![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
He's saying the Celica Supra was basically just a Celica with a L6 put into it. I'd suggest he does a little self history teaching and figure out why he's so wrong. |
Ok, so please tell me why you think that statement is not true?
I dont mind people challenging what i say as long as they explain why they think im wrong. "So false" doesnt mean anything without it being backed up with a reason. Because the first two generations of Supra were essentially Celica's with longer bonnets to accomodate the 6 cylinder engines. Underneath they share 90% of the same parts/body panels. Its from the door mirrors forward that the car starts to majorly differ. Of course there were differences to suspension/brakes etc to take the extra power. But this is all stuff that can be transplanted over from the MA61 to the RA60 - because its pretty much the same car underneath. Yeah, in Japan the first supra was the MK3 as the first two generations were called Celica XX. The mk2 Celica XX was available with either a 6 Cylinder engine (5M) or with a Turbo charged 4 cylinder (3T i believe). But with regards to my 'Supra' statement - i stand by it. When it comes to Celica's and Supra's i know my stuff. |
Quote:
I believe there was a GA6x Mk2 that had a 1GGZE. |
Quote:
In general thought you're correct. In actual evidence there's more differentiating the two than engine size, which is what I was saying "false" too. If you want to further elaborate and say "despite different engine, wheelbase, suspension, and general tuning, they were the same car." Thats acceptable. Mostly a communication error, and a bit a nerve that strikes me everytime someone calls my AE86 a Celica. A defense mechanism for both cars you might say. The oldskooltoyota nerd in me comes out and I have to correct. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Same chassis? Complete guess but I would bet they are as related as an Infiniti G35 sedan and a 350Z coupe. Which is very. Edit: Research first, THEN post... Epic fail on my part, oh well... |
Quote:
instead of A6x, you should've just said A60. They're both the same chassis designation, the same series of that chassis, and the same model of that chassis. That's what makes them essentially 'the same car'. The 6 in AE86 is the differing factor. Now THAT being said.... We both know the MA70 and MA71 are exactly the same car...never did figure out why they have two chassis codes though. Especially since my father's '87 is a MA71 and my '89 was an MA70. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is all based on memory....hold on, I can actually check this real quick...I'm pretty dang sure his was an MA71. Edit: Ok, nope, its an MA70...my '89 was the MA71. That's what was throwing me off, because that was the only thing I could think of (crossmember change) that would necessitate a change in chassis code, but for some reason I thought the '87 was the 70...yadda yadda yadda. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
derp, forgot Toyota USA loves to mess with us on the vin numbers vs. chassis codes. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2026 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.