GTP Cool Wall: 1988 Nissan March Super Turbo (K10)

  • Thread starter Wiegert
  • 35 comments
  • 3,868 views

1988 Nissan March Super Turbo (K10)


  • Total voters
    108
  • Poll closed .

Wiegert

Premium
13,387
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
1988 Nissan March Super Turbo (K10) nominated by @Grandea GTR

yrcckfa4ikk6pgf7uckr.jpg


Body Style:
3-door hatchback
Engine: 930cc MR09ERT Twin-charged (Turbocharged+Supercharged) I4 SOHC
Power: 108 hp
Torque: 98 lb-ft
Weight: 740 kg
Transmission: 3-speed automatic, 5-speed manual
Drivetrain: Front-engine, front-wheel drive
Additional Information:
A homologated version of the March Super Turbo Race Car, the March Super Turbo was released in 1988 through a limited 10,000 unit production run. The all-aluminum MR09ERT, which was found in this and the March R, was a unique engine in which the engine was both turbocharged and supercharged. The 5MT version of the Super Turbo came equipped with a viscous limited-slip differential, and is the fastest production March in Nissan's history, hitting 0-100 km/h in 7.7s.​

apradzyx2nzmzjwljhzj.jpg

afblpzpmamteq7fgagbf.jpg

nissan-march-super-turbo-10.jpg

wog77e4fxhktcuslwj63.jpg

wallpapers_nissan_march_1989_1_1600x1200.jpg
 
It's a boxy Micra that's obviously trying too hard to be a race car (even though it appears to have the power and racing pedigree).

And yet I want six of them. All in black. I absolutely love everything about this car.

Cool.
 
I have a soft spot for boxy, unsafe and fast 80's hatchbacks. If I would have one of these cars I wouldn't care a bit of what other people think because I would be having tons of fun. That to me is worth a near Sub-Zero vote. This car, being twin charged just reinforces my vote. Cool
 
This is one of three cars I absolutely must have at some point in my life.

The other two? R32 GT-R and a triple-rotor Eunos Cosmo.
 
"Is that a Chevy Sprint?"

Uncool. Just looks like a cheap, uncheerful 80's hatch. Utterly fascinating in a way the over-engineered Japanese cars of the 80's and 90's tend to be, but not cool.
 
It's fantastic, but it's too conservative to not be confused with somebody's Uncle's old Excell, or Sprint, or any other '80s Economy Hatch really.

Meh, because after explaining it people will be intrigued briefly.
 
Small hatch. Tick.
is not ugly. Tick.
looks mean in black. Tick.
Is supercharged AND turbocharged. Tick.

That last one really seals the deal. Say to anyone your car is turbocharged and supercharged and they'll think it's a spaceship.

Cool.

edit: Forgot the fact it's called Super Turbo.
 
What's more generic about this than a 205 or Golf GTI?

Well, since you picked two of the maybe four cars of that era and rough market segment that actually had unique styling elements (instead of just being a another hard edged 2 box body) to compare to a Japanese car from the 1980s (and all that entails), we can start with "everything" and work from there.



Regardless, forest for the trees. When you drive a car like this today people don't actually see what is interesting about it, but they certainly might make unfavorable comparisons to whatever penalty box they were forced to put up with as a first car.
 
Last edited:
Say to anyone your car is turbocharged and supercharged

Maybe if it was still about 2005.

Twincharged cars aren't exactly unicorns anymore when Volkswagen has had it since the Mk5 Golf (with varying results which is probably why they've gone back to "good 'ol" turbocharging) and Volvo of all brands has an entire architecture based around it.
 
Cool if they all looked like the black one in the OP.

After a quick image search, turns out they don't.

Uncool.
 
Maybe if it was still about 2005.

Twincharged cars aren't exactly unicorns anymore when Volkswagen has had it since the Mk5 Golf (with varying results which is probably why they've gone back to "good 'ol" turbocharging) and Volvo of all brands has an entire architecture based around it.
Only petrolheads will be aware of this, to everyone else it's irrelevant.
 
Only petrolheads will be aware of this, to everyone else it's irrelevant.

Turbochargers and superchargers are largely irrelevant to the common man in the first place. Why would "everyone else" be amazed by the fact that it has both of them?

Also, that 1.4 TSI has been in A LOT of Volkswagen Group products over the last decade, and unlike this car they were sold worldwide and were pretty much mainstream.
 
Turbochargers and superchargers are largely irrelevant to the common man in the first place. Why would "everyone else" be amazed by the fact that it has both of them?
Because they sound really cool.

Also, that 1.4 TSI has been in A LOT of Volkswagen Group products over the last decade, and unlike this car they were sold worldwide and were pretty much mainstream.
Again, irrelevant to most people.
 
The twincharged 1.4L never made it to Canada or the US.

To most of my non-car friends, saying an engine is "twin-charged" or "uses both a supercharger and turbocharger" is no different than saying "twin-turbo". To them, it means little more than a replacement for displacement, since that's what a lot of companies essentially advertise turbos as these days (looking at you and your egregious "Ecoboost" line, Ford).
 
My first car! And the first engine that I ever blew up on-road!

This HAS TO ABSOLUTELY BE.... Seriously Uncool.

It was a terrible car that my Dad liked me buying. Lots of luggage space but handled like a blancmange in a washing machine.
 
Black is the worst colour simply because it meant they came with a god-awful set of black plasti-dipped painted stock wheel covers.

Feeble generation. Pig nose. The crate the engine was shipped in would have been cooler.
 
Low cool, with the caveat that homologation specials only score on that front with enthusiasts.
 
Back