i hear crickets...
- Thread starter jdm-rhd
- Start date
I have a mk4 and a mk3 and would have to agree with Mike/Supracentral on just about everything. Some disagreement comes from his stance on seats. I thought the mk3 had the better seat, but after driving my mk4 across the country I think the stock seats in a mk4 are great, even without any of the adjustment found in my mk3. As far as vehicle dynamics, the mk4 is superior in every way imo (I am an avid HPDE/Autocrosser with both my 92 and 97).
If I were to pick the car that I would make a Road race type car out of it would definitely be the mk4 (just don't crash because shells are expensive!). For me the better daily driver is the mk3. The mk3 is about 80% of the car a mk4 is perfromance wise, with more luxury and due to production numbers cheaper prices on parts and shells. Its the car I would rather leave parked in a parking lot full of idiots who don't have a clue what either car is. The mk4 is more of a weekend, special occasion, auto-x/hpde car that I only use for specific purposes. The Mk4 easily gains a lot more attention then the mk3, which I guess is both good and bad. Also the mk4 was definitely an evolution on the mk3 with different goals of becoming a world beating sports car in the mid 90's.
Either way with all that said I plan to keep both cars for a very long time.
If I were to pick the car that I would make a Road race type car out of it would definitely be the mk4 (just don't crash because shells are expensive!). For me the better daily driver is the mk3. The mk3 is about 80% of the car a mk4 is perfromance wise, with more luxury and due to production numbers cheaper prices on parts and shells. Its the car I would rather leave parked in a parking lot full of idiots who don't have a clue what either car is. The mk4 is more of a weekend, special occasion, auto-x/hpde car that I only use for specific purposes. The Mk4 easily gains a lot more attention then the mk3, which I guess is both good and bad. Also the mk4 was definitely an evolution on the mk3 with different goals of becoming a world beating sports car in the mid 90's.
Either way with all that said I plan to keep both cars for a very long time.
I'm not big on posting in older threads, but this sub-forum isnt exactly lively.
There are a few advantages the MkIII has over the MkIV, but most are largely subjective. Let's look at why the MkIII is heavier for instance.
The MkIII is a bit of a departure from the MkII and MkIV, in that it is a grand tourer and not a "sports" car really. The MkII is much much lighter, looks similar, and I'm pretty sure has a suspension designed by Lotus (MacPherson? TBH I know little of MkIIs). It also came with P-type and L-type options of geared slightly more towards performance or towards luxury, which I really wish more cars had. Since the MkIII just combined the two, the performance stuff also came with the added weight of luxury options--literally.
The MkIII was a huge success. As I recall, there were more sold in 89 than 93-98...there were more in 88 than 89, 87 than 88, and 86 was a HUGE seller, though I'm wondering how much of that was the 86 MkII. It had different goals too. It was over $10k less than the exotic MkIV. It came with hood struts and a full size spare (MkIV has a stick and a skinny). The seats are much heavier with power options etc, and it was definitely built for long cruises (not that the MkIV isnt). The hood on a MkIII is also quite heavy (48-50 lbs IIRC), as random other parts of the car usually are.
As far as aerodynamics...well a pre89 turbo is actually more aerodynamic than a MkIV with a wing IIRC. Pre89 coefficients of drag are .32 for pre89 turbo (spoiler is the kicker), .33 for 89+, and .34 for 89+ turbo. I believe the wingless MkIV is also .32 and with the wing it's .33.
The MkIV can be viewed as a technical marvel in the same way as the MkIII. The MkIII turbo is the first Toyota without a distributor in America. First turbo car from Toyota here too as well IIRC. You also had a full dash of real, working gauges (boost gauge aside), an electronically adjustable suspension (TEMS), I believe the N/As had TVIS or ACIS or whatever they pawned it off as (not a bit N/A fan if you couldnt tell
), the sawblades for brake ventilation (just like pop-ups, so cool in the 80s!), and who can forget the super-restrictive exhaust with 2 cats, 2 mufflers, a resonator, and a wall built in so wastegate gasses cant go anywhere?! You still had a ridiculously (read: unnecessarily) quiet exhaust, and dont forget that Toyota even said it was okay to use 87 octane in your turbo car if you had to. *Gasp!* I know! Do consider that you had an engine running 8.4:1 compression and not even 7 psi from the factory..not exactly a big deal unless you like making terrible decisions.
When it comes down to it, there's still plenty of similarities between the two, whether the MkIV guys like to admit it or not. Both the 2J/7M N/A and turbo blocks are essentially the same really, the difference being the pistons, the N/As have a distributor whereas the turbos are distributor-less. The non-VVTi 2Js all share an intake cam IIRC, regardless of aspiration; the 7Ms all share exhaust cams. The turbos have oil squirters, the N/As dont. All turbos came with an LSD, a small badge/trim difference, and a wing. Both are 3.0 DOHC turbos, one of which with the lineage starting around the 2000GT, which also was the fastest Japanese car ever made (the Turbo A in 88, before the R32 in 89). Both are super awesome flagship cars of their time that cant really be replicated correctly nowadays. Both also have later version taillights that are simply a 'must-have' for all owners. Both N/As had W58s and similar automatic trannies. Hell, both used MkIII sawblades in rallies!
I'm sure there's plenty I'm missing, and maybe some of it is wrong, but there you have it.
There are a few advantages the MkIII has over the MkIV, but most are largely subjective. Let's look at why the MkIII is heavier for instance.
