Page 1 of 1

2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:38 pm
by pmacutay
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.

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:09 pm
by Leedeth
Can you post up the hp and torque ratings for both cars.

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:17 pm
by AHTOXA
Nice. My car's heavy compared to yours, Phil.

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:22 pm
by pmacutay
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?

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:27 pm
by pobrien
good for you. represent :)

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:51 pm
by subzero
nice.

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

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:52 pm
by Leedeth
subzero wrote:nice.

i like to think of mk4 supras as sexy whales. :lol:
Sexy whales? Lol...wait...WTF?!

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:02 pm
by subzero
forgive me, my mind is a little............altered.........right now.

:mrgreen:

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:31 pm
by pmacutay
haha hey, I understood the analogy.

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:48 pm
by Bawked
supras are awesome but are much like the 300zx..... turbo or its weight is too much, coupled with an auto even worse :?

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:13 am
by kamesama980
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

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:45 pm
by tehfade
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.

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 am
by Leedeth
subzero wrote:forgive me, my mind is a little............altered.........right now.

:mrgreen:
Lol is this what you saw.

Image

Re: 2.slow vs Supra

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:54 pm
by kamesama980
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.