Toyota Supra Twin Turbo vs. 3000GT

[wanderer]

here are specs.

Toyota Supra Twin Turbo

Engine Type and Displacement

3.0L, 24 valve I-6

Power (bhp)

320hp

Performance (0-60mph)

4.6sec

Top Speed (mph)

155

Price Tag

~$40,000

3000gt

Engine Type and Displacement

3.0L V-6

Power (bhp)

320hp

Performance (0-60mph)

5.5sec

Top Speed (mph)

156

price Tag

~$44,600

What do you guys think is the better deal and who would win the race???

[Anzeige eBay]

Hallo wanderer,

 

kennst du schon Toyota Supra Twin Turbo vs. 3000GT (Anzeige)? Dort ist vieles zu finden.

 

Andere Automarken Ersatzteile (Anzeige) | Andere Automarken Zubehör (Anzeige)

[All Wheel Drive]

A factory Supra does not do 0-60mph in 4.6s.

Probably would chose the Mitsu 3000-GT 1999. The latest Supra TT was designed in 1997, which can say some facts about the technology they could be using extra in the Mitsu compared to the Supra (Mitsu could be more advanced...).

Plus, the Mitsu is AWD, that's more control. It also has extra 100kg, but i prefer the slip control part.

Both are known to respond pretty well to FI, so there's no advantage for any of these in this section.

[bleh]

the way i would approach this argument is strictly guns vs. butter. butter consumes money, guns get you back money. i will try to keep my bias out of this argument (mainly supras cant hook and 3000gt's are pigs, oops cant keep it out). back to guns vs/ butter. simple: around me every last generation supra in good condition is being sold for what it was bought for or more, where as the 3000gts are depreciating in value. guns = supra, butter = 3000gt.

[All Wheel Drive]

the way i would approach this argument is strictly guns vs. butter. butter consumes money, guns get you back money. i will try to keep my bias out of this argument (mainly supras cant hook and 3000gt's are pigs, oops cant keep it out). back to guns vs/ butter. simple: around me every last generation supra in good condition is being sold for what it was bought for or more, where as the 3000gts are depreciating in value. guns = supra, butter = 3000gt.

But this means that the Supra is more popular than the 3000gt ; what would have happened, let's say, if the 3000gt was the superstar in "The Fast and the Furious". It's popularity would have grown up...

I know, the example with the movie isn't a good one. But, nonetheless, I believe the 3000gt benefits of a non-worthy lack of popularity.

U know, the Dodge Stealth Turbo r/t is the american equivalent of the 3000gt ; how many people heard of this car?

[wanderer]

I never said factory supra I said twin-turbo supra its a difference,

and what do you mean the supra is the superstar in the movie " The Fast and The Furious" the superstar car in the first movie is the eclipse and the supra, second movie its the skline gtr.

refresh your brain all whell drive.

[All Wheel Drive]

I never said factory supra I said twin-turbo supra its a difference,

and what do you mean the supra is the superstar in the movie " The Fast and The Furious" the superstar car in the first movie is the eclipse and the supra, second movie its the skline gtr.

refresh your brain all whell drive.

Well, I looked at this http://www.fast-autos.net/toyota/97toyotasupra.html and I suppose this is built in factory too, it didn't fell out of the sky. Well, to translate, I ment a non modified one. Comprende?

And a big part of " The Fast and the Furious " is played by the Supra TT ; other cars play a minor role. I didn't write anything about "2 Fast 2 Furious" (that's another story).

So, I stand my point: the 3000gt lacks of popularity.

[wanderer]

There are many different cars in the fast and the furious

theres the eclipse the rx7 thehonda civic etc. the toyota supra isn't

the only car.

[All Wheel Drive]

There are many different cars in the fast and the furious

theres the eclipse the rx7 thehonda civic etc. the toyota supra isn't

the only car.

Whatever... this was my last post in this thread.

[bleh]

woah simmer down with the arguing.

who cares which car is more popular. around me everyone who knows what a supra is knows what a vr-4/stealth rt is they are equally popular just supras are sooo much harder to find since they can be made more powerful more efficiently...i dont want to get into this argument at all but notice i said more powerful not quicker.

i still stand by my previous statement though. a completely stock twin turbo last generation manual supra with low miles and good condition will sell for more than it was bought for. the 3000gt will not just because of popularity in the general people but because of the preference of enthusiasts.

o yea and as far as the fast and furious goes. they are all strickly stunner. not real performers.

[skyline_r34v]

Ummmm this is a hard one.

I wouldn't mind having a Supra TT but i already have a drag 3000GT VR-4.

So i guess i'd choose the GTO VR-4 but i'd like a Supra TT

The Supra TT can handle a lil more power than the GTO VR-4 but they both can go over 1,000hp and still reliable.

Being AWD i'd assume the GTO VR-4 could handle all the hp along with being a lil better on the track.

The toss is in the air on this one though i'd hafta say GTO VR-4 jus becuz i have one.

Only reason for my choice, it's to hard to choose otherwise.

[Anzeige Amazon]

Hallo wanderer,

 

schau doch mal hier zum Thema Zubehör für Andere Automarken (Anzeige)? Eventuell gibt es dort etwas Passendes.

 

Auch interessant: Der V16 Motor zum Selberbauen (Anzeige).

[3000gtmaoriguy]

speaking from exeprience (no shit either) in a straight line, gto seems to have upper hand with the awd launch , but ends up getting caught and finally overtaken by the supra BUT ! throw in a few corners , heavy braking and short sprints then i believe we have a winner in the gto.

(this was when both the mentioned cars were standard also)

oh yeah , wasnt there a gto in the 2fast2furious prelude ? or was it an mr2 ?