The MkIII is a bit of a departure from the MkII and MkIV, in that it is a grand tourer and not a "sports" car really. The MkII is much much lighter, looks similar, and I'm pretty sure has a suspension designed by Lotus (MacPherson? TBH I know little of MkIIs). It also came with P-type and L-type options of geared slightly more towards performance or towards luxury, which I really wish more cars had. Since the MkIII just combined the two, the performance stuff also came with the added weight of luxury options--literally.
The MkIII was a huge success. As I recall, there were more sold in 89 than 93-98...there were more in 88 than 89, 87 than 88, and 86 was a HUGE seller, though I'm wondering how much of that was the 86 MkII. It had different goals too. It was over $10k less than the exotic MkIV. It came with hood struts and a full size spare (MkIV has a stick and a skinny). The seats are much heavier with power options etc, and it was definitely built for long cruises (not that the MkIV isnt). The hood on a MkIII is also quite heavy (48-50 lbs IIRC), as random other parts of the car usually are.
As far as aerodynamics...well a pre89 turbo is actually more aerodynamic than a MkIV with a wing IIRC. Pre89 coefficients of drag are .32 for pre89 turbo (spoiler is the kicker), .33 for 89+, and .34 for 89+ turbo. I believe the wingless MkIV is also .32 and with the wing it's .33.
The MkIV can be viewed as a technical marvel in the same way as the MkIII. The MkIII turbo is the first Toyota without a distributor in America. First turbo car from Toyota here too as well IIRC. You also had a full dash of real, working gauges (boost gauge aside), an electronically adjustable suspension (TEMS), I believe the N/As had TVIS or ACIS or whatever they pawned it off as (not a bit N/A fan if you couldnt tell
), the sawblades for brake ventilation (just like pop-ups, so cool in the 80s!), and who can forget the super-restrictive exhaust with 2 cats, 2 mufflers, a resonator, and a wall built in so wastegate gasses cant go anywhere?! You still had a ridiculously (read: unnecessarily) quiet exhaust, and dont forget that Toyota even said it was okay to use 87 octane in your turbo car if you had to. *Gasp!* I know! Do consider that you had an engine running 8.4:1 compression and not even 7 psi from the factory..not exactly a big deal unless you like making terrible decisions.When it comes down to it, there's still plenty of similarities between the two, whether the MkIV guys like to admit it or not. Both the 2J/7M N/A and turbo blocks are essentially the same really, the difference being the pistons, the N/As have a distributor whereas the turbos are distributor-less. The non-VVTi 2Js all share an intake cam IIRC, regardless of aspiration; the 7Ms all share exhaust cams. The turbos have oil squirters, the N/As dont. All turbos came with an LSD, a small badge/trim difference, and a wing. Both are 3.0 DOHC turbos, one of which with the lineage starting around the 2000GT, which also was the fastest Japanese car ever made (the Turbo A in 88, before the R32 in 89). Both are super awesome flagship cars of their time that cant really be replicated correctly nowadays. Both also have later version taillights that are simply a 'must-have' for all owners. Both N/As had W58s and similar automatic trannies. Hell, both used MkIII sawblades in rallies!
I'm sure there's plenty I'm missing, and maybe some of it is wrong, but there you have it.
VERY interesting Dave... Was this a factory backed (TTE, Toyota Japan, etc) effort, or was it an amateur entry? Either way, that's pretty cool. Why in the world you would use sawblades though, I do not understand, they're quite heavy...
Also, this foot tastes pretty good by the way.
Also, this foot tastes pretty good by the way.
te72;1861946 said:VERY interesting Dave... Was this a factory backed (TTE, Toyota Japan, etc) effort, or was it an amateur entry? Either way, that's pretty cool. Why in the world you would use sawblades though, I do not understand, they're quite heavy...
Also, this foot tastes pretty good by the way.
Strong narrow and plentiful would be my guess.
te72;1861946 said:VERY interesting Dave... Was this a factory backed (TTE, Toyota Japan, etc) effort, or was it an amateur entry? Either way, that's pretty cool. Why in the world you would use sawblades though, I do not understand, they're quite heavy...
Also, this foot tastes pretty good by the way.
All I can tell you is a privateer with Toyota backing built the two cars I knew of in the US. One N/A, one TT. Not sure about anything else though.
some interesting reads...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Supra_in_motorsport
http://www.toyotaracing.com/#june-18-2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Supra_in_motorsport
http://www.toyotaracing.com/#june-18-2012
My old lady bought me a nice book about the complete history of the Celica and Supra, and it even had a heavy focus on motorsports (mostly rally and road race stuff, not so much on the drag racing, drifting, or anything else), but it completely missed this one. Good info!
I will have to look when I get hom... scratch that, I love Amazon sometimes:Orion ZyGarian;1862598 said:
http://www.amazon.com/Celica-Supra-...=1343932419&sr=8-1&keywords=celica+supra+book
Nice! Going to have to write that down somewhere.
My mom actually found a pristine copy of Automobile magazine for christmas showcasing the 87 turbo and all sorts of other turbo 80s goodness, and it's quite great
My mom actually found a pristine copy of Automobile magazine for christmas showcasing the 87 turbo and all sorts of other turbo 80s goodness, and it's quite great
Orion ZyGarian;1862794 said:
I've got a bunch of that stuff hosted here:
http://www.supracentral.com/foundation/magazine-articles/
Supracentral;1862857 said:
Wow, nice! I hadnt actually checked your site before. You do seem to be missing an article though...
