Supra...IS300...GTi

i want the IS.... if the supra wasn't a auto i would take it...

Auto Supras are faster than the 6 speed manual Supra Twin Turbos ( or so they say).

Supra...IS300...GTi

http://www.visionboy.com/vbremix.wmv

All I can say is DAMN! Check the lock on the Supra!

would much rather watch that shit than the damn presidential debate, that's for sure!

as i've said before...

ooooooooo...supra...*drool*

Mannnn. I so much wanted to see that Turbo IS300 having a go at the Supra Twin Turbo. That would have been awesome. Nice video though.

autos are always faster on full out drag cars.

that's true....we have to have manuals with our no torque 4 bangers.....but you get much better performance out of an auto in a muscle car. It's funny because we do a bunch of 5-speed swaps.....and they do a lot of auto swaps.

i'd take an auto supra any day...damn those things are nice. and that is300 was alot faster than i thought it'd be.

by the sound of the supra and its power delivery.... its a single

It sounds weird since Toyota Supra Twin Turbo had nothing exceptional on the low end. As a matter of fact, the 0-60 of Toyota Supra TT is only 4.9 secs, which is slower than a lot of other sports cars in it's class such as Subaru Impreza STi, Porsche, Corvette etc. Heck, even S2000 will give Supra a run for it's money in a 0-60 race. I have seen countless videos where Supra got smoked off the line. Supra did not have exceptional low end torque considering it weighed 3600 lbs. Where Supra really was exceptional happened to be the top end power when the bigger turbo kicked in and it would leave the leading happy camper in the dust. Having said that, cars with strong top end power, but ordinary low end power fair better with manual transmission since you can make the best of the top end power with a manual and not an auto. It sounds weird that Supra actually ran faster with an auto than a manual.

well weight has nothing to do with how much torque a car has.....

also 6speed supras are hard to launch because of the power the make, the short gearing, tire selection, and the independent rear suspension...... they make plenty of torque

the reason that supra "has nothing exceptional on the low end" is because of a little thing called turbo lag..... highly over rated..... its fun to let a car think theyre winning when in fact you havent even built boost yet

built supras are faster in the quarter mile when auto..... stock for stock 6 speeds are faster all around

also, the supra was built way back in 92 as a 93 model year with minimal changes made for the US market till its demise..... still, dont ever compare it to a stock sti or s2000

Yeah that is true. The reason why I mentioned Torque was because Torque is what really helps the car to launch in the first few split seconds under sudden acceleration. Be it from a complete stop or while cruising. As for Supra vs Sti, 350Z or s2000, Supra was 10 years ahead of it's time.

I second...Dude, WTF do you mean that is doesn't matter. If the 98-00 gen SI's had more torque, they would be some damn good cars. They are ok now but the torque is low. If the TQ matched the HP, it would be Niiice!

That was just an example.

Let me emphasize this one more time, torque really doesn't help out that much.

Heres another example. Seat Altia. 138 hp. 236 lb ft. 0-60 in 9.9 secs. Weight unknown but can't be any more than 2600 lbs.

diesel? then gearing is a factor..... if that car is diesel then it doesnt apply to what we are discussing.....

torque is a large factor in performance

Im not saying it doesn't matter, but Ive never seen a car with a much greater torque output low down and a small hp with any performance. Though you see it the other way around all the time. But for true performance you need a balance of both within an acceptable powerband.

file not found. someone post it up somewhere else

error

come on, someone else host this shit

Yes somebody host it.