View Poll Results: Which do you prefer?
The 3.0 tt from BMW
15
16.30%
The 3.0 tt from Toyota
64
69.57%
I like both and can't chose one over the other
5
5.43%
Hybrids ftw!!
8
8.70%
Voters: 92. You may not vote on this poll
1SICKBLOG: Toyota Supra 3.0 TT 320hp in 1993 19 MPG. BMW 3.0 TT 300hp in 2009 20 MPG
08-30-09, 09:44 PM
#16
Lexus Fanatic
The supra was built during Japans hay days. The car was essentially over engineered and thats why its so stout and so much power can extracted from the car on stocl internals.
The BMW is going to produce more torque and is a newer more luxurious car. I drove a 335 before and was in love with the car minus its tiny size
The BMW is going to produce more torque and is a newer more luxurious car. I drove a 335 before and was in love with the car minus its tiny size
08-31-09, 08:43 AM
#18
Lexus Test Driver
You can't compare MPG accurately either since the EPA test procedures are very different now compared to then. Also, i'm sure the BMW is weighed down by a couple hundred lbs of safety related weight that the Supra lacks due to stringent saftey regulations. Lets not mention how much cleaner the BMW runs and i'm sure that doesn't help horsepower either. 
08-31-09, 09:15 AM
#19
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
the supra was Japan's CORVETTE. but toyota gave up. 
instead preferring to move to a mind-numbingly dull line-up of vehicles. well made, sure. reliable, yes. but better drink some red bull before driving one. 
about modding/engines, lobux shows some cheap mods could be done to the supra TT, but mike, i don't the 'bpu' is very cheap, is it? and hardly just a 'chip' which, as someone said, i don't think is doable on a supra - you either piggyback or replace, both with their own challenges. dinan for bmw is at least full factory recognized and supported - pretty awesome.
about the supra TT engine (JZ) vs. bmw 335 TT engine, i would imagine (i don't know for sure) that the 335 engine is MUCH LIGHTER than the supra's. this matters as the 335 must cart around a lot of weight (sound deadening, heavier seats, computers, etc.) that the supra doesn't have to.
while stock power output is similar, i expect pollutant output (not that i know for sure, or care to be honest) is DRAMATICALLY lower on the 335 than the supra. the supra most likely could not be sold today as a new car.
anyway, both great cars. very, very different.
supra tt = japanese 2 door muscle car
335 = german refined hot small sports sedan
instead preferring to move to a mind-numbingly dull line-up of vehicles. well made, sure. reliable, yes. but better drink some red bull before driving one. about modding/engines, lobux shows some cheap mods could be done to the supra TT, but mike, i don't the 'bpu' is very cheap, is it? and hardly just a 'chip' which, as someone said, i don't think is doable on a supra - you either piggyback or replace, both with their own challenges. dinan for bmw is at least full factory recognized and supported - pretty awesome.
about the supra TT engine (JZ) vs. bmw 335 TT engine, i would imagine (i don't know for sure) that the 335 engine is MUCH LIGHTER than the supra's. this matters as the 335 must cart around a lot of weight (sound deadening, heavier seats, computers, etc.) that the supra doesn't have to.
while stock power output is similar, i expect pollutant output (not that i know for sure, or care to be honest) is DRAMATICALLY lower on the 335 than the supra. the supra most likely could not be sold today as a new car.
anyway, both great cars. very, very different.
supra tt = japanese 2 door muscle car
335 = german refined hot small sports sedan
08-31-09, 09:35 AM
#20
Lexus Fanatic
I prefer the Supra tt by far. It has a nice shape, unique cool looking wraparound dash, looks excellent modified, is built like a tank, highly tunable, and handled very well in dry and wet. The engine and transmission are almost bullet proof and can handle much more power then stock. I also liked how it had rear seats, I know they were useless but you could still stuff someone back there or some luggage back there in a bind compared to the 300ZX tt and RX-7 which had no room for anything or anyone. I wanted one ever since I saw a white turbo in a parking lot in 94. I was going to get one but unmodified turbo's with under 50K miles were insanely overpriced so I said forget it, it is a great car but it is still a Toyota and not worth anywhere near what people were asking for them.
