How fast can you reliably go for £5000?

ubersonic said:
As Josh said, case in point the MK4 Supra, JDM ones are rated at 276bhp and UK ones at 320bhp (better turbos/bigger injectors/etc) later ones have an extra 5bhp from the vvti however the cars responds incredibly well to tuning and if decent parts are used remain bulletproof, this is because the 2JZ-GTE engine was originally designed to run nearly 600bhp stock however Toyota brass decided against this and the result is an over machined/designed reliability monster.
Click to expand...

Ah the difference between the JDM supra and UK supra power is a lie.

Japanese car manufacturors signed a "gentlemens" agreement with competitor companies (toyota, nissan, mitsubishi) not to produce cars over 276BHP.

So whilst the JDM supra is 276BHP and the UK 320BHP, the JDM one actually has the same power near enough. The UK was superior but the powers wasn't a bigger gap as the tech sheets would suggest.

Whilst the UK Supras were superior (bigger turbos, injectors, larger fuel tank, bigger brakes etc) they weren't actually any faster. Due to being mapped to 95 RON whereas the JDM versiosn were mapped at a much higher RON (98-99 at a guess?)
 
NathWraith said:
Ah the difference between the JDM supra and UK supra power is a lie.

Japanese car manufacturors signed a "gentlemens" agreement with competitor companies (toyota, nissan, mitsubishi) not to produce cars over 276BHP.

So whilst the JDM supra is 276BHP and the UK 320BHP, the JDM one actually has the same power near enough. The UK was superior but the powers wasn't a bigger gap as the tech sheets would suggest.

Whilst the UK Supras were superior (bigger turbos, injectors, larger fuel tank, bigger brakes etc) they weren't actually any faster. Due to being mapped to 95 RON whereas the JDM versiosn were mapped at a much higher RON (98-99 at a guess?)
Click to expand...

Yeah I know about the JAMA power ceiling, the JDM one proberbly puts down closer to 300bhp than 276bhp in reality however the UKDM ones had steel wheeled turbos which can handle big power, the JDM ones had ceramic ones (slightly revised versions of the ones used on the MKiii) which cannot and thus must be replaced for big power. Is the UK one really mapped for 95 RON? the JDM ones are mapped to 97 RON and I thought the UK ones were too...
 
ubersonic said:
Yeah I know about the JAMA power ceiling, the JDM one proberbly puts down closer to 300bhp than 276bhp in reality however the UKDM ones had steel wheeled turbos which can handle big power, the JDM ones had ceramic ones (slightly revised versions of the ones used on the MKiii) which cannot and thus must be replaced for big power. Is the UK one really mapped for 95 RON? the JDM ones are mapped to 97 RON and I thought the UK ones were too...
Click to expand...

Yeah it's kinda a myth that the UK version has a lot more power.

Last time I checked the UK version could run on 95 RON whereas it was a no no for JDM versions.

Maybe they aren't specifically mapped for 95 RON, more like "more tolerable" to 95 RON than the JDM version.
 
rG-tom said:
surely the e36 m3 should be being seriously considered? It's going to be the most reliable 300+bhp you can get for this money, and you can buy a completely standard one instead of having to find a pre-tuned or attempting to tune one. Plus it'll leave any jap turbo monsters on a twisty road :p
Click to expand...

They have huge (and I mean really, really huge) potential bills and astronomical service costs. They are the most ridiculous cars ever to insure. They are also generally owned by knuckle-dragging scumbags, ruining the image.

I could have bought (and insured) an E36 M3 when I got the MX-5 but I didn't because of the potential bills. The image bothers me less but is still a problem.

EDIT: And I doubt it would leave an Evo or Impreza over any really twisty stuff...
 
I thought the stock 3.2 was a reliable engine and it was the early ones that weren't too reliable? Also I was comparing the reliability of a stock m3 with a heavily tuned jap car....stock to stock id imagine the jap to be more reliable but when you start modding it heavily it wouldn't be!

