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
08-31-09, 04:13 PM
#31
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Robin Almasi basically pioneered Nissan and Toyota tuning here in Canada. I doubt that that this Red Reimer is much better. At 17 he had a 700 hp 240sx. He participated as an advisor in Project Tuning here in Montreal, a TV show.
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
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
Some other things for this thread - the Supra is LOUD inside. It was never intended to be a "luxury" car. From an engine emissions perspective, I'll put my 16 year old Supra up against anything brand new from any manufacturer and you'll not see any difference. Why? Because engine emissions haven't been a serious problem for a very long time. If you look at emissions control, you'll see a tremendous amount of work put into evaporative emissions, and this is where the manufacturers are spending their money. If you look at the EPA specs for ULEV you'll notice right away the focus is on evap emissions, NOT tailpipe emissions because tail pipe emissions haven't been a problem for many years.
Purchase price for Supras? When they came out in 1993 they sold for $39,600 base in a TT 6 Speed. Most sold with leather and the 3 in 1 ETR sound system which added significant money. The wing cost extra too. So the average showroom turbo went for about $44k. By 1995, the same car was going for $54k because the dollar tanked against the yen. In 1996, there was no manual because Toyota couldn't get a manual to pass OBDII's misfire detection requirement. It's easy to do with a torque converter, but using crankshaft acceleration to detect misfires on a manual leads to many false CELs. By 1997, they sorted all this out and dramatically cheapened the Supra to get the price back down to about $40k. The cars still sat on the showroom floor for 6 to 8 months because the economy sucked and no one outside of the owners and enthusiasts knew anything about how great the cars were.
Real world mileage from a Supra is 18.x mpg around town and 24.x mpg on the road. Slightly less than my IS-F.
Turbo lag? No, not really. If you owned one, you know the power was pretty smooth and steady when the engine started building boost at 2200 rpm on the front turbo. The deceptive thing is when the second turbo comes online, there is a torque dip while the second unit is spooling up. Toyota did all kinds of fancy tricks to smooth over the transition, and they work to an extent, but it's impossible to miss this dip from a low rpm start. HOWEVER, once in twin mode, the engine STAYS in twin mode unless you let the rpm drop below 3000. Most owners who took them to a road course would disable the sequential mechanism because they didn't want a torque drop then spike from the twins, so they'd hardwire the exhaust gas control valve open and keep both turbos on the boil all the time.
I recently drove a Ford Eco-boost engine. Torque was very smooth and predictable. Power was good, but not great. I imagine the BMW is pretty similar since they're both using VATN technology to reduce lag and make the turbo behave as if it has a smaller a/r at low rpm and a bigger a/r at high rpm.
The only things the 335 has that the Supra did not have from a safety perspective - stiffer side impact requirements and side airbags. The Supra is not a particularly light car at 3415 for the hardtop TT and 3465 for the targa top. That the BMW gets better highway mileage is more a function of drag than anything else. The engine's thermal efficiency isn't dramatically better - there haven't been any major breakthroughs in thermal efficiency in the last 20 years of gasoline engine design. Diesels have made great strides, but gasoline engines have not.
FWIW, most Supras dyno'd 265 to 285 hp bone stock. A few anomalous ones did worse, and some did remarkably better. Oleg Kozunetsov's Supra dyno'd 340 hp in a supposedly bone stock configuration at SILV '98. Still, the many that did dyno 275 to 285 hp were obviously making more than 320 at the crank. Mine makes more, but I have no idea what it makes on stock boost since I've never dyno'd it with only 8.8 psi of boost.
And now for the kicker - the 2JZ block is not originally intended for automotive service. It was originally designed for Toyota forklifts. The high nickel content cast iron block makes a wonderfully reliable forklift engine. It also means you can boost the thing until the headbolts break without worrying about the block. This fundamental truth is not something you see today with the cast in liner aluminum alloy blocks the manufacturers now offer. The blocks we see today will not tolerate anywhere near as much boost as the venerable 2JZ because they're not intended to be so dramatically overbuilt. As time goes on, manufacturers are being forced into the Colin Chapman school of thought - make only as big and durable as it needs to be to complete design service life and no longer. It's a sad thing, but it's true. It's also why I still have my Supra sitting next to my IS-F. The F will never make 1000 hp reliably. The Supra can. It's just a matter of money and time.
