Whats the deal with supras? (not a seinfeld skit)

Hi everybody,
Please do not hold my personal negative feelings towards the supra
against me, but I was wondering what the appeal was? I know beauty is
in the eye of the beholder but from a performance standpoint I would
like someone to give me a few reasons. Keep in mind this is a quest for
knowledge and not an invitation to criticize my taste of vehicles (or
lack thereof)
thanks again
steve
[url]www.mydreamwheels.com[/url]

steve goodsworth wrote:[color=blue]
> Hi everybody,
> Please do not hold my personal negative feelings towards the supra
> against me, but I was wondering what the appeal was? I know beauty is
> in the eye of the beholder but from a performance standpoint I would
> like someone to give me a few reasons. Keep in mind this is a quest for
> knowledge and not an invitation to criticize my taste of vehicles (or
> lack thereof)
> thanks again
> steve
> [url]www.mydreamwheels.com[/url][/color]

The turbocharged versions are fairly fast as stock, and are easily
tunable to fairly monsterous power on stock internals. Seems a good
enough reason to me. I'm not a huge fan of their looks but each to his
own. Can you suggest a better option for the same sort of price?

"steve goodsworth" <stevegoodsworth@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144903190.354560.307200@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> Hi everybody,
> Please do not hold my personal negative feelings towards the supra
> against me, but I was wondering what the appeal was? I know beauty is
> in the eye of the beholder but from a performance standpoint I would
> like someone to give me a few reasons. Keep in mind this is a quest for
> knowledge and not an invitation to criticize my taste of vehicles (or
> lack thereof)
> thanks again
> steve
> [url]www.mydreamwheels.com[/url]
>[/color]

Well, I really like the sytling. I always have.
The car MOVES, and mine is an ailing Non-Turbo with a bad automatic. I'd
like to see what it's going to be like when everything's fixed and I have a
5 speed in it.

I think it looks cool (gee, did I say that already?)

For a sports car that has a shot at keeping up with much more expensive
cars, it has a lot of creature comforts.

It handles like crazy, and I have bad shocks and about the cheapest tires I
could put on it. Even with everything stock it handles well; when I get the
shocks and possibly springs replaced I can imagine it will grip the road
even better than it does.
And, the guys that tune their suspensions must feel like it's glued to the
road.

But, a small confession: I actually like my '85 Celica GTS better than the
Supra. It FEELS faster, and even with lousy springs and shocks and cheap
tires (Coopers, actually not bad, just noisy) it grips the road like it's on
rails. It's a lot more fun to drive.

And my Corolla GTS is even better than that!

Oh, did I mention the Supra looks cool? I have thought so ever since the Gen
III came out in 1986.

"steve goodsworth" <stevegoodsworth@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1144903190.354560.307200@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> Hi everybody,
> Please do not hold my personal negative feelings towards the supra
> against me, but I was wondering what the appeal was? I know beauty is
> in the eye of the beholder but from a performance standpoint I would
> like someone to give me a few reasons. Keep in mind this is a quest for
> knowledge and not an invitation to criticize my taste of vehicles (or
> lack thereof)
> thanks again
> steve
> [url]www.mydreamwheels.com[/url]
>
>[/color]

I bought my Supra in 1987 and has been a good car. It was good then
and its still good today. Driven every day and never even needed a
wheel alignment. And its nailed its fair share of stuff in the road too.
Just shelled out $800+ for new tires (Goodyear's F1) even with
no alignment worries. 8)

But I do remember one time a few years back it was a quart
low when I had the oil (every 10,000 miles) changed.
21 MPG highway is not to hot either.

Dan

--end

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:22:31 +0000, Danny G. wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "steve goodsworth" <stevegoodsworth@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1144903190.354560.307200@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>> Hi everybody,
>> Please do not hold my personal negative feelings towards the supra
>> against me, but I was wondering what the appeal was? I know beauty is
>> in the eye of the beholder but from a performance standpoint I would
>> like someone to give me a few reasons. Keep in mind this is a quest for
>> knowledge and not an invitation to criticize my taste of vehicles (or
>> lack thereof)
>> thanks again
>> steve
>> [url]www.mydreamwheels.com[/url]
>>
>>[/color]
>
> I bought my Supra in 1987 and has been a good car. It was good then
> and its still good today. Driven every day and never even needed a
> wheel alignment. And its nailed its fair share of stuff in the road too.
> Just shelled out $800+ for new tires (Goodyear's F1) even with
> no alignment worries. 8)
>
> But I do remember one time a few years back it was a quart
> low when I had the oil (every 10,000 miles) changed.
> 21 MPG highway is not to hot either.
>
> Dan[/color]

OK...mine's in fair shape, and I thought the 21 MPG would go up if I put
some $$$$ into it.

Thanks!

--
In the grand scheme fo things...
What difference does it make?

Well, I suppose that every car has it's following. Also, if it handles
as well as you say it would definatly cheaper to drive a supra ( minus
speeding tickets) that my m5. Thanks for the insight guys
steve
[url]www.mydreamwheels.com[/url]

I used to have a '90 Supra, in the body style that resembled
(and was heavier than) the contemporary Firebird. It was one
of the best cars I've ever owned. Mine was a non-turbo and
so wasn't all that quick off the line, but it was comfortable
and was extremely stable at high speeds. And boy, did it handle.
The only reason I got rid of it was because I moved and had a
long commute through the mountains, and the fuel bills were
killing me.



Geoff

--
[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-2011570,00.html[/url]

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:e20qro$cgd@u1.netgate.net...[color=blue]
>
>
> I used to have a '90 Supra, in the body style that resembled
> (and was heavier than) the contemporary Firebird. It was one
> of the best cars I've ever owned. Mine was a non-turbo and
> so wasn't all that quick off the line, but it was comfortable
> and was extremely stable at high speeds. And boy, did it handle.
> The only reason I got rid of it was because I moved and had a
> long commute through the mountains, and the fuel bills were
> killing me.
>
>
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> [url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-2011570,00.html[/url]
>[/color]

Yes, it is certainly NOT the most fuel-efficient car I have ever owned, but
I only drive 20 miles to work, and on a warm day, with the roof off and the
radio cranking, it is worth the premium price I pay to drive it!

Mine's an '88, non-Turbo with the sport roof. I don't know how much weight
having the removable panel adds, but the car weighs 4400 LBS!!!!!

It gets about 18 MPG, but I also have a leaky fuel tank, so I am losing some
to evaporation. The new tank (NO aftermarket, Toyota only, $336!!!) get
installed Saturday...