Scooter Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 less road/tyre noise for me (not that you Blitz nur spec etc owners probably know what that even sounds like! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Only thing I would want to change is some of the owners, there's some proper tools about. Cars perfect. Ownerist..!! The only thing I would change is the stock wheels. Oh and OEM skirts as standard. Oh and the fuel economy. Come to think about it I am not keen on the size of the boot, the interior and the headlights. I actually hate this car..!! H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evinX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Nothing, for the supra to be deigned in 1992 and released in 93 is something special, obviously some bits look dated compared to the new cars. But lets be honest the new motors nowdays have no real heart and soul compared to the supra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dnk Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I have a small list but the worst thing for me on a uk spec car is the traction control system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Drink holders That is all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Drink holders That is all! Top answer. But if you remove the ashtray it works just as well...!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamuraiFlash Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Abs & LSD as standard on all supra's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Plethora Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Nobody mentioned aerotop seals yet ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Should have been V8 The NA should have been a V8, that would have been pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 A Ferrari badge on the bonnet. Then my 16 yr old UK spec would still worth £43K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripped_fear Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 A Ferrari badge on the bonnet. Then my 16 yr old UK spec would still worth £43K. It would have cost twice the price from new though And would have to manual aerotops from me I wish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The steering. It's woeful. It wouldn't be so bad if the Supra was just a GT car, but because it actually handles pretty damn well, the comparative lack of pointiness and feeling in the steering is a real let down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The steering. It's woeful. It wouldn't be so bad if the Supra was just a GT car, but because it actually handles pretty damn well, the comparative lack of pointiness and feeling in the steering is a real let down. In stock form perhaps, yes. My car is quite wooly and it's hard to tell where the limit is on corners. Rolls way too much for comfort. Lowered, stiffened and wider wheels + tyres however can sort all that out but at the expense of comfort and the fronts get dragged all over the place by ruts in the roads when they're lower profile and wider as there's less flexibility in the sidewalls. The stock car was biased toward comfort, I think, as 'proper' handling is just frustrating for a daily driver on clogged up roads. All the bumps and none of the fun. Much more precise though. My old Bomex Beast was on another planet compared to the stock one I have now. It had 245 fronts, 265 rears on 18" wheels, lowered about 40-50mm on KYB dampers and handled like a dream. I miss it for that. You could throw it round corners and instead of the back end going out, the fronts would slide slightly if you over did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlliRR Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 defo a weight reduction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 defo a weight reduction. They tried that already. Hollow fibre carpets, plastic headlamps, (saving 2.8Kg btw), lightweight styrene spoiler, cheap, tacky interior etc. I'm comparing it to the MKIII which was significantly heavier because it was better built, apart from turning into rustbuckets, that is. The MKIV cut too many corners to save weight as it is Imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The steering. It's woeful. It wouldn't be so bad if the Supra was just a GT car, but because it actually handles pretty damn well, the comparative lack of pointiness and feeling in the steering is a real let down. Just to illiterate on this point, i totaly agree with you but only in regards to pre facelift cars. Facelift cars have miles better steering feel IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attero Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Standard wheels should have been better. All should have been at least 17" from factory and should have either been wider or came out of the factory with spacers on them. I hate having to be able to fit a small child in my wheel arch in every angle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rock on Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 why didnt they just get rid of the rear seats,weight saver & with that a different deeper boot. http://clubaristo.net/forums/vbpicgallery.php?do=view&g=176 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) I hate having to be able to fit a small child in my wheel arch in every angle. They're lucky. I'd have given anything to have it that easy when I was a child. Every night our Dad would thrash us to within an inch of our lives with his belt, then murder us before bedtime. Try telling the youngsters these days. They don't believe you! (Ed. no Monty Python fans here then?) Edited February 