Supra or Bmw?

[SKILMATIC]

Originally Posted by Greglatta

How much does a 1998 N/A supra put out?

Well the NA version puts out around 220whp.

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

Well im not asking about personal pref but still 1998 m3 puts out 280 and a 1998 supra puts out like 245, so im not seeing why or how you guys can say that you would take a supra over a m3, you guys are saying id rather have my supra anyday, ofcourse you would it has mods, stock to stock what would you want? im not a m3 fan, i love supras but my friend is saying that a supra is faster stock to stock na to na

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.

[SupraMan1784]

nice post skil, i would have to agree, he put a lot of time into that post, and yes the math does show the supra to be a better car, with more power/liter, i like this guy alrdy

[SKILMATIC]

Originally Posted by SupraMan1784

nice post skil, i would have to agree, he put a lot of time into that post, and yes the math does show the supra to be a better car, with more power/liter, i like this guy alrdy

I appreciate that. I am no genius by no means but the facts are in the simple mathematics. If people cant understand that then its no use explaining to them simple common sensed things in a diatribe.

Lastly, ask yourself this question. How many BMW M3's have been able to accomplish 8sec quater mile times vs. how many supras have accomplished that? Thats also a no brainer too. If people cant understand these things then its pointless.

[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.....

[SKILMATIC]

Originally Posted by 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.....

I dont mean to be an a$$hole or anything but your whole post made no sense whatsoever.

I mean of course a supra is a supra. I dont think the forum needed you to post that information. I am sure we the forum population could have figured out that a supra is a supra.

[SupraMan1784]

yea to be honest i dont know what the hell he was saying

[TONY!]

Originally Posted by jamie chapman

your not being an a$$hole ive read it five times and it makes no sense.The first line is ok but after that

Originally Posted by LONG GONE

I dont mean to be an a$$hole or anything but your whole post made no sense whatsoever.

I mean of course a supra is a supra. I dont think the forum needed you to post that information. I am sure we the forum population could have figured out that a supra is a supra.

Why would you bring up such a problem thread that should stay buried?

But then...how can you have a 1997 MK3 Supra?
Your profile:

Birthday:
September 22, 1983
Location:
southampton
Interests:
racing five a side footy
Occupation:
chef
Year:
1997
Generation of supra:
mk3
What engine powers your supra?:
3litre staight six VERY descriptive--maybe you and SKIL are related?
Auto or Manual?:
manual
Rhd or Lhd:
right

[jamie chapman]

no im related to skil ha ha im not paticly clued up on whats under the hood of a supra.Ive only just got it thats why im on this site to see what i can find out about supras.I realy dont have clue hands up i confess jc

[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?