From an aesthetic point of view, I think i can see the small differences between the two .... perhaps the 2.0 looks a little better... but surely I could mould the 2.2 with Eltech parts etc... 

 



#12 martinroger

martinroger

    Super Member

  • PipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich

Posted 08 May 2020 - 12:25 PM

From an exterior point if view, it is very easy to make a 2.2 look like a 2.0. Front splitters and side scoops and you are done.

#13 smiley

smiley

    Thetan level 15

  • 10,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 08 May 2020 - 12:47 PM

With the sidenote that the oem sidescoops with the oem grills are extremely rare nowadays.

Aftermarket with mesh readily avaialble.

 



#14 scottjamesm

scottjamesm

    Member

  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 May 2020 - 01:28 PM

Thanks everyone ! Appreciated. 



#15 scottjamesm

scottjamesm

    Member

  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 May 2020 - 01:29 PM

It's a 2.2l 2003 @ 35k miles for £11,995. Thinking that's an ok price... looks in good nic

Edited by scottjamesm, 08 May 2020 - 01:32 PM.


#16 martinroger

martinroger

    Super Member

  • PipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich

Posted 08 May 2020 - 01:30 PM

Better have all the bits sorted for that price, me thinks!

#17 smiley

smiley

    Thetan level 15

  • 10,250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 08 May 2020 - 01:32 PM

If you can link the advert, most of us can see from the pictures if there is anything to look out for.



#18 scottjamesm

scottjamesm

    Member

  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 08 May 2020 - 01:34 PM

https://www.bigvanwo...convertible-10/

 

Good for 11,995?



#19 pete-r

pete-r

    I never drive faster than I can see

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,745 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Wales

Posted 08 May 2020 - 01:34 PM

Try both cos the NA/SCs and the turbos drive very differently in terms of power delivery.

#20 coldel

coldel

    Need to get Out More

  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond

Posted 08 May 2020 - 01:53 PM

Advert says sold?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users