Supra Reliablity

[mcpcola]

Well I just drove from Pensacola FL to Billings MT in my supra thats roughly 2100 miles in 40 hours. Now the Supra is leaking oil and power steering fluid but she made it and I even drove 250 miles while it was snowing with no problems.:love: Now that I am in Billings I think its time for a motor swap I can finally afford to go all out on a nice 7MGTE:icon_razz

 

[mkiiSupraMan18]

So you're saying that it IS reliable, or that it ISN'T. I'm confused. lol

 

[mcpcola]

Very reliable 2100 miles in 40 hours is hard on a car that is nearing 20 years old

 

[s383mmber1]

makes me smile. MC-- was it on those blinging rims youve got thurrr?

:biglaugh:

 

[wingman]

heh, i'm just around the corner from there....cold as hell right now

 

[IJ.]

In 1999 I did 33 x 1800 KM/1120 mile trips without putting a wrench on my Mk3.

Yes they're reliable and the perfect car for long distance trips!

 

[supra90turbo]

I've never felt more comfortable behind the wheel of any other car.

just remember. cheap, reliable, fast. Pick two.

 

[drunk_medic]

Better to be losing power steering fluid and oil than coolant, IMO [well, not oil if it's getting TOO low, but you know what I mean..].

 

[Stretch]

I bet a new toyota corolla would be more reliable.
eric

 

[swaq]

I bet a new Toyota Corolla would be at least twice as expensive

My girlfriend is hoping to drive my (her) Supra from Oregon to Florida.

 

[Stretch]

The fact of the matter is. If the vehicle in question trully is reliable, then that would mean it can endure harsh conditions regularly and still not become problematic. The fact that peopel are announcing their supra can make regular trips and not break down isn't a demonstration of reliability, but rather an astonishing feat, as a trully reliable vehicle isn't talked about often for it's reliability, as it's just known to work, day in and day out, over and over.
eric

 

[LexingtonBlue]

stepdad and I put a used 7m-gte (~ 135, XXX) on it, 2-3 weeks later I drove the car from Dallas, TX to Seattle, WA. I drove straight only stopping for gas...and about 4 hours of sleep because ran out of gas and the gas station was closed, so had to wait til it opened again. LOL.
2200 miles in 34 hours (will never do that again). 6 months later I drove from Seattle back to Dallas for a week, then back to Seattle. Did the same thing after another 6 months. Jumping to conclusion, I drove my '88 turbo from Dallas to Seattle, back and forth about 6 times. Plus fun trip to LA from Seattle, and to Vegas from Seattle.

I'm lost on my calculations, so you guys do the math. LOL.....only had to replace radiator, R&P, powersteering preasure lines.....and tires. :biglaugh:

 

[demolisher]

The fact of the matter is. If the vehicle in question trully is reliable, then that would mean it can endure harsh conditions regularly and still not become problematic. The fact that peopel are announcing their supra can make regular trips and not break down isn't a demonstration of reliability, but rather an astonishing feat, as a trully reliable vehicle isn't talked about often for it's reliability, as it's just known to work, day in and day out, over and over.
eric

Hah, I agree with this statement. If it is truely reliable, a trip like that should not be praised so highly. Like my dad's toyota previa, we went from alberta to vancouver, and reliability was not even in the question.

 

[IJ.]

33 x 1800 KM/1120 mile trips in one year for 59400 kms/36960 miles as well as daily driving it as my only car in between travelling without a single failure pretty well seals the reliability factor for me!

(I totalled 75000 kms/46602 miles that year)

 

[Dirgle]

I have never questioned the Supra’s reliability. It's a Toyota and it has never failed me. For a twenty year old car it has faired very well. Unfortunately the supra has received a bad reputation mainly because of the kind of crowed the entry price attracts. The supra is cheap and has such is very appealing to people that don't have a lot of cash. This group of people, however, tend to try and raise the power level before spending money on and performing any of the basic general maintenance. When you neglect these things and start raising the power reliability goes out the window on any car, even a Honda. This is not a flaw in the cars design, this is the owners fault. Unfortunately it usually gets blamed on the car.

Now the Corolla is a very reliable car, no one is going to argue that fact, but comparing it to a Supra is apples to oranges. You show me a large number of 20+ year old Corollas with 150,000+ miles on them that are pushing 300 ~ 350 hp then we can start comparing the two on a reliability field, and I have a feeling they would be very similar.

We post these reliability stories not because were surprised but because we are trying to change a misconception about the reliability of a properly maintained supra.

 

[demolisher]

True about the corolla. Obviously turbo cars have more wear and tear but that being said, the supra is a performance vehicle and should be able to handle some of that power. Asking 300 hp from the corolla's small engine is like asking more like 500 from a supra.