Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by skyzerr33

that supra sure does look line a gtst hehe

the n/a is quite respectable but the gtst should take it.

Oh yeah if I squint hard enouogh I can see the similarity :)

My girlfriend described it as a Frog from Star Wars (GT-Wing) :D

Hmm looks as though the N/A Supra will be an easy target for those Commodores now :P

Originally posted by GTAAH

Questionable move there dude, NA Supras are a high 14 car if you're lucky. Worst thing is you can maybe screw another 10-15hp out of them easily and thats it.

Jash

Yeah, I know .. I didn't buy an N/A car and expect it to be fast. I just thought that there are too may Skylines in the street and that the Supra looks a lot nicer, my opinion only of sourse :P

As long as it's as fast as my girlfriend's 2000 Prelude, I'm happy, because the only person I'll probably race against would be her :)

Still though. high 14 for a na car is awesome

what does ur average N/A v8 pull? with litle to no tuning as this car has had.

Jash- could u posibly approximate what a TT MkIV with an auto should run down the qtr. (stock) i just want to see if my dad is driving bad or the limits of the car are about 14.11

thanx - Psiker

Originally posted by GTS-t VSPEC

Very nice looking Supra. I think the NA Supras have 178kw, which is not bad, and a mid 14 1/4 time on street tyres. They have the looks but will not be as quick as the GTS-t.  

See'ya:burnout:

I think this is a "chick magnet" rather than a Commodore killer :P

Anyway, here is the specs

1996 Toyota Supra SZ-R

3.0L non-turbo

6 speed manual automatic

Volk TE37 alloy wheels

aftermarket body kit

GT rear wing (original included also)

aftermarket exhaust & air filter

aftermarket suspension

Bride drivers seat

Recaro passengr seat

steering wheel

CD player & subwoofer

Does anyone know if you can tell the difference between a TT Supra and an N/A, just by looking at the exterior ??

Bye

Richard.

Originally posted by Nizmo

poser hahah

nah nice wheels mate - but arent u going to get bored of an N/A - know i would :P

Definately a poser car :) !!!

But as for being bored I ws actually getting bored with the R33 GTST :D .. I bought the Supra because of the way it looks and the style, which in my opinion is much nicer than the GTST.

Anyway, probably keep this for 2 years and then get an NSX. Now that's a car that no one woul call boring !!! ;)

Bye

Richard.

Originally posted by simplelogik

I think this is a "chick magnet" rather than a Commodore killer :P  

Anyway, here is the specs  

1996 Toyota Supra SZ-R

3.0L non-turbo

6 speed manual automatic

Volk TE37 alloy wheels

aftermarket body kit

GT rear wing (original included also)

aftermarket exhaust & air filter

aftermarket suspension

Bride drivers seat

Recaro passengr seat

steering wheel

CD player & subwoofer

Does anyone know if you can tell the difference between a TT Supra and an N/A, just by looking at the exterior ??

Bye

Richard.

i saw that car on the PMS (prestige motorsport) mailing list..

ooooh triptronic - always wanted triptronic haha they're fun - i know its not the dinky-di manual but still wish my baby was triptronic.

Poser car - well i guess i'll see you doing laps around northo on a sat night with the other posers then haha :P

Love your work mate definately a horny looking car.

Originally posted by Adrian_perth

man n/a?

wheres the fun in that?

nice car

but i reckon the main reason for owning a jap import

is the fun you get out of it by moding it?

correct me if i'm wrong!

adrian :P

Hehe I don't waste money on making my car faster, because even my 1st car, a 79 Mazda 323 is capable of going faster than the legal speed limit :) ..

Anyway, the only "mods" that I spend money on these days is my house, and after spending 10s of thousand of dollars, the bloody thing is still no quicker than when I first bought it :D ..

Originally posted by simplelogik

Anyway, the only "mods" that I spend money on these days  is my house, and after spending 10s of thousand of dollars, the bloody thing is still no quicker than when I first bought it :P ..

hahaha

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Input shaft bearing. They all do it. There is always rollover noise in Nissan boxes - particularly the big box. Don't worry about it unless it gets really growly.
    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
×
×
  • Create New...