| Author | Topic |
|---|
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Thu, 28 August 2003 05:41
|
 |
Ok, I'm sick of people saying that my celica is crap. Despite beating my mates 4.9 litre fairlane  . What I would like to know is the cost of the Supra and whether or not it is faster, which I presume it is. I just changed the engine in my st162 to one that's only got 80,000 on the clock. So this should be able to get me 7-8k?
Where abouts will this get me? (I don't mind if it's non-turbo as I'm still on my P's and it probably wouldn't be legal for me to drive  )
Oh, and one other thing. In ideal conditions which handles better?
Thanks
Charlie.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Thu, 28 August 2003 05:50
|
|
1984 Supra's aren't fast in standard form, and in a straight-line race your Celica would probably walk all over it. The Celica probably has the edge in handling as well. They're fairly different cars though, so doing a direct comparison is kinda pointless. The Supra is a big cruisy sports tourer, while the Celica is more of a nimble hot-hatch. I'd take the Supra any day, but others prefer the Celica - it depends what you like!
Don't sell your car just because other people say it's crap. It's YOUR car, so if YOU like it, keep it! If other people don't like it, they can get stuffed. 
|
|
|
Location:
c'town, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Thu, 28 August 2003 06:01
|
|
the reason the Mk2 is so popular i think is because its the best basis for an engine swap, especially on a budget.
good front brakes
discs in rear
IRS
LSD
diff can handle fair amount of HP
all power options
big engine bay
R&P steering
EFI fuel system
can handle very well if set up correctly
can also be a mighty drift machine.
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Thu, 28 August 2003 06:27
|
|
|
I agree with Norbie, its your car, not your mates. I wouldn't get an early model supra myself, I'd get an ST165
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Thu, 28 August 2003 07:04
|
|
Damn crazy if you'll give your celica up for an older, bigger and heavier celica. 
IMO, the only good supra is the MKIV 6speed TT. It's already got everything done from factory. That's my next planned car in the coming years. Now remember, that's only my opinion. You other guys have nice ma61's, but only after all the work that has gone in, and the "required" 1jz engine.
| Quote: |
Ok, I'm sick of people saying that my celica is crap. Despite beating my mates 4.9 litre fairlane .
|
I can help you here. It's called a FAIRY-LANE.
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Thu, 28 August 2003 07:05
|
|
|
and yes, the 165 is still on eBay
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Thu, 28 August 2003 09:14
|
|
Ha ! well i can pretty much vouch for every camp here
I have a celica Gt4 ( i know its a turbo - but ive also driven numerous 162's ), a Supra ma61 next to it and my last car was a 1977 6.2 litle 351 fairylane
Ok - all in all - the Gt4 spanks the lot - no competition from ANY of the other two
The fairlane was a pure torque monster ( 400 odd Nm of torquiness is fun ) - they weigh an F-ing tonnee or three , have shit brakes , handle like the titanic - but are SO DAMN comfy to cruise in . Its built purely for old men to roll around in and relax - its by no means a sportscar - and never will be.
The supra ( in stock form with auto ) handles pretty good - but the engine leaves ALOT to be desired in its stock setup - it seems way too " wheesy " and this is compunded mores by the auto - BUT get it above say 60KM - and the handling is very good - the brakes are up therw rith the best , the auto actually becomes useful in " maual down/upshifting " and its pretty sporty - BUT it is a GT car - its big + long - with comfy goodness inside .. Im pretty sure with stiffened suspension , and a engine package like norbie now has most of the " faults " ive pointed would dissaprar briskly BUT id still say a Gt4 would outhandle and out brake it, but wouldnt have the top end grunt or torque .
The Gt4 - in relative stock form is so precise - reasonably well balanced and really comes into its element when corners are thrown at it - you point turn and lay in the right foot and it just GOES - and stays ! it could probably do with a better power band - ( im guessing alot of this comes down to the restrictiveness of the exhaust flow - to be tested soon ) Seats wise - its probably not up to par with either the fairlane ( luxurious armchair ) or supra ( huggy grippy goodness ) but thats the only real minus i see against all three that i have owned and driven side by side ..
Keep your celica - make it breathe - and have alot of fun! - no point changing what alot of us know is a great package in your st162 !
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Thu, 28 August 2003 09:39
|
|
supra is a great handling car... I love the way it dips into the fast corners.
just be acreful of lightening the rear end... it gets very tail happy
dont go for the mk2 unless you're also planning an engine swap, or you'll be disappointed
|
|
|
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Sat, 30 August 2003 14:39
|
|
hehe.. ok yeah i like it but i want something that goes sideways really.... not much of a fan for handbrakes on tarmac.... i do need rear tyres
but yeah, what can I do to it, how much extra compression could the standard block etc handle, most likely with better pistons, if I decided to shave the head. Also would port and polishing be worth the money? It's a whole lot of effort and I could just get a st185 or 165 front cut, but I'm on my P's and that would most likely put the car way over the power/weight limit.
Or maybe I should just save my money for later and wait till I can buy one of those nice new Audi S4's... mnn v8 quattro.....
|
|
|
Location:
Colac, Victoria
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Sun, 31 August 2003 02:18
|
|
If your on your P's then stick with the 3sge - the isnurance for a 3sgte powered car would cost you more than what your cars worth a year - which is just pointless - especially if you are a Uni kid too
Id start with liberating your exhaust and adding a decent air filter/induction setup ( pods are gay ), and you should notice a good improvement there straight off the mark . if you want to go the full hog - some decent mild cams would lven the motor up somewhat also .
Or you can just wait until your off your P plates - then upgrade to a factory spec car like a st185 - or even a supra and enjoy decent HP and traction straight off the blocks ..
The money you put into converting it to a turbo - you most likely would not recoup if you decided to sell it.
|
|
|
Location:
Castle Hill, Sydney
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Sun, 31 August 2003 03:33
|
|
|
stay with the celica
|
|
|
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Sun, 31 August 2003 09:50
|
|
and of course the opinions are totally unbaised
Might just leave it standard so I can get maximum resale price cause it looks like I don't hammer the crap out of it
|
|
|
Location:
Ballarat, Victoria
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: Celica (st162) vs Supra (1984)
|
Sat, 06 September 2003 16:08
|
|
celica
im happy in my 21r-c ra60 getting flogged by every car on the street, coz my car is so damn more cooler than theirs. and when i eventually do my 1g-gte conversion, i can show them the real meaning of 'jap cars' 
|
|
|
