RE: Toyota Supra prototype: Driven
Discussion
Like the marketing on high torsional rigidity, using a chassis that's designed to a convertible they have added a roof, clearly its going to be strong, Unfortunately it's also 250kg heavier than the gt86 even though its not any bigger. Can't help but feel if they were not constrained to platform share with a 2 seater convertible from another manufacturer Toyota may have built something more in keeping with supra badge.
TwinExit said:
It was a flop to mainstream car press and still would be now. Germany and Italy have them in their pocket.
Notoriety comes from the aftermarket, the Japanese pushed the platform on their midnight club runs, then the US with their inclination to drag race everything.
It was a flop because it did not sell outside Japan, not because of “the mainstream press”. As for pushing the platform and getting notoriety as a result, isn’t it what is said in my post?Notoriety comes from the aftermarket, the Japanese pushed the platform on their midnight club runs, then the US with their inclination to drag race everything.
As much of a Z4 this car is, looking at it even with the camouflage and it reminds me of the Mk 4 Supra. The engine in these will be able to take a lot of tuning, BMW's B55 engine is essentially a remastered N55 which can take a large power increase without significant internal upgrades, just like the last Supra. Will be interesting to see what happens to these in 10 years time.
juicy sushi said:
Wow, a lot of revisionism, outright lying and silly comments.
The Supra always was in the same price range as the Z, and competed head-to-head in the market across several generations with it. The NSX and R23 GT-R (first since the curtailed 1973 model) dropped at the peak of the Japanese economic bubble. They were all around the same power and performance levels, with the NSX having a bit of a premium price. But the Supra was never an exotic. It was a mainstream halo coupe for a volume manufacturer.
The 4th generation was about level with a contemporary 911 in performance, and that is due to the ridiculous engineering efforts that went into it. Nothing wrong with that. But it isn't 1989 anymore, the yen isn't that far undervalued and management aren't that sympathetic to corporate vanity projects, even if they're the name on the side of the building. The market for sports cars has sadly shrunk, so co-development is necessary. People can complain, but they're not the ones building the things so business realities are gong to be ignored by fans who treat it as escapism.
Which seems to be the entire argument here. "It doesn't have enough power" "It's too small" "It's not a real Supra" "35-40k performance machines are only slightly less powerful than something that's in the bracket just above them". For some, it will never be good enough because it does not offer eleventy million hp for 20 quid. For some, it will never be good enough because it's a Toyota. And for some, it doesn't match their hot-rodded 25-year old car, so it's not good enough. The wheelbase is 3 inches shorter than that of the 4th generation model that everyone says it has to match up to. It's maybe 50kg lighter, too. It has more power, stock than that car, and 25 years worth of material improvements. Is it better than some tuning shop special? I doubt Toyota give a flying fig either way.
Is it competitive in its market segment? Well, everyone who has driven the car is saying they think it might be. A group of internet nobodies are inventing reasons why it isn't competitive with other segments, and saying it's a failure as a result. This seems like a familiar pattern for an internet forum, and a European one in particular. This is also why Europe is not a key market for the Supra and why Toyota don't listen to this sort of criticism.
The GTRs (with the exception of the R35) were always coupes derived from mainstream saloons (PGC10 through to ER34s). Supras (and Celica Supras before them) were purpose-built coupe/sports car. And apparently the GTR is an exotic while the supra is a halo coupe for a mass manufacturer? Errr ok...The Supra always was in the same price range as the Z, and competed head-to-head in the market across several generations with it. The NSX and R23 GT-R (first since the curtailed 1973 model) dropped at the peak of the Japanese economic bubble. They were all around the same power and performance levels, with the NSX having a bit of a premium price. But the Supra was never an exotic. It was a mainstream halo coupe for a volume manufacturer.
The 4th generation was about level with a contemporary 911 in performance, and that is due to the ridiculous engineering efforts that went into it. Nothing wrong with that. But it isn't 1989 anymore, the yen isn't that far undervalued and management aren't that sympathetic to corporate vanity projects, even if they're the name on the side of the building. The market for sports cars has sadly shrunk, so co-development is necessary. People can complain, but they're not the ones building the things so business realities are gong to be ignored by fans who treat it as escapism.
