| Author | Topic |
|---|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Toodyay, WA
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
RA65 vs RA60
|
Fri, 09 August 2002 11:20
|
 |
Hey Guys,
Whats the diff between a RA65 and a RA60??
I've beening thinking about getting one of these, but unsure which one to go for...
plans are to drop in a 1g-gte...
From what i've read this is a fairly simple conversion...
Any this i should be on the look out for in one of these celica's?
Thanks,
CamZH
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne, VIC
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
 Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Fri, 09 August 2002 14:52
|
|
They have different front ends (RA60 has the lay back lights while the RA65 had the proper pop up lights).
The RA65 has IRS. Which also means that it's heavier.
The brakes are the same. 10" ventilated fronts and 10" rear drums.
I think there are a few interior differences too.
|
|
|
Banned member
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Sun, 11 August 2002 06:58
|
|
ra65 had a 22re motor and a ra60 had a 21rc, which in my opinion is a waste of metal even when used as a boat anchor
the ra65 in mine and most peoples opinions have a sexier front due to the difference in the REAL popup headlights not the shitty layback pop forward style in the ra60
interiors are mostly better in ra65's as most ra60's had cloth and ra65's have either cloth/velour or as mine vinyl/velour
and then theres the IRS that the ra65's got which makes a hell of a lot of difference with hardened suspension it is great offroad/tarmac
cheers
wayne
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Sun, 11 August 2002 09:55
|
|
Both 22R-E and 21R-C are boat anchors. The best mod you can do to them is remove them from the car... 
I don't really see the advantage of the IRS in the RA65. The ride might be slightly better, but the weight disadvantage plus the problems with lowering are huge turn offs in my mind.
The RA65 front is much better though.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Sun, 11 August 2002 10:14
|
|
The pop-ups on the RA65 are much nicer in my opinion.
I don't think the interiors are that much nicer if at all in the ones I've been in, you'd really like a Mk2 Supra interior anyway, because most of the panelling is or a higher quality anyway.
The IRS is supposed to be more composed on rougher stuff, with a slightly nicer ride. I don't actually think the weight difference could be that much. On a smooth road the RA65 can't corner any harder than an RA60, but once the road gets worse you may notice. Both I've found are awesome on gravel, being able to pretty much point them where you want.
If I were you, I'd just get a RA65 or even an SA63 for the conversion.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Sun, 11 August 2002 10:47
|
|
IRS really shines on a bumpy road. I've never driven an RA60, but the difference between my RA23 and MA61 is like chalk and cheese when it comes to the rough stuff. The RA23 has the better handling on a smooth road, but show it some mid-corner bumps and things get ugly in a hurry! The Supra on the other hand just wiggles its bum a bit and keeps going.
Don't get me wrong, a well-sorted live axle can be made to work very nicely indeed, but well-sorted IRS is going to have the upper hand.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne, VIC
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Sun, 11 August 2002 12:13
|
|
I must be the only person ever to prefer the RA60 front 
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Sun, 11 August 2002 14:41
|
|
|
I don't prefer the RA60 front, but I definetly don't mind it as much as some of the people on here do.
|
|
|
Location:
The Rainy City
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
 Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 00:40
|
|
Actually to me, the RA60 front is the third worst Toyota design. It comes behind the RA40 liftback and, the mother of them all, the RA6x coupe. *shudder*
I've never driven an IRS RA6x so I can't really comment, but I can tell you that I still have the stock 3.5" speakers in my car because anything larger will add weight... So weight is pretty important to me. The IRS would have to be superiour all the time for me to want it, 'coz from what I've heard, there's a huge weight difference.
|
|
|
Location:
The Rainy City
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 01:54
|
|
hehe maybe my tastes are just biased by the fact that i used to own a 65 coupe 
to me a 65 coupe with tinted windows, clean ass paint (silver of course  ) and some modest 16 inch rims and a slight lowering job to improve its lowered nose stance... hmmmm with maybe 1g propulsion... *drool*
ok i have weird tastes, so sue me. 
Cheers
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 04:07
|
|
the RA6x coupe is ugly, I distinctly remember starting a flame or 2 a few months back with that statement  reminds me of an exa's unsexy rear end.
I dont know why everyone is raving so hard about the IRS tho... the extra weight in the back of the car is appreciated by me, but my back still tens to swing out when i hit a bump going hard into a corner. Although my idea of hard and everyone else's may be slightly different
the 22R is a slightly better engine... it's heavier, but if you take the cat off it it produces a bit more power than the ra60.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 04:07
|
|
|
not that I'd do something illegal like take the cat off, of course
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 04:22
|
|
| draven wrote on Mon, 12 August 2002 2:07 PM |
but my back still tens to swing out when i hit a bump going hard into a corner.
|
Dude, you should feel a mid corner bump in my car...
Although if an RA65 was lowered 2", mid corner bumps would prolly be way worse...
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 04:39
|
|
Well, consider this...
I got an RA65 because I wanted a car that no one would want to
1) break into
2) scratch
3) look at
i.e. I think they are pretty ugly cars !!
BUT the main reason I got mine was to make it a Stealth Mobile ... so go figure ! 
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 04:59
|
|
I dont mind mine at all... liftback makes the bum look sexier, and my rubber boot ornament makes it look better yet
basically I'm just in love with my baby, and won't hear anybody knockin' her looks
|
|
|
Location:
The Rainy City
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 05:06
|
|
I agree that the rear end, and the overall design is similar to an exa (but ones a piece of shite, ones a hoon mobile. u decide which) but... theres something about the grown up exa look... hehe
i used to think that an obese person sat on the boot of the prototype 65 coupe, hence the shape of the lights. But after a while.. it grew on me, or maybe i had a comparatively nice example to begin with...
i darno, whatever rocks ur world i guess.
Cheers
|
|
|
Banned member
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 07:37
|
|
having owned both ra60 and ra65's i can say for sure i noticed no difference at all on a smooth road with stock suspension but once both were lowered/hardened susp. the ra65 definatly could corner way harder and on gravel it was awesome esp 1st gear 90km/h (thats with a few mods to the motor of course)
the 22re definatly pulls harder from the lights and the stock wheels are just too shit in the wet, i remember never being able to take off without wheelspin with 215 tyres
if a engine swap is in mind then id get a ra65 as it has EFI already so the fuel lines tank etc. make it easier for an upgrade
im picking up my new cam later this week as well as a microtech ECU and once i fit the vortech blower and rx7 injectors i hope to achieve low 13 second quarter miles.....recently before i buggerised my last head i ran a 14.98 which isnt too bad for a 22re powered ra65 with a mildy worked motor, on a STOCK computer with 15inch street tyres (215x60) and all trim
if anyone wants more details, feel free to email me on jemima@winshop.comand i will do my best to help
cheers
wayne
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 08:15
|
|
| celicamad85 wrote on Mon, 12 August 2002 5:37 PM |
esp 1st gear 90km/h (thats with a few mods to the motor of course)
|
Err... How is this possible? Unless you're revving out to 14,000rpm or you've changed 1st gear.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 08:41
|
|
|
Well it's slightly more believable than a 14-second quarter mile with a "mildly worked" 22R!
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 08:54
|
|
|
man, my 22r would be lucky to pull a 16 sec quarter!
|
|
|
Banned member
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 09:10
|
|
im using a supra diff rebuilt with lower ratio gears
norbie ill bring my time card along next celica club meeting, see you there
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 09:26
|
|
Just been running some numbers... if your car weighs 1100kg (VERY optimistic for an RA65), you need approximately 170hp to get into the 14's. That's more than a 5M-GE, and not much less than a 6M-GE! See why I'm having problems with this concept?
I'm not saying a 22R can't develop that much power, but it doesn't qualify as "mildly worked" when the power output has increased by more than 50%...
FWIW a 1200kg car with 120hp will run a low 17, which is about right for a stock RA65.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 09:28
|
|
Just been running some more numbers (ET calculators are fun!), and if we assume my Supra weighs 1300kg and a boosted 2JZ with a big exhaust and cooler is good for 350hp...