The 335i is nice but not on the level of the Supra tt. It is more of an entry level sports sedan/coupe endowed with a nice strong powerplant that also handles and drives very well. Although it has more luxury features it has a plain jane ugly cost cut looking interior/dash layout. The 335i coupe still offers much more rear seat and trunk room then the Supra. As far as reliability goes it is clearly evident by all the issues the 335i has that it is nowhere near built to the standards of the Supra. I remember reading a review of the 335i when it first came out and it overheated, broke down, and was un drivable after one lap on the track and had to be towed off
, some great modern engineering there
. Other 335i's tend to suffer the same fate in high speed tests. I then read about people chipping and tuning the turbos in the 335i which makes them faster but also makes them very prone to expensive damage and grenading the engine after a few hot runs.
The 335i engine maybe smoother, get better fuel economy, cleaner, and more high tech but it is no faster then the 10+year old Supra tt motor and it is also unreliable and fragile and not something you want to modify compared to the Supra turbo engine that is very reliable and designed from the get go to handle a good deal more power, rumors are it was detuned from 500hp-600hp to just 320hp when it first came out because it made too much power.
I really wish we got the tt motor in the GS in the US. I would take that motor anyday over the v8.
The 335i is nice but not on the level of the Supra tt. It is more of an entry level sports sedan/coupe endowed with a nice strong powerplant that also handles and drives very well. Although it has more luxury features it has a plain jane ugly cost cut looking interior/dash layout. The 335i coupe still offers much more rear seat and trunk room then the Supra. As far as reliability goes it is clearly evident by all the issues the 335i has that it is nowhere near built to the standards of the Supra. I remember reading a review of the 335i when it first came out and it overheated, broke down, and was un drivable after one lap on the track and had to be towed off
, some great modern engineering there. Other 335i's tend to suffer the same fate in high speed tests. I then read about people chipping and tuning the turbos in the 335i which makes them faster but also makes them very prone to expensive damage and grenading the engine after a few hot runs.The 335i engine maybe smoother, get better fuel economy, cleaner, and more high tech but it is no faster then the 10+year old Supra tt motor and it is also unreliable and fragile and not something you want to modify compared to the Supra turbo engine that is very reliable and designed from the get go to handle a good deal more power, rumors are it was detuned from 500hp-600hp to just 320hp when it first came out because it made too much power.
I really wish we got the tt motor in the GS in the US. I would take that motor anyday over the v8.
08-31-09, 10:02 AM
#21
about modding/engines, lobux shows some cheap mods could be done to the supra TT, but mike, i don't the 'bpu' is very cheap, is it? and hardly just a 'chip' which, as someone said, i don't think is doable on a supra - you either piggyback or replace, both with their own challenges. dinan for bmw is at least full factory recognized and supported - pretty awesome.
about the supra TT engine (JZ) vs. bmw 335 TT engine, i would imagine (i don't know for sure) that the 335 engine is MUCH LIGHTER than the supra's.
this matters as the 335 must cart around a lot of weight (sound deadening, heavier seats, computers, etc.) that the supra doesn't have to.
while stock power output is similar, i expect pollutant output (not that i know for sure, or care to be honest) is DRAMATICALLY lower on the 335 than the supra. the supra most likely could not be sold today as a new car.
The N54 was born in late 2006. This motor has been an engine of the year winner more than once & amoung the top 10 on Wards. It is on its way to becoming a legendary engine not just in the import tuner community but around the world..
08-31-09, 11:21 AM
#22
If I recall, Toyota reduced the price of the Supra by 10K in its last year of production (1996) to bring it to an even 40K and still not enough people bought it compared to Corvettes and Porsches.
The Supra developed a cult following after its production ceased.
The Supra developed a cult following after its production ceased.
08-31-09, 12:06 PM
#23
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ga
Posts: 833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This makes it easier to rationalize the cost of the GTR now. Seeing as I was in elementary school during the Supra's Hay day, I thought it was cheaper than a GTR. So considering inflation they were similar?
