Ohhh the temptation.....Make it stop....

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Celerity said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



DUDDITZ !
Click to expand...
ok...lets break it down a lil more...he is saying...take the current toyota supra...or actually the late 90s supra...cuz i was thinking the same thing...and transform it a lil bit...to make it look like the 70s cars...not really saying the actual 70 supra...but i can see where it looks like he means the actual 70 supra...lol
 
... if there was a 70 Supra. Because lemme break it down for you - There is no 70 Supra.
 
Celerity said:
Yeah, this thread is awesome !
Click to expand...
funny_cat_pictures_23.jpg
 
ok allow me to clarify what he was saying:

this:
image001.jpg


looks like a 1970s (bad word choice, he should have said something along the lines of "retro") version of this:
Toyota%20Supra%20BLACK.jpg



he was not saying that it looked like this:
1979celicasupra_377x292.jpg


because even Ray Charles could see that this POS in the third pic looks NOTHING like the top 2 pics

so in the simplest of terms all he was saying is that the car in the first pic looks similar to the styling of the car in the second pic in a retro gayness kinda way
 
door to door, the 79 Supra is the same physical specs as an NA Supra of any other generation.

And don't give me that "120 hp" horseshit. Gas crisis. It's more like 165 hp.
 
If it's the same physical specs, does that mean it weighs eleventy billion pounds too?

And even if your estimated 165hp is correct... It still sucks. :\
 
Celerity said:
You're a fuckin heretic. I'll drive circles around you in that Supra. :)
Click to expand...

the 1983 supra had a bigger engine than the 1979 (2.6 vs 2.0) and more power and even it only did 8.9 (0-60) and 16.8 (1/4 mile) a bone stock 1992 civic Si will walk all over that (8.4 0-60 / 16.4 1/4 mile)
please excuse me for not being impressed
 
Sounds reasonable to me. my NA Supras got beat by dodge daytonas and fully laden work vans. The one I gave Clayton might change your mind, but it's thirst for AVGAS didn't belie it's 12.x:1ish compression either.

You are, however, wrong in displacements. 1978 had the 2.6 liter carbbed 4M, with a really poor fi system in late 1981 (4ME) (But then again, there were like 800 of those). the 5MGE in the 1982-1986 Supra was 2.8 liters with 145 claimed hp (but dynoed very close to 200 with cali emissions)(Oddly enough, the MR2 was rated at 145 and also dynoed out closer to 200). The 3.0 7MGE ran poor harmonics and focused heat on valve heads and the piston dome. Outside of that, it was like a 5 or so real hp gain. the 2JZGE was rated at 225, and dynoed at about that all day long. But that's a totally different motor than the M series.

the 22R was 2.4 liter, the 20R was 2.2.

All kidding aside, the Supra's balance, gearing and engine was a good 20 years ahead of it's time, and I will take the pepsi challenge against most cars with a second gen Supra (Enjoyed far more than my 3rd gens)
 
$3000 would get that kit to my door, a professional shop to do the bodywork, and paint...and I might have enough left over to buy lambo tires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top