ClubCJ - The CJ Lancer Club

Hi there, I've got a broad question...

RA vs NA? Realistically, is it worth getting a CJ or just better saving for an RA? When you weigh in maintenance cost, SST failure etc etc.

If RA is your answer, what's to look out for when searching for one to buy?

Thanks again guys!

PS - Already own a 2010 ES, want more kick though..

Get or stick with a car that you can afford to drive.
that includes all maintenance and even unexpected failures.
The NA lancer costs are minimal to maintain and virtually nothing if you do it your self.

If you do go down the RA path try to get one that is recent model years. the SST transmission was had some faults which they corrected later down the production line.
low kms would be nice so you can limit the potential abuse of another owner.

don't forget to also gauge your appetite for extra go fast bits.
If i had bought one i would have probably spent another 3 times more on modifications because racecar.

I agree it depends on your budget and what you want from the car.

The RA will give you more kick but personally I find my VRX has more than enough power day to day.

himynameisdaniel wrote:which they corrected later down the production line.

not correct they are still prone to the exact same failures as the earlier model

basically comes does to what ou want out of the car, the Na isnt going to be "quick"
siomple mods and a tuine on an RA and ou have a really quick street car

The NA will be cheaper on fuel, especially with a tune (im getting around 700km out of a tank with a some what aggressive tune) and enough power to keep the boredom away. a FWD will also have a longer tyre life as well, most of the wear is in the front and the rear tyres barely get touched.

Depending on if you buy a manual or cvt would change the service costs, id say that the service costs of a CVT would be close the that of the SST RA. While the manual NA would be far cheaper to maintain.

It all comes down to is the extra 5-6grand for the car and the extra 1grand a year in maintenance is worth the 20-30% power difference. a RA with mild mods would get 210-230kw, while the NA with mild mods would get 120-130kw, and with a little more parts 140-150kw is possible.

Go new or go NA. Want more power get the 2.4ltrNA. Much cheaper to buy, much cheaper to run and a lot more in your pocket
to spend on improving and having fun, with a great little machine, with heaps of potential.

Image wise An RA bonnet makes a nice start , a spoiler on the the boot if it doesn't already have one looks great. then as time goes by and cash flow improves have more fun. After market or RA front and rear bars, etc:etc:.

Alternatively if performance is your aim, the door is wide open and your part way there with the 2.4ltr's 125kw and extra torque. Mind you, you can still have a stack of fun with the 2ltr as well.

No doubt the RA is a great machine and nice to own, but a turbo means putting your hand in your pocket a hell of a lot more often
and a 2nd hand a car that has more than likely had a much harder life and costly problems much more likely.
Blown turbo! Means $$$ thousands not hundreds.

Hey mate, if you've already got a 2010 ES, are looking for more power and can afford it, I'd just go for the RA. The difference between the 2.0 and 2.4 is noticeable but not all that great. Especially when you consider that you can get a clean, decent mileage RA for about $15k these days which is only about $5k more than a comparable VRX. Beyond the turbo, the RA gives you AWD and SST (something you can't retrofit to an NA CJ), plus the better brakes, suspension, features and body kit.

Main concern with the RA is naturally SST failure. So I'd look for one that has had an SST fluid change (about $500 when using OEM Diaqueen fluid) on top of a full service history.

I daily my RA and find it's the best of both worlds. You've got the same practicality as an NA CJ, fuel use with a tune is only marginally higher yet, with the right mods, there's enough grunt to thrash FPV's and HSV's off the line. However, it is high maintenance (6 month services are a pain!) and the SST can be jerky in stop-start traffic. If you can live with that though, you won't regret going down the RA route.

Kal777 wrote:The NA will be cheaper on fuel, especially with a tune (im getting around 700km out of a tank with a some what aggressive tune) and enough power to keep the boredom away. a FWD will also have a longer tyre life as well, most of the wear is in the front and the rear tyres barely get touched.

Depending on if you buy a manual or cvt would change the service costs, id say that the service costs of a CVT would be close the that of the SST RA. While the manual NA would be far cheaper to maintain.

It all comes down to is the extra 5-6grand for the car and the extra 1grand a year in maintenance is worth the 20-30% power difference. a RA with mild mods would get 210-230kw, while the NA with mild mods would get 120-130kw, and with a little more parts 140-150kw is possible.

an evo with mild mods wont even hit 220 on 98 fuel man, max for a ralliart on 98 is around 185-190

Nate N wrote:decent mileage RA for about $15k these days

not really nearly all clean example with low Km are at a minimum 18K

Shaun Patterson wrote:

Nate N wrote:decent mileage RA for about $15k these days

not really nearly all clean example with low Km are at a minimum 18K

Depends on where you live. Found the one below in about 10 sec on Carsales! And I know a guy who bought one for $14k last month.

https://www.carsales.com.au/private/det ... -AD-369606

Don't forget the RA will cost more to insure over the NA.

But I agree if you have an ES and can afford the extra costs go for a clean RA.

A tuned RA with an EvoX intercooler and turbo will definitely get you to 230wkw and for RA owners I would call that a sensible mod list.

But if you want a stick shift and reasonable performance go for the 2.4 manual with the mods you will find detailed on the clubcj forums.
There are some quick atmo 2.4s out there.

merlin wrote:A tuned RA with an EvoX intercooler and turbo will definitely get you to 230wkw and for RA owners I would call that a sensible mod list.

But if you want a stick shift and reasonable performance go for the 2.4 manual with the mods you will find detailed on the clubcj forums.
There are some quick atmo 2.4s out there.

in what universe, most RAs with most bolt ones, 3 port, filter, HFC catback and evo x ic only make 210kw on e85

I'll go with merlin. Get a tune from him and maybe you'll post a higher mark than the 230!!!

My car is a humble MY15 ES Sport. It has all the kick I need. Keep the rest in my rear vision mirror the odd times I've tried.
Hit the go peddle right and your away, or, maybe the speed machine next to me, was Mum and the kids, headed down to the shops like me?

Then again maybe I'm just a geriatric delinquent!

sarusa wrote:I'll go with merlin. Get a tune from him and maybe you'll post a higher mark than the 230!!!

My car is a humble MY15 ES Sport. It has all the kick I need. Keep the rest in my rear vision mirror the odd times I've tried.
Hit the go peddle right and your away, or, maybe the speed machine next to me, was Mum and the kids, headed down to the shops like me?

Then again maybe I'm just a geriatric delinquent!

Well I'll go with Mr Patterson then. With all the bolt ons, an X intercooler and a stock X turbo, an RA or for that matter an Evo will only make about 210 awkw on 98. I suspect Merlin means on e85 with a stock X turbo an RA could make 230, that's definitely do-able, maybe even a little more.