Any 4th Gen. Supra owners or enthusiasts? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Any 4th Gen. Supra owners or enthusiasts?


DigiDuckie
03-05-2005, 14:37
I once owned a '97 TT 15th Anniversary Edition in Alpine Silver Metallic. 6sp, targa top, black leather interior. I lost my good paying job, therefore I lost this excellent piece of machinery. Like the saying goes though; it is better to love and lost, than to have never loved at all.

vart
03-06-2005, 00:27
I've always liked them, but too expensive for me back when I actually could own a fun car;)

Ron3
03-06-2005, 13:53
These aren't imported anymore right?

DigiDuckie
03-06-2005, 16:35
Originally posted by Ron3
These aren't imported anymore right?

Correct. '98 was the last year. It seems that they are happy with the Celica carrying the weight of Toyota power. ;Q

Rob1035
03-06-2005, 18:32
nice cars, overengineered for sure. I drove a buddies with ~400whp, quite fun, although heavy feeling, still handled well. Virtually unlimited power potential.

fnfalman
03-07-2005, 12:00
Don't know what the hell is going on with Toyota. They are doing away with the Celica and the MR2, so technically they don't even have sporty cars any more. But then supposedly they are working on another Supra and an exotic car.

Honda is letting the S2000 carrying the weight because the NSX is going to be going bye-bye soon with no replacement.

Wolfgangamadeus
03-07-2005, 21:17
oh man, Id love to have a toyota supra, but, even now, they are kinda expensive.

Toxie
03-08-2005, 02:08
Supposidly going to bring back the prelude in 2007.

Although Honda and particurlarly Toyota are HORRIABLE on power (for their prices). They just can't seem to put a decently powered engine in their flagship cars. Even the S2000 is underpowered for it's price.

fnfalman
03-08-2005, 09:29
How's the S2000 underpowered for its price? It was designed to be a road racing car and not a drag car.

Ron3
03-08-2005, 10:19
240 horsepower naturally aspirated from a street-friendly four banger? In a light car it'll move pretty good.

Ron3

Rob1035
03-08-2005, 11:20
well, if the HP ratings of your car have a direct correlation to your manhood, then I suppose the S2000 is underpowered;u

Toxie
03-09-2005, 11:55
240 HP is nice, but 160 Ft-lbs is just weak. Torque is where it's at guys! Cmon. When I buy a "sporty" car I want just that- a sporty car. I wouldn't be happy with that little power for 32 GRAND, I would rather have a WRX STI, EVO8 or Cobra stang. To each his own though.


I had a 1997 'lude and it was a fun car to drive- but WAY underpowered for it's price. Civic SI is the same way, and thats why they discontinued it. Honda dosen't currently sell a car I would buy, because they are too stingy on their performance for the price. There are a plethora of better performing vehicles in all of their price ranges.

fnfalman
03-09-2005, 12:03
160-lbs/ft of torque out of a 2.2 inline four is weak? If you were to make a V8 by joining two of these engines together to make a 4.4-liter engine the torque would be up to 320-lbs/ft of torque. Does that sound weak to you?

Show me a non-aspirated engine with similar horsepower and torque output PER displacement volume.

I'd like to see how the Sti the Evo and the 30-years-old chassis Mustang Cobra on a race track against the S2000. Then we'll see who's weak and who's not. Car driving isn't about stoplight to stoplight. Real men drive hard and fast into corners.

gixxer11
03-09-2005, 19:56
I'm just going to start a new thread: S2000 vs '03-'04 Cobra.

Wolfgangamadeus
03-09-2005, 21:07
Originally posted by fnfalman
160-lbs/ft of torque out of a 2.2 inline four is weak? If you were to make a V8 by joining two of these engines together to make a 4.4-liter engine the torque would be up to 320-lbs/ft of torque. Does that sound weak to you?

Show me a non-aspirated engine with similar horsepower and torque output PER displacement volume.

I'd like to see how the Sti the Evo and the 30-years-old chassis Mustang Cobra on a race track against the S2000. Then we'll see who's weak and who's not. Car driving isn't about stoplight to stoplight. Real men drive hard and fast into corners.

Amen. Real men love curves :)

Toxie
03-09-2005, 21:48
60-lbs/ft of torque out of a 2.2 inline four is weak?