08-31-09, 04:20 PM
#33
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
08-31-09, 06:14 PM
#35
Lead Lap
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, 06:43 PM
#36
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
...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.
No, Mike didn't manage to fool himself. You just got it wrong Threxx.
08-31-09, 06:52 PM
#37
Lexus Champion
Hardly. The MkIV Supra debuted in May of 1993 which is why it is sometimes called a 93.5. It's been 16+ years since the Supra hit the US market. Why compare the LAST year the Supra was imported to the first year the 335i was offered?
No, Mike didn't manage to fool himself. You just got it wrong Threxx.
No, Mike didn't manage to fool himself. You just got it wrong Threxx.
Let's see... May of 93 + 13 years is May of 06... what's that... a month or two short of when the 335i came out?
As for the rest of your much longer post above, there's plenty of good info in there but absolutely nothing I saw in there refutes the statements I made except for saying the turbo lag isn't as bad as I may think it is (but it's certainly worse than the 335i's lag, which flat out doesn't exist). My points stand and they were missing from Mike's original argument.
08-31-09, 07:26 PM
#38
Lexus Test Driver
Great thread, both are great engines. I will choose the 2JZGTE, one of the most overbuilt engines of all time, everyone knows the insane horsepower they are capable of. There are a few things that steer me away from the 335 in general, It has no LSD, it does not have a oil dipstick, the oil level is measured by electronics, and BMW will not and does not want anyone to tune these engines for big horsepower, even threating legal action if anyone cracked the ECU codes. Even big name BMW tuners like Alpina, Hartage and Dinan do not have ECU access to really tune the thing, fit bigger turbos etc.. So we really won't know what the M54 engine is capable over until BMW decides to unleash it. As it stands most 335is will be chipped for modest gains and then will be traded in for the newest toy. While Supra owners keep their cars for the long term.
Here you go..
Supra and 2JZGTE
335i and M54
Here you go..
Supra and 2JZGTE
335i and M54
08-31-09, 07:27 PM
#39
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
Let's see... May of 93 + 13 years is May of 06... what's that... a month or two short of when the 335i came out?
As for the rest of your much longer post above, there's plenty of good info in there but absolutely nothing I saw in there refutes the statements I made except for saying the turbo lag isn't as bad as I may think it is (but it's certainly worse than the 335i's lag, which flat out doesn't exist). My points stand and they were missing from Mike's original argument.
As for the rest of your much longer post above, there's plenty of good info in there but absolutely nothing I saw in there refutes the statements I made except for saying the turbo lag isn't as bad as I may think it is (but it's certainly worse than the 335i's lag, which flat out doesn't exist). My points stand and they were missing from Mike's original argument.
What part of 1998 happened in 1993? Wait, they're different years. Oh, but you said:
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.
because the Supra came out in 1993 not 1998Not even following your own suggestion I see.
Don't you love how you can insult someone with a simple graphic added to your post and really point out how simple minded you think they are without saying a word?
BTW, real world - what kind of mileage do you get? 18/24 or better? Wait - I found the answer from the biggest BMW fans in publishing - Car & Driver :
Once lit, the 335i's turbo six reveals itself to be the strong, silent type. Turbocharger whine, waste-gate woofing, and the exhaust system are all agreeably muted. In feel and sound the twin-turbo could pass for naturally aspirated. We were reminded that the 335i was turbocharged when we added up the mileage and saw that we went only 18 miles per gallon of premium. Granted, it is fair to say we exploited the newfound power with the restraint of a Somali warlord, but even on highway jaunts the 335i returned fuel economy in just the mid-20s. (The 2006 330i in our long-term stable regularly gets about 30 mpg on the highway.)