08-31-09, 12:09 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
In American the highest I saw was 48k for a loaded Supra, which was on par with a loaded 3000GT at the time. The yen made all the prices rise on these cars. Hell a LS 400 started at 35k and became 50k in 4 years.
People were choosing the SC over the Supra for the same price.
People were choosing the SC over the Supra for the same price.
08-31-09, 12:27 PM
#25
Intermediate
the supra was Japan's CORVETTE. but toyota gave up. instead preferring to move to a mind-numbingly dull line-up of vehicles. well made, sure. reliable, yes. but better drink some red bull before driving one.
about modding/engines, lobux shows some cheap mods could be done to the supra TT, but mike, i don't the 'bpu' is very cheap, is it? and hardly just a 'chip' which, as someone said, i don't think is doable on a supra - you either piggyback or replace, both with their own challenges. dinan for bmw is at least full factory recognized and supported - pretty awesome.
about the supra TT engine (JZ) vs. bmw 335 TT engine, i would imagine (i don't know for sure) that the 335 engine is MUCH LIGHTER than the supra's. this matters as the 335 must cart around a lot of weight (sound deadening, heavier seats, computers, etc.) that the supra doesn't have to.
while stock power output is similar, i expect pollutant output (not that i know for sure, or care to be honest) is DRAMATICALLY lower on the 335 than the supra. the supra most likely could not be sold today as a new car.
anyway, both great cars. very, very different.
supra tt = japanese 2 door muscle car
335 = german refined hot small sports sedan
instead preferring to move to a mind-numbingly dull line-up of vehicles. well made, sure. reliable, yes. but better drink some red bull before driving one. about modding/engines, lobux shows some cheap mods could be done to the supra TT, but mike, i don't the 'bpu' is very cheap, is it? and hardly just a 'chip' which, as someone said, i don't think is doable on a supra - you either piggyback or replace, both with their own challenges. dinan for bmw is at least full factory recognized and supported - pretty awesome.
about the supra TT engine (JZ) vs. bmw 335 TT engine, i would imagine (i don't know for sure) that the 335 engine is MUCH LIGHTER than the supra's. this matters as the 335 must cart around a lot of weight (sound deadening, heavier seats, computers, etc.) that the supra doesn't have to.
while stock power output is similar, i expect pollutant output (not that i know for sure, or care to be honest) is DRAMATICALLY lower on the 335 than the supra. the supra most likely could not be sold today as a new car.
anyway, both great cars. very, very different.
supra tt = japanese 2 door muscle car
335 = german refined hot small sports sedan
08-31-09, 01:27 PM
#26
Lexus Champion
It's an interesting thought but your comparison has a lot of missing information and considerations, all that would help the 335i's case. Several points to consider:
1- The 335i makes in the range of 320-330hp by most dyno/estimates, despite being rated 300. It also makes considerably more off-idle torque than the Supra turbo and has a generally much flatter more usable torque curve. The 335i is a pleasure to drive at partial throttle around town... the Supra had to deal with turbo lag and a general feeling of 'waiting' for the turbo to kick in when accelerating casually. 335i has 95% of its peak torque available from about 1800 rpm up to almost redline and turbo lag just doesn't exist.
2- I'm not sure what fuel economy numbers you're using (old or new, combined or city) but I'm sure you're aware that cars rated before the 2008 model year generally have about a 15% advantage in rated economy... it was easier to get a higher rating back then. The EPA estimates that the 1994 Supra manual trans would have gotten a 15 mpg city rating if it were rated today... 22 on the highway. The 335i is rated at 17/26 with the new standards. That's 13.3% better city economy and 18.2% better highway economy.