Yes, yes it is. A small amount of torque isn't a good thing. YOu must not have driven anything with more- because then you would realise how little that is.

[quite] If you were to make a V8 by joining two of these engines together to make a 4.4-liter engine the torque would be up to 320-lbs/ft of torque. Does that sound weak to you? [/quote]

Your logic is so flawed that it's not funny. You simply cannot dounle the power by adding the two togther. Don't be dense on purpose.

Show me a non-aspirated engine with similar horsepower and torque output PER displacement volume.

Thats the great thing- I don't have to. All I have to do is show you a car in a similar price range with more power. It's not my fault Honda dosen't use FI in their engines dispite it's obvious advantages. A smaller 2.0l Mitsubishi engine makes a whopping 110 Ft-Lbs more torque then the simply womanly 2.2 honda engine.

I'd like to see how the Sti the Evo and the 30-years-old chassis Mustang Cobra on a race track against the S2000.

You do realise that those cars are all in the same class for SCCA Solo 2 (A stock)right? And hey moron- look at this- an EVO8 RS beat a S2000 for the win. Don't confuse what YOU know with the facts. Oh yeah, care to race that S2000 in the snow, or dirt? How about a straight line? You get SO much more car for the price with any of those other cars, and to add insult to injury its cheaper to mod a FI car too.

SCCA San Fran results (http://www.sfrscca.org/solo2/Results/2005/Championship/as.html)

Then we'll see who's weak and who's not. Car driving isn't about stoplight to stoplight. Real men drive hard and fast into corners.

Hey, if you want to hide your complex in the corners, thats cool.I realise that a 32K sports car should be good at everything, not just one. Keep telling that to yourself "Real men only need to know how to know how to late apex" as I pass you on the expressway in your overpriced go-cart.

fnfalman
03-10-2005, 09:56
Hey, Toxie,

You youngsters thinking that your boosted fourbangers got torque? I grew up hotrodding 1960s Mustang 302s. So don't even talk to me about torque.

And if you feel frisky, I'm in California, bring your iron and we'll see how it fares against my Z4.

Oh yeah, and according to your chart, the Evo also beat the Corvette. So Corvettes must be slower than the Evo, huh? Who's the moron now?

gixxer11
03-10-2005, 17:11
Ok, ok. I've got the answer. Next time I pull up to a Vette, Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, etc, I'll just shoot out the tires then smoke him in my '90 Toyota pickup.

Rob1035
03-10-2005, 17:14
Gearing makes up for torque in most cases. My Integra Type R had 120ft lbs to the wheels, but thanks to the short gearing it was a lot faster than the #s would have one believe.

Ron3
03-10-2005, 20:32
Originally posted by gixxer11
I'm just going to start a new thread: S2000 vs '03-'04 Cobra.

On a race course (same good driver who's familiar with the track) the S2000 will run faster laps.

Nothing against the Cobra's, they are awesome cars, but it's about 800lbs heavier then the Honda and thats what will put it in 2nd place.

Ron3

Toxie
03-10-2005, 22:15
You youngsters thinking that your boosted fourbangers got torque? I grew up hotrodding 1960s Mustang 302s. So don't even talk to me about torque.

If you grew up on them as you claim how in GODS NAME could you say that 160 is alot? LAst I checked, there are aLOT of those 302's out there that are boosted. MY buddy has a 188 Fox body that is pushing 28 Lbs boot supercharged (not streetable). I have nothing against Classic or V8 cars. I DO have something against cars that are intentionally slow for their price.

And if you feel frisky, I'm in California, bring your iron and we'll see how it fares against my Z4.

Well, if you feel like driving to MI, myself and multiple other people will be happy to show you our "Neon" tailights. Must burn you up that I have a faster car and spent less then HALF what you did. I spent the other half on a boat.
Jyst a few highlights for ya:
Z4 performance stuff (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=17&article_id=9150&page_number=4)
SRT-4 perforamnce stuff (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=16&article_id=7871&page_number=2)

Z4 is another too-expensive for the performance car. You don't want me to pull out the C&D STI or EVO8 comparisons. It'll just make you angry that you bought a Z4. Whatever you like, you like. DOn't try to say it's a petter performing car though. For 41K I would be driving a corvette not a butt-ugly Z4.

Oh yeah, and according to your chart, the Evo also beat the Corvette. So Corvettes must be slower than the Evo, huh? Who's the moron now?

