pharnhyte

iTrader: (1)

Never noticed until now, the oil capacity is wrong, along with the final drive ratio tisk tisk.


Stock for stock, IS-F is a bit faster than the MKIV. Bolt on's for both, a few hundred in mods which would consist of a intake, downpipe, catback, bcc, and manual boost controller yields over 400whp on a mkiv, which is much lighter than the IS-F. Similar mods to the ISF would cost almost 3k. The fastest MKIV's on stock twins dip into the 10's. I've only seen a few IS-F's in the 11's unfortunately.

At the end of the day, different cars, different purposes, different time periods, similar production numbers however. The Supra is a sports car, aimed at the upper echelon of sports cars in its day. The IS-F not so much.

Great car, I'll have a IS-F shortly, and yes I'll be selling a supra to get one.

JDMV8

iTrader: (6)

Hi Steve. This is Renat from MPact.
I will gladly take the RSP off your hands

Fsport2UR

I'll take your RSP!

JDMV8

iTrader: (6)

After me!

2URGSE

I would love to race my 2004 STi stage 2, sadly the 'genius' who bought it sold it to some dealer who then sold it to someone else....go figure.

262 All wheel horsepower, 293 lb-ft torque........18.5 psi of boost. 3263 lbs curb weight......

Makes me wonder who wins.....

2URGSE

Supra weight is 3480, exactly 300 lbs lighter than the ISF.

Just thought that was interesting.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

For the flexy flier. The hardtop weighs 3415 on a certified scale with spare, jack, and my son's car seat..

Mine also puts 330 to the wheels with only one simple modification. OEM twins still make 18 psi of boost at 1300 ft of altitude, 19.5 at sea level, with 156k miles on the odometer.

Supra handling is different than IS F handling. The IS F is more forgiving and the Supra's traction control is the first and probably most important thing to disable from a chassis dynamics perspective. It will spin the car pretty easily if you aren't paying attention. AMHIK. Yes, the Supra's suspension is dated. The chassis is not as stiff as more modern cars, but mine is quite a bit stiffer than my F. Hardtops are like that. Available options for the Supra match or exceed what one can get for the IS F, and there are enough people who have tracked Supras to get solid advice on what works and what doesn't. It would be far easier to build a Supra to outrun the F than the other way around, especially on a road course.

Every Supra I have seen has console box cover problems. The owners have all done something to fix it, but from the factory it was junk. OEM radiators have the same issues on both cars - the plastic end tanks crack. Supra OEM brakes are very good. They feel completely different than the IS F brakes, and require a much greater pedal pressure for the same rate of stop. I think they're easier to modulate.

The legendary Getrag 233 is a design model for anyone who wants a really solid truck gearbox. It is so overbuilt and can perform well with more than 3x the 400 Nm of torque is is rated for. It is not slick shifting by any means, but it surely gets the power to the ground without incident almost no matter what you've done under the hood. It is no match for the speed and precision of the IS F in manual mode, and I am reminded of this every time I drive mine.

Supras also have ECM problems with bad capacitors. This first reared its head in the LS400, but has now also surfaced in the MkIV Supra. Same capacitors, same driveability problems solved when the caps are replaced.

2URGSE

Would love to own a Mark 4, but need to pay off ISF first. LOL

AMG C63 Black Series also on the menu. (totally different car though)

bbong

With LC you may get a head start, but after 90mph you'd be seeing ISF's exhausts. I remember '04 was the STI to get, being lightest by 100lbs from 05 and 06 that followed. Mine was '06 but plenty more done to it than just stage2.