RE: Toyota Supra production model leaks (again)

[aka_kerrly]

People wonder why so few manufactures bother with performance cars these days, it's most likely that they don't see the point when so called enthusiasts who ought to love this kind of car have nothing good to say about it and write it off before it even hits the showrooms.


I WANT ONE!

[jjr1]

I can see me swapping my BMW M4 for one. Hopefully the rest looks great to.

[TwinExit]

aka_kerrly said:

People wonder why so few manufactures bother with performance cars these days, it's most likely that they don't see the point when so called enthusiasts who ought to love this kind of car have nothing good to say about it and write it off before it even hits the showrooms.


I WANT ONE!

RRP £50K + (more likely £60k)

Will be beaten by a Golf R that costs half that.

You still want one?

[Chestrockwell]

If only this was called the Celica and the Supra used the 4.4 TT from the M5 creating the modern supercar slayer.

Then Nissan and Mercedes team up to create something similar to rival it, now that would be interesting and they’ll sell them by the boat load!

[Olivera]

TwinExit said:

Nope, there are matters such as corner exit power, available traction with uneven/poor/damp/wet road surfaces, you would come across this on real roads under real weather conditions.

What are you implying, that the Supra should be 4wd? You are contradicting your own position that it should follow in the footsteps of the Mk 4 Supra.

Sorry but a sports car shouldn't be 4wd, nor should it be primarily concerned with standing start nor wet weather performance.

[Honeywell]

I like it I think.

I’m not hung up on thrust - it’s going to have stloads - and more interested in intangibles like throttle response, centre of gravity height, control weights and other more sophisticated considerations. If this thing can power oversteer and donut it will be far better than a golf R regardless of pointless acceleration figures.

Toyota got loads right with the GT86. I have one. I like that it’s all built by Toyota and that as such stuff doesn’t go wrong.

A 340hp Manual gearbox rwd coupe which doesn’t go wrong and has lovely seat position and control weights and such will be a legen twenty years from now....

[spikyone]

TwinExit said:

The location of the A pillar and fuel tank is not the issue here, it's the fundamental shortcomings of using a platform spec'd for moderate performance and limited seating capacity. This means it's unlikely it can support a suitable power train for high performance (i.e bigger motor, more durable transmission, 4WD) to compete with the big boys.

Because of this, they have use the 'native' BMW 3 litre 6 pot, which is not sufficient today with a 1500+ kerb weight and pegs this car in the performance class of a modern hot hatch. In the cliche that is the real world, it actually falls short against the 4WD shopping carts.

Riiiiiiight. So according to your logic the Supra is horribly compromised by being built on a shared, but purpose-built, sports car platform. Yet you're suggesting that a Golf R is somehow better. Because it's not at all compromised by being built on the same platform as a FWD shopping cart.

There seem to be two types of people on this thread. Those that enjoy driving, and those that are spreadsheet racers/schoolchildren. I think you've identified which group you fall into.

[toppstuff]

spikyone said:

TwinExit said:

The location of the A pillar and fuel tank is not the issue here, it's the fundamental shortcomings of using a platform spec'd for moderate performance and limited seating capacity. This means it's unlikely it can support a suitable power train for high performance (i.e bigger motor, more durable transmission, 4WD) to compete with the big boys.

Because of this, they have use the 'native' BMW 3 litre 6 pot, which is not sufficient today with a 1500+ kerb weight and pegs this car in the performance class of a modern hot hatch. In the cliche that is the real world, it actually falls short against the 4WD shopping carts.

Riiiiiiight. So according to your logic the Supra is horribly compromised by being built on a shared, but purpose-built, sports car platform. Yet you're suggesting that a Golf R is somehow better. Because it's not at all compromised by being built on the same platform as a FWD shopping cart.

There seem to be two types of people on this thread. Those that enjoy driving, and those that are spreadsheet racers/schoolchildren. I think you've identified which group you fall into.

Exactly. The whole point of this car is NOT to compete with a 4WD hatch.

Anyone comparing the Supra to a Golf R is so missing the point, I wonder why they are even on this forum.

[Leggy]

This looks better than the BMW version so far, but look forward to the official photos.
So many moaners. What’s not to like about a RWD sports coupe, and why would you compare it against a shopping hatch Golf, even if it’s an R. This will have a much better sense of occasion and rarity.
Also it reminds me of the new Griff, but will be more reliable and half the price.

[ingotree]

Interesting reading all the comments. I think the big difference is when the last supra was released it competed against much bigger cars, Ferrari, Porsche, Nissan Skyline etc. This seems more of a Celica GT4 (I know 4 wheel drive and this isn’t) replacement which in many ways is not a problem. However in the same way Ferrari, Porsche and Nissan (GTR) have moved on this doesn’t seem to swim in the same circles anymore. Probs not comparable relatively to what the Supra was in the early nineties when it was released. Maybe a name change to Celica GT blah blah would be met with a better reception as it’s not at the same price point as the Nissan GT-R or NSX etc

Edited by ingotree on Wednesday 12th December 22:35

[craste]

The drip feed has been so long winded and slow on this car, it’s become painfull!

