speedin
The Transporter
BMW's are crap? Excuse you? FD's are fine so long as they are taken care of. As for the added cost of the 933, the Supra's price varied quite a bit, and options added up quick, the difference was more like 5k.BMW's are crap. FD's blow up. Porsche is nice. The 993 Carrera is almost identical to the Supra in terms of performance but it does cost about $10k-$15k more. They both run low 5's to 60 and mid 13's in the quarter. They're handling on the skidpad and the slalom is inferior to a stock Supra as well as the brakes. That adds up to pretty good deal. It's an undeniably good car. Tell me how a car that is $10k less and performs better doesn't stack up? The 993 Carrera 2 is running mid to low .9's G on the pad and mid 60's through the slalom. The Supra does better in both categories
As for the racing, I'm not sure about over there but around here Supras are all over the road courses yet I've never seen a single one at either of the dragstrips in Houston
Skidpad is far from the end all be all in terms of handling. The 911 is one of the most successful racing chassis ever made, your telling me between a 911 and a Supra you would go with a Supra for a race car? Or even DD for that matter. Same goes for the M3, the E36 was one hell of a track car, still is. Ive only ever seen 1 Supra racing, and it was moving like a tank. Miata's with half the power were kicking its ass. This was no Auto-X either. This was at Kershaw (sp). Take a look at the 300ZX, on a skid pad it performed slightly worse than the supra, it too was a tank, but on a road course the car shined. It showed as well, the 300ZX won many events and is used quite frequently, and can still be seen out on the track in some of the SCCA and NASA classes. In that price range Supra is one of my last picks for a DD or even track car. The supra need to have been in the 35k (turbo model) range in the mid 90's. Then it would be excellent.