... I should be able to run a 12.3! Holy crap!!
|
|
|
Banned member
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 10:04
|
|
a bit of a breakdown on the motor in question was ported with oversize valves (+1mm) cam was 294/304 crane copy with 12mm lift....double valve springs (hardened, of course) and was using 210cc age injectors these later proved unusable and opted for 250cc type, i have played around with the AFM as much as i can without changing the ECU but this was inevitable sooner or later with a bigger cam and injectors not to mention the blower
also the AFM was a 5me or 5mge (?) it is slightly bigger than a stock 22re AFM and the exhaust im using is straight through 2.5 inch from 4-2-1 custom made extractors into a dynomax super turbo (actual name, believe it or not) which dumps at the diff, but changing this into coming out near the back wheel when i get around to designing some skirts which dont look to rice to incorporate this exhaust (like a v8 supercar)
seeya
wayne
|
|
|
Banned member
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 10:10
|
|
sorry i think of midly worked as head work only no piston swapping or boring etc.
i suppose it is a tad more than mild
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Toodyay, WA
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 10:33
|
|
Hey Guys,
As Les said.
| Quote: |
I got an RA65 because I wanted a car that no one would want to
1) break into
2) scratch
3) look at
|
Thats my idea also
Maybe i should go for a RA60 coupe...
i think everyone agrees they are the most hideous Toyota ever...
Speaking of ET's how do the 1g-gte RA-60's go??
CamZH
PS, whats the diff between the RA's and the SA'? just the motor??
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne, VIC
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 10:40
|
|
Is my car hideous?
http://users.bigpond.net.au/njms_area/celica-front .jpg
Cos if your average joe on the street looks and thinks 'ewww' then maybe I can use this to my advantage somehow..... dunno how but I'm sure there's a way. Make it deceivingly quick... I dunno. Well at least I dont need to worry about security hey?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 11:08
|
|
|
I dont think that looks that bad at all...certainly better than the coupe's of either series. I think the only difference with SA was the engines, be it 1S or 2S
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 11:29
|
|
Unlike most people, I prefer the RA60 front over the RA65 one. In fact I reckon it one of the nicest Celica shapes ever, but that's just my opinion.
Dragunov, your car looks damn nice.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne, VIC
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 11:38
|
|
Hey thanks, it's my first car so I see it through different eyes to most (bit like a lovesick puppy  )
btw do you have an RA60, Astro?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Central Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 11:52
|
|
|
The SA63's came out with a 2SC
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 12:57
|
|
|
There are also SA63's (none were Oz delivered) which came with 1S-C
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 13:12
|
|
I dont like the RA6x coupes - they look like Exa's on steroids - the bum is huts plain UUUUGLY! did someone take a cleaver to the bum ????? CHOP! no curves - no class
RA6X coupes i dont mind at all - 60's or 65s .. I think narks looks like a mean sleeper - in typical 80's style , Dragonovs looks nice with the supra 15's - and the MA61's - Well - what can i say about them - A meaner nose - the nice 80's square bum , and the flares just make it look like one mean sonofabitch ..
Interior wise they are bad .. If i ever get the keys to my dads ma61 - the first thing ill be doing before ANY modifications to the drivetrain - is to retrim the interior a nice shade of dark Grey or black .. the burgandy red is just *&^%king awful - reminds me of my grandpas cardigan - totally unsuiting for a car of that pedigree and class ..
Still - i think the nicest celicas EVER designed were the original ta22's , the st185 GT4 group A , and the RA28 ..
All three look AWESOME with stock wheels flinged - a nice set of alloys + rubber to full up the guards - and the ride height dropped a few inches.
My 5 cents worth
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 22:54
|
|
BTW Hope I dont insult anyone !?!??! 
as I said - those were the reasons I bought the Celica !!
I have no doubt that these cars would look DAMMMM nice with some work done to them i.e. the maroon one from the States as someone posted up before !! 
BUTTTTT if left stock, both ra60 & 65's look shietes ! 
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Mon, 12 August 2002 23:37
|
|
Classique, not all the interiors look bad. I admit, I think the burgundy is quite possibly the most ugly colour I've ever seen...
Both my cars have a different variation of the black interior and they look nice! 
