I'd rather an SC400 than an N/A Supra. I raced an N/A Supra before when my SC was stock and beat it. I don't understand why it's worth more because to me I wouldn't even trade for one. A TT is a different animal but N/A is way overpriced on the market.

 

FAST AND THE FURIOUS YO!!!! Eh, from my understanding people like to take the N/A and single turbo them.

 

This is absolutely, ABSOLUTELY true. From someone that's in the market, I can fully confirm this. As the car is getting older, so is it's target market....us. It is appreciating.

 

Pretty much this, a lot of people single the TT anyways, so sometimes it's honestly easier/cheaper to start NA and upgrde internals and then just single that. Especially when you consider the price difference of a TT Supra compared to NA Supra.

 

I'm hoping Supra prices come down even more. I plan on getting a cheap NA Supra later this year.

SC prices are still pretty high around here and I see less of them for sale. Mine is now one of the only ones I see on the road..

 

I know If I got my hands on an n/a supra the first thing I would do is na-t + r154 + brakes.
you can still have most of the fun without the price tag of TT 6spd.
of course for collector value and resale the original cars will bring more but for fun its not a bad route.

 

anyone ever check into buying classic car insurance for our cars? mines a 92.

 

When I had a 71 Cutlass, I never used classic car insurance...

 

I have a collector car policy for my 92 through American Modern Ins.

 

Supras are over rated. You'd have to be a fool to buy one at those rediculous prices. You could get a way better car for that price ranges.


my daily slowpra and rx7....

 

I used to think the SC looked huge next to an RX-7 but even the Supra looks big.

You're right though. You can get way better cars for even the price of a beat up NA Supra. The Supra sure looks good though.

 

There's a lot of denial going on in this thread.

 

I've noticed the drop in the price of Supra's across the board. Both TT's and NA's but less of a drop for a TT. I'm glad I went with my SC since I think it's one of the better looking cars of it's period and is up there with the Supra. People are catching on that we essentially have the same car and the prices have started to rise. I'm just glad I got mine for $500

 

I belive the last supra sold in the U.S. was in 1998 so the SC's could be "newer by many years as in 1998 a very few Supras were sold and had be on the "number of units sold" decline for years before that.

 

LOL. I don't agree that Supras are overrated either. NA's aren't very different from SC300's, true, but Supra NA's are lighter from the factory comparable only to a stripped down SC track car. Not that such things matter when you get into turbos but it can help to a point when you're road racing.

I have checked with a couple of classic car insurance companies when I first bought my car. There are options available but only if you're willing to drive 1,500-2,000 miles a year. Or 3,000 at most. I think this was for Hagerty among others.

You need a few things to justify why it's a collector's item or "classic": in no particular order or hierarchy... production numbers, a professional appraisal, its history and/or awards as a show car, and some examples of what the cars regularly go for. Easier for Supra MKIV's than it is for SC's. Hagerty would have approved me were it not for my desire to drive more than 3,000 miles per year.

Still, give it time. Plenty of Dodges, Chryslers and Plymouths that weren't top dog Barracudas, Challengers and Chargers have appreciated in value and regularly list in publications like Hemmings Motor News. I've seen some SC's in there but not turbocharged and heavily modified ones.