Turbo Or Non-turbo? Supra

February 8, 2004

Dear all:

I am not too much of a knowledgeable guy when it comes to turbo cars vs. non-turbos. Do you think that if I were in the market for a 93 to 95 year model supra, it would behoove me to get the non-turbo version (for ease and economy of maintenance)?

If I were to buy a Supra, it would be for the handling and I think the non-turbo version would handle just fine. As far as speed, I think the 220 HP is just fine. Any higher, I think it runs into diminishing returns (of course I have never driven a turbo, so I can't really say that I really know . On paper, a 220 hp car and a 320 hp car don't have that big of difference in the 0-60 mph time). Plus, non-turb has a softer suspension, so it will be more pleasure to tour with it. I also don't want any form of headaches ie: Reliability and longevity is a huge issue with me. Therefore, the question is: Do turbos generally add more maintenance headaches?

A friend tells me that when he looks for Porches, he looks for the Turbo bodied (but NON-turbo) 1986-1988 911's. He says that in Porches, the Turbos are more touchy and engines don't last as long. Is it the same story with the supras?

Thx in advance. Please excuse the amateurish nature of the question. I am a newbie. Currently I drive a 160 hp Prelude and I sure could use the 220 hp of a supra.

February 8, 2004

1993 Toyota Supra

from Consumer Guide®

1993-1998 Toyota Supra

Highlights

Toyota revived its sports car in the summer of 1993--more potent and far more costly than the 1986-92 generation. Sole body style was a 2-door hatchback coupe with 2+2 seating and a one-piece folding rear seatback. Toyota offered base and Turbo models. Both had dual airbags and all-disc antilock brakes. The Turbo also got traction control and a limited-slip differential, in addition to a firmer sport-tuned suspension. Both models could be equipped with an optional Sport Roof--a removable aluminum panel over the front seats. Power was supplied by a 3.0-liter dual-cam inline 6-cylinder engine. Base Supras ran 220 horsepower, while twin turbochargers gave the Turbo 320 horses. Base cars came with a 5-speed manual transmission; Turbos, a 6-speed. A 4-speed automatic transmission was optional on either model.

Road Test Evaluation

The Turbo takes its time catching hold at low engine speeds; but when it does, the power surges into play dramatically. That can be annoying around town, actually--you get little power initially, but then an avalanche suddenly arrives as the twin turbos kick in.

Handling is top-notch on all Supras, with little body lean through turns and tenacious grip from the low-profile tires. On normal roads--smooth and dry--you get a secure, planted feeling as the suspension soaks up bumps fairly well. On rough pavement, the Supra begins to lose its composure. Tires bang over every pavement flaw, transmitting every little ripple into the cockpit. Traction diminishes greatly on wet surfaces, too.

The driver and passenger have ample head and leg room, but the back seat is basically for decoration. Cargo space also is limited, as the trunk is shallow and has a high liftover. Visibility is good to the front, fair to the sides, but poor to the rear, restricted by the narrow back window and tall tail.

Gauges and controls are easy to see and reach, except for the radio, which is mounted too low.

February 8, 2004

Alot of what you want comes down to personal prefrence. The best thing to do is test drive both.

Cost wise a NA will be a little bit less to buy. Running costs are not all that diffrent, unless you like driving fast then a TT is better on the fuel, but NA insurance is more that TT.

The reliability of both is super, unless the car is modded. There are very few un-prevoked failures in both models. The only big problems with the TT's are the turbos, and only when pushed beond there design boost level.

Go to the MKIVsupra.net link below. do a search and most of your questions will be answered.

Tim

February 20, 2004

Ive owned and daily driven a 93 TT supra for the last 3 years without any problems...

by far the most reliable car ive ever owned....

just keep the servicing up and you should be apples :thumbsup:

February 21, 2004

Looking for low maintenance???????????? :lol:

You even know what a Supra is?.... if anything goes wrong.. dont expect the bill to be low mate.. like the others have said.. FSH is the key... :thumbsup: