Supra or Bmw?

[hangsupra]

come on people.... remember this... SUPRA IS SUPRA..... N SUPRA IS ALWAYS SUPRA.... mk4 supra have a nicer body look (i think) n quicker then m3.... come on... Supra is Supra.... n Supra is aways Supra..... remeber that Supra is SUPRA.....

[Greglatta]

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

Well the NA version puts out around 220whp.

The twin turboed version puts out around 380(someone correct if I am wrong).


Nope your wrong. The NA one does but the turboed version creams the BMW all day every day.

Also if you really want to compare them properly you must compare displacemtn to hp output. Meaning whats the ratio of liter to hp? Well the 98 M3 coupe with a 3.2L puts out 240hp whereas the supra with a 2.8L puts out at least 320hp. Gee do the math its a no brainer.

SO THEREFORE THE NUMBERS PROVE THE SUPRA TO BE RIGHT, THE CAR CULTURE PROVES IT TO BE BETTER, THE NUMBERS ON THE TRACK PROVE IT TO BE A BETTER CAR, AND THE NUMBERS AS FAR AS MODIFICATIONS PROVE IT TO BE A BETTER CAR. Hey, if you want to buy a car that will need 700bucks for a simple bolton intake then go for it. Personally I would rather buy a 400dollar boost controller to get about 100hp more.

Hmm honestly you said that a 2.8L TURBO supra puts out 320 ok, you cant compare a turbo to a n/a for hp to litres I think you need to compare a n/a supra 1996 to a n/a 1996 m3, dont be a dick about it either. Come back and argue with a stock n/a supra and a stock 1996 bmw m3 on supercars.net they said it made 316hp

[Thecure634]

why can't you compare a trubo to an NA?

[Blacktiger]

A supra is way sexier, especially if if has some nice wheels.....enough said....

[SKILMATIC]

Originally Posted by Greglatta

Hmm honestly you said that a 2.8L TURBO supra puts out 320 ok, you cant compare a turbo to a n/a for hp to litres I think you need to compare a n/a supra 1996 to a n/a 1996 m3, dont be a dick about it either. Come back and argue with a stock n/a supra and a stock 1996 bmw m3 on supercars.net they said it made 316hp

Excuse me? I think you may be in the wrong area to be arguing this. Because if you knew just one ioda of what cars are about then you wouldnt have exclaimed something so rediculous is that.

Again lets do the math even with NA. A 96 M3 which is a 3.2L puts out 240hp while the supra at 2.8L puts out 220. Gee again do the math. Its another no brainer. I am sorry but even grade schoolers get this stuff. If you cant understand these concepts then I really cant have a formidable discussion with you about this.

[kkiepvvessau]

come to mod not many cars can compare to supra . 1400hp supra that number seem to be rediculuos but it true

[Greglatta]

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

Excuse me? I think you may be in the wrong area to be arguing this. Because if you knew just one ioda of what cars are about then you wouldnt have exclaimed something so rediculous is that.

Again lets do the math even with NA. A 96 M3 which is a 3.2L puts out 240hp while the supra at 2.8L puts out 220. Gee again do the math. Its another no brainer. I am sorry but even grade schoolers get this stuff. If you cant understand these concepts then I really cant have a formidable discussion with you about this.

Did you not look at what I said at the end? 1996 bmw M3 316 hp from a 3.2L while the supra makes 2.8L makes 220