Which seems to be the entire argument here. "It doesn't have enough power" "It's too small" "It's not a real Supra" "35-40k performance machines are only slightly less powerful than something that's in the bracket just above them". For some, it will never be good enough because it does not offer eleventy million hp for 20 quid. For some, it will never be good enough because it's a Toyota. And for some, it doesn't match their hot-rodded 25-year old car, so it's not good enough. The wheelbase is 3 inches shorter than that of the 4th generation model that everyone says it has to match up to. It's maybe 50kg lighter, too. It has more power, stock than that car, and 25 years worth of material improvements. Is it better than some tuning shop special? I doubt Toyota give a flying fig either way.
Is it competitive in its market segment? Well, everyone who has driven the car is saying they think it might be. A group of internet nobodies are inventing reasons why it isn't competitive with other segments, and saying it's a failure as a result. This seems like a familiar pattern for an internet forum, and a European one in particular. This is also why Europe is not a key market for the Supra and why Toyota don't listen to this sort of criticism.
Aluxo said:
The GTRs (with the exception of the R35) were always coupes derived from mainstream saloons (PGC10 through to ER34s). Supras (and Celica Supras before them) were purpose-built coupe/sports car. And apparently the GTR is an exotic while the supra is a halo coupe for a mass manufacturer? Errr ok...
Well yes. The Skyline was a premium "sporty/luxury" car line from first Prince, and then Nissan. The GT-R, until 1989 only existed from 1969 until the oil crisis of 1973 as a homologation special for competition purposes. Between 1973 and 1989 there was no GT-R. As such, the Supra through its first 3 generations, never competed against it.
It did, however, sit at the same point in the market as Nissan's Fairlady Z (the 240Z/280Z/280ZX/300ZX to those of us outside Japan). So, the Supra was not a GT-R competitor until you get to the 4th generation Supra, because there was no GT-R until the A80 was in development.
And Toyota, judging by the spec and rumoured price of the car, still does not see it as a GT-R competitor. Try and look at things from the perspective of the people doing the work developing and building the car, to understand what it is intended to be.
red_slr said:
To be a proper Supra it needs to be on a par with the base 911, which its not. IMHO. It needs to be special. The last TT was special because of the 2JZ. I don't see anything special about this.
No, it does not. The Supra has only ever had one car truly in its crosshairs, and that has ALWAYS been the Nissan Z / Fairlady line. So much so that the imminent release of the Z32 at the end of the 80's caused Toyota to go back to the drawing board with the spec for the mk4. zeeboy said:
If it turns out to be as low on horsepower, as sluggish and as expensive as the article suggests it will definitely NOT be on my list of new cars to buy. My next car needs to have around 450hp, get to 60 in around 4.3 seconds and be about £40k or less.
Good luck - your next car isn't likely to be new then! I don’t know why people rave about the previous Supra, my neighbor has one, auto one with no spoiler, had it for years, still has it...anyways I look at it and wonder what the big deal is, it just looks big fat and old, yeah sure you can get 1000bhp from them and put cool bodykits with massive wheels but I don’t find appealing in any way unless I’m watching Paul walker race one around LA!
If I had the choice to drive 3 cars, an Evo 6, Impreza P1 or mk4 Supra, Id much rather drive the Evo or Impreza, purely because I think they’d be more fun and easier to drive, the supra looks like hard work!
It probably was good back in the day, I don’t doubt that for a second but why are people disappointed in the new model as if the old one was a masterpiece?
For Mr Twinexit, there’s a lot you’ve said and I can’t figure out what to quote but I’d like to say 2 things.
1. Nobody races on public roads and a 320d can keep up with a Golf R on any road in the UK, not because it’s faster or as fast, but because there’s a limit to how fast you can go on public roads. The odds on a new Supra driver meeting a mapped (insert any hot hatch) and losing (if it does) would be in the thousands because you’d have to find a supra driver and a mapped hot hatch driver to be on the same empty back road and they’d have to be both driving like absolute maniacs to where a cars true capabilities will show! It’s just impossible and pointless to measure.
2. 50 grand seems like a lot of money but a 440i starts at 49 k, a C43 probably starts at around the same, I don’t see how it’s a lot of money? It’s an all out sports car that’s been in development for years, 350 bhp is just right imo, if you want more power, buy a C63, looking at 70 grand at least, 20k more for extra power you can’t even use
If I had the choice to drive 3 cars, an Evo 6, Impreza P1 or mk4 Supra, Id much rather drive the Evo or Impreza, purely because I think they’d be more fun and easier to drive, the supra looks like hard work!
