Are these numbers real?

demolisher

New Member
Apr 16, 2005
34
0
0
Medicine hat alberta
Just looking at the chart someone posted in the stickies section. It says non-turbo supras go from 0-60mph in 8.11 and complete the 1/4 mile in 16.17
Is this really true?

Non Turbo:
Motor Trend, May 1986
0-60 mph = 8.11 sec
1/4 mile = 16.17 sec
60-0 = 132 ft
Skidpad = 0.86 g

Turbo model:
Motor Trend, November 1986
(Pre-production model)
0-60 mph = 7.84 sec
1/4 mile = 16.17 sec @ 89 mph
60-0 = 126 ft
Skidpad = 0.86 g

Car and Driver, April 1987
0-60 mph = 6.4 sec
1/4 mile = 15.0 @ 91 mph
70-0 = 188 ft
Skidpad = 0.83 g
Top speed = 145 mph

Motor Trend, April 1987
0-60 mph = 6.88 sec
1/4 mile = 15.40 sec @ 92 mph
60-0 = 126 ft
Skidpad = 0.85 g

Road and Track, February 1989
0-60 mph = 6.6 sec
1/4 mile = 15.2 sec
60-0 = 146 ft
Skidpad = 0.83 g

Car and Driver, April 1989
0-60 mph = 6.2 sec
1/4 mile = 14.7 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed = 146 mph
70-0 = 176 ft
Skidpad = 0.85 g
 

Eriol

New Member
Mar 31, 2005
308
0
0
Indianapolis
demolisher said:
Just looking at the chart someone posted in the stickies section. It says non-turbo supras go from 0-60mph in 8.11 and complete the 1/4 mile in 16.17
Is this really true?

Non Turbo:
Motor Trend, May 1986
0-60 mph = 8.11 sec
1/4 mile = 16.17 sec
60-0 = 132 ft
Skidpad = 0.86 g

Turbo model:
Motor Trend, November 1986
(Pre-production model)
0-60 mph = 7.84 sec
1/4 mile = 16.17 sec @ 89 mph
60-0 = 126 ft
Skidpad = 0.86 g

Car and Driver, April 1987
0-60 mph = 6.4 sec
1/4 mile = 15.0 @ 91 mph
70-0 = 188 ft
Skidpad = 0.83 g
Top speed = 145 mph

Motor Trend, April 1987
0-60 mph = 6.88 sec
1/4 mile = 15.40 sec @ 92 mph
60-0 = 126 ft
Skidpad = 0.85 g

Road and Track, February 1989
0-60 mph = 6.6 sec
1/4 mile = 15.2 sec
60-0 = 146 ft
Skidpad = 0.83 g

Car and Driver, April 1989
0-60 mph = 6.2 sec
1/4 mile = 14.7 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed = 146 mph
70-0 = 176 ft
Skidpad = 0.85 g


Looks about right.
 

demolisher

New Member
Apr 16, 2005
34
0
0
Medicine hat alberta
Alright thanks guys for the clarification. People say the non turbo is a lot slower than it is maybe. That 0-60mph is faster than a lot of cars these days like celicas and honda ricers. But I guess it is slow for what type of car the supra is.
 

Ckanderson

Supramania Contributor
Apr 1, 1983
2,644
0
0
40
The beach
yea stock turbo is SLOW... i remember when i first drove my supra i thought it was SOOOOOOOO fast! now i know better.
 

jbsupra89t

Achieving Balance...
Mar 30, 2005
544
0
0
40
NJ
Ckanderson said:
i remember when i first drove my supra i thought it was SOOOOOOOO fast!

Yep I remember that day, a day my wallet will never forgive me for now
 

demolisher

New Member
Apr 16, 2005
34
0
0
Medicine hat alberta
Can you guys answer another question while ur here?
What are the chances of getting a BHG on a NA?
My friend has a turbo model with a redone metal headgasket but I cant remember if
the NA was prone to these BHG.
thanks
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
38
The Farm
BHG=more annoying problem than anything, its not like you put a rod through the block, more of a headache than nething. but i am going to have to say that the NA seems to not get BHG more than the Turbo, im guessing from the pressure from the turbo.
how much u guys think would be shaved off that time of 15.2 if we took out o say 600lbs of junk?
and were those the NA numbers or Turbo?
 

demolisher

New Member
Apr 16, 2005
34
0
0
Medicine hat alberta
Yeah i cant remember from where but some magazine like car and driver said that the factory specs for the bolts were sufficient enough for NA. But ill be on the watchout.
Btw the na numbers were like 16.1 for 1/4mile and 8.1 for 0-60mph, while the turbo numberes are more like 14.9-15.2 for 1/4mile and 6.8 for 0-60mph.