fto vs eclipse vs mr2 vs supra

[redorange]

The Supra (V6) twin turbo? Its acceleration times are pretty close to an Evo's if not equal. I'd hesitate to say it's quicker, though.

I think the MR2's (with a 4-banger turbo) a bit over it's head against the Supra. 200hp vs 320hp. But then, that's exactly what Toyota designed the two cars for. They weren't meant to compete against each other. On the styling...... I think the MR2's styling is more uh, "eternal"? A red body color completes that "baby Ferrari" look.

I test drove the FTO for only 3-4 blocks at 45 kph. The Japanese guy in charge was pretty stingy about letting me test drive it. It was supposed to be my rental car while I was in Japan. But, he wanted too much moolah..... I settled for a newer Nissan Cube.

Surpa's have an inline 6 from the MkI to the MkIV.

I would take the Supra first doesn't matter if it's the MkIII or MkIV. The 1JZ-GTE on the MkIII makes 300hp and has a lighter car than the MkIV model with the 320hp 2JZ-GTE engine. Next the MR2, any of the 3 versions work also since all had good engines. The 1st gen had the 4A-GZE, 2nd gen 3S-GTE, and 3rd gen could be swapped out with the Celica engine 2ZZ-GE for 180hp for an extra 50hp with the same displacement engine. Eclipse is third, 1st and 2nd gen are good with the AWD and the 4g63T. Last is the FTO because it's FWD only. Even with the 6A12 V6 and 200hp it's still a FWD car that will have limitations in handling. Besides it's a small displacement V6 and I've already had that with my Mazda MX-3 with the 1.8L V6. Those engines need to be revved to the upper rpm's to get torque.