Why not get a Supra? (Mk3)

A relative had a Turbo and loved it until its first encounter with Canadian winter conditions. He changed to an Audi Quattro the next day. (His unpleasant experience could have been tire-related, of course, but those are the facts as they happened.)

Apart from that, the only thing I know about them is that the Mk III design lasted twice as long as anybody expected because management flat-out rejected the design proposal for its replacement. Must have been a fun meeting.

Anja, I say go for it. From a Samurai to a Rabbit to a Mk III Supra is a perfectly logical progression, if only in terms of seating comfort.

It was a guess... it's probably more like 190. That said, I've still driven a few of these and not.one of the stock turbo cars would lose traction in 2nd gear from a roll.

That's not to say I don't like these, I love mkiii Supras. I'd just skip to putting a proper turbo on it immediately.

They can be gotten sideways well enough for sure, a friend had a pretty much stock N/A one and managed to drift it well enough. (He actually qualified for a major drift event in it once and then they realized it wasn't caged and didn't let him run!)

But yeah, relatively slow and very heavy.

One of the D1 guys had crazy ute/El Camino-style "pickup" converted one as a street/exhibition car back in the day. I guess that's one way to strip weight from the rear. The JDM ones were a more potent machine since they had a 1JZ instead of a 7M in them, though. Maybe a swap would be a possibility.

Swank Force One wrote: .... you're saying 8psi on stock turbo could get you sideways just by hitting the go pedal? Were you running bald and corded space savers in the back?

There may have been cheap, worn tires out back.
and it might never fully get dry around here.
but I had no complaints as a poor almost teenager when it came to getting the back end out.

Max_Archer wrote: They can be gotten sideways well enough for sure, a friend had a pretty much stock N/A one and managed to drift it well enough. (He actually qualified for a major drift event in it once and then they realized it wasn't caged and didn't let him run!) But yeah, relatively slow and very heavy. One of the D1 guys had crazy ute/El Camino-style "pickup" converted one as a street/exhibition car back in the day. I guess that's one way to strip weight from the rear. The JDM ones were a more potent machine since they had a 1JZ instead of a 7M in them, though. Maybe a swap would be a possibility.

7mgte > 1jzgte.

You can easily make ginormous power on a 7m. Very strong motors. The only compelling argument against the 7m is that the 2jz exists.

General comments - I had a NA 1987 back in the day. For its time it was a quickish car, would have been much better with the turbo. It was a wonderful GT car- very surefooted, very quiet, very comfortable, would eat up miles at an amazing rate. A real ticket collector unless you used the cruise control; in those days of 55 mph speed limits, if you just drove what felt like a nice safe speed without checking the speedo, and then looked, you would usually be doing around 90 - 95. Got around 23 mpg at 60, got around 20 mpg at 90 (don't ask how I know, involves long distances of empty New Mexico high desert)

No fun in autocrosses, though - big and ponderous. Some magazines referred to it as a Japanese Camaro, I always thought of it as a Japanese 928 or BMW 850. Due to lack of nimbleness, and helplessness in the snow (and a really steep depreciation curve at the time), I sold it and bought my first Mk.1 MR2, a good move for my uses at the time.

Still possibly the best long-distance over the highway car I have ever owned, though (except maybe the 94 Corvette I recently bought). Just not a weekend racer in stock trim.

Swank Force One wrote: It was a guess... it's probably more like 190. That said, I've still driven a few of these and not.one of the stock turbo cars would lose traction in 2nd gear from a roll.

They had 230 at the flywheel from the factory.

Still possibly the best long-distance over the highway car I have ever owned, though (except maybe the 94 Corvette I recently bought)

I seriously dont understand how people think C4s are comfortable. Maybe it's just the relief you feel when you are IN the seat after how E36 M3ty it was to get there, but i see that wearing off before you get very far on the highway.

The A/C has a crotch vent!

I am so glad that someone else understands the beauty of this!! Im going to show this post to my fiancee.

A MK3 Supra sounds much too easy for you.

You need a Starion/Conquest.

Vigo wrote: I seriously dont understand how people think C4s are comfortable. Maybe it's just the relief you feel when you are IN the seat after how E36 M3ty it was to get there, but i see that wearing off before you get very far on the highway.

I'm not sure why, but I found my C4 to be a pretty nice highway cruiser even with the Z51 suspension package. The exhaust was a little loud, but other than that, it was pretty comfortable for long trips. I think it was a combination of a seat that happened to be a good fit, enough legroom to stretch out (I'm pretty tall), and the lack of potholes in Southern interstates.

