HP of stock supra

About how much HP does the mid 90's Twin Turbo Supra have stock?

around 300hp i think not sure, but im pretty sure

320hp

they're underrated at 320

the dealer ship says 320 but to the flywheel they have 330 340 and some are even known ot hve 350 :evillol: its devilish

im not sure about the newer models. but the older ones are around 230 hp

none of the above mate! it depends what model if turbo or not but the most bhp output any stock jap car can have the maximum of 280bhp! coz of their laws!! ex skyline gtr, nsx, sti, evo, rxz etc!

If its stock and its intended to be in the jap market it can't be more than 280bhp STOCK!!

Wow, great post gebel, the question has been correctly answered 3 times over and you post the wrong answer. Yes there is a JDM 276hp law, and there are also ways around it.

none of the above mate! it depends what model if turbo or not but the most bhp output any stock jap car can have the maximum of 280bhp! coz of their laws!! ex skyline gtr, nsx, sti, evo, rxz etc!

If its stock and its intended to be in the jap market it can't be more than 280bhp STOCK!!

What a n00b! you obviously havent see a dyno chart for a MKIV. they dyno about 260-280. now worst case if it dynoed at 260 there is no way that it could have 280bhp. 20hp loss...yea right. havent you ever heard of Subaru Sti or 300zxtt or NSX they all push 300bhp. i think that jdm law has to do with cars that are driven there not ones that are exported. Look at the trucks and suvs that the jap compays are making. they have more than 280hp.(Nissan Titan and Sequoia are the only ones that i can think of off the top of my head). The Titan is built here so maybe that is why it has the power it does. Any way 320 is what toyota said and judging by the dyno charts it is pretty damn believable.

What a n00b! you obviously havent see a dyno chart for a MKIV. they dyno about 260-280. now worst case if it dynoed at 260 there is no way that it could have 280bhp. 20hp loss...yea right. havent you ever heard of Subaru Sti or 300zxtt or NSX they all push 300bhp. i think that jdm law has to do with cars that are driven there not ones that are exported. Look at the trucks and suvs that the jap compays are making. they have more than 280hp.(Nissan Titan and Sequoia are the only ones that i can think of off the top of my head). The Titan is built here so maybe that is why it has the power it does. Any way 320 is what toyota said and judging by the dyno charts it is pretty damn believable.


kind of OT but what is the average drive train loss % on an mkiv? i know ours (3/S TT) is roumored to be in the 25% range because of AWD but at 280 (your high end estimate) that would be a 12.5% loss (half of ours go figure :p ) is this about right? and why does everyone forget about us as a japonese supercar, is it because of all the 160ish and 222 hp models running around giving the rest of us 300 or 320 hp models a bad name?

Mkiv N/a-220
Mkiv Tt-320

and to add to the 320 hp being underrated, it's so that the insurance is better. They did that way back when in the 60's and 70's for the hemi engine. They said it was rated at 425, that baby could push 500

and to add to the 320 hp being underrated, it's so that the insurance is better. They did that way back when in the 60's and 70's for the hemi engine. They said it was rated at 425, that baby could push 500


but if i am not mistaken horsepower was measured differently bcak then but still your point of underrating is right on.

supras run the same times as 300zx turbo/3kgt turbo/skyline turbo though right, so how are hty underrated. if i am not mistaken out of the special models the GTO MR was the fastest stock (i could drag up videos but i am too lazy unless you really make me) not trying to start a fight, just asking/ saying.

Most mkiv owners have a loss of about 15% give or take a bit depending on how many miles the car has on it and what not. As far as power estimates from back in the day go. Some times they were over rated and some times they were underrated. i know a lot of the mustangs like the 289 were said to make like 200+ (not sure exactly) but they really only make about 190. but a lot of cars were still underrated.

yea, I agree with the different horse pwoer readings back then, my brother has a chrysler 400 in his 1977 chrysler cordoba and back then it read that he only had 195 hp, thats the same as my dad's infinti i30 so its gotta be wrong lol

my 94 supra tt dynoed at 264rwhp and 283lb-ft and its completely stock i just got it yesterday im so happy right now although it needs a paint job and a rear bumper and a wing but hey i paind 5,200 u.s. dollars so i got a deal

can some one give me stats and specs on a 92 supra turbo(7m-gte)

where the hell did u get it for 5200?

Hey guys, you have part of that HP rating system of the past right.

Up intil 79 (not sure if its 79 or 80) cars were rated by gross bhp. that means the engines were rated without the A/C and emissions stuff attatched, so they were actually overrated. a car with 170 gross BHP might have 125 actual wheel hp. and some like the hemi were rated lower than they could actually produce, for insurance purposes. however they were rated in gross BHP just like the others, so a Hemi Cuda rated at 425 BHP, might put 400 to the wheels.