Hey, my friend has a 1989 Toyota supra turbo with 110,000 miles, i have a 1999 v6 mustang, both our cars are stock. He wants to race me, i checked both our quarter miles, mines a little faster, and so is my 0-60 time, who do you think would win? or should i wait to get my CAI, and definatelly smoke him, or just wait til i get my new headers, exhaust, underdrive pullies, and gears. Or should i just kick his ass in stock mode..tell me what you guys think...
I race my friends all the time (on the track of course) and we don't take it real serious. If I always knew I would win before racing, it would take all the fun out of it.
But I would say that you should win and the fact that your car is 10 years newer makes a big diff in itself. Those Supra's were pretty good running cars, so who knows.
Have fun and help each other out.
__________________
-1998 Black Cobra, Kenne Bell 2.1L Supercharged
-2005 Mustang GT, Premium, 5spd, Redfire, Mac Catback
-2007 Roush Nitemare Stage 3 Supercharged #48 of 100
If the car was driven hard and no work done to the motor or turbo, its probably bagged. I would be shocked if that thing could come close to its as new performance.
I know this kid near me who thinks he is godly with his '89 turbo Supra, he took it to the track and ran a 17.6. Based on that its a definate win. Not to mention older cars had bad top end acceleration.
__________________
-Steve Clark
Real Eyes Realise Real Lies
Legends never die.. R.I.P. John E. Lingenfelter ~1945-2003
Many many things to correct here. First of all, The 87-92 Turbo Supra (only 87-92's were turbo from factory) were neck and neck with the Coevette as far as performance. If you do not believe me look it up. Stock for stock any V6 Mustang would get beat. My buddy found this out the hard way with his 00 anniversary V6. He had full X pipe exhaust, CAI, plugs wires, and some ECU work. The only thing on my 1987 Turbo Supra were 3 washers for the wastegate. I beat him by well over 5 car lengths by 110mph. (did i forget that i had a BHG at the time as well!!!)
2nd:
as far as the guy running a 17 sec 1/ in his turbo MK3. The only way possible for this to happen is if he broke somehting on the car, or missed evrery gear. My buddy has a 91T with only exhaust and intake and can run 14.00 et on a 145K mile engine. The driver of that particular 17 sec car was an idiot or it wasn't Turbo.
To the originator of the post:
you're telling me The V6 mustang has a faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile time than the corvette?? I really want to see where a NA V6 is faster than a V8. Please show me. You more than likely saw the specs on teh 2.0Turbo (only in Japan) or the 7M-GE (Non Turbo engine) The non Turbo would be a better race for the V6 Mustang stock for stock. Then it would coem down to driver skill. The only way you should beat this guy in his 89Turbo Supra is if he has no clue how to race his car.
By the way, I live in Waco, TX. If anyone on here has a V6 Stang that wants to prove me wrong, feel free to stop by after Feb 09. That's when I'll be back from deployment.
I'm not attempting to trashtalk or put down the Mustang, just state that it is not in the same class as the 87-92 turbo supra as far as performance when stock. Upgrading both cars might turn out different. Just keep in mind that the MK3 Supra has reached (quite frequently) 350-490RWHP in BPU status. Basic Performance Upgrades. That's upgrading basic things under the hood and not swapping the turbo out. You retain the stock turbo (possibly upgraded) and build around it. I'm sure you know the Turbo is the heart and soul of the Turbo Supra power.
Again, I say I'm just stating what has been put out by magazines (road and track mainly) on the turbo Supra performance. Not trying to start a war or anythign at all.
Many many things to correct here. First of all, The 87-92 Turbo Supra (only 87-92's were turbo from factory) were neck and neck with the Coevette as far as performance. If you do not believe me look it up. Stock for stock any V6 Mustang would get beat. My buddy found this out the hard way with his 00 anniversary V6. He had full X pipe exhaust, CAI, plugs wires, and some ECU work. The only thing on my 1987 Turbo Supra were 3 washers for the wastegate. I beat him by well over 5 car lengths by 110mph. (did i forget that i had a BHG at the time as well!!!)
2nd:
as far as the guy running a 17 sec 1/ in his turbo MK3. The only way possible for this to happen is if he broke somehting on the car, or missed evrery gear. My buddy has a 91T with only exhaust and intake and can run 14.00 et on a 145K mile engine. The driver of that particular 17 sec car was an idiot or it wasn't Turbo.
To the originator of the post:
you're telling me The V6 mustang has a faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile time than the corvette?? I really want to see where a NA V6 is faster than a V8. Please show me. You more than likely saw the specs on teh 2.0Turbo (only in Japan) or the 7M-GE (Non Turbo engine) The non Turbo would be a better race for the V6 Mustang stock for stock. Then it would coem down to driver skill. The only way you should beat this guy in his 89Turbo Supra is if he has no clue how to race his car.