Hey idiot, YOU asked how an EVO and STI would do against a S2000. Don't be a baby because you got cought not knowing what you were talking about. Here is a suprise too- EVO's CAN be faster then corvettes, depending on the conditions of the race. THats the beauty. Its a car thats 2K cheaper then The S2000, and a better performer in nearly every aspect.

fnfalman
03-11-2005, 10:32
You're the moron. 160-lbs/ft of torque isn't a lot, but coming from a 2.2 liter engine, it is a lot. Do the math.

And there's more to life than sheer numbers except for racers with pants down to their asses working in Burger King counting up the changes to buy a boosted econobox and revving up their engines at the stoplight.

My Z4 drives like a real car and looks like a real car. And if I were to bother to put a supercharger or a turbocharger in it, you Neon crowd will see nothing but taillight. And when I sit in my car, I can actually enjoy the luxurious leather appointment, the real wood trims on the dash. I can kick the tale out for a trail throttle oversteer when coming into a sharp corner. My car doesn't rattle like a bucket of bolt because it's made out of glued plastic.

And yeah, it doesn't run too well in snow, mud and rain. Neither do Ferraris, Lambos, Corvettes, and Vipers. So, we'll just get rid of them and all go out and buy jacked up Neons with four wheel drives, huh?

CZ-75A
03-11-2005, 12:27
Originally posted by Toxie
Supposidly going to bring back the prelude in 2007.

Although Honda and particurlarly Toyota are HORRIABLE on power (for their prices). They just can't seem to put a decently powered engine in their flagship cars. Even the S2000 is underpowered for it's price.


Please learn how to spell before calling anyone an "idiot" or "moron." ;Q

fnfalman
03-11-2005, 12:45
What do you expect from teenagers nowadays?

DigiDuckie
03-11-2005, 13:16
Originally posted by fnfalman
So, we'll just get rid of them and all go out and buy jacked up Neons with four wheel drives, huh?

I like the SRT-4. :)

gixxer11
03-11-2005, 17:20
How in the hell did "4th gen Supras" turn into "your car sucks"? This stuff doesn't happen in moto club. They all suck for the money. Cars are appliances to me, like stoves or washer/dryers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash cars. I think some are sweet, but untill I can afford something I really want (Porsche 911 of some sort), I'll play with bikes. The Porsche is over-priced to some, but that's not the idea. If it turns you on, then that's what you get. How about we compare resale on a dicked with Neon vs. a clean, stock, well maintained Z4 10 years from now. 15, 20, 25 years so on. It just gets worse. I'll let Toxie go on by in the rain, but you need to get that 4-wheeled P.O.S out of my way in the dry. 215hp@the wheel/700lbs(me and bike) does a lot of damage to a car/drivers ego. I only have $15k in the whole thing, and have a lot of fun on it. It makes the right noises, shoots flames on decel, looks great, scares the crap out of me, and makes me happy. That's what it's about. Besides, a Z4 probably costs less to him, then the Neon does to you. There I'm done.

Rob1035
03-11-2005, 21:50
welcome to jsut about any public car forum on the internet. unfortunately.

Cochese
03-11-2005, 21:56
Originally posted by Ron3
240 horsepower naturally aspirated from a street-friendly four banger? In a light car it'll move pretty good.

Ron3

240hp at 9k rpm .

No thanks ;)

Road courses need lower end torque not hi rap hp...

IMO :)

Toxie
03-11-2005, 22:24
You're the moron. 160-lbs/ft of torque isn't a lot, but coming from a 2.2 liter engine, it is a lot. Do the math.

Uhhh no. 270 ft-lbs is alot from a 2.0L. 160 is mediocre.

What do you expect from teenagers nowadays?

Not a teenager you fogie. 26. 1978. On the plus side, at leat I'm in touch with modern information. I actually have a clue about the cars We're talking about. It's woefully obvious that you do not. FYI- SRT-4 Isn't AWD. Tool.

And there's more to life than sheer numbers except for racers with pants down to their asses working in Burger King counting up the changes to buy a boosted econobox and revving up their engines at the stoplight.

