Heres the numbers, 320hp AWD 3200lbs

Are you claiming that the VR-4 weighs 3200lbs?

Seriously Tim, what ARE you smoking?

Um Ok, If a stock VR-4 weighs 3200lbs, then my name is JFK..

I wasn't really shot in the face... it was just a really elaborate paint ball hoax.

:rolleyes:

every time i ever in my life seen the 1/4mile times for a supra the best was 13.4
now all the sudden it runs 13.0, no magazine on this earth from what i've seen

So, what planet is this from?

http://mkiv.com/publications/car&driver/3_93/6-cd3-93.jpg

i've never seen any mag say a vr4 was faster than 13.5
i stand corrected.

but funny how other mags say 13.5, and funny how motor trend ran them both at 13.6 and funny how some mags say the enzo runs 10.6
and another 11.1
hmmm

and btw 98mitsu were the hell did you get 3200lbs from? :eek7:
your starting to make me think you don't really have a vr4
3760lbs

i've never seen any mag say a vr4 was faster than 13.5
i stand corrected.

don't u hate arguing w/ that guy? haha...its horrible...it never stops...

j/k...

well...thas my worthless :2cents: to this entertaining thread... :biggrin:

Well carnut...I stand corrected. Seems in my old age..ahem,ahem..I was giving the old LT4 more credit for acceleration than it could actually muster. (All those crazy small block folks musta taken over my mind and made me believe it to be true...just kidding my GM friends)

This is fine by me as I am a Ford guy and hey....the slower a Vette is the easier it is for me to beat him. With the LT4's barely mid 13 second performance stock that means even a new Mach 1 could take one out...I am all for that.

As for the ZR-1....if my failing memory doesn't bring up any doubts...... lol.....I seem to remember 1/4 mile times for that car being wildly unpredictable from one source to the other over the years in both hp ratings they came in. (Latter version was just a tick over 400, don't recall exactly what earlier cars put down) Moreso than you might find for the vast majority of cars.

At times, this made me wonder if maybe Mercury Marine wasn't getting very liberal in how they screwed those things together. I even think Motor Trend once said something about how one ZR1 would just scream and the next one you got your hands on was nowhere near as stout.

There is some variance in production, but it is usually small unless Q.C. is lacking somewhere. Just a thought.

the first Fast and Furious used a Supra as their superstar car. So it has to be faster.

the first Fast and Furious used a Supra as their superstar car. So it has to be faster.

That's right!

FnF logic ownz j00!

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/uhoh.gif

So, what planet is this from?
Actually that magazine article that you are pointing to had a mildly modded Supra TT as I recall. I remember reading on another automotive forum that the car had it's boost increased or something. Almost all supras stock ran a 13.6 sec. 1/4 mile time. The only one I can recall that recorded a close to low 13 sec. pass was in C&D. That car ran a 13.4 sec. 1/4 mile time. In any event, practically no one is gonna leave a supra stock. How many people here see times similar to the magazines w/ their car. I sure haven't. Those are pros, and track times will change considerably on a good track. Heck you could probably get a 12 sec. pass out of either a stock VR4 or the Supra TT at Rockingham raceway, or Cecil County Raceway.

Actually that magazine article that you are pointing to had a mildly modded Supra TT as I recall. I remember reading on another automotive forum that the car had it's boost increased or something. Almost all supras stock ran a 13.6 sec. 1/4 mile time. The only one I can recall that recorded a close to low 13 sec. pass was in C&D. That car ran a 13.4 sec. 1/4 mile time. In any event, practically no one is gonna leave a supra stock. How many people here see times similar to the magazines w/ their car. I sure haven't. Those are pros, and track times will change considerably on a good track. Heck you could probably get a 12 sec. pass out of either a stock VR4 or the Supra TT at Rockingham raceway, or Cecil County Raceway.

First off, I have much respect for you as member, since you haven't been a pain, and actually contributed here, as opposed to some people that came and went.

