Dear all:
I am not too much of a knowledgeable guy when it comes to turbo cars vs. non-turbos. Do you think that if I were in the market for a
93 to 95 year model supra, it would behoove me to get the non-turbo version (for ease and economy of maintenance)?If I were to buy a Supra, it would be for the handling and I think the non-turbo version would handle just fine. Plus, it as a softer suspension, so it will be more pleasure to tour with it. I also don't want any form of headaches ie: Reliability and longevity is a huge issue with me. Therefore, the question is: Do turbos generally add more maintenance headaches?
A friend tells me that when he looks for Porches, he looks for the Turbo bodied (but NON-turbo) 1986-1988 911's. He says that in Porches, the Turbos are more touchy and engines don't last as long. Is it the same story with the supras?
Thx in advance.
sincerely. Moser.