3- 335i is a heavier, safer, larger and more luxurious car. Had the Supra been made in 1993 but with today's safety and emissions standards plus the 335i's passenger carrying and cargo carrying volume, it would weigh quite a bit more too. If you also required it to be as luxurious as the 335i, it'd be an absolute porker. Since highway economy is hardly affected at all by weight then it's a better indication of the relative efficiencies of the two engines... and here the 335i excels well ahead of the Supra. I know you're trying to only talk about motors here but my point is if you stuck the Supra's engine in the 335i is would get at least a couple mpg worse in the city due to the extra weight and emissions requirements. At this point we're talking about a 13mpg rating for the Supra manual... not exactly impressive anymore, eh?
4- I notice you're comparing the 1994 model year Supra to the 2009 335i. Why not compare the 1998 Supra to the 2007 335i which came out in 2006? If you're going to compare the first year of one model, compare it to the first year of the other. You even managed to fool yourself since you said "that was over 16 years ago". The difference between 1993 and 2006 is 13 years.
1- The 335i makes in the range of 320-330hp by most dyno/estimates, despite being rated 300. It also makes considerably more off-idle torque than the Supra turbo and has a generally much flatter more usable torque curve. The 335i is a pleasure to drive at partial throttle around town... the Supra had to deal with turbo lag and a general feeling of 'waiting' for the turbo to kick in when accelerating casually. 335i has 95% of its peak torque available from about 1800 rpm up to almost redline and turbo lag just doesn't exist.
2- I'm not sure what fuel economy numbers you're using (old or new, combined or city) but I'm sure you're aware that cars rated before the 2008 model year generally have about a 15% advantage in rated economy... it was easier to get a higher rating back then. The EPA estimates that the 1994 Supra manual trans would have gotten a 15 mpg city rating if it were rated today... 22 on the highway. The 335i is rated at 17/26 with the new standards. That's 13.3% better city economy and 18.2% better highway economy.
3- 335i is a heavier, safer, larger and more luxurious car. Had the Supra been made in 1993 but with today's safety and emissions standards plus the 335i's passenger carrying and cargo carrying volume, it would weigh quite a bit more too. If you also required it to be as luxurious as the 335i, it'd be an absolute porker. Since highway economy is hardly affected at all by weight then it's a better indication of the relative efficiencies of the two engines... and here the 335i excels well ahead of the Supra. I know you're trying to only talk about motors here but my point is if you stuck the Supra's engine in the 335i is would get at least a couple mpg worse in the city due to the extra weight and emissions requirements. At this point we're talking about a 13mpg rating for the Supra manual... not exactly impressive anymore, eh?
4- I notice you're comparing the 1994 model year Supra to the 2009 335i. Why not compare the 1998 Supra to the 2007 335i which came out in 2006? If you're going to compare the first year of one model, compare it to the first year of the other. You even managed to fool yourself since you said "that was over 16 years ago". The difference between 1993 and 2006 is 13 years.
08-31-09, 02:18 PM
#28
It's an interesting thought but your comparison has a lot of missing information and considerations, all that would help the 335i's case. Several points to consider:
1- The 335i makes in the range of 320-330hp by most dyno/estimates, despite being rated 300. It also makes considerably more off-idle torque than the Supra turbo and has a generally much flatter more usable torque curve. The 335i is a pleasure to drive at partial throttle around town... the Supra had to deal with turbo lag and a general feeling of 'waiting' for the turbo to kick in when accelerating casually. 335i has 95% of its peak torque available from about 1800 rpm up to almost redline and turbo lag just doesn't exist.
2- I'm not sure what fuel economy numbers you're using (old or new, combined or city) but I'm sure you're aware that cars rated before the 2008 model year generally have about a 15% advantage in rated economy... it was easier to get a higher rating back then. The EPA estimates that the 1994 Supra manual trans would have gotten a 15 mpg city rating if it were rated today... 22 on the highway. The 335i is rated at 17/26 with the new standards. That's 13.3% better city economy and 18.2% better highway economy.
3- 335i is a heavier, safer, larger and more luxurious car. Had the Supra been made in 1993 but with today's safety and emissions standards plus the 335i's passenger carrying and cargo carrying volume, it would weigh quite a bit more too. If you also required it to be as luxurious as the 335i, it'd be an absolute porker. Since highway economy is hardly affected at all by weight then it's a better indication of the relative efficiencies of the two engines... and here the 335i excels well ahead of the Supra. I know you're trying to only talk about motors here but my point is if you stuck the Supra's engine in the 335i is would get at least a couple mpg worse in the city due to the extra weight and emissions requirements. At this point we're talking about a 13mpg rating for the Supra manual... not exactly impressive anymore, eh?
