hi newbie none supra owner but toyota owner

[Branners]

240 hp for near 4 litre displacement is shocking for a 16 valve FI 4 potter .Was it or Is It not the case that Toyota 1j, 2j ,3s etc engines were pretty dandy, seems not the case. Especially when one can see 320 hp from 2 ltr NA engine for a price.

 

You're funny, we should keep you.

[Morpheus]

You're funny, we should keep you.

 

Yes, you kept me, remember and I'm sure you don't regret that?!

 

To answer the original poster's question though, I've also owned two MKIII's over an eight year period and the worst has already been said. Arch rust being the main thing to look out for. They're much more solidly built but obviously heavier, especially the chassis and bumpers and I'd much rather crash a MKIII than a MKIV anyday. Infact I did once but that's another story!

 

Wish I'd known about the gearboxes being valuable as I gave said 5 speed manual MKIII away for nothing because I just wanted rid of it and didn't want to sink any more money into having it repaired. This was after replacing the front bumper cover and brackets etc. after the prang. There was extensive arch rust which went right up the rear wheelwells and could only be seen with the interior panels removed around the shock towers. It was rotten but by far the worst I've seen so as long as there's nothing visible from the outside, it will take years to come through.

 

They're prone to a BHG as mentioned but mainly because of factory torque spec's being too conservative for the headbolts at something like 60 Ft/lbs which was later tested to be safe at a higher 70 Ft/lbs. or thereabouts after the bolts were independently tested for their elastic phase limits. Basically, they could take a lot more stretch without becoming permanently stretched than Toyota thought and they didn't do them up tight enough so that when the head gasket 'smashed' or crushed after a few thousand miles, they lost seal in some engines. Having said that, mine did 144mph top speed before and then after the rebuild so it didn't make any difference to the compression, just the water jacket sealing. Upon removal of the headbolts, a couple were almost loose but I never had a problem after the 'decoke' and it ran like the wind.

 

I rebuilt my 7MGE head in 2000 and eventually had to replace the clutch master cylinder, (though never had a problem with the clutch itself and I put 25k on it from 120k at car purchase), rad, alternator, solenoid, (wasn't aware of contact replacement kits then) and tyres, batteries etc. and exactly the same items in the MKIII turbo auto except clutch cylinder, of course.

 

They're stupid cheap now. A 2.5 GT just went for £460 on ebay and I was tempted myself as it looked quite clean. I had a Turbo auto MKIII, which was practically as fast in acceleration as my TT VVTI MKIV that I have now due to my rear tyres being crap mainly but the ECT is better in the MKIII auto, making it shift quicker and hold rev's longer. They should have left it alone.

 

Edit; There are practical things to consider in the MKIII like easier parking visibility, the wheels and tyres all being the same size with a full sized spare, yet still more boot space, (the rear seats fold down flatter too), a slightly narrower tread, making tight width restrictions easier, more desirable electric lumber and side support in the driver's seat instead of electric seat tilt and fore/aft in the MKIV. Way more than enough front leg room even for me at 6'5" and slightly better rear legroom as a result though headroom is about an inch less in the MKIII. That's why I sold mine and I'm only just ok in the MKIV. The MKIII has more ground clearance, though it does compromise handling of course compared to a MKIV but not by much and the oh so cool popup headlights are my favourite feature, being as I am, still mentally aged 14 (or is it 4?).

 

They're also about 100mm longer and 100mm narrower than the MKIV but not as forgiving if you lose the back end in the wet but that's all about tyres and suspension. I used to drift my MKIII manual out of junctions quite predictably if I felt like it. The MKIII turbo auto is tricky though so you have to be very careful in the wet with those and back right off or you'll be facing the other way before you know it with the wrong tyres when the boost comes in as it does, at very low rev's and in one big lump. Hope that helps!

 

Get a MKIV if you can afford it, as you're less likely to spend a fortune keeping it on the road and the design is less dated and MKIV's handle much more like a proper track car when lowered and stiffened, although I do still love MKIII's, as you can tell.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Morpheus (see edit history)