[skyline_r34v]

speaking from exeprience (no shit either) in a straight line, gto seems to have upper hand with the awd launch , but ends up getting caught and finally overtaken by the supra BUT ! throw in a few corners , heavy braking and short sprints then i believe we have a winner in the gto.

(this was when both the mentioned cars were standard also)

oh yeah , wasnt there a gto in the 2fast2furious prelude ? or was it an mr2 ?

\

I don't know but there was a white GTO VR-4 in the Fast and the Furious.

[LateNightCable]

Being AWD i'd assume the GTO VR-4 could handle all the hp along with being a lil better on the track. The toss in the air on this one though i'd hafta say GTO VR-4 jus becuz i have one. Only reason for my choice, it's to hard to choose otherwise.

3000GT is real heavyweight though, it certainly stands behind it's GT role. I think of the Supra as being the more athletic track car of the two, and even though it's not AWD, it has wonderful dry grip. So for shear handling, my vote would go to the Supra.

As to which is a better deal, well thats' neglegable.

[Marko_TT]

Depends what job you want to do as to which tool will be the best for it!

I've seen a roughly 400bhp 3000GT twin turbo pull a 12.41sec 1/4mile. On the same track, same day, same conditions (dry, warm, sunny), a 700+ bhp Supra managed 12.2secs.

All the extra power didn't benefit the Supra much as it doesn't have the same levels of grip as the 3000GT. On the flip side, the Supra won't suffer as much loss through the drivetrain, and when it does get grip will be able to transfer more to the tarmac.

Every car has it's pluses and minuses, and when you get into the realm of quality performance cars of this nature, all things are 'reasonably' equal, IMHO.

Mark

[thepolarfoxqx]

also the fact that supra's with extremely high horsepower numbers generally don't have the tractable power the same way that something like a 3kgt might have. A lot of super supra have very strange power dynamics and are geared very tall, so it is really not able to really do it's best until high speeds, and time to distance races always favor cars with bottom end.

[90gst]

i would pick the vr4. Awd hooks up better off the line

[zit]

4wd does not always make a big difference full bore starts mean u can burn your clutch out very easily so in theory 2wd is quicker due to the fact that u can get quicker stars off the line = more/better accelaration!

[bleh]

4wd does not always make a big difference full bore starts mean u can burn your clutch out very easily so in theory 2wd is quicker due to the fact that u can get quicker stars off the line = more/better accelaration!

whosawhaty?

[wEstSide]

AWD always gets more traction off the line. This is a proven fact, no matter what type of center differential it has.

Mk1 (Mark Wan) is the best

[mv]

zit probably watches Clarkson's TV show loaded with his BS...i can clearly remember Clarkson claiming this

[LateNightCable]

I wouldn't call it BS, the English just have a different way of looking at things.

How much traction a car has on launch is not as cut and dry as which wheels are powering it forward, weight distribution is also going to play a role - and tires as well. A rear-wheel drive car with a heavy rear weight bias for example will probably provide more traction to the driving wheels, than would a 4WD car with closer to 50/50 balance, if only because there is more compressed weight placed upon the respective driving wheels. Also, it's safe to say, that an engine loses more power in the driveline before it gets to the wheels, in a 4WD than a 2WD. So basically, if you have two cars, one 4WD, the other 2WD, propelled by two engines of equal power. The 2WD is going to be putting more power to the ground, simply bacause there are less parts to transmit through.

Also, if you're shooting off the line, the weight of your car is going to shift to the rear, and if you've got a 4WD, regardless of your differential, as long as there is a mechanical link to all four wheels - some of your power is being delivered to the fronts, ( which are not of the greatest help at this point ) and your power is not really being optimized.

This comparison pertains mainly to off the line traction, and not so much all around handling grip.

[mv]

well..it might depend on what cars we are discussing...if we take supercars with in excess of 500hp a RWD one will always struggle to put its power down regardless of its rear's weight and tires size-two wheels are just not enough for all this power..i reckon that in this cathegory AWD system rox in terms of straight line performance

and clarkson's claim regarded supercars

[LateNightCable]

It does depend on the cars being discussed. 4WD did nothing but good for the 911 and Lamborghini Diablo. But some Audi's for example would be better off without it as far as performance numbers go.

What exactly was Clarkson's claim again, that 2WD always provides more traction off the line? I'm thinking he was refering to a specific car.

[mv]

murcie vs. zonda comparison...he was certain that AWD cars were slower off the line - i remember "AWD means you have to push it gently before flooring it" - that's the BS

has he ever seen a launch of an impreza or evo for instance ? how would the new 400bhp evo do 100kph in just 3.5s if they couldn't floor it straight off the line...i know the clutch gets a hard time but who cares when a car is set to fight with a rival

[wEstSide]

A rear-wheel drive car with a heavy rear weight bias for example will probably provide more traction to the driving wheels, than would a 4WD car with closer to 50/50 balance, if only because there is more compressed weight placed upon the respective driving wheels.

This can be true, but a rear weight bias on a FR car is hard to get, this is mostly in a RR or MR type car. The only weight you can get on the back is A) Ballast or, Drivetrain, making it hard to get weight on the back.

If its FF, it does get a weight on the front, but with great power (>~220) there will be wheel hop and torque steer. Wheel hop is a bitch to get rid of, as it lies in chassis flex.

With AWD, it can use all the front wheels' traction, and the rest goes to the rear wheel (if it has 3 diffs, there are a few 2 diff cars). This is ideal for launch. No burnouts, wheel hop, or other loss of traction unless there is a very large amount of power coming all at once. Active Differential solves all problems. Loss of power occurs in Viscous Coupling types, NOT Viscous Coupling Differential Locks. The FQ400 MR I believe does 0-60 in 3.6s.