Uhh wrong boy-o. Assuming that I work outside of a profession and can only afford to drive a "Neon" is you mistaken impression. I suppose all those doctors with Vipers started out at Burger king and the numbers the viper puts down are right there with the pant lines.
On a side note, My econobox let ME buy a boat- AND I still have a faster car then you. Guess my Change counting worked out huh?

My Z4 drives like a real car and looks like a real car. And if I were to bother to put a supercharger or a turbocharger in it, you Neon crowd will see nothing but taillight.

Guess my Srt-4 dosen't drive like a "real" car. WHat,just because it's faster and cheaper it's not a real car? I ahh. . .wouldn't brag about the way a Z4 looks. It's a damn fugly car- It looks like a beached whale IMHO. What happened BMW? It's funny, because the SRT-4 gets alot better reviews then the BMW does. Go out there and read them yourself. Besides, I thought 160 Ft-lbs was "alot" of torque. So now you have to add FI to your 41k car just to compete with the 21k stock car? Face it man- it's just not as fast and won't be. That's not what it was intended to be.

How about we compare resale on a dicked with Neon vs. a clean, stock, well maintained Z4 10 years from now. 15, 20, 25 years so on.

How about we compare a "dicked" with neon to a "dicked" with Z4? NOw add in the twenty THOUSAND difference in price. It's going to be an impossible arguement to win because cash in hand is better then "invested" in a car, as you already stated. Another reasopn I won't buy a car over 30k. The amount of money lost driving off the lot equates to a new quad for me :p.

Cochese
03-12-2005, 01:18
Easy ladies...

The afore mentioned MKIV Supras are a much better platform for modifications than either of your vehicles.
(Which is what this thread IS ABOUT)

SRT-4s are AWESOME cars. (Although I'm not crazy about the NEON namesake, nor FWD on a performance oriented vehicle; it's a good thing the newer ones have an LSD stock! :) )

As for FnFalman...
You really do need to learn up on the totality of modern vehicle performance modification. Simply bolting on a power adder would do NOTHING to guarantee victory in a race.
(Especially against an SRT-4 which at sealevel with a decent launch is capable of high 13's!)
It would require tuning and supporting modifications.

I'm not dogging either of you. I have lots of respect for both brands. Love BMW's and I've been a huge Chrysler/DSM Turbo fanatic since I began my interest in cars.

I just wish people would accept cars as cars and stick to facts and figures...

and thread topics.

;f

Ron3
03-12-2005, 23:29
Supra's seem to hold their value very well.

Ron3

Wolfgangamadeus
03-14-2005, 07:15
Originally posted by Ron3
Supra's seem to hold their value very well.

Ron3

Well...they are nice cars.
http://img230.exs.cx/img230/212/47295924full4ik.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

This girl used to race, I think her Supra did low 11's, until it was totalled on the vegas strip, if I recall correctly. I think the whole story id on her home page

fnfalman
03-14-2005, 12:48
Oh yeah, Toxie, I thought that we were talking about the Jap econoboxes like the Sti and the Evo. At least with their AWDs, on the road courses, they may just keep up with a real and proper RWD vehicle. But your Neon may, in stock form, may edge out my Z4 3.0 in the acceleration department, but I'll be waving bu-bye when mine cruise by at 150MPH+, not to mention I'll be running rings around your FWD rattlebox on a road course.

Whatevah, dude.

epsylum
03-16-2005, 23:08
BACK ON TOPIC!!!!!

Supras are one of the best import platforms to modify. They are built like tanks. They can get serious hp and torque numbers easily (they are VERY choked stock). They look like an exotic car and parts are absolutely EVERYWHERE for them.

The sad part as to why they no longer sell them here and why they still cost so much is, wile they were available here, nobody really appreciated it (same goes for the 300zxTT and Rx-7TT). We (as a car-buying country) were too worried about cameros, vettes, and mustangs. If it didn't have a big ole V-8 (don't get me worng I love big V-8's), we didn't buy it. It wasn't a lucrative car for Toyota here. At just about the same time people started to realize it was an awesome car, they had already committed to stoping US sales. So it is an opportunity lost kind of thing. That's why a used '97 or so Supra TT goes for almost as much money now as it did new. Those who did see the light and snapped them up are reaping the benefits now.

Oh and Toxie, a Supra TT would whup your neon. (couldn't resist);f

Wolfgangamadeus
03-17-2005, 01:20
Originally posted by epsylum
BACK ON TOPIC!!!!!