But DAMN.

AWD or not, since when has 320hp/315ft-lb/3800lbs EQUAL 320hp/315ft-lb/3550lbs?

THAT is the point I have been trying to make here.

If it was a 50-100lb difference, maybe...but a 200+lb one? C'mon...

Also, there are the acceleration graphs I posted. Look at the acceleration and throttle response. Those are all STOCK.

As for that article which you say has a modified Supra, where's your proof? I won't make statements like that large without proof.

i think the awd launch of a vr4 is very underestimated
the only thing that is helping the supra is the fact that the vr4 weighs 200lbs more. i have no proof of the supra bieng modded, it never said it was modded in the article, but numbers and times, the vr4 will and i mean will leave faster meaning the supra has nothing more than 200lbs to catch up with. thats like my mom racing my dad in the same car.
no doubt it does catch up but 13.1, hell thats what it said so.....

I tried to look it up on askjeeves.com, but was unable to locate the results, Carnuttttt. I saw that comment coming from a known Supra enthusiast on another automobile forum. Car and Driver subsequently tested 4 other supra twin turbos. They all never came close to a 13.1 sec. pass. The closest was a 13.4 sec. pass, where they compared it to an older Toyota sports car. On the average I will state that the Supra is faster, cause there are alot of 3000 GT VR4's that barely broke into the 13's (13.8 sec.). I've raced a VR4 on the street though, and I can tell you that a well driven AWD car will have a significant advantage psychologically when they put 2 car lengths on you from a dig. I raced one w/ my former Cobra and he waxed me hard. Mind you he was modified though.

either ways, that supra was really fast when if first came out, in 93, thats like over 10 yrs ago. plus even with its old design, it still looks modern, still a good lookin car.

for the supra vs vr4 thing, the supra should be quicker. out of all the times ive seen, the supra always had the lower time. if you wanna talk about same condition, side by side comparison, there was one in car driver, and the supra was quicker. it was the comparison between the supra, vr4, corvette, and some other cars i cant remember. i think the yr was 97, not sure, and i dont know which month, i lost it... damn i wish i still had that magazine.

yeah i really find it hard to believe that supra's run 13.1 all the time
i'm pretty sure the run 13.5 on the norm from pro's.
i seen a kid run a 13.8 in a supra, but he didn't know how to race obviously. i still think the supra wins and always have but i believe its only by .1-2 sec.

Another great example of the old Supra vs anything debate. The Supra is a well engineered car, but I don’t like it. With equal drivers, it’s a faster car after the initial AWD advantage the VR4 has. So what. The cars are close enough that the driver makes the biggest difference. Win lose or draw, I wanted a car that was quick, comfortable and had fantastic looks. The Supra was alright in two of those categories. So, I bought the VR4. In fact, when I filtered out possible purchases, both the Supra and the Corvette didn’t make the final cut. It came down to the VR4 and the M3 (back in 94).

People do to much crying over the times in one magazines write up or another. It really gets quite tedious.

I’ve also learned that the two cars you can never claim to beat without the thread turning into a worship session is the Supra and the Skyline. Regardless of how the race was run and won, people will come flying in screeching about mod this, Car and Driver that or that they destroy all in their path. :disappoin

Another great example of the old Supra vs anything debate. The Supra is a well engineered car, but I don’t like it. With equal drivers, it’s a faster car after the initial AWD advantage the VR4 has. So what. The cars are close enough that the driver makes the biggest difference. Win lose or draw, I wanted a car that was quick, comfortable and had fantastic looks. The Supra was alright in two of those categories. So, I bought the VR4. In fact, when I filtered out possible purchases, both the Supra and the Corvette didn’t make the final cut. It came down to the VR4 and the M3 (back in 94).

People do to much crying over the times in one magazines write up or another. It really gets quite tedious.

I’ve also learned that the two cars you can never claim to beat without the thread turning into a worship session is the Supra and the Skyline. Regardless of how the race was run and won, people will come flying in screeching about mod this, Car and Driver that or that they destroy all in their path. :disappoinI must admit, I sound like a fanB0i. The exact type of attitude I try to combat in here.

The thing is, I'm not. I am coming from pure logic here. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to own either car, and am looking into either as a purchase for when I get settled into a career after college. More than likely, it will either be a Z32, Stealth R/T TT, 3000GT VR-4, or RX-7, as those choices present MUCH better choices economy-wise.

You're a programmer. Tell me if this'll compile:

If ((320 + 315 + 3800) == (320 + 315 + 3450))
// *320hp/315ft-lb/3800lbs == 320hp/315ft-lb/3450lbs*
{
....Console.WriteLine "Both cars accelerate equally";
}

Of course, there is the variable of traction, but then again, the RWD Supra is capable of sub-2.0 60' on street-tires, even better on DRs.

If that is the case, after the initial AWD pull, the Supra would simply reel the VR-4 in.

We are talking about equal drivers, equal conditions, on the same track here, which one of the articles I linked to covered.

Basically, what I am saying is, with all else being equal, the Supra is more than the equal...if that Dr. Seuss logic makes sense ;).

My advise to you Carnuttt, is to buy a MKIV Supra. There are ridiculously expensively currently though. I'd buy one, but my car has been too reliable to trade off, for a possible problem. BTW, you are right, it does reel in the VR4. But as you know, winning is winning, whther it's an inch or by a mile ;) (Man that sounds stupid)

I'm pretty sure a supra would kick a 3000gt's arse.
My friend has a twin turbo datsun 1200 running a 2-litre sr20det engine, with to many mods to mention.
It runs a quarter mile in13.34 seconds with full weight.

o.....k, what are you getting at?

Carrrnuttt - we know your equation is leaving out other important factors. The biggest of which is the driver. Aside from that, when the car makes its power, the amount of turbo lag and the transmission can add or subract a few hudreths of a second each. It all adds up to who's driving the car.

HP vs Weight is a great guide but not the end all. To many people (not you) stop at only that and that is quite short sighted as well.

100% :iagree:

My friend has a twin turbo datsun 1200 running a 2-litre sr20det engine, with to many mods to mention.
It runs a quarter mile in13.34 seconds with full weight.

A twin turbo sr20det huh............................................... .................................................. ......................................







*snicker*

I'm pretty sure a supra would kick a 3000gt's arse.
My friend has a twin turbo datsun 1200 running a 2-litre sr20det engine, with to many mods to mention.
It runs a quarter mile in13.34 seconds with full weight.
LOL. Silly Noob, you will learn soon.

I'm pretty sure a supra would kick a 3000gt's arse.
My friend has a twin turbo datsun 1200 running a 2-litre sr20det engine, with to many mods to mention.
It runs a quarter mile in13.34 seconds with full weight.


50 bucks to anyone who can make since out of this :screwy:

50 bucks to anyone who can make since out of this :screwy:


One of three theories ....

Theory #1: He's secretly trying to tell us that he's in love with Carrrnuttt. And wants to have his love child. Aww...

Theory #2: What he really meant to say was 'My mommy is not a slut no matter how man guy's she bangs.'

Theory #3: He really wants to go back to school and learn how to dance. Dancing on Broadway... t'is would be the life for him.

lol, 50 bucks to redneck 383 :worshippy

One of three theories ....

Theory #1: He's secretly trying to tell us that he's in love with Carrrnuttt. And wants to have his love child. Aww...

Theory #2: What he really meant to say was 'My mommy is not a slut no matter how man guy's she bangs.'

Theory #3: He really wants to go back to school and learn how to dance. Dancing on Broadway... t'is would be the life for him.

:lol:

classic.

made my night.

lol, 50 bucks to redneck 383 :worshippy
:lol: :iagree: :bananasmi