Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr2slow
I guess my questions are these;
Am I better going for turbo(which I'd prefer) or n/a?
|
If you want turbo, buy turbo...
Nothing like paying too much for a used car to only set yourself up to have it sitting in the garage in a thousand pieces while you try to find all the missing small pieces for the swap and then can't figure out what you missed when it won't run. That and the fact that unless you buy just a shell you'll usually end up paying more from buying a N/A and then everything else piecemeal.
If you buy a turbo up front you get to start making actual power mods as soon as you're sure it's sound and the regular maintenance is done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr2slow
Is one more reliable than the other?
|
No, not really.
I would personally avoid buying a modified MKIII at all unless it is IMMACULATE and the work is solid... I would NOT buy a modified N/A; There are no power adding mods for the N/A that do anything and the ones that crowd insists on are weak hacks at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr2slow
I'm not looking for tons of power to start but would like to upgrade as time goes on while still keeping reliability. Am I better off building up slowly or saving for a swap.
|
You're best off saving and waiting to buy the cleanest one you can find. Buy what's as close to your goal as possible while still being realistic. Also buy with your limitations in mind; For example: if you can't do body work don't buy anything with a crap body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr2slow
What is the best/most reliable/ difficulty with each swap
|
See the past couple responses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr2slow
Were there any major differences made between 86 and 92?
|
A more thoroughly balanced, heavier crank shaft in the 89+ resulting in a lower red line; Cosmetic changes: plastic exterior trim, different bumper, tail lights; Stereo system had more speakers and options; 91+ had 5 spoke wheels... There's not really anything which would change my mind if I found a very clean pre89 model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr2slow
Are older supras known for any major problems other than the hg blowing?
|
Age and almost every one has a history of abuse just because of what they are... People buy them cheap, beat the crap out of them, "upgrade" them as cheaply as possible and then run away when something big starts making noise.
Other than the usual stuff for an old car (hoses, vacuum lines, oil seals and gaskets) the suspension almost always needs a lot of attention; Not only are these old but they're VERY heavy cars. Bushings, end links, ball joints, springs, dampers and so on could stand to be replaced on every one of these cars I've ever worked on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr2slow
Am I better just getting a mr2?( probably the wrong question to ask on a supra forum lol)
|
LOL, see sig. I've owned a couple of both...
For a daily driver I recommend the MKII MR2 over the MKIII Supra any day. Even with power modifications it will see better mileage. The agility of the car makes it a lot more fun in daily traffic too. For highway driving, many find the Supra to be a bit quieter... adding some modern sound insulation the firewall in the MR2 helps but the Supra still requires you to turn up the stereo a bit less (unless you do something horrible with the exhaust system).
Overall, I don't really think the Supra was a well engineered vehicle; well, not until it was too late and the MKIV was placed out of the reach and minds of the market which would have preferred it. They're fun vehicles with a *decent* power potential but I can't say that I expect to ever own another; At least nothing other than a MKIV.
Having driven both of these vehicles when they were new and having driven many of each in recent years I must say that the MKII MR2 does tend to age better (better than the MKI MR2 as well).
My choice in relatively common "sporty" vehicles of this vintage would be (in order): MKII MR2, Celica All-Trac Turbo, RX-7 or Supra (tied)... I could go for a month listing rare and uncommon cars I'd like.