Supra or Bmw?
 

Im confused, looking at the numbers, the BMW m3 is far more power and its n/a can someone try to explain why everyone loves the toyota supra so much if it puts out 320hp with turbo while the bmw m3 puts out 330hp n/a, which is faster stock to stock

if your trying to compare a $40k new bmw to a $3k 20 year old supra.. ya the newer bmw will be faster.. but ad 3k of mods to that 3k supra and i bet that bmw loses every day...

personally i would take the supra hands down, from factory numbers yes the m3 does have more power than a supra, but the question is why do people like supras more? i honestly dont know, it could be the fact that they have one of the most tunable motors, or maybe its cause theyre twin turbo? ur asking a question that has no definitive answer here, but u normally dont see supras just driving down teh road on a normal basis...m3's are a lot more common to see and supras are a little rarer...its more of an opinion based question, its not all about power too, i mean people could spend the money to buy an m3 any day, but there are people that would rather buy something and put the work and effort into it so they could have something faster, and i know my car can smoke any m3 anyday

plus the supras are just tuff.. very well built and engineered. IMO and they drive so sweet at high speeds and corner like its on a rail..... twin cams w24 valves, it like to rev up..

Ok I am not a genius by any means but let me try and break it down for you.

First off, yes from the factory the BMW does put down better numbers. But look at what your comparing. You are comparing a modern age technologically advanced vehicle to a 10yr old vehicle with inregards to todays technology is primitive. I mean for example take a look at the new 06 IS350 that car stock with a v6 3.5l(i think) puts out more horse stock then my dads 05 Mustang GT (which is a V8) stock. And thats just 1 years of difference in technology. Imagine what 10years will do.

Second of all, why would you want a $55,000 car with the maintenance bill of a Ferrari when you can have a car where mechanics and parts are virtually plentiful and cheap for the most part? Also you are gauranteed the reliability and strength because its a toyota whereas BMW's when they become 10years old they are nothing but headaches.


Thirdly, lets do a fair comparison. Now in 97 the BMW 5series which still runs for almost 21grand has a 4.4l v8 that puts out about 282hp. Now lets move on to the 97 M3 which puts out 240hp with a I6. You can see with a fair equivelance of cars the Supra basically decimates any BWM that came out that year.

Now lets move onto mods. I can gaurantee you and I can put money on this that with less money that I can make any turboed supra waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy faster than any BMW. Let me just paint a picture for you. With a twin turboed supra all I have to do is install a Bosst controller and bigger injectors and I can put out well over 450hp which will only cost me about 400bucks. With a BMW your lucky you can get one injector for that price. LOL Not to mention even with all the bolt-ons in the world you still would be shy of 450hp.

But I guess its your money and you can spend it on whatever dumb sh!t you want. LOL Just never say we didnt warned you. There is a reason why a decent condition 97 Turboed supra is still at least 35grand. Our bottom ends are virtually indestructable while BMW's start taking poops when you exceed 500hp on the stock bottom end.

Good luck with your Bimmer.

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

225hp is the answer

sorry my bad, i didnt realize i was in the mk4 section when i posted, but it still applies sorta..

found this, read torque, and weight. don't they play role in numbers?
http://www.geocities.com/ma71supraturbo/

Ive driven both cars.Im driving my second Supra and my ex-girlfriend had a M3,daddy's little girl til he found out what I was doing to his baby.Anyway,it's obvious about the comparison of the two.The technology plays a big big role in this whole horsepower issue.But dont let the paper stats fool you.Ive seen people outrun cars with more horsepower than them.It depends on the driver and your preference.Id take my Supra over an M3 anyday and im sure most of the people here would too.

well of course...i mean this is the supra forum right? or no...?

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

well it if were a stock na mk4 and a stock m3...i would still take the supra, to me its seems a little rarer to see one of those than an m3...maybe its just here where i am, but i would take a stock m4 no doubt, im sure there are a bunch of numbers that show 0-60 times and 1/4 times for a na supra as well as a m3 both stock, i guess u can do your comparisons on that, i like the supra's styling, i mean both have i-6 motors, but when i talk to people... theyre more surprised that i own a supra...maybe because a lot of people in teh town i live in own bmw's, theyre too common here so a japanese sports car especially one as rare as the supra will catch a lot of people's attention

great point i have seen it alot. The take off makes all the differnece

an m3 will beat a na stock. but you could buy two of those for under the price of the m3. i would compare the tt to the m3 for closer pricing and 1/4 mile times. 0-60 of an m3 SMG 03(list 47k) is like 5.0 and the 93 supra tt is 4.9 and that car is 12 years old. 1/4 m3 is 13.5 and the supra 13.4 stock

N/A is 6.9/15.2

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

OK, here's the real truth
 

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

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.

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

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

Dude are you kidding me? Where are you getting that number? The 96 M3 never came stock with 316hp. Seriously, look at any car fax report on either msn autos or do a car search like kelley blue book. All it came with was a 3.2l with 240hp. Ignorance is bliss aint it? The kbb value on it right now in good condition is 14-16grand and has a 5sp manual tranny that gets approximately 28mi/gal on the freeway. It has 236pds/tq @3800rpm with a 24valve DOHC head. The bore and stroke is 3.40x3.53 with a compression ration of 10:5.

Now do I need to school you again? Show me one link where it said that the BMW stock off the dealership lot came with 316hp. You show me this I will bow down to you. However, if you want I can show you at least a dozen links that back my info.

Now I do know the 01 BMW M3 COMES WITH A 3.2L WITH 333HP. But thats 5 yrs newer. So thats not a real comparison.

Now I will say BMW has made some engine advancements over the years while toyota has kinda stopped for some reason. But it doesnt ignore the fact that toyotas motors are wthout a doubt arguably one of the best most long lasting motors known to mankind. Also did you know that consumer reports have it that in 2005 the best vehicles in 9 different classes were the following: family sedan-honda accord hybrid, smal SUV-subaru forrester, midsized SUV-Lexus RX330, upscale sedan-acura TL, luxury sedan-LS430, 3row SUV-honda pilot, minivan-honda odyssey, fun to drive-subaru impreza(STI), green car-toyota prius.

Now in all 9 cars I did not see 1 german car or american car on there. 3 of the 9 were toyotas while 2 were subarus and the rest hondas. Gee go figure. Like I have been saying all along. And you made me actually research it and I came to find what I have been saying all along was true. lol

yea man...the 96 m3 did come with a i6 3.2L 240 hp motor....not 316, not sure where your getting that information, but im totally behind skilmatic on this one, show us where ur getting that info...and are you sure that m3 is not modded? skilmatic's math still is right...3.2 240 vs. a 2.8 220? the supra still has more hp/liter

Yeah I dont know what this guy is talkin about.

Meaning gregletta you are right on supraman

They down chip the m3s when shipped to us

But why are we arguing about hp/litre when my question was which is faster

they probably reflash the chip to make less power to comply to the smog laws in teh us...so are you talking about a us m3? or a euro m3? hp/liter shows the efficiency of the motor, the more power it makes per liter the more efficient teh motor is...makes sense right? but if in terms of being faster? http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html according to that website teh supra n/a has a 6.9sec 0-60 and a 15.2 1/4 mile and a 96 m3 has pretty much a 6.6-6.7s 0-60 and a 14.9-15.3 1/4 depending on which model you have...not sure what luxury is but ill assume its stick, so i guess its fair to say that the m3 is quicker, but you call also say that any n/a supra can hang with any m3, a stock mk4 turbo supra would roast a 96 m3 any day...just some additional information, oh and this also comes down to the driver and how good they are...a good driver would be able to achieve times like these...an inexperienced driver would not...

Yea I didnt want to sound like a jerk on the forum but yea the euro version makes 300+ in 1996 and they downchip to make it meet the pollution of or something like that, heres a link that i found that helped alot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3

Ok well are you going to import that BMW here? Cause if you do your looking at aver 70grand to make it legal here in the US. Now a 93 tt supra costs around 20-25grand. Let me put 40grand into it to make the cost even and the supra is faster in every aspect shape and form hands down. You cant equivocate a 70,000dollar car to a 30,000 dollar one. Thats not fair. If you want to be fair you must equivocate cost/hp to hp/liter efficiency. Which the supra wins hands down. But go ahead and buy your 70,000 dollar car. I will meet you at the track. We will see who wins. And then after you hand over your pink slip I will be 70,000dollars richer even though I warned you. Im sorry but in my opinion comparing a bmw to a supra is just stupidity. Look at the cars that are making impressive numbers at the track. However, if you are that stuck on the e46 then its your loss.

Just a side note I raced a e46 on the freeway with my 96 saturn sc2 with about 200whp and just incinerated it all day. BMW's are just bad whack jobs. Now if you really want a nice german performance car go with porsche.

this is a dump question to ask . i thought this is supra forum

ehh he was making a comparison with a supra so i guess it was legit.... but skil with teh saturn and the e46...the beemer is a lot heavier than a saturn... but i dont know...just making a bad assumption there i guess...havent driven either car...but yea unless ur gonna import the car here or get a euro flashed chip...theres no real reason to compare the euro m3...since u said it was stock for stock...then u wont have a euro chip....but imma stick to my previous post

Buying one over there is cheaper then one here, and where i live you dont need to meet emissions the m3 which is why they are down chipped