Looking for my first supra, convince me not to buy a mr2

[Mr2slow]

I have been browsing this sight as a guest for a few days and have already found answers to alot of questions that i had. I've been doing a lot of research lately and have narrowed it down to a mkiii supra or a mk2 mr2. My first car was a 87 mr2 with swapped 4agze from an 89. This is now gone and whatever i decide to buy will be my dd. I've been looking into mkiii supras and I feel like there's always work needed to be done where as the mr2 is more reliable. Of course i understand any 20 year car needs work to be kept running right. I'm not a mechanic by any means but I'm decent with cars, I've done some minor mods on my mr2 such as aftermarket headers/ exhaust, upgraded brakes, as well as replacing some bad parts such as a blown headgasket, new fuel pump, old cracking piping etc.... I have also helped with a couple swaps one in an 88? Celica and transplanting a 13b and tranny into an rx7( which was another car I was looking into). Anyways tho the bottom line is I want an mr2 but am really leaning towards a supra( my dream car is a built mkiv , but I don't have the money and to be honest the experience to handle it) I know I keep getting off track but basically I want to know what I would be getting myself into with a supra.
I guess my questions are these;
Am I better going for turbo(which I'd prefer) or n/a?

Is one more reliable than the other?

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.

What is the best/most reliable/ difficulty with each swap

Were there any major differences made between 86 and 92?

Are older supras known for any major problems other than the hg blowing?

Am I better just getting a mr2?( probably the wrong question to ask on a supra forum lol)

Thank you

[cre]

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr2slow

What is the best/most reliable/ difficulty with each swap

See the past couple responses.

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.

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.

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.