2.slow vs Supra

Did you win or lose? Please drive safely!
User avatar
pmacutay
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 1563
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:05 am
Cars: 95 VW Golf
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

2.slow vs Supra

Postby pmacutay » Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:38 pm

Me: VW golf mk3, 2.0 with a chip and 91 octane gas. ~2500 lbs.
Friend: Toyota Supra mk4, N/A, Automatic with a fat passenger (aka one of our friends) :P ~3400lbs

On the freeway.

The cards were obviously stacked against him but I honestly can't believe how much of a difference weight and an Automatic makes.

I pulled EVEN with a Supra. He would only pass me by catching me on the 3-4 shift, and then his rev-happy engine would finally kick in.

Still, it's a testament to weight reduction and the hp loss of an auto tranny, if he has 105 hp on me and I'm still keeping up. That inline-6 through an APEX'i N1 sounds pretty sexy I've gotta admit.
Image
95 VR6 Golf Sport

User avatar
Leedeth
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 7469
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:33 am
Location: Suburbia

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby Leedeth » Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:09 pm

Can you post up the hp and torque ratings for both cars.

User avatar
AHTOXA
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 14569
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:31 pm
Cars: '16 Ecoboost F150
Location: Coppell, TX

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby AHTOXA » Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:17 pm

Nice. My car's heavy compared to yours, Phil.
'16 Ecoboost F150
'12 Suzuki V-Strom 650
'17 Trek Fuel EX8 27.5+
'08 Giant Trance 1 (old school 26'er)

User avatar
pmacutay
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 1563
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:05 am
Cars: 95 VW Golf
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby pmacutay » Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:22 pm

me: 125hp
him: 230hp.

no idea on torque for either car. mine's 122 ft-lbs stock but I chipped it so I'd guess like 130ish?
Image
95 VR6 Golf Sport

User avatar
pobrien
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:21 pm
Cars: 2003 VW GTI 1.8T
Location: Danvers, MA / Northfield, VT
Contact:

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby pobrien » Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:27 pm

good for you. represent :)
-OB

User avatar
subzero
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 2998
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: NYC

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby subzero » Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:51 pm

nice.

i like to think of mk4 supras as sexy whales. :lol:
FREE ROMAN!

User avatar
Leedeth
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 7469
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:33 am
Location: Suburbia

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby Leedeth » Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:52 pm

subzero wrote:nice.

i like to think of mk4 supras as sexy whales. :lol:

Sexy whales? Lol...wait...WTF?!

User avatar
subzero
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 2998
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:29 pm
Location: NYC

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby subzero » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:02 pm

forgive me, my mind is a little............altered.........right now.

:mrgreen:
FREE ROMAN!

User avatar
pmacutay
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 1563
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:05 am
Cars: 95 VW Golf
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby pmacutay » Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:31 pm

haha hey, I understood the analogy.
Image
95 VR6 Golf Sport

User avatar
Bawked
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:24 am
Cars: 1991 mr2 sw20 n/a 5 speed
Location: New Zealand

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby Bawked » Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:48 pm

supras are awesome but are much like the 300zx..... turbo or its weight is too much, coupled with an auto even worse :?
<3 fwd

User avatar
kamesama980
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:38 pm
Location: Columbus, IN
Contact:

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby kamesama980 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:13 am

Bawked wrote:supras are awesome but are much like the 300zx..... turbo or its weight is too much, coupled with an auto even worse :?


agreed. the previous generation was even worse.... MKIVs are like 3500lb with all the options. MKIIIs are like 3800 lbs with all the options.

it's also the weight involved but you're right, automatics are TERRIBLE for power. I converted my cressida (which is basically a MKIII supra with 4 doors) from auto to manual and it's a whole different car to drive. even with a horribly slipping clutch it was better than the auto. 1st, the torque converter. good in some places, not so good in others. 2nd, fewer gears means less able to keep the engine in the peak of the power band. the gearbox the supra has is a slightly updated (electric speedo instead of mech cable) version of the box that was in my cressida. I know how bad it is.

he might also not have had the shift patten button set to power. if he had it in the power mode you wouldn't have walked him that badly.

oh yea, the 2JZ is not a high-revving engine. it does rev high but it's got as much torque down low
-Russ
2012 Nissan Frontier 4.0l M6 4x4
1990 Toyota Cressida 3.0l M5
1994 Pontiac Firebird LT1 M6
1970 Volkwagen Beetle M4
1990 Suzuki VX800 SM5

User avatar
tehfade
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:41 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby tehfade » Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:45 pm

Sweet motor + crap car = Toyota Supra

I love the 2JZ--it has such a nice tone to it--but the MKIV Supra is just about the ugliest ricemobile ever. (Except the interior, which is sexy)

I find it interesting though, how easy to mod the Supras are. You see people making 500, 600 horsepower and even more, with only easy top-end stuff like boost controllers, fuel systems, intake/exhaust, whatever. Nobody does the more "traditional" engine stuff like heads, cams, boring/stroking, porting, etc. Makes you wonder how reliable any of the modded Supras are, what with all that power on a stock bottom end.
I drive a Phantom Black 2005 GTO M6. I commute in a 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited.

User avatar
Leedeth
Master Standardshifter
Posts: 7469
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:33 am
Location: Suburbia

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby Leedeth » Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 am

subzero wrote:forgive me, my mind is a little............altered.........right now.

:mrgreen:

Lol is this what you saw.

Image

User avatar
kamesama980
Senior Standardshifter
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:38 pm
Location: Columbus, IN
Contact:

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Postby kamesama980 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:54 pm

tehfade wrote:Sweet motor + crap car = Toyota Supra

I love the 2JZ--it has such a nice tone to it--but the MKIV Supra is just about the ugliest ricemobile ever. (Except the interior, which is sexy)

I find it interesting though, how easy to mod the Supras are. You see people making 500, 600 horsepower and even more, with only easy top-end stuff like boost controllers, fuel systems, intake/exhaust, whatever. Nobody does the more "traditional" engine stuff like heads, cams, boring/stroking, porting, etc. Makes you wonder how reliable any of the modded Supras are, what with all that power on a stock bottom end.


The bottom end is identical between the turbo and non-turbo engines except for compression ratio. crank, rods, pistons. bolting a turbo onto a NA is doable up to 350-400 hp without additional work. I saw one supra up for sale making 1600 hp on the factory bottom end.

they do port heads but not much. there are stroker kits up to 3.4l available. the reason people don't mix/match heads and cams is because these engines are built right from the factory unlike american v8s which are crazy restricted and poorly done from the factory so mix/match/upgrade is easy. there are also only 2 engines in the JZ series that you could mix parts from... the 1JZ 2.5l only available in japan and the 2JZ available everywhere and there are some people that put a 1JZ head on a 2JZ bottom end because it flows better. numerically, a highly modded muscle car v8 is making as much hp/liter as a 2JZ with exhaust and porting.
-Russ
2012 Nissan Frontier 4.0l M6 4x4
1990 Toyota Cressida 3.0l M5
1994 Pontiac Firebird LT1 M6
1970 Volkwagen Beetle M4
1990 Suzuki VX800 SM5


Return to “Stick Versus All”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest