actually now that you mention it monkeyman, i would prefer the mkIII to the newer one, it might just be litlle better on the fuel for starters

as long as ur foot isnt too heavy...

good point made. i was watching a show and they reakon that poeple who speed only actually get to places a few minutes faster, and go through a crap load of fuel, which aint worth it. :huh:
(providng your not going 200mph down the school zone :lol: )

isn't the mark 3 a smaller car? with a smaller chassis? then isn't it easier for road handling? with a turbo? then that does sound better but can u put in a twin turbo in there?

it depends on track width, not so much as "smaller". wider and lower reduces body roll against corners. single turbo can be best for top end high hp, while in my experience twins are better for street use. it depends on how you have your car setup. there are just too many combinations out there....

would a 1997 toyota supra twin turbo good for curcuit use? i would like to race proffessionaly... but im only a freshman in high school. HELP ME OUT GUYS!! (and girls, sorry suprra)

i'd say so, i reackon a 97 supra could beat any mkIII :P

i reckon the 7mgte is the worst engine out there for drinking petrol LOL

and they're heavier than the mk4
but i mean c'mon... where did they get the idea for the mk4 LOL... it in no way resembles a mk3 and plus.. the mk3 has wayyyyyyyy more luxury than a mk4 ;)

let the flamefest begin :lol:


for the track i would use a mk4.... but for drifting.. altho more difficult... the mk3.. coz it's wayyyyyy more fun lol

did you guys read a surpa inthe autosalon a couple of years ago or somtin', there was a auto supra with 532hp at the rear wheels, single turbo and it done around 6 litres per 100km's :o

try owning a tiburon. that bastard car had worse gas(petrol) mileage that any other car ive owned. at 60mph the tach read 3k rpm in 6TH gear. max highway range was 300mi. on 16 gal of gas. the supras been able to get 350+mi lately. except for last night...heehee