Originally Posted by same article
The optional Sport package fills the fenders with 18-inch wheels shod with run-flat Bridgestone Potenza RE050As (225/40R-18s in front and 255/35R-18s in back) that stick to the skidpad at 0.87 g, again matching the M3's performance. Even with its firm sport suspension, the 335i remains compliant and manages to avoid the M3's flinty harshness.
Last edited by lobuxracer; 08-31-09 at 07:40 PM.
08-31-09, 07:37 PM
#40
Lead Lap
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what he wants as a fairer comparison is taking the beginning of each car's model year.
Don't you love how you can insult someone with a simple graphic added to your post and really point out how simple minded you think they are without saying a word?
08-31-09, 07:44 PM
#41
Lexus Champion
I was going to add some input a couple days ago, but lobuxracer has it all covered. We're lucky to have someone like him on here to set the facts straight.
lobuxracer, that's a sweet hardtop Supra you have there. Looks like you drive it too. I have a friend that mothballed both of his Supras (he has a hardtop with like 10k miles, and another pushing 1300 hp), and it's a shame. I'd like to see them out there kicking *** on 335's, as if there was any comparison.
Good luck with convincing the uninformed.
lobuxracer, that's a sweet hardtop Supra you have there. Looks like you drive it too. I have a friend that mothballed both of his Supras (he has a hardtop with like 10k miles, and another pushing 1300 hp), and it's a shame. I'd like to see them out there kicking *** on 335's, as if there was any comparison.
Good luck with convincing the uninformed.
08-31-09, 07:53 PM
#42
Lexus Champion
oooo...oooo....I can do the head smacking thing too....
What part of 1998 happened in 1993? Wait, they're different years. Oh, but you said:
More because the Supra came out in 1993 not 1998
Not even following your own suggestion I see.
Don't you love how you can insult someone with a simple graphic added to your post and really point out how simple minded you think they are without saying a word?
What part of 1998 happened in 1993? Wait, they're different years. Oh, but you said:
More
because the Supra came out in 1993 not 1998Not even following your own suggestion I see.
Don't you love how you can insult someone with a simple graphic added to your post and really point out how simple minded you think they are without saying a word?
I only said 1998 to demonstrate to 1sick how I too could manipulate years to the opposite advantage. He compared the very first year of the Supra to the 3rd year of the 335i and specifically stated 16 years later as if that's how long it took for the 335i to come out with its 3.0tt.
I thought this point was extremely obvious considering I wrote "If you're going to compare the first year of one model, compare it to the first year of the other." immediately after I made my jesting suggestion. I mean my god man, it's in the very words you quoted and you still couldn't understand it and now here I am explaining it to you for a second time. Yes, you fully deserve this ------->
BTW, real world - what kind of mileage do you get? 18/24 or better? Wait - I found the answer from the biggest BMW fans in publishing - Car & Driver :
At 55 steady with the AC off I get 37.
Comparing a magazine's results to your personal results is convenient and all, but my results don't match theirs. I'm sure somewhere out there plenty of mags have gotten worse results in the Supra that yours, too.
Funny, that sounds exactly like my Supra. Except I'll drive around you on the skidpad like you're stopped. That's always fun.
Supra's Car & Driver Test = Roadholding 300 ft dia skidpad 0.95g
Supra's Car & Driver Test = Roadholding 300 ft dia skidpad 0.95g
Here's what you need to understand, but you probably can't since you're so blinded by your typical supra fanboyish nature... I don't even like my 335i overall. I'm no BMW fanboy, I didn't come in this thread to be a fanboy or to start an argument. I came in to add some obviously missing detail to 1sicklex's comparison and that's it. I just thought the comparison was unfair and misleading. Now you're trying to turn this into a 335i vs Supra comparison which is just stupid because they're not supposed to be comparable vehicles. For that matter, in reality, this whole thread/comparison is pretty stupid, I should have just ignored it.
edit: in retrospect it's hilarious that the absolute least significant of my four points is the one I'm getting the most crap over, and you're not even right about the crap you're giving me, either. Wrong... twice in a row now.