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 02:12
|
|
Nark - theres something about those wheels that just REALLY suit the 60 you have - hence why it looks so nice for a 60
Re interiors - i REALLY dont like the burgandy - the blue is tolerable - and i havent seen the black yet ( im imagining collingwood colours
Dads supras got a near immaculate interior - hardly a mark on it - and those seats are super comfy ! I dont like the way the dashboards made up - looks a little too boxy - but then again - all 80's cars form that era had them ( XE falcons have a similar dash cluster )
Id love to just recolour the whole lot in the supra to a grey or black - as i think it would make the car look more modern for one - and would suit the red paint
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 03:51
|
|
Les, it looks better than a Lancer..... 
And, yeah, they're 17x7.5 with a RWD offset. Don't know what it is exactly though.
Got 215/40R17s up front and 235/45R17s out back. 215/45R17s on the front scraped. There's plenty of room to the guards in the rear though.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 04:20
|
|
!?!?
you would choose a Celica over the shape of a Lancer ! wheres your taste gone Max !!
RWD offset ey ??
argh - hardass to find
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 04:30
|
|
As I said, the RA60 has a good stance.
The Lancer looks OK but is kinda bland and undistinguishable from a lot of other cars. And because it's a family car, it sits too high. Big high bubble roof...
I'm not saying that the RA60 is pretty, but it's got the right buldges in the right places to make it look tough and purposeful. Or maybe I'm just biased.
I really did hate the look of the RA60, but the shape has certainly grown on my through the years.
And, yeah, I was ecstatic when I found my mags. Very rare to find 4x114.3 in a RWD offset. And they were soooOOoo damn cheap!
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 04:49
|
|
A lancer ????
Does it have the fully Siiiiiiic bodykit and the fake Evo Bonnet ???
maaate - my bro's lancer does 10's with the ralliart stickaz and the subbies pumpin !
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 05:55
|
|
|
I'm with Nark, I love the shape of the RA6X....much nicer than any Lancer.
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 06:20
|
|
Frank - is that your supra in your avatar ?
Any chance of seeing the same pic in a larger form - just curious to what it looks like in better detail
Stuart
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 06:40
|
|
Unfortunately dude, I wish it was my car. Its actually some other picture I have grabbed off the net. I got sick of the other picture with the L-Type front.
I can put it up somewhere for you to get the full pic when I get back on my computer k dude?
|
|
|
Banned member
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 06:48
|
|
IMHO narks wheels suck, i mean the star shape is so common and the stroke of the star is so chunky its stupid, may as well put on shopping trolley wheels, it couldnt look any worse !
as for ra6x interiors sucking well, just as much as ra40's or any other 80's car around that period, its nothing like the 'leather look' of a ta22 but that wasnt popular back then, but unisex mullets and big hoop earings were, especially polka dots they friggin ruled the 80's on womens dresses and such
hey stuart, did you see my interior ?...the red and black leather ?...whatd you really think of that, i remember you saying my car looks good, funny what people really think comes out on the net not face to face (obviously you didnt want to offend, dont worry im still not) about you not liking the coupe shape !!
something i heard today....whats the difference between a guy with tattoos and a guy with no tattoos, the guy with the tattoos dosnt give a fuck if the other guy dosnt have any tattoos
might be something for everyone to think about !
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
 Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 07:44
|
|
|
That doesn't change the fact that the RA6x coupes are ugly.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 07:45
|
|
|
Amen
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 07:46
|
|
| Quote: |
A lancer ????
Does it have the fully Siiiiiiic bodykit and the fake Evo Bonnet ???
maaate - my bro's lancer does 10's with the ralliart stickaz and the subbies pumpin !
Stuart
|
Well this one has all u mentioned ¡V only real ... so seriously which do u prefer
This „³ http://www.lancerregister.com/mem-evo4to6/image.ht ml?jerryflint1.jpg
or the RA6x ?