My father had a 90 turbo--- it was one of the cars I "cut my teeth" on.

These are really good cars, especially as street cars. Since they are so cheap, I'd find the nicest stock one you can find, instead of the "driven hard-- put away wet" example listed. Then modify to suit your needs.

Our 3rd gear syncro went bad, besides that the car was pretty trouble free. These were not slow (especially for the time) 0-60 in 6.3 or so---- 14.4 1/4 mile with a 145 mph top speed. You can certainly coax the car into a drift, but by nature they are stable, good handling cars.....if a little big and heavy.

Think Japanese BMW 6-series. Great road car (awesome long-distance car) not so great a choice for a track car, or autocrosser.

They also improved the breed as they aged. Get the last 3rd gen possible, in the best shape possible. Still probably under $5K

From what I understand with Mk IIIs, get aftermarket head bolts not studs. If you put studs in, you can't pull the head again without pulling the motor out.

The only thing I have against these cars is that they are really really HEAVY. If they made a 3/4 scale MKIII Supra, it would rock.

In reply to beans:

LOL I need easiER so I can get some decent race time in this summer!!!

Starions are too boxy for my taste. I know, I know, I have a rabbit, but its boxy in the wrong ways.....

Okay, so you guys are just encouraging the bad habit!!! Now I'm going to have 3 cars to find parking spots for!! Well, I will certainly let you guys know what happens next Sunday.

Thanks for the excellent feedback, though.

Yes, the first question that I asked was whether the head gasket problem had been corrected. It has, with the newer-style head gasket, but not the upgraded head studs. (ReverendDexter, tI have heard of the ARP head stud upgrade, but hadn't heard of the bolts.... I will look into that, thanks for the tip). They are factory studs, but torqued to the revised torque spec, all with paperwork to prove it. 160k miles seemed high, but not for this motor (seems to be general consensus) when maintained properly.

Plus, when the motor blows, I can LS swap it (As Appleseed mentioned... yes, plenty of space, and it has been done before! Not many LS1 swapped Supras, but I have found 3, no build threads, but a couple youtube videos from one guy somewhere on the other side of the world...)

GameboyRMH wrote: I also like the looks of these more than the Mk4. The big problem with these is WEIGHT. They're cool and fun cars no doubt, and can be modded for big power, the have good suspension, but the weight will always hamper their performance and there's not much you can do about it. If you really strip them bare you might get under 3klbs.

I agree, I like them much more than the mk4. Absolutely, the weight seems to be the biggest downfall of the Supra. Should be a good balance for my other "race car" ;)

Vigo wrote:

Still possibly the best long-distance over the highway car I have ever owned, though (except maybe the 94 Corvette I recently bought)

I seriously dont understand how people think C4s are comfortable. Maybe it's just the relief you feel when you are IN the seat after how E36 M3ty it was to get there, but i see that wearing off before you get very far on the highway.

The A/C has a crotch vent!

I am so glad that someone else understands the beauty of this!! Im going to show this post to my fiancee.

Oh thank god!!!

The answer is always Miata

Does the Miata have crotch A/C? I think the Supra wins.

ReverendDexter wrote: From what I understand with Mk IIIs, get aftermarket head *bolts* not studs. If you put studs in, you can't pull the head again without pulling the motor out.

PROTIP: Get the ARP studs with the allen head on the top of them. If you need to pull the head, remove the nuts and washers then pull the studs out with a long T-handled allen wrench. Boom, just like bolts except for the better torquing characteristics!

Just remembered that I have a set of ARP studs in a box somewhere.
If you end up in the supra game, lemme know!

Rufledt wrote: Does the Miata have crotch A/C? I think the Supra wins.

Skirt+top down.

Crotch a/c

somewhat related question: under what circumstances does the head gasket problem manifest? Higher boost levels? Hot engine + boost? High mileage? My mom's car hasn't had a problem, but it's totally stock, way low mileage (sub 20k), taken good care of, and not raced unless "some punk kid thought he could beat me" (my mom's words).

Rufledt wrote: somewhat related question: under what circumstances does the head gasket problem manifest? Higher boost levels? Hot engine + boost? High mileage? My mom's car hasn't had a problem, but it's totally stock, way low mileage (sub 20k), taken good care of, and not raced unless "some punk kid thought he could beat me" (my mom's words).

It is a universal problem. Improper torque specs from the factory.

BTW your mom is a badass :D