how fast are the mk3's non turbo?
 

like the title says, how quick are the mk3 non turbo 5 speeds? compared to say a z24 cavalier.. lol

In the car and driver review it ran 0 to 60 in 8 seconds and that was new. As for an old one probably slower. They where fast in the 80's but now they are not so hot. It weighs alot, about 3600lbs.

but a stock 7mge will make it to 140mph with the greatest of ease!

Well that is hard to say if it is capable of 140 since the speedos are known for being off the faster you go.

how do you know there off? have you personally tested on more than one?
if any of my gauges show signs of malfunction they get thrown away

A good way to find out
 

Well if your in doubt just blast by your local radar trap at 140mph and find out in court....lol ....Just kidding of course.

You can check it with a gps and even so it takes a long time to get to the top speed. Also C&D rated it at only 131mph for a top speed. Even mine with P&P head, header, intake and full exhaust still takes a while to break 100mph compared to my celica with the 2zzge.

my 7mge only had headers no cat and full 3inch exhaust
its definatly no super car but it doesnt take that long really to get to 140 hell i had mine to around 150 and that did take a while lol
iv had gps confirmed to 145plus

Does a mk2 not weigh a good deal less?

I don't know
 

I don't know....lol

Well anyway I was surprised to read that the stock Turbo model only generates 30 horsepower more than the stock NA model. That is a difference in a race but not so much I would think for everyday enjoyment of the car.
You would have to do the horsepower to weight ratio wouldn't you?

Yes but over 50lbs more torque. But the main thing is that a turbo has potential that a na will never even come close to.

im talkin about my mk3. but i crushed it into a highway meridian 5 months ago ish...

pushed the front left side of the bumper to where the battery should be, battery crushed some stuff, also broke my drivers side cross member and completely ruined front sub frame...

mk2s in my opinion are not meant for high speed. in my experiences every time i have ever broken 200km/h a random piece of plastics/trims flys off and i have to go find it...i just stopped going fast with my mk2

agreed turbo is the way!!!
all hail the turbos

Reliability
 

Yeah OK Turbo is the way to go for fun and speed, but are they just as reliable? I mean the stock ones. Why all the talk about so many failures? Is it because of the mods guys do? If you had a stock Turbo would it drive as many miles reliably and cheaply as an N/A over the life of standard use?

really?? really...

no car nearly 25 years old is going to be reliable...
if you want that, i suggest you sell me your supra and go buy a honda accord.

and really now, think back to the day in 1987 you could buy a brand new "Supra" or you could go with the Turbocharged version with more hp and torque. WHO THE HELL would not go for the turbo version!!!!!
plus a stock ct26 isnt capable of pushing vary much psi. if your not mechanical savy, install an intercooler and radiator, these things extend your engine and turbo life.

yes there is a hg problem.
yes it can be fixed.

i only purchased a non turbo because it just had a hg done and my friend gave me a deal. still fast as hell, but the turbo knocks its pants off

Huh?
 

I don't think you answered my question, but thanks anyway.

the ct-26 turbo is a robust little guy.. small but reliable
130k on my turbo. and just now in need of a rebuild.. still no smoking or shaft play.. just leaks some oil..

as far as the 7mgte engine is concerned.. just as reliable as any other 20 year old motor..

The 7mgte can be very reliable. The main thing is to redo every thing the right way and replace the parts that should be replaced. I think where people go wrong is with the power. The more power you produce the more likely something is to break.

I bought my mk3 from a lady who had bought it off the showroom floor back in 1986. It has 197000 miles on the original motor and turbo, and I have yet to have a mechanical problem with it. The lady who owned it maintained the mechanical portion of it beautifully. (I can't say the same about the interior however). She even had all of the mechanical records for the last 23 years back to it's first oil change. (Which only cost $6.95 from the dealer) So is it reliable? In my opinion yes. But it takes a lot of maintenance to keep it that way.

so does any other 20 year old car.