low versus hi preasure turbo

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Ginny Wong - 14 Apr 2006 00:50 GMT

I have 2000 93 -low pressure autobox and love it. Goes like stink when
called upon to perform! Looking for newer 93, perhaps the anniversary
edition with upgrades.

What are peoples opinion on the differences? I know higher octane is called
for but is it worth the extra turbo power? Also, is the difference between
manual shift and auto such a big deal?

Oh yes, in my dreams I own a '93 convertable!!

Thanks, . . . .Eddy
'83 900 Turbo -still going
'88 9000 auto -dead gear box but shows well.
'00 93 low preseure Turbo -automatic daily driver.

Reply to this Message

Charles - 14 Apr 2006 07:02 GMT

We have a 93 Classic 900 Turbo convertible! we love it. The weather has
warmed up here and I was driving it today. Top down, of course.

At high elevation (6,000-12,000 feet) the turbo is the ticket. NA cars
gasp for air. At 11,000 feet your 200 hp NA car has 132 hp. Your turbo
probably has most of its power left. That is my experience.

I hate manual and my wife and I have never owned one. We tolerate it
when renting in the US but never get auto when renting abroad.

Manual is especially useful in snow driving, which comes with those high
elevations as well.

Charles in Colorado

> I have 2000 93 -low pressure autobox and love it. Goes like stink when
> called upon to perform! Looking for newer 93, perhaps the anniversary
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> '00 93 low preseure Turbo -automatic daily driver.
>

Reply to this Message