It probably was good back in the day, I don’t doubt that for a second but why are people disappointed in the new model as if the old one was a masterpiece?
For Mr Twinexit, there’s a lot you’ve said and I can’t figure out what to quote but I’d like to say 2 things.
1. Nobody races on public roads and a 320d can keep up with a Golf R on any road in the UK, not because it’s faster or as fast, but because there’s a limit to how fast you can go on public roads. The odds on a new Supra driver meeting a mapped (insert any hot hatch) and losing (if it does) would be in the thousands because you’d have to find a supra driver and a mapped hot hatch driver to be on the same empty back road and they’d have to be both driving like absolute maniacs to where a cars true capabilities will show! It’s just impossible and pointless to measure.
2. 50 grand seems like a lot of money but a 440i starts at 49 k, a C43 probably starts at around the same, I don’t see how it’s a lot of money? It’s an all out sports car that’s been in development for years, 350 bhp is just right imo, if you want more power, buy a C63, looking at 70 grand at least, 20k more for extra power you can’t even use
TwinExit said:
And Honda with the original NSX desperately played the "technical" card and waved around their F1/McLaren connection, but it was deemed underpowered and too expensive.
In the states, you had rednecks in their $22k USD GM F-bodies haranguing NSX's all day long, in Europe you just need a E36 M3 4 door saloon to barge past it above 60 mph.
With today's overlapping car segments, the Supra with its 350 horses is exposed towards many cars on many price brackets that would show it the way home.
Well done for completely cherry picking my post....In the states, you had rednecks in their $22k USD GM F-bodies haranguing NSX's all day long, in Europe you just need a E36 M3 4 door saloon to barge past it above 60 mph.
With today's overlapping car segments, the Supra with its 350 horses is exposed towards many cars on many price brackets that would show it the way home.
I never said anything about the technical elements of the car but more the driver.
But then again you decided to cherry pick parts of my post.
Cannot imagine many Porschar owners being tempted, for no other reason than it is a Toyota, the same problem as the Renault Alpine will suffer.
The 718 was met with underwhelming reviews as a four pot turbo when compaored to the six, except at Porschar House, so presumably it, like the Alpine is better but does not have the badge.
Certainly looks good and great in that camo.
The 718 was met with underwhelming reviews as a four pot turbo when compaored to the six, except at Porschar House, so presumably it, like the Alpine is better but does not have the badge.
Certainly looks good and great in that camo.
J4CKO said:
Suspect the M240i may have been mapped as well if it comfortably pulled away from a 370 ish bhp Golf R ?
They are fast but they dont have that kind of margin over a tweaked Golf R, you can get them over 400 bhp with just a tuning box or remap, been in a 440 bhp one, it was mental.
Possibly mate.They are fast but they dont have that kind of margin over a tweaked Golf R, you can get them over 400 bhp with just a tuning box or remap, been in a 440 bhp one, it was mental.
I had a shock when it was stuck to my bumper and then went past me while I was pinned to the floor. The Golf was properly quick and had kept a few "better" cars in line (5.0 XKR being the most memorable), the BMW put it in its place comfortably though
I've always had big respect for the '40i engine since and think its a great lump to put into the Supra
smilo996 said:
Cannot imagine many Porschar owners being tempted, for no other reason than it is a Toyota, the same problem as the Renault Alpine will suffer.
The 718 was met with underwhelming reviews as a four pot turbo when compaored to the six, except at Porschar House, so presumably it, like the Alpine is better but does not have the badge.
Certainly looks good and great in that camo.
Renault is a sThe 718 was met with underwhelming reviews as a four pot turbo when compaored to the six, except at Porschar House, so presumably it, like the Alpine is better but does not have the badge.
Certainly looks good and great in that camo.
t badge, and the A110 is butt ugly.I would consider a Supra. Would be nice to drive something quick where the components don’t crap out after 5,000 miles. (I had a few issues with my 981, a new pdk in the first year was one..)
718 faultless so far, turbo is very quick, and the sound nonsense spouted constantly by the F6 mob is, in my view, a right load of b
ks.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff