Toyota Celica name possible for European/Asian market

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Leeky

There has only really been two 'real' Supra's though. As the first two were just Celica's with 6 cylinder engines squeezed in and were called Celica Supra's.

So false.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

So false.

Mk2 Supra was a Celica in JDM (according to Gran Turismo, so it must be true...)

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Mk2 Supra was a Celica in JDM (according to Gran Turismo, so it must be true...)

Celica XX, thats not what I was pointing out in that 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.

[Leeky]

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.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Leeky

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.

That part is pretty much evidence right there that they are the same, the A6x chassis code part.

I believe there was a GA6x Mk2 that had a 1GGZE.

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Leeky

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.

Well, honestly it's all because your statement is dealt in an absolute. Rarely does doing such a thing leave you fully correct.

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.

But with regards to my 'Supra' statement - i stand by it. When it comes to Celica's and Supra's i know my stuff.

So do I.

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Dimman

That part is pretty much evidence right there that they are the same, the A6x chassis code part.

Sooo based on this...because an AE80 and AE86 were both made during the same timeframe AND share the E corolla chassis designation makes them essentially the same car?

[Leeky]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

Well, honestly it's all because your statement is dealt in an absolute. Rarely does doing such a thing leave you fully correct.

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.

So do I.

Ahh yes i understand Yep apologies for first statement, it was a bit absolute.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

Sooo based on this...because an AE80 and AE86 were both made during the same timeframe AND share the E corolla chassis designation makes them essentially the same car?

Not even sure what the 80 is, sedan? Parts interchange? Solid axle RWD? Both have A series motors...

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...

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Not even sure what the 80 is, sedan? Parts interchange? Solid axle RWD? Both have A series motors...

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...

snicker snicker snicker. You were actually partly right.

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.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

snicker snicker snicker. You were actually partly right.

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.

My turn for obscure chassis knowledge! Different front crossmembers/engine mounts to accommodate the later 1JZ.

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Dimman

My turn for obscure chassis knowledge! Different front crossmembers/engine mounts to accommodate the later 1JZ.

That can't be! I JUST said my dad's '87 is an MA71! The crossmember didn't change until the '89 facelift.

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.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

That can't be! I JUST said my dad's '87 is an MA71! The crossmember didn't change until the '89 facelift.

This is all based on memory....hold on, I can actually check this real quick...I'm pretty dang sure his was an MA71.

But there are different crossmembers, and different numbers, so there must be something to it...

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Dimman

But there are different crossmembers, and different numbers, so there must be something to it...

Aha...http://www.supraforums.com.au/forum/...0-vs-ma71.html

derp, forgot Toyota USA loves to mess with us on the vin numbers vs. chassis codes.