4- I notice you're comparing the 1994 model year Supra to the 2009 335i. Why not compare the 1998 Supra to the 2007 335i which came out in 2006? If you're going to compare the first year of one model, compare it to the first year of the other. You even managed to fool yourself since you said "that was over 16 years ago". The difference between 1993 and 2006 is 13 years.
1- The 335i makes in the range of 320-330hp by most dyno/estimates, despite being rated 300. It also makes considerably more off-idle torque than the Supra turbo and has a generally much flatter more usable torque curve. The 335i is a pleasure to drive at partial throttle around town... the Supra had to deal with turbo lag and a general feeling of 'waiting' for the turbo to kick in when accelerating casually. 335i has 95% of its peak torque available from about 1800 rpm up to almost redline and turbo lag just doesn't exist.
2- I'm not sure what fuel economy numbers you're using (old or new, combined or city) but I'm sure you're aware that cars rated before the 2008 model year generally have about a 15% advantage in rated economy... it was easier to get a higher rating back then. The EPA estimates that the 1994 Supra manual trans would have gotten a 15 mpg city rating if it were rated today... 22 on the highway. The 335i is rated at 17/26 with the new standards. That's 13.3% better city economy and 18.2% better highway economy.
3- 335i is a heavier, safer, larger and more luxurious car. Had the Supra been made in 1993 but with today's safety and emissions standards plus the 335i's passenger carrying and cargo carrying volume, it would weigh quite a bit more too. If you also required it to be as luxurious as the 335i, it'd be an absolute porker. Since highway economy is hardly affected at all by weight then it's a better indication of the relative efficiencies of the two engines... and here the 335i excels well ahead of the Supra. I know you're trying to only talk about motors here but my point is if you stuck the Supra's engine in the 335i is would get at least a couple mpg worse in the city due to the extra weight and emissions requirements. At this point we're talking about a 13mpg rating for the Supra manual... not exactly impressive anymore, eh?
4- I notice you're comparing the 1994 model year Supra to the 2009 335i. Why not compare the 1998 Supra to the 2007 335i which came out in 2006? If you're going to compare the first year of one model, compare it to the first year of the other. You even managed to fool yourself since you said "that was over 16 years ago". The difference between 1993 and 2006 is 13 years.
08-31-09, 02:24 PM
#29
F is for Fraud
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Québec
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, considering inflation they were very similar in price, albeit the Supra was mass-produceable whereas the new GT-R isn't quite. It is to be noted that I am talking in Canadian dollars, however.
08-31-09, 02:28 PM
#30
F is for Fraud
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Québec
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, the JDM Supras didn't make 320 hp from the factory either. Different injectors, different cams, different (read smaller) turbos, MAP not MAF, and a host of other differences conspired to kill the JDM models.
It didn't take $2k. With a BCC and a downpipe you could make nearly 400 at the wheel with decent fuel. The rest of the $2k was for a bigger exhaust to allow the OEM turbos to spool faster.
You might want to talk to another truly renowned tuner in Canada - Reg Reimer at RCTS in Calgary - about things you can and can't do with a Supra. Since he's raced them in One Lap twice (along with some other friends of mine) I'm sure he can give you some more accurate information.
It didn't take $2k. With a BCC and a downpipe you could make nearly 400 at the wheel with decent fuel. The rest of the $2k was for a bigger exhaust to allow the OEM turbos to spool faster.
You might want to talk to another truly renowned tuner in Canada - Reg Reimer at RCTS in Calgary - about things you can and can't do with a Supra. Since he's raced them in One Lap twice (along with some other friends of mine) I'm sure he can give you some more accurate information.
Either way, the Supra was sold and like I said, the $25k I got from it made a nice down payment on the IS F. :P