Supras are one of the best import platforms to modify. They are built like tanks. They can get serious hp and torque numbers easily (they are VERY choked stock). They look like an exotic car and parts are absolutely EVERYWHERE for them.

The sad part as to why they no longer sell them here and why they still cost so much is, wile they were available here, nobody really appreciated it (same goes for the 300zxTT and Rx-7TT). We (as a car-buying country) were too worried about cameros, vettes, and mustangs. If it didn't have a big ole V-8 (don't get me worng I love big V-8's), we didn't buy it. It wasn't a lucrative car for Toyota here. At just about the same time people started to realize it was an awesome car, they had already committed to stoping US sales. So it is an opportunity lost kind of thing. That's why a used '97 or so Supra TT goes for almost as much money now as it did new. Those who did see the light and snapped them up are reaping the benefits now.

Oh and Toxie, a Supra TT would whup your neon. (couldn't resist);f

well stated! I believe thats the exact reason why the 87 GNX could not be allowed. There you had the fastest production car of the 80s, but, it wasnt a V8...could be allowed. Again, no offense to the V8s, one day theres gonna be a vette in my garage next to the Z, but u get the point.

fnfalman
03-17-2005, 10:28
The reason the Japanese supercars went the way of the Dodo bird wasn't because everybody were fixated on V-8s, but in the mid 1990s when high paying jobs were scarce, a $45,000 car was tough to justify. I think that the cheapest was the RX-7 twin turbo and it was in the mid-$30s starting out.

Cochese
03-17-2005, 14:01
Originally posted by epsylum
BACK ON TOPIC!!!!!

Supras are one of the best import platforms to modify....

The sad part as to why they no longer sell them here and why they still cost so much is, wile they were available here, nobody really appreciated it (same goes for the 300zxTT and Rx-7TT). We (as a car-buying country) were too worried about cameros, vettes, and mustangs.....That's why a used '97 or so Supra TT goes for almost as much money now as it did new. Those who did see the light and snapped them up are reaping the benefits now.

Oh and Toxie, a Supra TT would whup your neon. (couldn't resist);f

Your forgetting reason #1 (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232500/) for the price gouging of the MKIV in the US...

;0

Wolfgangamadeus
03-17-2005, 17:40
Originally posted by fnfalman
The reason the Japanese supercars went the way of the Dodo bird wasn't because everybody were fixated on V-8s, but in the mid 1990s when high paying jobs were scarce, a $45,000 car was tough to justify. I think that the cheapest was the RX-7 twin turbo and it was in the mid-$30s starting out.

I think the import tax killed em. If I recall, there was something like 7k tacked on to the Z...but i dont remember exactly.

fnfalman
03-17-2005, 18:24
The import tax went up because suddenly you saw a noticeable change in Japanese prices. BUT those supercars were already expensive. 45K was a lot of moolah in the early to mid 1990s.

Wolfgangamadeus
03-17-2005, 19:48
Originally posted by fnfalman
The import tax went up because suddenly you saw a noticeable change in Japanese prices. BUT those supercars were already expensive. 45K was a lot of moolah in the early to mid 1990s.

Very true. That was a lot of bread, but, dollar for dollar, werent you getting more, or close to a domestic v8? For instance excluding, or including the import tax, in the 300ZX twin turbo, you were getting 300hp out of the box and 4 wheel steering. Wasnt that more than the Vette at the time? I'm not asking that as a smart ass question, I dont know the specs on the Vette in the early 90s. I do remember a shoot out between the Z and the Vette in car and driver, I dont know which came out on top, but it was close. If the 2 cars were close in price,and performance then the price would have been in line with the market. I'm not dissing the vette, and I'm only using the Z as a comparison because its really the only Japanese supercar I know enough about to talk about. I'm not sharp shooting you here, just trying to get a perspective.

epsylum
03-17-2005, 20:19
I had an 86 300zx non-turbo. It was sweet, but had too much mid-eighties, kit-car like, electronic doo-dads. All of that started to fail 16 years down the road, when I owned it.

Anyhow the last gen (z33??) 300zx was in car and drivers 10 best every year it was produced. That means something.

