Yasiu

Honestly, are they comparable? Quattro has advantage in each way so shoudn't it be compared with MK III 1986 (200hp, 266 Nm)? Quattro from 1980 to 1987 used the same engine. You didn't put the price so I supose the comparison is about look/performance?

__________________
Dead girls don't say "no"

Ghalos

I'd rather have a Renault R5 Turbo...if we're talking about older, very tough to get ahold of cars.

I love the flares that thing's got.

But, since I hate nose-heavy things, I'll avoid the Audi and go for the Japanese one.

__________________
"I couldn't fire someone today and it made me sick, firing people is a *perk* of my job!"

Driftster

The kwattro is hard to get but the celica supra isn't nearly as hard.

__________________
R.I.P. Randy

Ghalos

^Well, I've seen more Zonda Roadster's in person than them, either, so, yeah...

__________________
"I couldn't fire someone today and it made me sick, firing people is a *perk* of my job!"

Cornelius Van

Celica Supra.

1. That Audi, because of the group B lineage, will be a lot more expensive to buy than the Toyota.

2. Should something go wrong with that Audi (and something will happen), you're f***ed.

The Audi is the cooler car, but I don't feel it's worth the vast difference in cost.

Besides, the Supra looks like it would accept an LS1 pretty well.

__________________
It costs you as much as a mortgage but that doesn't change the fact you're awesome. ~ Rav

sabaka_g

I would say - not comparable. And i have never seen that supra. Only newer ones. There are still some audis like that... but its a rare sight too.

Attaus

That black MKII is hot but the MKIII would be a better comparison.

__________________
"Political discussion are like Nyquil." - Rav

mad_skillz

E30 M3 Sport Evo for me please.
Of the two, Quattro.

__________________
R 135
└┼┼┤
..246

C.A.R.

Funny you should mention the R5 Turbo

R5s used to be really popular around England, but most have now rusted away/had their engines blown up. Great little cars but most didn't make it into this century.

I'd take the Quattro here.

__________________
Ravenous - "French cars are extremely safe. If they don't start, they can't crash."

Ravenous

The Mk3 Supra might be more powerful, but it weighs 200kg more than the Mk2.

I agree with Corny Van though, for significantly less than the price of the Audi you could get yourself an LS1 Supra... and then it'll be a completely different ball game.

__________________
your right, the empty space in your garage IS way more hardcore than my R6 ~ Evo

TBR 427

Yep, instead of hitting the tree at 50kmh you'll hit it at 120...

There's a hillclimb circuit near where I live - small hatchback rally-style cars pwn there, to the extent that they're competitive with the gaggle of 7's. Small RWD road cars like that supra are pretty useless, and I don't think an LS1 would make it's front and any better than the Audi...

Ravenous

First of all, they're two completely different cars so there's no point comparing them in the same environment. This comparison doesn't make sense in the slightest, so what is the point in applying logic to come up with an answer?

Second of all, an LS1 in the front of a Supra makes for a dramatic difference; the fully assembled LS block and gearbox weigh less than a dry 6M/7M or even 1JZ block without gearbox. Also, because the 8 is shorter, it sits further back. I shouldn't need to point out the benefits.

__________________
your right, the empty space in your garage IS way more hardcore than my R6 ~ Evo

Cornelius Van

^ Damn, I figured the LS1 was nifty idea that the car would wear well, but I had no idea it was that good.

Cool. Learn something new everyday.

__________________
It costs you as much as a mortgage but that doesn't change the fact you're awesome. ~ Rav

Venom 1000

Why not compare the Mk 3 supra instead? With the turbo it would be much more competitive.

__________________
"who's next in line to shaft me?" -Frewin1987

Rest in peace, Randy. Thank you for teaching us.