M-train;1799775 said:
Just out of curiosity what are some of the better things on the Mk3 Supra's vs the Mk4's?
I'm still learning about all of this so I would be interested as I do believe a newer vehicle can be made worse than its predecessor. Example the Mustang II.
I'll caveat this by stating it's opinion, and others might have differing views. Also, we won't get into looks as that's about as subjective a topic as you can get. Some people hate the MKIV and love the MKIII. Others are the inverse. Personally I love the way they both look.
With that out of the way, if you can look at it rationally (and many people just can't) just about everything about the MKIV is superior to the MKIII in some way. Aerodynamically it's superior. The 2JZ is superior to the 7M in just about every way, from longevity to the ability to produce power. The MKIV engine management is worlds ahead of the MKIII system. The MKIV braking system held the world record for fastest stopping street car from 1997 until 2004 (70mph to 0 braking distance of 149 ft) -- (It was beat by the grey market Porche Carerra GT with carbon ceramic brakes.) -- anyone who has driven a MKIII hard knows the phrase "barely adequate" describes the stock brakes rather well. The MKIII pulls a respectable .89 G on the skidpad, but the MKIV pulls a .98. Power to weight ratios are also another area; while the stock MKIII Turbo runs at 232 hp in it's finest trim, the MKIV comes in at 320, and it's a (200+ lb) lighter car to boot.
In many ways the MKIV is simply an evolutionary step of the same car. They have a lot in common. Very similar suspension geometry, drivetrain, design goals, etc. But the MKIV benefits from nearly a decade of new technology, a slightly more performance oriented design goal and the ability to look back at the MKIII, find the mistakes or inadequacies and correct them.
There are a few places the MKIII beats the MKIV. First of all, cupholders - the MKIV doesn't have any. The seats are better in the MKIII - much more comfortable (and much heavier). The digital climate control in the MKIII is a hell of a lot neater looking than the MKIV system, however both perform about the same. (A/C that would freeze out a polar bear, heat that would make a desert lizard faint...) The MKIII has a much better gauge package from the factory. (Hell the MKIV doesn't even have a boost or oil pressure gauge).
Driving the two is really where the differences shine. While the MKIII is a damned fun car to drive, there's a refinement to the MKIV that the III just doesn't have. Again, nearly 10 years of high tech makes a difference.
Commercially, the MKIII was definitely the winner by far. For the 1st half of its life, the MKIV priced itself out of the market (You could pick up a Porsche for not much more than the TT sticker price) and by the time Toyota realized this and dropped the price, environmental laws (1996 was automatic only because the 6 spd couldn't pass emissions) and CAFE standards started squeezing the MKIV out to make room for more SUV's and pickup trucks.
Overall they are both phenomenal cars provided you place them in time where they were made. By today's standards, neither is a real performer, although you can get supercar performance out of either with the right amount of time, money and effort. However if you start with a bone stock MKIII and a bone stock MKIV, and spend equal time, money and effort, the MKIV is always going to be out in front.
Just my $.02, your mileage may vary.
PS -- I've owned nearly 20 of theses cars btw, 15 of them being MKIII's.