By the way, I live in Waco, TX. If anyone on here has a V6 Stang that wants to prove me wrong, feel free to stop by after Feb 09. That's when I'll be back from deployment.
I'm not attempting to trashtalk or put down the Mustang, just state that it is not in the same class as the 87-92 turbo supra as far as performance when stock. Upgrading both cars might turn out different. Just keep in mind that the MK3 Supra has reached (quite frequently) 350-490RWHP in BPU status. Basic Performance Upgrades. That's upgrading basic things under the hood and not swapping the turbo out. You retain the stock turbo (possibly upgraded) and build around it. I'm sure you know the Turbo is the heart and soul of the Turbo Supra power.
Again, I say I'm just stating what has been put out by magazines (road and track mainly) on the turbo Supra performance. Not trying to start a war or anythign at all.
2000 Anniversary edition V6? Are you sure you know what you are talking about? lol
Take a look at the early 80's Corvette and say that they are in any way fast... lmao
I think that the new V6 Mustang may be able to give an 84 Corvette a run for its money. You did not specify what year or model of V6. Look at a Nissan VQ35/37, they would tear an old Vette to pieces and they are an n/a V6.
You are acting like the old Turbo Supra's are fast, they are not. They did have 230hp but they were heavy too. 3500lbs is not exactly light. I would say that it would be a driver's race since the older car is probably not making all of its hp and may not be in the best condition overall. They are not bad cars but they are not great cars either. I have never been a big fan of their styling but I am not a fan of too many cars from the 80's either, with the exception of the 190e 16v and the BMW M series. They are sexy and quick. lol
LMAO no kidding this thread is more than old its ancient!
Your avatar is funny as hell too, where did you find that pic?
It's from a thread on bodybuilding.com forums. There was a guy that posted some horrendous pics of a girl modeling with an ugly Acura, and we all started posting that picture haha.
It's from a thread on bodybuilding.com forums. There was a guy that posted some horrendous pics of a girl modeling with an ugly Acura, and we all started posting that picture haha.
I'm pretty sure I said an NA V6 Stang. And as far as the 00 V6... I don't know much about Stangs, I'm just going off what he said he had. Then again this guy has managed to mis shift his auto Stang on many occasions, and blown the LSD in it as he claims. I've witnessed him racing and he's not exactly the brightest.
Also, I've yet to have a V6 Stang hang with me. I'm not saying they can't do it, just saying that stock for stock they can't unless the Supra is on it's last leg. I know the MK3 Supra isn't the fastest nor do I claim it to be. Hell it only runs mid 14's, which I think is pretty good for an old car that's heavy. Especially with high mileage on it. I believe everyone knows that once you start modifying any vehicle, a Charged vehicle will respond better to the same additions as compared to an all motor vehicle. I'm not saying the 80's Corvette is top of the line either, but back in the 80's it was a top conteder. (Depending on what model) Even the 5.0 Fox body's have been taken down stock for stock by the MK3 Turbo. It all comes down to driver, and if both are equal the MK3T will win every time.
__________________
89 Turbo supra - 400RWHP when I make it back
04 Caddy - Daily ;)
Just started back up. Haven't been able to do so for the past few months because of a hectic work/school week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supralvr89
I'm pretty sure I said an NA V6 Stang. And as far as the 00 V6... I don't know much about Stangs, I'm just going off what he said he had. Then again this guy has managed to mis shift his auto Stang on many occasions, and blown the LSD in it as he claims. I've witnessed him racing and he's not exactly the brightest.
Also, I've yet to have a V6 Stang hang with me. I'm not saying they can't do it, just saying that stock for stock they can't unless the Supra is on it's last leg. I know the MK3 Supra isn't the fastest nor do I claim it to be. Hell it only runs mid 14's, which I think is pretty good for an old car that's heavy. Especially with high mileage on it. I believe everyone knows that once you start modifying any vehicle, a Charged vehicle will respond better to the same additions as compared to an all motor vehicle. I'm not saying the 80's Corvette is top of the line either, but back in the 80's it was a top conteder. (Depending on what model) Even the 5.0 Fox body's have been taken down stock for stock by the MK3 Turbo. It all comes down to driver, and if both are equal the MK3T will win every time.
lulz. We're far and between. Guarantee my little n/a v6 will hang. And as soon as I finish my build, I'll stomp ya for fun
1999 v6 Mustang VS. 1989 Toyota Supra 
) and we don't take it real serious. If I always knew I would win before racing, it would take all the fun out of it.
/
