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, 08:22 PM
#46
I hope this one doesnt turn into another war. It is true that the 335 has been out as 2007 model, so 1993 vs 2009 comparison was indeed inaccurate, however I'm sure Mike didnt intend to manipulate numbers. So, 13 years difference, not 16 is correct. However I do recall the 2JZGTE being was released in 1990 or 1991? And was originally used in a Toyota Crown, not the Supra? I might be wrong, so if anyone has more info please chim in.
Now with that being said, back in the 90ies there were four Japanese almost supercars - Supra, NSX, 300ZX and 3000GT. Now a decade after the production two of them (300ZX and 3000GT) are almost forgotten - and I believe a lot of it is due to the unreliability of the 3000GT and un-modability of the 300ZX. The 3000GT was biblically unreliable and poorly built, pretty much like every DSM, and 300ZX was already as overclocked as it could be, since its engine was basically a twin turbo version of the same engine that was in the Maxima, Pathfinder, and so on. There just wasnt much potential for it.
The NSX and the Supra however became legends in their own right. They are still highly desirable, and even the mid 90ies models go for well over 30k if they are in good condition and not rice molested.
Why did these two become so succesful? Well its easy with NSX - it was Japans first supercar and it changed the supercar game completely. Not only did it have the performance and dynamics that rivaled ferrari's, it was also built properly inside and out and had tons of creature comforts. Compare that to the Ferraris of those days that barely had an interior. Launched 18 years ago this car can still hold its own with the best of them.
As far as the Supra, well there are a lot of reasons why its so succesful. The amazingly gorgeous timeless design, ***** out performance, but the biggest reason is modability. It was the worlds first Super muscle car. To this day it will still embarass most anything out there even in stock form.
Now back to the BMW. Sure a fabulous car, fabulous engine, worlds bestest turbocharger system, but it is also up against some fiersom competition. Will it live up to become a legend like the Supra? Time will show.
Now with that being said, back in the 90ies there were four Japanese almost supercars - Supra, NSX, 300ZX and 3000GT. Now a decade after the production two of them (300ZX and 3000GT) are almost forgotten - and I believe a lot of it is due to the unreliability of the 3000GT and un-modability of the 300ZX. The 3000GT was biblically unreliable and poorly built, pretty much like every DSM, and 300ZX was already as overclocked as it could be, since its engine was basically a twin turbo version of the same engine that was in the Maxima, Pathfinder, and so on. There just wasnt much potential for it.
The NSX and the Supra however became legends in their own right. They are still highly desirable, and even the mid 90ies models go for well over 30k if they are in good condition and not rice molested.
Why did these two become so succesful? Well its easy with NSX - it was Japans first supercar and it changed the supercar game completely. Not only did it have the performance and dynamics that rivaled ferrari's, it was also built properly inside and out and had tons of creature comforts. Compare that to the Ferraris of those days that barely had an interior. Launched 18 years ago this car can still hold its own with the best of them.
As far as the Supra, well there are a lot of reasons why its so succesful. The amazingly gorgeous timeless design, ***** out performance, but the biggest reason is modability. It was the worlds first Super muscle car. To this day it will still embarass most anything out there even in stock form.
Now back to the BMW. Sure a fabulous car, fabulous engine, worlds bestest turbocharger system, but it is also up against some fiersom competition. Will it live up to become a legend like the Supra? Time will show.
08-31-09, 08:28 PM
#47
Lead Lap
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-31-09, 08:28 PM
#48
Lexus Champion
Since the 3-series will definitely not be discontinued anytime in the next decade or two, and the N54 isn't nearly as friendly to extreme modding, there's no real chance for it to become nearly as legendary as the 2JZ-GTE Supra.
However if the powertrain proves to be reliable at higher mileage (who knows)... it may end up being a favorite for people to pick up cheap on the used car market in another 5-10 years.
08-31-09, 08:41 PM
#49
Not a chance. The Supra became legendary not because of its power to fuel economy ratio (basically what this thread has been focused on)... it became legendary because of the extreme durability of its engine when modded, and due to the fact that it was cut off in its price. Had the Supra not been discontinued it would not have nearly the fanfare or lore that it does today.
But the point of this thread is that Supras engine (and overall package for that matter) is still competitive, even by todays standards.... even when it comes to fuel economy.
Since the 3-series will definitely not be discontinued anytime in the next decade or two, and the N54 isn't nearly as friendly to extreme modding, there's no real chance for it to become nearly as legendary as the 2JZ-GTE Supra.
However if the powertrain proves to be reliable at higher mileage (who knows)... it may end up being a favorite for people to pick up cheap on the used car market in another 5-10 years.
However if the powertrain proves to be reliable at higher mileage (who knows)... it may end up being a favorite for people to pick up cheap on the used car market in another 5-10 years.
08-31-09, 08:50 PM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
I already explained why I thought the comparison was flawed and why I thought you left out crucial facts. Do you have a counterpoint to make?
I already made my points and they've still yet to be successfully refuted, in fact the one point lobux tried to hang me on he ended up being wrong about twice in a row and it was just a simple matter of counting years. It really can't get easier than that and we're still not getting anywhere.
I already made my points and they've still yet to be successfully refuted, in fact the one point lobux tried to hang me on he ended up being wrong about twice in a row and it was just a simple matter of counting years. It really can't get easier than that and we're still not getting anywhere.
Lobox made the counterpoint, shall I quote him and say "I agree" to make you feel better.
And update your sig
When you learn how to debate, then maybe your posts will come across better than just some sort of hate mail.
08-31-09, 09:00 PM
#51
Lexus Champion
And update your sig
08-31-09, 09:05 PM
#52
A technical question for those of you well familiar with the 2JZ.
I know that at least the NA version of this engine did receive VVTi system. I dont know if it ever made it into the Supra, but I know that 2GS300 had VVTi, and the 1GS300 did not have it. However I dont think there was any power increase? I used to have a 1GS300 and I believe it was rated around 215/225 hp/tq, and the 2GS300 was pretty much the same? So what changed?
I know that at least the NA version of this engine did receive VVTi system. I dont know if it ever made it into the Supra, but I know that 2GS300 had VVTi, and the 1GS300 did not have it. However I dont think there was any power increase? I used to have a 1GS300 and I believe it was rated around 215/225 hp/tq, and the 2GS300 was pretty much the same? So what changed?
08-31-09, 09:24 PM
#53
Lead Lap
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's kind of hard to debate when stuff like this happens.
and threxx made many good points here which you have yet to counter so.... just saying.
08-31-09, 09:30 PM
#54
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 1999 sc300 2-jzge has 271,000 miles on original everything internal. Doesnt burn a drop of oil and still has a ton of power. You cant even hear the valve rattle alot of theese motors get. that should speak for itself.
08-31-09, 09:31 PM
#55
A technical question for those of you well familiar with the 2JZ.
I know that at least the NA version of this engine did receive VVTi system. I dont know if it ever made it into the Supra, but I know that 2GS300 had VVTi, and the 1GS300 did not have it. However I dont think there was any power increase? I used to have a 1GS300 and I believe it was rated around 215/225 hp/tq, and the 2GS300 was pretty much the same? So what changed?
I know that at least the NA version of this engine did receive VVTi system. I dont know if it ever made it into the Supra, but I know that 2GS300 had VVTi, and the 1GS300 did not have it. However I dont think there was any power increase? I used to have a 1GS300 and I believe it was rated around 215/225 hp/tq, and the 2GS300 was pretty much the same? So what changed?
08-31-09, 09:35 PM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
yeah, it became personal when you started deleting my posts for no apparent reason other than you disagreeing with what was said.
it's kind of hard to debate when stuff like this happens.
and threxx made many good points here which you have yet to counter so.... just saying.
it's kind of hard to debate when stuff like this happens.
and threxx made many good points here which you have yet to counter so.... just saying.
Reading> You. Did you miss the part where I said I agree with Lobux. Since reading it tough here.
Reg consults for Toyota. I seriously doubt your guy has access to even a tenth of the information Reg sees. And no way did Robin "pioneer" Toyota tuning in Canada. You might want to look at Reg's MkII Supra with the 7MG-GTE transplanted in it. He did that in 1987.
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.
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.
HEre is more!
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.
I don't debate that. My thread is about the ratings and the fact it follows the same 3.0tt I-6 as the much older 2JZ over 10 years later. Its great that its in a sedan/coupe/convert but shouldn't be that big of a deal considering this engine was done a long time ago
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.
The ratings I posted are from the EPA website, which ADJUSTS the older cars for the new ratings. Clearly I said the 335 got better ratings but looking at the EPA, only 1 or 2 MPG better on average.
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?
Good points but weight doesn't affect any power ratings. Surely the 3 engine runs cleaner but I believe both are ULEV compliant. We have NO idea what the 2JZ would do in a 3 series, nor the 3 series engine in a Supra
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.
Semantics really. The ratings never changed those years. My point was to show the vast difference in years. If you want to argue the technicality, that is fine or you can do your own blog.
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.
I don't debate that. My thread is about the ratings and the fact it follows the same 3.0tt I-6 as the much older 2JZ over 10 years later. Its great that its in a sedan/coupe/convert but shouldn't be that big of a deal considering this engine was done a long time ago
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.
The ratings I posted are from the EPA website, which ADJUSTS the older cars for the new ratings. Clearly I said the 335 got better ratings but looking at the EPA, only 1 or 2 MPG better on average.
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?
Good points but weight doesn't affect any power ratings. Surely the 3 engine runs cleaner but I believe both are ULEV compliant. We have NO idea what the 2JZ would do in a 3 series, nor the 3 series engine in a Supra
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.
Semantics really. The ratings never changed those years. My point was to show the vast difference in years. If you want to argue the technicality, that is fine or you can do your own blog.
08-31-09, 09:39 PM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guys I want to be clear in no way shape or form am I discounting or trying to be negative about the 335 engine. Its a Wards winner, it is a superb piece and BMW did a sensational job implementing it in various vehicles. Its also easily modable and owners seem to love it. (I am not going to get into quality/reliability). IMO Lexus missed an opportunity by not selling the 2JZ turbo in the IS/GS/SC here (they should have sold alongside the V-8s).
My point is rating wise and MPG wise and mod wise, the 2JZ clearly was a forerunner to it and when we put that in perspective, some of the hoopla should be lost.
My point is rating wise and MPG wise and mod wise, the 2JZ clearly was a forerunner to it and when we put that in perspective, some of the hoopla should be lost.
08-31-09, 09:48 PM
#58
Lead Lap
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posts are deleted for breaking RULES not for anything else. Notice no rules broken here so no posts are deleted. Nice trend you should continue.
Reading> You. Did you miss the part where I said I agree with Lobux. Since reading it tough here.
GOod post I mostly agree!
HEre is more!
Feel better?
Reading> You. Did you miss the part where I said I agree with Lobux. Since reading it tough here.
GOod post I mostly agree!
HEre is more!
Feel better?
09-01-09, 06:21 AM
#59
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.