I understand the price thing, but performance wise the Supra was VERY close to the Vette. My brother used to work at a Toyota dealership and drove a then-new '97 Supra TT and a mid to late 90's (C4? the long pointy one) vette Grandsport they had used, back to back. He said he thought the Supra felt faster (the new Supra was actually a bit less than the used vette if I recall correctly). But that is just feel, no numbers.

Anyhow the Supra died early and that sucks.

Hey how about more cool Supra pics.

Here's one from Germany
http://www.garage-frey.ch/tuning/Supra_A8/supra_a8.htm
http://www.garage-frey.ch/tuning/Supra_A8/Supra_A8_Front_Seite.jpg
http://www.garage-frey.ch/tuning/Supra_A8/Supra_A8_Front.jpg
http://www.garage-frey.ch/tuning/Supra_A8/Supra_A8_Motor.jpg
http://www.garage-frey.ch/tuning/Supra_A8/Supra_A8_Seite.jpg

epsylum
03-17-2005, 20:23
Here's a link to a cool vid. I can't see what it ran in the 1/4 but DAMN!!!!! does it sound good. Like a crazed vacuum cleaner.

http://www.bhamracing.com/gallery/Videos/MMP_III_Vids/Supra.mov

Wolfgangamadeus
03-17-2005, 20:28
that is such a sweet machine! There is a guy here in Mentor Ohio, he has his built to 1200 hp. Its quite a machine. I'd love one, but evem the Naturally aspirated one start at 15k. If Im correct, there were only something like 12,000 of that generation Supra made.

epsylum
03-17-2005, 20:28
Here's a 9 sec. Supra.
http://clickit.go2net.com/search?pos=6&ppos=0&plnks=0&uplnks=20&cat=video&cid=372673&site=srch&area=srch.comm.singingfishvideo&shape=textlink&cp=info.dogpl&cluster-click=0&pd=0&coll=1&query=%22supra%22&rawto=http://bagpuss.swan.ac.uk/200sx/SW_9sec_supra.wmv

epsylum
03-17-2005, 20:32
Here's "The Big Supra Vid"

It's very well made, and there are even some cool Beemers in it too.

Watch out for Hulk Hogan in a very sweet forest green Supra (I would have pegged him for a V-8 guy, oh well).

http://supra.sysadmin-racing.com/videos/Compilations/The_Big_Video/TheBigSupraVideo.mpg

epsylum
03-17-2005, 20:34
Finally,
one of my faves.

A sweet 800hp Supra on a dyno. Note the fact that they had to abort the first run because it spins it's tires on the dyno when the boost comes on. The have to add a second strap for the last run.

http://opelklub-ms.si/movie/Toyota%20supra%20Turbo%20800%20hp.mpg

Cochese
03-18-2005, 01:33
epsylum, your my kind of car guy.

epsylum
03-18-2005, 09:12
Originally posted by glocktastic
epsylum, your my kind of car guy.

^c ^c Thanks

If what you said has anything to do with all the vids. It's amazing what a vid search on dogpile can bring with just the world "supra". It literally took me 5 min.

Although a lot of those have now found their way onto my harddrive.

Short Cut
03-23-2005, 23:43
Originally posted by fnfalman
160-lbs/ft of torque out of a 2.2 inline four is weak? If you were to make a V8 by joining two of these engines together to make a 4.4-liter engine the torque would be up to 320-lbs/ft of torque. Does that sound weak to you?

Show me a non-aspirated engine with similar horsepower and torque output PER displacement volume.

4.2 liter V8 in the VW Touareg makes 302 lb-ft of torque and 310 hp. Not too shabby for a VW.

The same engine in the Audi A8 makes 317 lb-ft of torque and 335 hp.

wile_coyote
03-27-2005, 23:25
Sorry no supra, but I love Toyotas. I currently have a 93 MR2 Turbo.

FreakyBig
04-06-2005, 19:08
Originally posted by fnfalman
Don't know what the hell is going on with Toyota. They are doing away with the Celica and the MR2, so technically they don't even have sporty cars any more. But then supposedly they are working on another Supra and an exotic car.

The Celica is also discontinued as of 05. Toyota is for some reason in hopes of Scion carrying the youth market. The TC is a nice car, but does not compare to the Celica GTS. I have onwed a Supra in the past, but was more pleased with the 94 300ZX twin turbo I had.

Wolfgangamadeus
04-09-2005, 19:47
Hey Freaky, what happened to your Z?