Supra or Bmw?

[SupraMan1784]

yea to be honest i dont know what the hell he was saying

[Greglatta]

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

Well the NA version puts out around 220whp.

The twin turboed version puts out around 380(someone correct if I am wrong).


Nope your wrong. The NA one does but the turboed version creams the BMW all day every day.

Also if you really want to compare them properly you must compare displacemtn to hp output. Meaning whats the ratio of liter to hp? Well the 98 M3 coupe with a 3.2L puts out 240hp whereas the supra with a 2.8L puts out at least 320hp. Gee do the math its a no brainer.

SO THEREFORE THE NUMBERS PROVE THE SUPRA TO BE RIGHT, THE CAR CULTURE PROVES IT TO BE BETTER, THE NUMBERS ON THE TRACK PROVE IT TO BE A BETTER CAR, AND THE NUMBERS AS FAR AS MODIFICATIONS PROVE IT TO BE A BETTER CAR. Hey, if you want to buy a car that will need 700bucks for a simple bolton intake then go for it. Personally I would rather buy a 400dollar boost controller to get about 100hp more.

Hmm honestly you said that a 2.8L TURBO supra puts out 320 ok, you cant compare a turbo to a n/a for hp to litres I think you need to compare a n/a supra 1996 to a n/a 1996 m3, dont be a dick about it either. Come back and argue with a stock n/a supra and a stock 1996 bmw m3 on supercars.net they said it made 316hp

[Thecure634]

why can't you compare a trubo to an NA?

[Blacktiger]

A supra is way sexier, especially if if has some nice wheels.....enough said....

[SKILMATIC]

Originally Posted by Greglatta

Hmm honestly you said that a 2.8L TURBO supra puts out 320 ok, you cant compare a turbo to a n/a for hp to litres I think you need to compare a n/a supra 1996 to a n/a 1996 m3, dont be a dick about it either. Come back and argue with a stock n/a supra and a stock 1996 bmw m3 on supercars.net they said it made 316hp

Excuse me? I think you may be in the wrong area to be arguing this. Because if you knew just one ioda of what cars are about then you wouldnt have exclaimed something so rediculous is that.

Again lets do the math even with NA. A 96 M3 which is a 3.2L puts out 240hp while the supra at 2.8L puts out 220. Gee again do the math. Its another no brainer. I am sorry but even grade schoolers get this stuff. If you cant understand these concepts then I really cant have a formidable discussion with you about this.

[kkiepvvessau]

come to mod not many cars can compare to supra . 1400hp supra that number seem to be rediculuos but it true

[Greglatta]

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

Excuse me? I think you may be in the wrong area to be arguing this. Because if you knew just one ioda of what cars are about then you wouldnt have exclaimed something so rediculous is that.

Again lets do the math even with NA. A 96 M3 which is a 3.2L puts out 240hp while the supra at 2.8L puts out 220. Gee again do the math. Its another no brainer. I am sorry but even grade schoolers get this stuff. If you cant understand these concepts then I really cant have a formidable discussion with you about this.

Did you not look at what I said at the end? 1996 bmw M3 316 hp from a 3.2L while the supra makes 2.8L makes 220

[SKILMATIC]

Originally Posted by Greglatta

Did you not look at what I said at the end? 1996 bmw M3 316 hp from a 3.2L while the supra makes 2.8L makes 220

Dude are you kidding me? Where are you getting that number? The 96 M3 never came stock with 316hp. Seriously, look at any car fax report on either msn autos or do a car search like kelley blue book. All it came with was a 3.2l with 240hp. Ignorance is bliss aint it? The kbb value on it right now in good condition is 14-16grand and has a 5sp manual tranny that gets approximately 28mi/gal on the freeway. It has 236pds/tq @3800rpm with a 24valve DOHC head. The bore and stroke is 3.40x3.53 with a compression ration of 10:5.

Now do I need to school you again? Show me one link where it said that the BMW stock off the dealership lot came with 316hp. You show me this I will bow down to you. However, if you want I can show you at least a dozen links that back my info.

[SKILMATIC]

Now I do know the 01 BMW M3 COMES WITH A 3.2L WITH 333HP. But thats 5 yrs newer. So thats not a real comparison.

Now I will say BMW has made some engine advancements over the years while toyota has kinda stopped for some reason. But it doesnt ignore the fact that toyotas motors are wthout a doubt arguably one of the best most long lasting motors known to mankind. Also did you know that consumer reports have it that in 2005 the best vehicles in 9 different classes were the following: family sedan-honda accord hybrid, smal SUV-subaru forrester, midsized SUV-Lexus RX330, upscale sedan-acura TL, luxury sedan-LS430, 3row SUV-honda pilot, minivan-honda odyssey, fun to drive-subaru impreza(STI), green car-toyota prius.

Now in all 9 cars I did not see 1 german car or american car on there. 3 of the 9 were toyotas while 2 were subarus and the rest hondas. Gee go figure. Like I have been saying all along. And you made me actually research it and I came to find what I have been saying all along was true. lol

[SupraMan1784]

yea man...the 96 m3 did come with a i6 3.2L 240 hp motor....not 316, not sure where your getting that information, but im totally behind skilmatic on this one, show us where ur getting that info...and are you sure that m3 is not modded? skilmatic's math still is right...3.2 240 vs. a 2.8 220? the supra still has more hp/liter