Is servicing really that bad from independants? Ill give you the insurance one though, but imprezas and evos are also ridiculous in this respect, and servicing on evos even worse?

Although i retract all this and say turbo mk1 mx5, should imagine you'd be able to get 250-300bhp on this budget either ready done or buy and then tune? There really isnt much on the road thatll keep pace with a nearly 300bhp mx5 is there :D
 
rG-tom said:
I thought the stock 3.2 was a reliable engine and it was the early ones that weren't too reliable? Also I was comparing the reliability of a stock m3 with a heavily tuned jap car....stock to stock id imagine the jap to be more reliable but when you start modding it heavily it wouldn't be!

Is servicing really that bad from independants? Ill give you the insurance one though, but imprezas and evos are also ridiculous in this respect, and servicing on evos even worse?

Although i retract all this and say turbo mk1 mx5, should imagine you'd be able to get 250-300bhp on this budget either ready done or buy and then tune? There really isnt much on the road thatll keep pace with a nearly 300bhp mx5 is there :D
Click to expand...

I think they are all blighted by the potential for VANOS to throw an enormous bill at you but there are other issues like the rear boot floor/diff issue and the never-ending battle with rust.

Specialist servicing still has M-tax and I think the E36 M3s need valve clearance adjustment every insp 2 as well, which you just can't do at home really.

E36 M3 3.2 Evo was £3200, S2000 was £1100, MX-5 was £500. I didn't get a quote on an Evo/Impreza but from previous quoting etc I would guess that it would be around the S2000 mark rather than the M3 :)
 
Just thought id also add this despite it probably being unpopular, if you are most interested in having fun and going fast you could get a lot of flying lessons for £5k, perhaps even all the way to your own licence if your a good learner...
 
fonzee said:
there you have it chaps, 200bhp is only nippy.

never mind what car its in eh ;)
Click to expand...

In context of cars with considerably more power (and in some cases very similar weight), I'd be verging on calling something this side of a kit car with 200BHP 'slow'.
 
Cuchulain said:
Saw one of these with a ridiculous dustbin exhaust tip on failing its MOT the other day.
Click to expand...
GTI-Rs are cool! Ones with proper exhausts more so! :cool:
Maximum Triceratops said:
They are only 200hp though which isnt very quick, more nippy than quick.
Click to expand...
Have you been in a DC2?
Joshy said:
In context of cars with considerably more power (and in some cases very similar weight), I'd be verging on calling something this side of a kit car with 200BHP 'slow'.
Click to expand...
Not this again :rolleyes:
Joshy said:
Exactly what's that supposed to mean? :confused:
Click to expand...
Have you been in a DC2?
 
Amoeba said:
Have you been in a DC2?
Click to expand...

Can't say that I have, but for what it's worth I owned a moderately powerful, N/A FWD car with a close ratio box and actually considerbly more power to weight than a DC2 (from the figures I'm looking at), so I assume the driving experiences are broadly the same - Epic amount of fun on B Roads and seemingly manic acceleration up until legal(ish) speeds, but this does not stop the fact that a 'proper' fast car (which this budget will more or less buy) will blow one out of the water.

Come on, this money buys early modified evos, imprezas and pulsars. Are you honestly telling me that a car with 4WD, similar weight and considerably more (like in some cases TWICE) the power isn't going to make a DC2 look a bit slow?
 
Joshy said:
Can't say that I have
Click to expand...
In which case you have answered your own question :p
Joshy said:
Come on, this money buys early modified evos, imprezas and pulsars. Are you honestly telling me that a car with 4WD, similar weight and considerably more (like in some cases TWICE) the power isn't going to make a DC2 look a bit slow?
Click to expand...
You didn't say that, you said a 200bhp (none-kit) car was 'slow'.

Edit - ok I see now you said 'in context of...'. I withdraw my snide remark :p

Still, I wouldn't describe a DC2 as slow at all :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom