brrt50cal

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Tom R.:
<strong>i have a picture of my firebird autographed by jim wangers. it says something about it being a goat by any name.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Awesome! Those cars were way before my time too but I can still appreciate a classic. I'd be crazy if I took a Jap 2.0 over a 454. Hell, I'd rather just have the damn engine to look at over a whole Jap 2.0 car.

UDPride

My mom had a 1986.5 Toyota Supra which was the first run of the Generation II Supras. Hers was an automatic howeever. Incredibly reliable car, top notch interior with AWESOME Recaro seats with great electric lumbar, great HVAC system, sort of quarky stereo system in which the cassette deck has a tendancy to go bad (but otherwise stereo sounds good), a back seat a real adult can actually use on a 200 mile trip too. Its actually amazing how comfortable the rear seat of the Gen II Supra is. I spent many hours back there as a teenager being shuffled across the state to soccer tournys and felt right at home. You have to do the knee spread thing a little but overall its was not uncomfortable at all.

Power is pretty good. the Non turbos has 200hp and the Turbos had 230 I think. The 5-speed was probably more reesponsive. I felt the automatic was mediocre for spirited driving. Couldnt choose the right gear sometimes. The automatic has an overdrive button.

Handling is not the Gen II Supras strong suit as its a very heavy and long car. Having said that, steering is VERY good and VERY responsive. Just a little turn of the wheel and you are changing lanes real quick.

Think of the Gen II Supras as great GT cruiser cars. Sort of in the mold of a 928 that can do 85mph on the highway all day and make it feel like nothing. Is it better than a 944S or RX7? Never driven either of them. It depends on what you want. I found the Gen II Supra build quality to be extremely good however and when in for service is wasnt terrible.

Now, if we're talking Gen III Supras Twin Turbos, I say write the check now baby because those things can be tuned for 500bhp+ with practically the turn of a screw. Some guy has one down by campus thats downright scary mean. I dont know what hes got under the hood, but I can tell you my modded 951 doesnt want to find out. That has to be one of the most overdeveloped, overengineered, factory detuned cars to come off an assembly line. I think someone posted a video on here a few months ago of someone dynoing 1000 horses out of one. Im not sure what one could do with 1000 horses that you really cant do with 400-500, but still. Its hard to find a stock Supra Twin Turbo anywhere.

nine-44

The S2 would come in first, the RX7 would take 2nd, the Supra would take third. I've been in all these cars stock, and helped mod them too not the S2. With a few home made mods the supra would probably take all on the stock turbo. We did some highway runs with the supra and the RX, the Supra was mildly modded and took the RX. In full stock form, the RX would take the supra, not by much. As far as hanling, the S2 as the RX, the RX has the supra.

Z-man

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by brrt50cal:
<strong>Oh dear...how can you not be a fan of American muscle. &lt;snip&gt;</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I am not a fan of American muscle just like you are not a fan of Japanese compact sports cars: we have different tastes. American muscle cars do not handle very well. I like a car that handles well. I don't care about the 1/4 mile: I care about how fast I can get around Lime Rock, or Watkins Glen, or Summit Point. That's my preference, but that doesn't mean I think American Muscle cars are pieces of crap: they just don't suit my driving needs.

Don't get me wrong: as a car enthusiast, I appreciate most people's enthusiasm for their cars (Honduh rice crowd excluded!). BUT:
1. Just because I'm not into what they're into, it doesn't mean that I put down that genre of cars, like you did with your comment about "Junkanese" cars.
2. Just because my tastes aren't the same as someone elses, it doesn't mean that I'm better, or smarter, or whatever.

Your condescending remark, now followed up by your "Duh, what's there NOT to like about American cars?" again shows your narrow mindedness about cars.

Ok, I'm getting off my soapbox: sorry for stirring the flames some...
-Z-man.

bader$

Every car has its good points and bad points. Some handle better, some ride better, some have better straight line acceleration. It all depends on what you want to do. I agree that the S2 probably is the best handling car than the other two, but the supra has one very solid engine. People are getting 600 hp out of them regularly, but because of the weight they mainly drag race them. Someone made the comment about the Japanese being easier to work on than the 944, that is not always the case, It depends on what you are doing. Many cars today also need to have the coolant systems bled or evacuated to prevent air being trapped in them. In fact the worst one I have done of late was a cadillac with a northstar engine in it. Like what you like and let others do the same. As a Tech that works on everthing from mercedes to kia's there all a joy and a pain to work on, and expensive to maintain/repair.

Fishey

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by UDPride:
<strong>My mom had a 1986.5 Toyota Supra which was the first run of the Generation II Supras. Hers was an automatic howeever. Incredibly reliable car, top notch interior with AWESOME Recaro seats with great electric lumbar, great HVAC system, sort of quarky stereo system in which the cassette deck has a tendancy to go bad (but otherwise stereo sounds good), a back seat a real adult can actually use on a 200 mile trip too. Its actually amazing how comfortable the rear seat of the Gen II Supra is. I spent many hours back there as a teenager being shuffled across the state to soccer tournys and felt right at home. You have to do the knee spread thing a little but overall its was not uncomfortable at all.

Power is pretty good. the Non turbos has 200hp and the Turbos had 230 I think. The 5-speed was probably more reesponsive. I felt the automatic was mediocre for spirited driving. Couldnt choose the right gear sometimes. The automatic has an overdrive button.

Handling is not the Gen II Supras strong suit as its a very heavy and long car. Having said that, steering is VERY good and VERY responsive. Just a little turn of the wheel and you are changing lanes real quick.

Think of the Gen II Supras as great GT cruiser cars. Sort of in the mold of a 928 that can do 85mph on the highway all day and make it feel like nothing. Is it better than a 944S or RX7? Never driven either of them. It depends on what you want. I found the Gen II Supra build quality to be extremely good however and when in for service is wasnt terrible.

Now, if we're talking Gen III Supras Twin Turbos, I say write the check now baby because those things can be tuned for 500bhp+ with practically the turn of a screw. Some guy has one down by campus thats downright scary mean. I dont know what hes got under the hood, but I can tell you my modded 951 doesnt want to find out. That has to be one of the most overdeveloped, overengineered, factory detuned cars to come off an assembly line. I think someone posted a video on here a few months ago of someone dynoing 1000 horses out of one. Im not sure what one could do with 1000 horses that you really cant do with 400-500, but still. Its hard to find a stock Supra Twin Turbo anywhere.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I would just like to correct you on some things.
There have been four generations of Toyota Supras: The first Supra appeared in 1979 and was called the MA46. The MA46 cars had the 4ME 2.6 liter engine. The MA47 cars had the 5ME 2.8 liter engine.
The second generation was available from 1982 through 1986. This is the MA61 Celica Supra, which we sometimes refer to as the Mark II. The MA61 Celica Supra had the 5MGE 2.8 liter engine.

The MA70 Supra appeared in 1986 1/2 and lasted through 1993. This was the Mark III which had the 7MGE 3.0 engine. The turbo-variant 7MGTE (MA71) was available '87-'92. The Mark IV Supra appeared in 1993. 2,901 Mark IV Supras were produced for 1993 in both non-turbo and duel-turbo models.

The Mark IV contains a 3.0 liter engine. Note that the MA61 and earlier Supras were Celica based, while later Supras were entirely different from the Celica line. The 1991 is the MK3 and anything after 1993 is a MK4

brrt50cal

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by brrt50cal:
<strong>Oh dear...how can you not be a fan of American muscle. &lt;snip&gt;</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I am not a fan of American muscle just like you are not a fan of Japanese compact sports cars: we have different tastes. American muscle cars do not handle very well. I like a car that handles well. I don't care about the 1/4 mile: I care about how fast I can get around Lime Rock, or Watkins Glen, or Summit Point. That's my preference, but that doesn't mean I think American Muscle cars are pieces of crap: they just don't suit my driving needs.

Don't get me wrong: as a car enthusiast, I appreciate most people's enthusiasm for their cars (Honduh rice crowd excluded!). BUT:
1. Just because I'm not into what they're into, it doesn't mean that I put down that genre of cars, like you did with your comment about "Junkanese" cars.
2. Just because my tastes aren't the same as someone elses, it doesn't mean that I'm better, or smarter, or whatever.

Your condescending remark, now followed up by your "Duh, what's there NOT to like about American cars?" again shows your narrow mindedness about cars.

Ok, I'm getting off my soapbox: sorry for stirring the flames some...
-Z-man.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Yet again I did not make the comment about Junkanese cars. I'm am not putting down a genre either. My argument from experience is that American cars are the best in the 1/4 and German cars are the best for endurance racing and auto-x. My narrow-mindedness eh?? I see...

nine-44

The Supra was the most fun, no worries about blowing the engine. They are pretty much bullit proof up to 500 HP.

UDPride

Yes I got the generation #s mixed up on the Supra. My mothers was an 1986.5 with the 200bhp engine. Whatever generation that now is. My comments on the car itself still stand.