Last edited by Threxx; 08-31-09 at 08:11 PM.
08-31-09, 07:57 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
what he means is 1SICKLEX manipulated the numbers to make the timeline seem greater, so he manipulated them as well to make them the shortest possible.
what he wants as a fairer comparison is taking the beginning of each car's model year.
in all fairness, 1SICKLEX does that all the time as well.
what he wants as a fairer comparison is taking the beginning of each car's model year.
in all fairness, 1SICKLEX does that all the time as well.
I'm not trying to fudge any numbers and everyone knows I'm a straight shooter. How dare you accuse me of doing this "all the time".
Last edited by LexFather; 08-31-09 at 08:04 PM.
08-31-09, 08:00 PM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
I thought about explaining my '1998' comment in my last reply but I assumed you'd be smart enough to get it without me going into that much detail. I guess I was wrong.
I only said 1998 to demonstrate to 1sick how I too could manipulate years to the opposite advantage. He compared the very first year of the Supra to the 3rd year of the 335i and specifically stated 16 years later as if that's how long it took for the 335i to come out with its 3.0tt.
I thought this point was extremely obvious considering I wrote "If you're going to compare the first year of one model, compare it to the first year of the other." immediately after I made my jesting suggestion. I mean my god man, it's in the very words you quoted and you still couldn't understand it and now here I am explaining it to you for a second time. Yes, you fully deserve this ------->
As I've stated on this forum here many times, I average 22.5-23 in the city with a VERY heavy foot (though I am good about coasting to stops), and get 29mpg on the highway at 75-80 with the AC on and 30-30.5 with the AC off.
At 55 steady with the AC off I get 37.
I was waiting for this moment. I knew it was coming soon, and now you're letting your true mag racer fanboy colors shine through.
Here's what you need to understand, but you probably can't since you're so blinded by your typical supra fanboyish nature... I don't even like my 335i overall. I'm no BMW fanboy, I didn't come in this thread to be a fanboy or to start an argument. I came in to add some obviously missing detail to 1sicklex's comparison and that's it. I just thought the comparison was unfair and misleading. Now you're trying to turn this into a 335i vs Supra comparison which is just stupid because they're not supposed to be comparable vehicles. For that matter, in reality, this whole thread/comparison is pretty stupid, I should have just ignored it.
I only said 1998 to demonstrate to 1sick how I too could manipulate years to the opposite advantage. He compared the very first year of the Supra to the 3rd year of the 335i and specifically stated 16 years later as if that's how long it took for the 335i to come out with its 3.0tt.
I thought this point was extremely obvious considering I wrote "If you're going to compare the first year of one model, compare it to the first year of the other." immediately after I made my jesting suggestion. I mean my god man, it's in the very words you quoted and you still couldn't understand it and now here I am explaining it to you for a second time. Yes, you fully deserve this ------->
As I've stated on this forum here many times, I average 22.5-23 in the city with a VERY heavy foot (though I am good about coasting to stops), and get 29mpg on the highway at 75-80 with the AC on and 30-30.5 with the AC off.
At 55 steady with the AC off I get 37.
I was waiting for this moment. I knew it was coming soon, and now you're letting your true mag racer fanboy colors shine through.
Here's what you need to understand, but you probably can't since you're so blinded by your typical supra fanboyish nature... I don't even like my 335i overall. I'm no BMW fanboy, I didn't come in this thread to be a fanboy or to start an argument. I came in to add some obviously missing detail to 1sicklex's comparison and that's it. I just thought the comparison was unfair and misleading. Now you're trying to turn this into a 335i vs Supra comparison which is just stupid because they're not supposed to be comparable vehicles. For that matter, in reality, this whole thread/comparison is pretty stupid, I should have just ignored it.
Now you are accusing lobux of being a fanboy.
Its amazing to see when people have no point or have lost a debate, they revert to attacks.
I won't warn send an infraction as I am in this discussion but cut out the attacks.
08-31-09, 08:08 PM
#45
Lexus Champion
Its amazing to see when people have no point or have lost a debate, they revert to attacks.