xaznx

For those that own both a supra and isf, what are your thoughts, which is faster stock to stock. From what I've read the stock supra pushes 300hp, while the F puts down around 400ish. So the F should be faster, however a heavily modded supra can push 1000 hp, whereas there aren't alot of aftermarket hp gainers in the f, besides intake headers exhaust. so to be fair I would say the f stock to stock would be faster. As far as the stock evo or sti, our f should alot quicker. Fully built those sti's and evos are crazy fast. I've had arguments with friends about this topic for some time and wanted some input for you lucky supra/ and f owners. I have always and still want a supra, hard part is finding one that is decent for a decent price. Thoughts?

MisterSkiz

iTrader: (2)

Stock for Stock, the IS-F is faster.

Stock for Stock, the IS-F is faster than any Evo or STI.

Modability? The supra/evo and STI would crap all over an IS-F.

I just saw a video on "1230 racing" youtube where a guy was running at stock longblock STi and ran a 9.8 second quarter mile at 140 something miles an hour with 40psi of boost...

Meraki Autoworks

iTrader: (8)

^ what he said. ISF will smash those cars stock, but once those things get a headers/ exhaust/ tune. Game over. lol

VTsuckah

iTrader: (1)

Mkiv supra TT 0-60 mph was between 4.6-5.2 seconds with quarter mile times between 12.9-13 seconds.

ISF 0-60 mph is 4.7 sec with a quarter mile of 13.2 sec.

Bith are very comparable in spec. I think the mkiv has a better top end. As far as supras are concerned, you have to ask yourself....is it really worth investing $40k+ for a 20 yr old car with outdated tech and handling. I love them personally and always have, but I dont have 40-50k to **** away at a moment's whim.

Sylvan

iTrader: (6)

I have raced (roll race) a few modded STis now and I have never lost. Good luck finding a stock supra most on the road today are over 500whp.

kirk200

My stock IS F feels faster than my stock (normal boosted) Supra - but they are really pretty close. Both are great rides, but the Lexus pulls harder out of the turns at VIR, and it has a bit more top speed in the various straight sections as well. But I would agree that modifying the Supra by just applying more boost would probably flip those results.

I wonder how much faster the IS F will be after installing that TRD CCSP rear diffuser

Regards,
- Kirk

kzlflash

iTrader: (1)

Can't speak for the Supra (no ownership experience), but modding an Evo is stupid cheap. I owned an Evo X before I bought the F. Out of the factory the X probably puts down ~250 at the wheel. A simple drop in filter (~$40), 100 cel hi flow cat (~$350), exhaust (~$600), and a tune (~$250), put me at ~350 at the wheel. With the amount of money I threw at the F just to get it to 400whp, I could've brought the Evo at par with an I/H/E modded ISF, and probably even surpassed it. Evos (and STIs) are seriously really fun cars for the amount you pay. I miss my Evo, I dunno why I sold it haha. I'll probably pick one up again one day, once the F is paid off and I have some spare change. It's a shame they discontinued it.

Supraman16

iTrader: (5)

My Supra is BPU++, around 425rwhp, but I drive around mostly at stock boost given crappy gas and it's become more of a fun cruiser of late than a weekend beast. Stock for stock, the IS-F is faster. However, when I have the boost cranked up on the Supra, my Supra is a freakin beast and would blow the crap out of the IS-F. That being said, the driving experience of both cars are substantially different. The IS-F is very refined, instant low end torque and power of a naturally aspirated engine. The Supra is very raw...you feel everything, especially with a 6 speed, properly tuned coilovers, and proper bracing. I've had friends who drive much faster cars, like modded GT-R's, who have driven my Supra they tell me that they enjoyed the raw connection connection to the road they had with my Supra, more so than their ultra powerful cars, automatic, much more modern cars.

primecut

iTrader: (1)

No. IS-F runs mid-high 12s. And no, not comparable to a stock supra, in spec, top end, etc.

Fsport2UR

Agreed.

Compared to the Supra MKIV, the ISF feels obviously faster stock to me. But on a Supra, all that needs to be done is to crimp a hose or pull a hose and the Supra is faster. Mod for mod...no comparison.
The ISF is capped at ~420rwhp w/ IHE(outside of nitrous) with no room for growth. Even if there were, it would not be affordable to most of the ISF owners out there, given the fact that these engines are not cheap to replace. Blow the engine and your done...good luck finding a replacement. 2JZGTE engines and parts are a dime a dozen...and the cost to get a Supra to 410-420rwhp is a joke - ridiculously cheap and can be done in a couple hours by yourself.
I will say the ISF and Supra are both very fun cars to drive. But they are entirely different types of fun. While some may call the Supra 'dated' technology or obsolete for being 20 years old, the car feels more raw where I have full control. I would call it vinyl analog music vs cd digital music comparison. As Supraman16 mentioned, the connection you feel with the machine and road just boosts the excitement level more than a ISF ever will. Not to take anything away from the ISF, I bought it for the luxury quality factor, real backseats, and the ***** it has. I love the fact I have both, and can switch back and forth.

RSXiMUS

iTrader: (7)

LOL, where did you get 13.2 for the IS-F?

It's more like 0-60 in 4.2 and 1/4 in 12.5-12.7 on the quicker end.

I even recall some magazine times for the MK4 Supra turbo in the high 13s low 14s.

Stock, an MK4 Supra Twin Turbo will trap 108-109 in the 1/4 on the high end. A stock IS-F will trap 114 on the high end. You're misinformed, the IS-F has MUCH more top end stock vs stock.

I had a modded 05 STi which had 315awhp, K&N typhoon, full turboback, equal length headers and ewg + tune and my IS-F with just an exhaust would probably roast it from a roll.

Fsport2UR

For Reference.

KJH

Maybe you can share what you believe to be outdated about the Supra's handling and technology. It has a double wishbone coilover suspension from the factory, twin sequential turbos, sodium-filled exhaust valves, a TORSEN LSD (something the IS-F did not have until 2010), the first mass produced close ratio six-speed transmission, a six-speed Getrag transmission that has been proven to take more power and torque than any OEM tranny in existence, OEM brakes that were considered the best in C/D's annual 10 Best edition in 1996, a record (70-0 in 149 feet) that was not broken until a few years ago and an all-conquering 3L, DOHC straight six with a cast iron block that is considered by many to by the SBC of '90s and 21st Century.

I own three MKIVs and, of course, an IS-F. With the MKIV being about 300-pounds lighter than the IS-F, stock for stock, any acceleration test would be close. Remember, the important MKIV performance statistics involved 1990's era tire technology...

Ken.

VTsuckah

iTrader: (1)

Car & Driver my friend. I made a typo, the 1/4 mile time for a 2011 ISF is noted as 13.1. Sure, the previous years, presumably had better performance numbers. However, I wanted to make more of an apple to apple comparison since the ISF didn't have LSD until 2010.

Sure. When I stated tech, I was referring to the overall look and feel of the interior and modern day electronics such as Bluetooth, smart phone/ iPOD compatibility, GPS, apps, back up cameras, brake assist, etc etc. As far as handling, the Supra was advanced for it's time as you stated. However, you cannot deny that there has been suspension dynamic enhancements made in the last 20 years. Damping technology alone has made great strides, as well as electronic assist items like traction control.

Would you like to donate one of those mkiv's to me? My mkii MR2 could use a big brother.

Meraki Autoworks

iTrader: (8)

wow the magazine review. The Supra is one very impressive car for something that long ago..