It’ll be old had by the time it’s properly ‘revealed’. Toyota need to get over themselves!

[densil101]

I can’t see how a UK registration plate is going to fit on the front of that without spoiling it! Please no Alfa offset plate - I have to have symmetry in my life!

[mainaman]

The previous Supra,which struggled for sales,would cost 75 000-80 000 pounds today,the new one is priced closer to the Z cars than the GTR.Also the Cayman GT4 has less BHP than some hot hatches,what a flop!

Want a bigger and badder Toyota,wait for the LC F.Want a real world sports car,with straight six,manual,RWD and a reasonable price tag,go test drive the Supra next year.Hopefully it wont disappoint and it will be a good platform for the tuners too.

[MX6]

Not the prettiest face but it does look aggressive and purposeful, I like it. I miss the '90's hayday of Japanese coupes so this is a very welcome return. I really hope they offer a manual 'box option. They could have given it more power seeing that it's not much more than a mk4 but there will be aftermarket tuning. Will look forward to them being a cheap used option at some point!

[fathomfive]

toppstuff said:

spikyone said:

TwinExit said:

The location of the A pillar and fuel tank is not the issue here, it's the fundamental shortcomings of using a platform spec'd for moderate performance and limited seating capacity. This means it's unlikely it can support a suitable power train for high performance (i.e bigger motor, more durable transmission, 4WD) to compete with the big boys.

Because of this, they have use the 'native' BMW 3 litre 6 pot, which is not sufficient today with a 1500+ kerb weight and pegs this car in the performance class of a modern hot hatch. In the cliche that is the real world, it actually falls short against the 4WD shopping carts.

Riiiiiiight. So according to your logic the Supra is horribly compromised by being built on a shared, but purpose-built, sports car platform. Yet you're suggesting that a Golf R is somehow better. Because it's not at all compromised by being built on the same platform as a FWD shopping cart.

There seem to be two types of people on this thread. Those that enjoy driving, and those that are spreadsheet racers/schoolchildren. I think you've identified which group you fall into.

Exactly. The whole point of this car is NOT to compete with a 4WD hatch.

Anyone comparing the Supra to a Golf R is so missing the point, I wonder why they are even on this forum.

What a sad place the driving world would be if we all bought cars based on a 0-60 time. Or if we all bought a Golf R.

[Teddy Lop]

TwinExit said:

Yes you are the only one. The MKIV pushed 300-350 HP standard back in 1993 and were a threat to Porsche and Ferrari, let alone the hot-hatch of the times.

engines that were a benchmark in terms of power both stock (laughably understated fibs) and insane tuning options defined jap metal of the era. Exchanging that unique heart for a crate engine from BMW just seems wrong, you may as well stick a crate chevy V8 in a ferrari.

Maybe I'm just too rosy eyed and someone will inform me that vast majority sold were in fact 2.0's and autos and toyota are just cashing in.

Shame, a howling big blown salute to the internal combustion engine before they have us all in wirry things would have been nice but its not exactly toyotas global image statement is it?

[borat52]

I do find it slightly ironic after ruling the roost (alongside all the other jap manufacturers) with small turbo engine Toyota abandoned them at jistcthe point when the rest of the world started embracing them.

If they’d continued to develop turbo power for the isf/lfa/gsf/rcf they may be sat there now with a worthy successor for the previous supra.

I applaud this car, it’s a sports car after all, but a supra it is not.

[Fetchez la vache]

fathomfive said:

What a sad place the driving world would be if we all bought cars based on a 0-60 time. Or if we all bought a Golf R.

You forgot flashy graphics on the dash.
A sad place is exactly where we are.

[MX6]

borat52 said:

I applaud this car, it’s a sports car after all, but a supra it is not.

I don't see how this isn't a Supra, it's a 3.0L straight 6 turbo RWD sports coupe from Toyota, what else would it be? What box doesn't it tick as a Supra? I thought it could of had a bit more power, but a Supra wasn't just a mk4 twin turbo manual, there were various incarnations over the Supra lineage that had smaller capacity engine or were NA, dating back to the '70's including the Celica Supra's.

[rampageturke]

MX6 said:

I don't see how this isn't a Supra, it's a 3.0L straight 6 turbo RWD sports coupe from Toyota, what else would it be? What box doesn't it tick as a Supra? I thought it could of had a bit more power, but a Supra wasn't just a mk4 twin turbo manual, there were various incarnations over the Supra lineage that had smaller capacity engine or were NA, dating back to the '70's including the Celica Supra's.

because the mk3 and mk4 supras defined the name over here and what the supra stood for, the mk4 even moreso than any other supra.

the other supras are irrelevant