14, 2011 by Morpheus Whoosh! (see edit history) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I'm comparing it to the MKIII which was significantly heavier because it was better built, apart from turning into rustbuckets, that is. The MKIV cut too many corners to save weight as it is Imho. In what way do you think the mkIII was better built than the mkIV? There are very few common mechanical problems with the mkIV, the mkIII suffers more, especially where the engine is concerned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelboyne Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 a deeper boot, and more back support in seats ie lumbar supports, switchable 4wdrive maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Lower, wider and no N/A's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoff Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Honestly, as previously said, the steering is probably the biggest improvement that could have come from the factory. Other than Martins drinks holder it's pretty much there IMO. Especially for the penuts they go for these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodec j Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 aerotop tt 6sp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) In what way do you think the mkIII was better built than the mkIV? How long have you got? I owned two of them in 8 years, keeping the first for most of that time as it was so immaculate inside; a pre-facelift NA manual and a facelift turbo auto, both in white. Used to work with a middle-aged manager with a new BMW 5 series and he said he was never more happy with a car than his old MKIII and I have to say I agree. There's just something about them that you fall inlove with that the MKIV doesn't have for me, mainly interior quality. There's simply no comparison, sorry. I wasn't going to reply as it's going badly off topic but I should have said better designed too, rust notwithstanding. Deep breath..... The interior, whilst not as modern and 'wraparound' as the MKIV, is just a much nicer place to be for me, headroom notwithstanding. A LOT more legroom if you need it like me to feel comfortable, deeper bootspace though narrower between arches, split rear seats leaving no unused space between the bases and their backs when folded flat and with no difficult centre release knob and awful bounce if you drop the seat back, proper quality door handles etc. instead of cheap nasty door cards that curl up where you grip them, (my one anyway), heavier and more solid doors, probably safer too, much more solid dash and switchgear, electric driver's lumber support, electric driver's sidebar supports which the MKIV needs desperately, given the g's it can pull, cool pop-up lights , front fog lamps as standard, ducted-into-door window heater vents for mirrors, bigger glovebox and centre console box iirc, much more solid full width closed steel box section bumpers with moulded full width high density foam shock absorbing infills, (very effective, trust me. The car literally bounces off barriers! ), massive rear lights, airtight ventilation system that doesn't let fumes in so you can sit behind a bus in summer and not even smell it on re-circulate, (my D reg was amazingly airtight), watertight door seals and cockpit so you could drive it through 18" of water in an emergency, (or was it more?) and a top mounted alternator, better driving position for me atleast, fantastic quality velour seat covers but much less hardwearing leather, better quality roof trim and A pillar trim, better fitting interior trim generally. Rear tool storage compartment in side panel with zipped bag toolkit and jack, flatter boot area around fullsize spare wheel and no fiddly polystyrene infill blocks that don't leave a solid flat surface, hardboard wheel cover (not corrugated plastic sheet) with integrated scissor jack handle mounts, much heavier and thicker rear carpet (infact all carpets) with sound insulating backing, sprung roller action rear privacy blind in easily removable enclosure and no fiddly elasticated hooks to let go of when trying to attach them to the hatch, adjustable angle/height headrests and a much more comfortable ride due to the heavier ladder chassis and less vibration felt in the seat. Those are the ones I can remember! Oh yes, hardly any roadnoise compared to the two MKIV's that I've owned so far and an almost silent engine at idle with the bonnet down and a stock exhaust, due again to better sound insulation. The MKIV is a compromise on trim quality to save weight and lower the centre of gravity for better handling and performance but it's at the expense of the solid feel and the quieter, more refined drive of the MKIII in my experience. As for the engine, they're very similar except the higher rev' limit of the 2JZ, probably due to higher tension valve springs, that being the most obvious way to increase rev's. (Deja vu pour moi, n'est-ce pas, IanC? )....The 2JZ is a Lexus engine, afterall and made to even higher spec's than the 7M. Headbolts were an issue for the 7MGE and 7MGTE (gaskets no doubt as well) as they were not torqued adequately. They were later tested independently and it was found that the elastic phase of the bolts could tolerate a significantly higher load without stretching permanently. When I rebuilt my 7MGE head and put 25k on it, I had no issues at the higher bolt tension. Think it was 70lb/ft revised instead of 55 factory or something. Sorry for going off topic again. He made me do it, honest! Edited February 14, 2011 by Morpheus typos (see edit history) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.