| Message |
So first off, let me preface what I've got to say with the cars I have now are a 94 Supra TT BPU, and a 96 300ZX Stage II. I've driven both cars at Thunderhill Raceway in Willows, CA (Supra once, Z twice), both with Hoosier R303s on the exact same wheels. (Just in case there are issues with the 96TT that make this an unfair comparison, I'll restrict my comments to some base comparisons and handling only. I have driven a 92TT Stage III once, but I don't think I'm qualified to talk about StageIII vs BPU as far as power goes.) OK. So here goes:
The Supra engine is the Toyota 2JZ-GTE, an inline 3 liter 6. It is noticeably smoother at idle than the Z's V6. The turbo setup on the Supra is a sequential twin setup - so 1 turbo is tuned to provide modest boost levels at lower RPMs to counter turbo lag on the second turbo, which is tuned to kick in at higher RPMs. The Z has a true twin setup. As far as handling goes, I find the Z easier to control around turns. The Supra, with a slightly longer wheelbase
seems more sensitive to pitch, and abrupt lifts of the throttle while brake-turn does cause the rear end to come out quite easily. Although it's relatively easy to reign in. I think that you'll find that because of HICAS on the Supra TT, the turn-ins on the Supra aren't as crisp, however, when you're powering out of a turn, you don't have the vagueness in the rear end you see in the Z. (no, I haven't done the HICAS elimination yet...) Both these cars were track'd after suspension upgrades, (the Supra to KYB AGX 4-position shocks, Eibach springs, the Z to new stock shocks, and Eibach springs). Brakes: Stock brakes on both cars, tracked with Porterfield R4 pads and Motul 600 fluid. These are PURE Race compound pads, and they squeal like crazy on the street. The Supra DEFINITELY has better brakes. However I think I must have boiled the fluid at the track, because on the 2nd last session of the day in the Supra, I experienced pretty major brake fade. Not so in the Z, even though I was pushing it harder... As to stability... I think the Supra seems more stable at speed. I find the Z tends to get light at speed (I don't know how else to describe this) - but I would recommend going to an autocross and to a track, and getting rides with some folks in these cars. Anyway - these are my opinions. I can't stress enough test-driving it for yourself. -Darryl Also, if you intend on tracking the Supra at all, TRY to get a slicktop TT - the frame is SO much more rigid in these. They are REALLY hard to come by, only imported in 93 - 95 (about 233 in 93, 75 in 94, and 18 in 95.) As bad as the Z's are with the t-tops, the Supra is WORSE with the sport roof. Production numbers for the Supra: 12000 or so from 93.5 -> 98. 6000 were turbos. If you want to change the ECU, get a 93.5 -> 96 model, otherwise if you have a 97-98 model, the ECU upgrade is $1800 instead of $600. (you have a buy a 95 factory ECU first, then the upgrade.) : Ok, so lately I have been toying with the idea of keeping my 94 NA Z' and getting a 94 TT Supra to go along with it. Around, Tampa there seem to be a few of these popping up with relatively low miles, and I must admit its tempting. My question being to any of you who have had both cars, how do the handling charachteristics compare? I've driven a TT-Z, and a 3000GT VR4....and well lets just say the 3000GT did nothing for me..it was cramped, and fealt as though it had body roll....but I have never driven a TT Supra. I love the way my Z handles, and its cornering charachteristics are very predictable, and controllable. So, how does the Supra stack up? I'm just curious what some honest opinions of the Supra TT are. If the concensus is bad, I will just wait a while longer save up more money and find a 94 or 95' Z-TT. I'm also curious how the costs of maintance and modification compare in general. Please no flaming, I still love my Z....I'm just questioning my choice of a Twin-Turbo. Thanks.
 |
 |
05:37:08 09/16/00
