Toyota Supra anyone?


Status
Not open for further replies.
supra boy go onto youtube loads of ek's with massive bhp that will eat and **** any standard turbo supra
 
I have proof that auto supras are lame! I drove my work mates and its no where near as quick as my B16B ek9! And who cares about going 190mph+, thats jail material! Think you better grow up before coming on this forum and talking the way your talking! :)

plus why have you put a swap advert in the general chat section, it should be in the for sale section!
 
George89 said:
OMG i really don't understand how you people think! you can never admit defeat. You telling me now a EK9? regardless what mods you do to it will keep up with a Supra RZ-s BPU?? 0-60mph 4 seconds flat. And top speed excess of 190mph. Please give me a break its a 1.6!! ffs! yes its light but it don't have a high top speed. You ever seen a 1000bhp EK9?? lool Look at what your saying!
And the video you posted makes no sense atall!
Click to expand...

I dont understand how you think, comparing thousands of dollars/euro's worth of tuning on a manualSupra Turbo to an EK9 to prove your almost stock non turbo automatic would be faster :blabla:
 
Supras are a good car, come on everyone, its just that we all think they suck because we slap them around all day and night without issue, auto na v6 that is. But if I had a choice between the two, civic ctr/itr and a auto na v6 supra to drive from LA to SF,600miles. I would pick the Supra for the sheer Cadillac feel and performance, Cadillac performance that is, highway cruiser mobile.

On the track or strip I would of course pick the ctr/itr or a GTR, hehe.
 
Im sorry but you sound a complete fool by your comments. No one here is saying a stock ek9 is beating a supra twin turbo. We are on the subject of an auto NON TURBO supra. They are very lame, boring, and sluggish BUT look good.

A supra weighs about about 1550KG and with 230BHP that makes an absolutely terrible ratio of power to weight. 150 per tonne to be precise. which is less then a bloody starlet GT which is a 1.3 turbo!!!!

Now please, if you think a Supra is soo much better then an EK9(not debating weather it is) dont come on here asking to PX with the car your putting down.
 
Non turbo is 1460kg ;)

tama666 said:
Supras are a good car, come on everyone, its just that we all think they suck because we slap them around all day and night without issue, auto na v6 that is. But if I had a choice between the two, civic ctr/itr and a auto na v6 supra to drive from LA to SF,600miles. I would pick the Supra for the sheer Cadillac feel and performance, Cadillac performance that is, highway cruiser mobile.

On the track or strip I would of course pick the ctr/itr or a GTR, hehe.
Click to expand...


Supra certainly isn't a bad car and certainly if you change it to turbo manual is can be really fast on the straight. It's more of a GT then a hardcore sportscar, which means it indeed might be a better option for long distance cruising than an EK9. But it simply is not faster than an EK9. Let's compare the facts:

Supra:
- 230 hp
- 4 speed AUTO which EATS away torque from your wheels into the torque converter and shifts slow
- 1460kg
- 6,35kg @ every horsepower

EK9:
- 185hp
- 5 speed manual close ratio
- 1070kg
- 5,8kg @ every horsepower

At the wheels the difference in kg's per horsepower will be even bigger and the EK9 will distance itself even more in it's advantage. The torqueconverter destroys torque. And besides that, the EK9 has 1 gear more. Also manual so faster shifting. No way that the Supra is faster. And that's not a big problem. Nothing to be ashamed for. Just don't say things that are not true.
 
i think its time for me to burst in here and set things straight .....

EK9 > SUPRA NON TURBO - FACT !
 
This thread is funny! My first trip to germany i raced to 130mph a non turbo manual supra..... Guess what i beat it! That was in my B16A2 EK4!!! He had full exhaust and induction too!
 
Lol you are all getting your backs up big time. Erm i think you lot are missing something, i didn't say the supra as standard and your posting up all this status and i don't know if you cared to read 230RWHP! which means 230 bhp at the wheels! a Standard na is 220bhp but not at the wheels. I will say without thinking twice the ek9 is more of a fun car to drive no dout about it. But if i was crusing on a motorway and a ek9 come side by side with me am sorry but i can't help but to say it won't keep up whats so ever. Civics are good at low to meduim speeds. not at high speeds. Now i am not here to argue with anyone or disrespect ek9's! the only reason i am selling the supra as insurance is killing me! i could buy a ek9 every year with the insurance am paying. otherwise i would keep the car all day long and get a twin turbo engine and 5spd manual gearbox put in to it.
Don't forget i aint here to argue with anyone
 
George89 said:
OMG i really don't understand how you people think! you can never admit defeat. You telling me now a EK9? regardless what mods you do to it will keep up with a Supra RZ-s BPU?? 0-60mph 4 seconds flat. And top speed excess of 190mph. Please give me a break its a 1.6!! ffs! yes its light but it don't have a high top speed. You ever seen a 1000bhp EK9?? lool Look at what your saying!
And the video you posted makes no sense atall!
Click to expand...

No one is saying a 1000bhp twin turbo supra will loose to an ek9..We all know it would trash an ek9..

What we are saying is a car like yours (non turbo auto supra) will loose to an ek9..They are just to heavy and slow.:p.You also know this or you wouldnt be wanting one.:clap:
 
Just to add another thing. Your talking about power to weight distriptuion fair enough but try power the weight at the wheels. EK9 185bhp how much is that at the wheels? FWD? It aint always about whats on paper or what the engine produces. If it can't get to the wheels then whats the point in saying i got 185 bhp?.
 
I would call this a pissing contest. Nothing good or bad would ever come out of this in my mind. But its good entertainment.
 
George89 said:
Lol you are all getting your backs up big time. Erm i think you lot are missing something, i didn't say the supra as standard and your posting up all this status and i don't know if you cared to read 230RWHP! which means 230 bhp at the wheels! a Standard na is 220bhp but not at the wheels. I will say without thinking twice the ek9 is more of a fun car to drive no dout about it. But if i was crusing on a motorway and a ek9 come side by side with me am sorry but i can't help but to say it won't keep up whats so ever. Civics are good at low to meduim speeds. not at high speeds. Now i am not here to argue with anyone or disrespect ek9's! the only reason i am selling the supra as insurance is killing me! i could buy a ek9 every year with the insurance am paying. otherwise i would keep the car all day long and get a twin turbo engine and 5spd manual gearbox put in to it.
Don't forget i aint here to argue with anyone
Click to expand...

Ok, in your first post you were talking about bhp and not whp. Those are 2 different things. What kinda mods do you have to gain 46bhp (assuming 20-25% drivetrain and torque converter loss) ?? Must be more than an exhaust and intake for that kinda gain.

And don't forget, your Supra eats torque for breakfast, lunch and dinner and as a midnight snack with that torque converter.
 
Last edited:
As you lot only have a 1.6 already tuned to the max from factory horse power increase on a ek9 is not easy or cheap. As with a 3 litre straight 6 engine which is no where near is capabilities and stock internals can handle 700bhp its a much bigger diffrence in horse power gains. Expeshly when you take both cats off and put on a proper manifold as the standard one was designed to not produce to much power otherwise they wouldn't sell a lot of twin turbos when new
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top