79 replies to this topic

[craigs182]

is there any major diffrences beetween performance? cheers

[AndyB]

is there any major diffrences beetween performance?
cheers

In what way? Accelleration speeds? Track work? They both have there advantages from what I have heard. The turbo is quicker in a straight line... but there are other things to consider. Try both if you are looking to buy

[bren.wright]

Yes there is, the turbo is a lot quicker unless on a tight track where it does not have the chance to stretch it's legs!

[Joe-Turbo]

think the official figures where something like vx n/a 0-60 in 5.7 top end 131 (has harder suspension) vx turbo 0-60 in 4.7 top end 151 (has softer suspension)

[johnaachen]

worms can open

[CocoPops]

worms
can
open

Spot on John!

Craig, just do a search... there are HUNDREDS of threads on it.

[Richy]

is there any major diffrences beetween performance?
cheers

[djegiant]

think the official figures where something like

vx n/a

0-60 in 5.7
top end 131
(has harder suspension)

Is it just me, or does that not tally up????

How many leptons ( ) does your NA do???????

[craigs182]

whooops! i tryed a search but couldnt find anythin!

[snoopstah]

Turbo is a lot faster in a straight line and almost as fast around the bends - I think it's fair to say that the talent of the driver will determine whether an NA or Turbo is faster through the bends more than the car's ability will. Turbo has much more low-down torque as well - can put your foot down in 5th gear at low revs and it'll leave an NA in 5th gear for absolute dust.

[AndyB]

think the official figures where something like

vx n/a

0-60 in 5.7
top end 131
(has harder suspension)

vx turbo

0-60 in 4.7
top end 151
(has softer suspension)

Turbo 0-100mph 12.6mph... so does pull quite a bit more than NA

And it's tunable to a good degree

[dw1]

It depends what you are looking for. In my limited experience the NA has a sharper turn in. The Turbo has more understeer, I think that is partly due to the weight but a lot due to the setup 'to er on the side of caution' and plump for safe understeer as the risks of drivers meeting hedges and corporate lawsuits rises with the grunt of the turbo. I believe that you can get the geo done to change this and get a much better turn in but don't know how this would compare to an NA. I went for a turbo for several reasons; newer, some VX niggles ironed out with it, definitely felt faster with that turbo surge, I needed the VX to be faster than my previous car - an NA would not have been much different for me. The Turbo also is better for overtaking bursts. However, just to add confusion you can fettle with the NA to give a lot more grunt. But you can also go Stage 2 or 3 with the Turbo and get 250bhp+ with 250+ torque ! The NA is seen as having a tigher, sharper, more focused drive than the Tubbie. Horses for courses, neither is better than the other, they are both fantastic cars. Heck get a VXR, the best of both worlds.

[JG]

on the road there is little difference between the two...

[joachim]

on the road there is little difference between the two...

YES, also on the road there IS a LOT of difference! I tested both, NA and Turbo before I bought the turbo, both by road and on track.

The turbo is brutal, and definately faster than the NA!

[pirro]

I've driven a couple of each and found the NA engine underwhelming and the turbo engine much more pokey. The turbos seemed noticably faster to me. But of course the turbo has some of that wooliness in the throttle response between 30 and 70% throttle that you always seem to get with them. But the NA just runs out of breath at high revs. If you are used to decent VVT then the NA engine will disappoint. On the chassis side, I haven't driven them enough to comment with great authority. But first impressions are that the NA definately feels lighter and more nimble, but the T doesn't make me feel car sick after 10 miles! The T ride is actually pretty good is very probably better for longer journeys. For me, the NA engine is nowhere near as good as the Clio 182 engine that I'm used to, so I prefer the turbo despite being someone who generally prefers NA engines. A VX with a decent modern VVT engine would be mega.

[jules_s]

on the road there is little difference between the two...

YES, also on the road there IS a LOT of difference! I tested both, NA and Turbo before I bought the turbo, both by road and on track.

The turbo is brutal, and definately faster than the NA!

There are peeps here that have owned both over a significant amount of time, and have concluded that the VXT 'feels' faster but isnt really on Uk roads (whilst keeping to speed limits)

I think that was what JG was alluding to

[Tony_M]

think the official figures where something like

vx n/a

0-60 in 5.7
top end 131
(has harder suspension)

Is it just me, or does that not tally up????

How many leptons ( ) does your NA do???????

A lot more than 131

...and the Tubby isn't faster, it's just the owners trying to justify the extra cash they forked out for the central locking and fat arse

[LazyDonkey]

But the NA just runs out of breath at high revs.    If you are used to decent VVT then the NA engine will disappoint.

For me, the NA engine is nowhere near as good as the Clio 182 engine that I'm used to, so I prefer the turbo despite being someone who generally prefers NA engines.  A VX with a decent modern VVT engine would be mega.

Without wanting to get into the T vs NA debate i cna't help but think the NA you tried wasn't representative.

My NA pulls like a train at all revs, and def isn't breathless. Last weeked I let an S2 Exige driver go for a blast in it and he couldn't believe how flexible the engine was.

All the road tests of the time rate the 2.2 as a stunning engine IIRC

......on the road in the real world there are few things that will pull away from a well driven NA......turbo included.

Oh ok i did get into the debate

Edited by LazyDonkey, 27 March 2006 - 08:02 AM.

[clipping_point]

The standard N/A accelerates from 0-60 in 6,9 s actually, due to an unlycky gear change at 57 MPH. The turbo is faster but harder to drive at the limit, on a race track. A lot of them have crashed, in Sweden anyway...... But if you want stoplight performance then the turbo is better!

[Tony_M]

The standard N/A accelerates from 0-60 in 6,9 s actually, due to an unlycky gear change at 57 MPH.

The turbo is faster but harder to drive at the limit, on a race track. A lot of them have crashed, in Sweden anyway......

But if you want stoplight performance then the turbo is better!

So let me get this straight Tubby drivers shouldn't visit Sweden