Once I sell my 944 (seems like this will never happen) i would really like to get a TURBO II.

I have wanted a TURBO II even since I had my S5 NA. Problem is though there arent ANY in this area for sale, and I am trying to be patient. But right now there is a 88 Toyota Supra turbo for sale. It has low miles, 5spd, and sounds like a good car.

So should I consider this supra? I know basically everything about the TURBO II, what mods to get, and also I think the S5 turbo II looks sweeter. But does the supra turbo have more potential?

Right now off the top of my head I know it runs low 15's and can hit 60 in mid 6 sec range, but arent they heavier and thus handle worse?

any info would be greatly appreciated

 

I am very interested in this kind of info too.

 

Hey, 787B, ive got a S5 TII id be willing to sell for the right price in the KC area.

Jameson
jameson@huckaba.com

 

There is a comparison on www.iluvmyrx7.com look in the 2nd gen section and then articles, then MT 11/89 - Motor Trend's Top 10.

I'd pick a tII over a mk3 supra anyday.

 

I like both cars(of course the TII a whole lot more) but the supra weighs alot more. It runs an almost identical 1/4 mile time(a tad slower) but it is probably known to be more reliable. Might wanna check out the supra forum since you know everything about TIIs. Don't worry the MKIII guys are ********

 

Did you mean that they AREN'T ********? I always thought the MkIII guys were ALOT cooler than the MkIV guys.
My roomate has a MkIII Turbo and it's definately a cool car. We added a 3" exhaust, hi-flo cat/mufflers, installed an MBC and it dyno'd 248hp and 297 lb/ft of torque. I'd say that If I didn't have my T2 I would get a MkIII. There is alot you can do to them and there's alot of support out there (products and forums). Not as much support as the Rex has, though! It is a bit heavier and it has back seats (blah). I've driven his car at autocrosses and uh... I like the Rex more. Weight balance is better and it feels quite a bit nimbler than the Soopie. Oh, well... that's my spare change.

 

wow that was sweet. I've never seen that before.

 

Ya I meant to put AREN'T ********. Sorry.

 

MK3's are heavy sloooooow junk!!!!

 

the supra is heavier but runs about the same. and i think its more reliable. just depends what u want. dont look as sleek though!!

 

Buy a mkiii if you like blown head gaskets

 

they can make some crazy HP and TQ #'s

 

All of you need to do some research on the car if you want it because the mk3 had the worst head gasket problem the reason was that the hg was not torqued enough so after the years they finally fixed it but it was too late and the mk4 came along...SO all you do is either a. buy a metal headgasket and torque it down to spec or you b. buy a motor that has already had the head job done or either has a rebuilt motor... the mk3 supra is a really nice car it is reliable it has so many luxury options for all you lux junkies and has the sport options for you sport junkies...the turbos are near the same size but i think the 7 takes it if you are a do it yourself guy then youll hate the supra because of its lack of space anywhere in the engine bay but the supra has very little mainenance issues and of course the reliablity all depends on the head gasket... -Gabe

 

my friend has a mk3 supra turbo. the handling doesnt even come close to an FC, however its a much more luxurious car. the seats are awesome, and its got a hell of a lot more torque than a rotary. plus, 4 guys can fit in it semi comfortably. his is also usually faster. however, about the reliability thing, he's spent way more money on his car in maintenance... hes spent over $9000 on it, and the only aftermarket stuff he has is a turbo timer and boost gauge. i've spent around $2000 on my car, and less than half is repairs. he didnt even blow the head gasket... he threw a tie rod just driving normally.

 

how many miles on the supra, and has it had any work done? i have known 2 people that had mk3 supra turbos, and both blew head gaskets around 100k miles.

 

I like the Supra (all gens), but I don't consider the Supra and the RX7 in the same category. The RX7 is a sports car...period, the Supra on the other hand is more of a demon fast grand tourer (toyota says it themselves in a few adds). I do think the Supra is a sports car, but not a "PURE" sports car. If you want something that's got all the luxury and speed then go for the supra, if you want the definition of sports car get the 7...

And either way you go, you'll probably have some maintenence to do since they are both 1)old and 2)sports cars. Just do your homework and learn how to do the work on the car and you'll save yourself some serious money, and can also despell the rumors that people put on cars like the 7 saying they're unreliable, if you know how to care for the car then it won't really matter because you know what will cause it to be unreliable...think Ferraris are more "unreliable" than 7's and supras combined which is why most people don't drive them everyday (repair billson cars that aren't widely produced are serious money...a clutch for a 456GT cost over $1000). It all depends on how you care for the car (I'm sure if those people didn't just have money, and they knew how the car worked besides specs they'd be a lot more "reliable" and cheaper).

Bottom Line...GET WHAT YOU LIKE AND LEARN HOW TO CARE FOR IT...it'll always return the favor.

 

well i had a supra turbo and now i got a T2. well this T2 is giving me much more **** than the supra. i consider them different kinds of cars but when i raced them together they were neck and neck was crazy. i always thought of the rx-7 and the supra always battling ever since the fc and the mk3. and damnit im no *******! lets just have a !!!! supra is more reliable cuz good ol toyota makes em! the mkiv r the little *****. lol

 

thanks for all the info on the comparison. looks like the best thing to do is drive the supra, since its hard to make the decision w/out driving one.

as far as maintenance, seems like either a turbo II or supra turbo would be a step up from my 944. That thing is costing me a fortune.

 

I hadn't read that either. I was quiet surprised by some of it. The Supra did way worse than I expected. The 20th Transam did WAY better than I expected in the non-thrust gatagories. The DSM cars really did nicely in the performance area, especially compared to their price. At the time the article was written the DSM cars should have won, they had about 5th place all the way through and cost 1/2 what the top 'vette, transam and TII cost. I was also suprised the lap times weren't greater between the top and cars like the SC Thunderbird.

The TII was worse in the road course areas than I expected. Although I have a feeling the course wasn't much in the way of corners.

The conclusion with the Mustang winning was just stupid. The old '87 dodge colt I use to drive which cost $6k CDN, would have won easily if it was in there. In every catagory it would have been less than 1/2 as slow as the mustang.

 

Those Supra are nice and can make crazy HP easily. But arnt as near as bullet proof as people say they are. They are really nice and handle very well, but nothing compare to an RX-7.

 

Anouther issue with the MKIII supras is they try to have alot of 'luxury' features, but we all know about 80's japanesse 'luxury' features. The interior ends up feeling and looking like **** (especially the gauges and controls...)
Just thought id add that in-
IMHO, thats all.