SRI turbo/VXR or SRI 2.2 Direct Injection

[maxrpm]

Ok,

the list has narrowed to the value for money models for comfort, interior and zippyness.

as a previous owner of zippy front wheel bum dragger i am no fan of turbo fwd cars anymore. i like the linearity of the NA cars now. i have also noted a drop in front driveline repair bills with the CDXi we have. However.....i do miss the turbo shove in the back power, but i dont miss the tyre frying 1st to 2nd to 3rd gear torque steer and involuntary lane change antics. for me the 2.2 direct is the only option. from what i have read its only 15NM down on torque compared with the turbo.

so i want to cast out the question to my fellow members, which one would have best cost effectiveness over a 3-4 year period considering, insurance, upkeep and fuel ecnomony not to mention fun factor and looks.

i like the option of the 2.0 litre turbo 4 and with that shove in the back wheni feel like it at the twitch of the right foot, however i like the care free driving of the 2.2 with its fuel and power efficient direct injection motor.

decision decisions.

Warning: This is an Old Thread This discussion is older than 120 days. information contained in it may no longer be current . Please think of the children before resurrecting this ancient thread!

[ChrisMaz]

2.0T or VXR gets my vote. Easy to tune, whack an LSD in it, and you'll fall even more in love.
Sure the 2.2's fine, but the turbos hands down for fun.

[Shay]

Id get the turbo.

[hazrd]

The way u describe ur question its like u want both lol

Power and fuel consumption just do not work in the same sentence. Nor just cheap insurance !

I have the 2.2 and I love it. But I only love it because when I want that kick in the pants feeling (which I don't get in the 2.2) I hop into my other (FWD turbo) car.

They are both par on fuel consumption. I can get nearly 700kms on the highway in the 2.2 but I hear the 2.0t is pretty much the same

Insurance, well that's obvious. It's just upto wether u want to pay it.

Personally, id go the 2.0t if you don't have another car with that kick in the pants feeling otherwise you will get bored very quickly.

[benzino]

+1 for kick

the car can be slow but as long as there is the kick, it's addictive and will give you a smile (my opinion...)

[chrissn89]

2L turbo gets my vote. Vxr if you can afford it. The 2.2 will feel normal compared to the turbo motor which has great punch and responses great to tuning.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

[kabel]

Having owned a 2.2 Astra G only I cannot comment on the AH.
I have had a VXR since 2006 and would not go back to the 2.2.

[maxrpm]

Hello all,

many many thanks and keep the info coming, i am still weighn things up with availability as well as i have only spied 1 turbo for sale thats decent year and mileage but i have 3 to 4 2.2 DI to choose from and these also include eastern states cars as well. i find the 2.2 are more common on the ground than the turbos which tells me either of 2 things, they are a pain in the ass to keep or they ar so damn good they are snapped up quickly.

out of the turbo owners how much problems have you guys have had since owenership regarding, exhaust studs, driveline issues ie cvs etc. i mean a turbo is a turbo and is predisposed to a higher level of maintenance inherently than an NA.

part of me wants the 2.2 but the performace part of me wants the turbo but i keep getting reminded by the issues i had with the mx6 turbo. granted they are a different animal all together.

my budget is not up to the VXR level and even if it were it would have to be interstate as there arent any in WA.

[hazrd]

Steer clear of the 2006 AH turbos if you can. They had gearbox issues iirc

[maxrpm]

Steer clear of the 2006 AH turbos if you can. They had gearbox issues iirc

good advice thanks mate. wouldn have had the foggiest in that respect. what was the issue of the gearboxes..? weak synchros, oil control, selectors..?