No bias now - just base ur like/dislike purely on what you see here
In my opinion - the Lancer just exudes good looks and its presence is second to none (cept supra/gtr/viper etc etc)
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 07:47
|
|
I dont mind the look of EVOs, as generally they look angry and purposeful ... they dont try to be a beautiful car, they're all buisness
but lancers? I'm with max... there's 2 types... ricers trying to be like evos, and boring stockers
I'm not saying the RA6x is an eepecially beautiful car (well, compared to a MKIV supra or 300zx) but it does look angry, in a nicely old school way
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 07:57
|
|
There is no denying the EVO is a tough looking device. Ultimately it still has the underlying profile of a small boring Japanese sedan. IMO, the EVO looks better, but the RA6X has a nicer profile.
But you don't own an EVO anyway, so why did you bring it up? I think all the A6X lot, both Celica's and Supra's look tough.
The coupe doesn't count... 
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
 Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 08:02
|
|
I think the horniness of the Evo is from the fact that it's got balls and all the stuff sticking out of the body are there for a pure purpose. Nothing to do with what the car looks like...
If you get my meaning.
ie: It looks good. But not from aesthetic reasons. It looks good because it's super fast and conjures up images of flying through a slipper forest trail.
|
|
|
Location:
windang
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Hobart, Tas
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 11:39
|
|
Umm.. everybody... the IRS might be heavier but has a lower unsprung weight. Solid axcels have a higher unsprung weight. Also puts the power down more evenly. Somehting to think about.
'Cuda - why can't our 22REs be modded more than the US ones? Sure we got the 85 tall deck version (slighlty higher comp ratio, different head etc) but we DIDN'T get the TCCS efi. We basically got an '85 US engine with the '84 EFI. So No knock sensor and somehwere inbetween an 84 and 85 US engine perfromance wise. The older analog EFI we got is a lot easier to tweak though - the computer lets you go further mod-wise, and the fact we have no o2 sensor might make tuning even easier.
BTW Nice car. got any more pics/info for me?
Draven - why did your ra65 come with a Cat? Mine didn't. We were on leaded petrol in '85, which is why our 22REs don't come with o2 sensors. Leaded petrol cars generally didn't come out with cats!!
While we're on the subject of good looking cars... I generally don't like the look of the later Skylines that much, and so many people down here put stupid bodykits on them to tart them up and make them look crap and ricey, but last weekend I saw this really really nice one. Was white, had a bodykit that complemented it rather than looking ugly, didn't look rice but really suited the car. Had gold rims on and a carbon hood too.
|
|
|
Location:
Newcastle
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 12:14
|
|
|
i rekon all the RA6 series look futt bugly unless they have a real nice clean paint job, lowered a tad and those god awful stock toyta mag wheels thrown to the shitter. but he that is just my opinion. My RA40 looks like a bit of a shitter too but its getting there.
|
|
|
Location:
Hobart, Tas
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 12:22
|
|
a LOT of cars look nicer lowered a tad with wider wheels!!
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 12:29
|
|
| Quote: |
hey stuart, did you see my interior ?...the red and black leather ?...whatd you really think of that, i remember you saying my car looks good, funny what people really think comes out on the net not face to face (obviously you didnt want to offend, dont worry im still not) about you not liking the coupe shape !!
|
i like your interior - but i think it would be better in the hatch ..
the coupes are different thats for sure - but IMHO that nose belongs with a hatch .. the lines add up then. If it was me owning your car id keep the interior as is it looks nice - change the wheels to a 5 spoke design to open them up , add a nice bootlid spoiler of some sort and drop it on its guts . maybe bodycode the bumpers too to match up
dont have a coronary or anything - this is a place to express oppinions + debate - its like my car - i HATE the stock seats in it - and the acres of black vinyl are hell in summer . Thats one reason i got the prelude buckets + plan on retrimming the doorskins + rear seat in a more modern manner while retaining the original lines ..
Gunna do the headlining too - but it all comes down to money of which i have short supply of ..
Frank - a full size pic would be awesome - Might have a look at a similar set of wheels and try to convince dad to buy em so i can have his mk2 alloys for the ta22
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Toodyay, WA
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: RA65 vs RA60
|
Tue, 13 August 2002 12:37
|
|
Hey guys,
I think Narks wheels scuk too! (no offence Nark)
But then agian i love the look of my big old V8 Fords.
As for evos i think they look like they are straight out of comic books (no a good thing imho)
But as for body kits i feels it should be go before show.. 
CamZH
|
|
|
