600HP Supra bows to Turbo Trans Am.
!
sorry didn't read that part. Your right it's not posible. Its only 285 no nos i think. It's not my car, i just rememberd the guy boasting about 450$ and his dyno sheet.
11-01-05, 01:05 PM
#53
horse power= how much you got to spend. Drag racing is ok but no one wants to do that on the street, so the driver skill that is required to get a high horsepower car to leave worth a **** is out the window. Racing from a roll in a straight line is boring for the most part. Unless you miss a gear the higher HP car will normally win. So my broke *** will continue to bomb the corners. Lastly I think that there is a HATER in the club that needs to grow up and open up his mind. Supra's can very fast, but only if you got the $$ to do it. BTW Whats so great about not having any grip @ 100 MPH. Has that cost you a race yet? 
Last edited by socalrotor; 11-01-05 at 01:08 PM.
11-01-05, 01:11 PM
#56
Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: palm beach gardens FL
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man you ricers get all uptight when a Poopra goes down. i totally respect the 2jz for what it is, a bulletproof bottom end from the factory with lots of potential. MOST are dyno queens, now i said most cause there are obviously some that can run (aka ryan Woon). Now what i think is funny is that guy saying how one stock bottom end put out 1200 Rwhp Now thats all fine and dandy but that engine wont last 5,000 miles running at that boost level, so really there is no point to not go with upgraded pistons/rods imho its just cheap insurance at those power levels. anyways 2jz's take at least 130-150 rwhp more then a f body with equal weight to keep up. there are stock bottom end Ls1's with low 400's to the wheels running high 10's with just ported heads and a new cam Good luck getting a poopra to run high 10's with anything less then 550-600 rwhp.
all in all i love the supra and definately have nothing but respect for it, but when it comes down to all out performance and power " There is no replacement for displacement". you could push a iron block ls1 to over 2000 rwhp built properly.
but for a straight 6 3.0 liter, 1000+ rwhp is just insane nothing but props for that.
all in all i love the supra and definately have nothing but respect for it, but when it comes down to all out performance and power " There is no replacement for displacement". you could push a iron block ls1 to over 2000 rwhp built properly.
but for a straight 6 3.0 liter, 1000+ rwhp is just insane nothing but props for that.
11-01-05, 01:12 PM
#57
Rotary Freak
Originally Posted by rotorsownyou7
Let a high hp Supra run that Trans Am and see if the result is the same. No sir.
Have a faster supra run the TA and see if the results are the same? Did you really just say that?
For the initial price of a nice Supra, you could have an F body with a RUGGEEDLY built LS1. Seriously, buy a 10k car and spend 15k on the motor.
11-01-05, 01:42 PM
#58
Come get you some!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bus length ahead of Radkins,Zinx,and Keynote
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PwRFreaK
anyways 2jz's take at least 130-150 rwhp more then a f body with equal weight to keep up. .
I've seen people type alot of stupid **** on the internet. But when you said this...you just topped them.
11-01-05, 02:28 PM
#59
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Edwards, CA
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IndyKid
I've seen people type alot of stupid **** on the internet. But when you said this...you just topped them.
11-01-05, 03:29 PM
#67
pro-liberty
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Marshall
agreed, what so many V8ers fail to realize is that the Supra powerband is fatter where it counts. The avg hp in the band is typically very similar to the peak.
this isn't a flame or an atempt to step on toes...just an inquiry.
11-01-05, 05:23 PM
#68
car guys always mock other cars when they know its a threat to them..
v8 guys hate rotary guys, supra guys cause they know most of them will kick their *** with such small displacement..
they forgot that the "theres no replacement for displacement" was left back in like the 50s..lol
v8 guys hate rotary guys, supra guys cause they know most of them will kick their *** with such small displacement..
they forgot that the "theres no replacement for displacement" was left back in like the 50s..lol
11-01-05, 07:03 PM
#69
Suicidal Death Missile
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport News, Virginia
Posts: 1,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by quick_brick
I don't see why Trans Am's are hillbilly. Does owning a rx-7 or a supra make you a homo-erotic ricer club boy? No, i don't think so. A good car is a good car. LS1's have endless potential, and so do 2jz's. These are BOTH in fast cars, just because you are biased toward one or the other will not change anything. I vote for my twin turbo LS7 project though.. 
The recaro 1982 trans am pulled a 0.856g in 1982, stock. yeah...so hillbilly, they can't handle.
The recaro 1982 trans am pulled a 0.856g in 1982, stock. yeah...so hillbilly, they can't handle.
11-01-05, 07:53 PM
#71
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just love how everyone is so full of assumptions and that nobody seems to be able to isolate any variable for arguement.
A engine with more displacement will make more power than one of a smaller displacement, more reliably, and at lower revs. Added on top of that rotaries are not as efficient at making power or torque relative to their displacement as a piston enigne, and I dont see how anyones 'afraid' of a rotary.
Now, a light car with a modified turbo rotary could easily beat a heavier car with a stock or mild v8. But if youre going to compare POWER PLANTS, then put them in cars that weigh the same first.
Oh, wait, thats been done! The v8 RX-7s kicked a lot of *** and still do, and the proof of that is all over the forum. *rolleyes*.
BTW, that 3 liter supra makes all that power with... a really, really big turbo! Guess what, you can put a turbo on other engines, like rotaries or v8s... or any other piston engine.
SoontobeLS1'd - yes, those supras are those that dont have oversized turbos that take forever to kick in and are only good for highway runs because nobody feels like setting up the chassis for dragging, as they cant run phat 19" rims and still hook up.
BTW, somenes making a Twin Turbo 347 FD... Supra power but with some actual lowend. You could do that with basically any built v8, not just a Stroked out 302 race block.
And just one last thing...
You *DO* Realize displacement is what you blow that air into with a turbo, or what you rev up, right? You DO realize the same turbo on a bigger engine will spool up faster, and that the same power on a bigger engine is more reliable, and will be at lower rpms, Right?
I think the inferiority complex and 'fear' comes from people who paint themselves into corners by spewing prejudiced, ignorant bullshit about v8 engines, or in even more general terms "boingers" and then run and hide when empirical evidence is brought into play. **** like "dont bend your pushrods" or how heavy v8s are or how a KA engine in a 240sx is a "truck engine" and how some jap import with less displacement is so much better... or even ignorant stuff like a 440 whp KA24Twould lose to a 400 whp RB20DET.
If you want to say subjective bullshit, such as the IMAGE of a v8 or a trans am, you are free to do so. But in objective issues, like if displacement matters, expect for someone who knows what theyre talking about to step up to you.
I was trying to make a point out of staying out of this stupid ****, but sometimes its really, really frustrating. Not in terms of the topic, but the way its being argued. Make a POINT, back it up with FACTS, and isolate the variable (or, rather, subject of arguement), or go back to school and learn how to argue.
A engine with more displacement will make more power than one of a smaller displacement, more reliably, and at lower revs. Added on top of that rotaries are not as efficient at making power or torque relative to their displacement as a piston enigne, and I dont see how anyones 'afraid' of a rotary.
Now, a light car with a modified turbo rotary could easily beat a heavier car with a stock or mild v8. But if youre going to compare POWER PLANTS, then put them in cars that weigh the same first.
Oh, wait, thats been done! The v8 RX-7s kicked a lot of *** and still do, and the proof of that is all over the forum. *rolleyes*.
BTW, that 3 liter supra makes all that power with... a really, really big turbo! Guess what, you can put a turbo on other engines, like rotaries or v8s... or any other piston engine.
SoontobeLS1'd - yes, those supras are those that dont have oversized turbos that take forever to kick in and are only good for highway runs because nobody feels like setting up the chassis for dragging, as they cant run phat 19" rims and still hook up.
BTW, somenes making a Twin Turbo 347 FD... Supra power but with some actual lowend. You could do that with basically any built v8, not just a Stroked out 302 race block.
And just one last thing...
car guys always mock other cars when they know its a threat to them..
v8 guys hate rotary guys, supra guys cause they know most of them will kick their *** with such small displacement..
they forgot that the "theres no replacement for displacement" was left back in like the 50s..lol
v8 guys hate rotary guys, supra guys cause they know most of them will kick their *** with such small displacement..
they forgot that the "theres no replacement for displacement" was left back in like the 50s..lol
I think the inferiority complex and 'fear' comes from people who paint themselves into corners by spewing prejudiced, ignorant bullshit about v8 engines, or in even more general terms "boingers" and then run and hide when empirical evidence is brought into play. **** like "dont bend your pushrods" or how heavy v8s are or how a KA engine in a 240sx is a "truck engine" and how some jap import with less displacement is so much better... or even ignorant stuff like a 440 whp KA24Twould lose to a 400 whp RB20DET.
If you want to say subjective bullshit, such as the IMAGE of a v8 or a trans am, you are free to do so. But in objective issues, like if displacement matters, expect for someone who knows what theyre talking about to step up to you.
I was trying to make a point out of staying out of this stupid ****, but sometimes its really, really frustrating. Not in terms of the topic, but the way its being argued. Make a POINT, back it up with FACTS, and isolate the variable (or, rather, subject of arguement), or go back to school and learn how to argue.
11-01-05, 08:22 PM
#72
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Edwards, CA
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
I just love how everyone is so full of assumptions and that nobody seems to be able to isolate any variable for arguement.
A engine with more displacement will make more power than one of a smaller displacement, more reliably, and at lower revs.
A engine with more displacement will make more power than one of a smaller displacement, more reliably, and at lower revs.
Perhaps "There's no replacement for bulletproof displacement" would be more fitting.
11-01-05, 08:30 PM
#73
umm yeah i could have easily googled that info so thanks for doing it for me..
as much as i would love to read what you wrote, it doesnt matter..sure a higher displacement with the same turbo as a lower displacement engine will make more power..who cares..a 1.6 honda can make 700hp..ok thats cool..
we all know the 2jz is a ******* monster of an engine, i dont care what the genetics or physics or whatever you want to call it about it..we know what it can do and how much tuners use their advantages to their advantage..
i could care less whats better than what, a large majority of what we see, IS the 2jz being more dominant..
as much as i would love to read what you wrote, it doesnt matter..sure a higher displacement with the same turbo as a lower displacement engine will make more power..who cares..a 1.6 honda can make 700hp..ok thats cool..
we all know the 2jz is a ******* monster of an engine, i dont care what the genetics or physics or whatever you want to call it about it..we know what it can do and how much tuners use their advantages to their advantage..
i could care less whats better than what, a large majority of what we see, IS the 2jz being more dominant..
11-01-05, 09:08 PM
#75
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ulost2my7
umm yeah i could have easily googled that info so thanks for doing it for me..
as much as i would love to read what you wrote, it doesnt matter..sure a higher displacement with the same turbo as a lower displacement engine will make more power..who cares..a 1.6 honda can make 700hp..ok thats cool..
we all know the 2jz is a ******* monster of an engine, i dont care what the genetics or physics or whatever you want to call it about it..we know what it can do and how much tuners use their advantages to their advantage..
i could care less whats better than what, a large majority of what we see, IS the 2jz being more dominant..
as much as i would love to read what you wrote, it doesnt matter..sure a higher displacement with the same turbo as a lower displacement engine will make more power..who cares..a 1.6 honda can make 700hp..ok thats cool..
we all know the 2jz is a ******* monster of an engine, i dont care what the genetics or physics or whatever you want to call it about it..we know what it can do and how much tuners use their advantages to their advantage..
i could care less whats better than what, a large majority of what we see, IS the 2jz being more dominant..
But anyway, not everyone is into "take a engine with forged stock internals and toss a gigantic turbo on it to get high peak numbers thats only good for highway runs or drag racing if they bother to ditch the dubs, get drag wheels and set up the suspension for it".
What some people want is tractable power, and you can get that if youre satisfied with mere triple digit power with a 3 liter engine (you can still get several hundred without having to lag like a ****), or with more displacement if youre using a larger displacement.
For the image conscious high rollas who like highway runs the Supra is Great. Its not the end all, not by a long shot - a F-body or a Mustang has the prerequisites to dragrace or go for top end runs itself, and you could simply get a turbo kit, piping **** done, and a forged rotating assembly and go for it. That Trans Am Clearly did.
But, for those who are obsessed with image and the import scene, they will say things such as
Originally Posted by IndyKid
Repost, repost, repost. In the end it's still a white trash pos that's worth $6500 w/mods.
Just like the misinformed anonymous RX-7 owner who thinks a 440 whp KA would lose to a 400 whp RB20 in the same car
EDIT: I almost forgot to put this in!
Originally Posted by rx_prez
Yay for cars that can go fast in straight lines on highways! I dont just mean the trans-am I mean any high horsepower car. Anybody with money can make a car go fast in a straight line. It takes alot of talent to push the gas pedal and see how fast you go in a straight line....
But yeah, its cool when a Supra does a highway run, but its crap when a "muscle car" does the same thing. Can anyone say double standard?
Last edited by Nihilanthic; 11-01-05 at 09:15 PM.