Did you know inlines 6 engines weren't for perfomance?

suprageezer

New Member
Aug 27, 2005
778
0
0
Southern California
I think we should track that guy down and ask him what he thinks of Supras today. I'd also like to know who's employing him today, because who ever it is I hope he ain't writing auto news and poisoning young minds. Being a subscriber to MT, and R&T for most of my young life, early 60's right into the days when they stopped reporting auto news and became car certified company test driver magazines this kind of person is why I stopped taking reading both magazines. I can remember reading in MT magazine how awesome the 74 mustang II was and what excellent a performing sports car it was. This was a far cry from the kind of test drives they did just a few years earlier where if the car sucked they printed it. Today no matter how bad the car is compared to some awesome car of the past today’s car is just better because, ya its got more gadgets, but they forget to tell ya it almost tips over when you go around a corner at 30mph. This should be a mandatory Movie ALL Supramania subscribers must watch before becoming a member just to show them the BS that’s all around us.
 

starscream5000

Senior VIP Member
Aug 23, 2006
6,359
0
36
Hot and Humid, KY
1jzdreamer said:
Turbos are more fun than 6 cylinders though.... but a turbo'd 6 cylinder, thats a blast.
... V twin is the most efficient engine layout just for your information...


Efficient as in how?? Space savings is about the only one I can think of... :nuts:
But then again, there's no freaking room to work with under the hood of a v-6 either...
 

dugums

Better, Faster, Stronger
Apr 10, 2007
699
0
16
Chicago, IL
OneJoeZee said:
^I don't know what kind of fucked up POS your friend has but the Z32 tt is a great car.

Very true.

I have owned a 300zx, and an mkIV. Both cars were great. I don't think the fact that a 2jz can be built more reliably to the 900hp+ range has anything to do with the argument over what car is better in regards to the video criterion (although it is very true that it takes a great builder/tuner to keep a z alive over 450 whp, where an average builder/tuner can easily do that with an mkiv). The vast majority of people weren't buying those cars to build them to that level.

Both cars were very quick and handled well in stock trim. I find it funny there are talks about how "luxurious" they are. Neither one is going to be mistaken for a luxury car, but that's OK, it's not what they were designed for. The Supra interior may have been a tad nicer, but that is all subjective.

In stock trim, the 300ZX handled a little better, but again there is some subjectivity to this. The Supra laid down better skidpad numbers in the car magazines, but it seemed the 300zx was a little easier for a non-professional (that's me) to throw around. So, maybe I should say the handling of the z was more compliant.

As far as the resale values go, they weren't that far off from each other before a certain movie came out -- it sort of sucks because I can't justify spending twice as much as I sold my mkiv for 9 years ago to buy another one. But resale value doesn't have much to do with the argument either.

The bottom line is, BOTH of these cars were the absolute sh!% when they came out -- No question. The supra continues to do well because of aftermarket support, and tuner familiarity. It also has all-around better reliability - I had quite a few bugs with my z, as did many others. Don't write off the z though - it was a great ride.

When I recently bought my mkIII - I was also considering another Z. But, they cost a ton to work on, aren't as reliable, and I just have some sort of weird connection with mkIII's.

If you haven't driven a Z, you shouldn't be putting it down because of some weird supra fascination -- find a nice one to drive and then tell me what you think!
 

Mk3runner

Supramania Contributor
Nov 19, 2006
2,033
0
0
36
Nor Cal
just saw the vid for my first time right now... why is he backing the 300zx? them bastards. you might as well remove the engine just to work on it.
 

Poodles

I play with fire
Jul 22, 2006
16,757
0
0
43
Fort Worth, TX
sure looks like an N/A, the wheels look a little small...

don't believe everything you see people, anything can happen on the streets. Could have been an auto vs a manual, ect...
 

Mk3runner

Supramania Contributor
Nov 19, 2006
2,033
0
0
36
Nor Cal
wasn't the mk4 n/a also... so it was a non turbo test? screw this guy and his damn opinion about how the z is better.
 

Wills7MGTE

( . )( . )'s RULE!!!!
May 12, 2006
1,077
0
0
38
Jackson, MO
www.myspace.com
Well time has shown how great the 300zx is, I mean its known for it's reliability *sarcasm* LOL and its so cheap to upgrade *NOT* and it's great to work on with its comfortable and easy to find stuff in engine bay *LMAO YEAH RIGHT*

That POS LIL INLINE CAN ONLY MAKE 1200 Streetable reliable WHP so so sad :(
 

Poodles

I play with fire
Jul 22, 2006
16,757
0
0
43
Fort Worth, TX
correction, 1400+

as seen at 2K7...

I don't work on FWD cars for the same reason I'd never touch a 300ZX, no damn room...
 

foreverpsycotic

Back in the game!
Jul 16, 2006
3,171
12
38
37
ATL
uhh. noone pointed out that the speaker was talking about the 2nd larger turbo kicking on at the same time on the MKIV? arent the ct12s the same size??

no way could a stock 300zx-TT hang with a fucking MKIV-TT. i might not liek the MKIV body, but i love the engine.
 

Junior

New Member
Jul 2, 2006
143
0
0
Ontario, Canada
there's alot of propaganda about supra's too guys.

Just be very carefull about what you read/see especially subjective reviews, there's 1000 ways to make any car better or worse than any other.
 

dugums

Better, Faster, Stronger
Apr 10, 2007
699
0
16
Chicago, IL
Mk3runner said:
I believe it was compared to the mk4.

That might have been in response to my post (I made some comparisons with mk3's and mkIV's).

My mk3's have treated me way better than my 300zx did from a reliability and maintenance cost perspective.