Mileage... The big problem which is often overlooked is mileage for the people who drive their Zeds daily... You lose hundreds every year if you drive a TT over an N/A. So right there and then it costs more to run a TT than an N/A. Also depends on how hard you drive and what you've done to the engine. Granted I think the stock turbo's on the Zed last longer than most other Japanese sports cars. You don't hear as many sad stories regarding our turbo's like you do with the other cars. And a lot of owners have over 200,000km's on their cars. Cheers Rob.
The last TT conversion I did reused the NA box. I was supplied a crappy bit of alloy as a spacer for the starter. I basically refused to use it. I was told that "other mechanics" use washers as spacers for this . WTF, the load bearinbg surface of the starter is the face where it mates with the box. YOU CANT use washers and expect this to last. Think fo the torque on those studs and the bolt during starting !!!!. They where designed to hold it on the tranny casing not have to deal with twisting torque. I ended up making a mounting plate the shape of the starter ( like a sandwich plate) to fix this problem. I also had to helicoil the starter bolt as it was already stripped out. You never use washers for this, NEVER!!!!!
Didn't think I had to explain that the "washer" goes under the head of the bolt NOT BETWEEN the starter motor and casing.
LOL, Dino I wasnt referring to your post. I have read a few times of people using washers between the starter and casing to get the 3mm clearance for the TT flywheel. I was pointing out that this is an unnaceptable solution to respacing the starter motor.
Glad to hear it wasn't serious Mikey! Still doesn't explain the constant annoying noise I have which comes from around the passenger seat somewhere....funny thing is, I can only hear it when Clara's in the car!
Stock TT being lower compression and greater thermally efficient should technically return better milage than a stock NA if driven for economy if the figures were around at the time you would probably see this as the case.. check out the autospeed article on the matter actually check the US governments economy rating on the matter here http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=1990&make=Nissan&model=300ZX&hiddenField=Findacar and you can see the TT returns the same economy in 'normal driving' than the NA in the government tests 2.0L FSI VW engine gets 5% less economy than the 2.0L Turbo FSI engine due to the turbo engine having more torque at lower rpms (cruisning speeds) and it being more thermally efficient (reusing wasted power the NA just throws away out its exhaust.. only difference on paper is the turbos and compression ratio read here if you have autospeed http://autospeed.com/cms/A_109931/article.html
lol.. id give anything just to drive my zed at the moment.. even normally we were talking maintenance costs before anyway.. any extra fun you have in your car is paid for ontop of 'running costs' such as extra fuel and extra tyres.. doesnt make it a more expensive vehicle..
Alot of you ladies (jk) drive automatics, which will always use more fuel than a manual if the two cars being compared are driven the same regardless of aspiration...
Auto's oh man, my work ba is using between $120-150 off fuel per 5 day week, @15lts per 100k. No wounder my new engine is still sitting on a tyre. I'll never buy another auto. Nice to drive though.
In the 300ZX maybe. But new autos are more efficient and use less fuel than manuals. Oh, and they are much quicker in shifting too. VW DSG is the best example, but even in the 300ZX, a shift kit makes the auto much quicker than a manaul. Now of course come all the...BUT it's more fun in a manual etc. etc. Don't worry guys, it's OK