RE: Four-cylinder Supra already confirmed

[BrassMan]

Glasgowrob said:

is it wrong that i would love to see this with a bmw twin turbo straight six diesel?


320 bhp nigh on 500 lbs/ft of torque, would be rather fun.

or shoehorn the triple turbo version in for 400 bhp and 600lbs/ft of torque. to hell with the diesel hate toyota be different and stick 2 fingers up to the world and build a diesel sports car

All that extra weight right by the front axle? That's a terrible idea.

[theJT]

Dear god have they cocked the looks of this thing up.

If you take the basic silhouette it looks gorgeous, but the detailing is so incredibly fussy and incoherent it completely spoils it Looked better with the dazzle camo on. Couldn't see the mess then.

[sorrel]

In my opinion it would have looked better, more coherent with a smoother side, less crazy curves and slashes. I'm not great with photoshop, but something like this....

[st4]

I like it - there's a hint of Zagato Aston Martin Vangtage to it.

[otolith]

emicen said:

J4CKO said:

In what ways ?

Is the BMW engine not over engineered ?

What are we talking, forged whatsits and stuff ?

I do appreciate they put a lot of effort into engineering stuff to do its job and no more, would be interesting to see where the 2JZ is better and where the BMW is built to a cost, I did notice some plastic on them where I thought it would be metal, but that can be for weight as well.

This is a pretty good summary: https://youtu.be/u_8B3lOAP9A

Essentially:
Big iron block with semi closed deck
Big main bearing caps
Forged crank, rods and duralumin (iirc) pistons

It’s not uncommon for them to be run at up to 1000hp in the USA without touching the internals.

Hmm. I think that if you engineered an engine to make 330bhp, and it's capable of safely making 1000bhp, you probably could (and should) have made it lighter.

"Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."

[cookington]

Cloudy147 said:

And meet Stumpy the replica:

The person who had the wheels painted black on that Ferrari deserves to be kicked in pods by Eddie Hall with a diving boot on.

ETA - they're not even the right wheels

Edited by cookington on Wednesday 16th January 10:40

[gareth_r]

otolith said:

Hmm. I think that if you engineered an engine to make 330bhp, and it's capable of safely making 1000bhp, you probably could (and should) have made it lighter.

"Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."

"Carbon pollution" wasn't the main consideration 30 years ago.

Especially for Toyota, after the MkIII Supra/7M-GTE debacle.

There are a couple of 1000bhp 2JZ builds on PH, and they weren't entirely stock internally.

Edited by gareth_r on Wednesday 16th January 11:26

[otolith]

gareth_r said:

otolith said:

Hmm. I think that if you engineered an engine to make 330bhp, and it's capable of safely making 1000bhp, you probably could (and should) have made it lighter.

"Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."

"Carbon pollution" wasn't the main consideration 30 years ago. Especially for Toyota, after the MkIII Supra/7M-GTE debacle.

There are a couple of 1000bhp 2JZ builds on PH, and they weren't entirely stock internally.

Wasn't thinking of emissions, was thinking that a lighter engine will improve both acceleration and handling, so making it much stronger and heavier than it needs to be for the production power output isn't necessarily a good thing.

Edited by otolith on Wednesday 16th January 11:28

[gareth_r]

otolith said:

gareth_r said:

otolith said:

Hmm. I think that if you engineered an engine to make 330bhp, and it's capable of safely making 1000bhp, you probably could (and should) have made it lighter.

"Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands."

"Carbon pollution" wasn't the main consideration 30 years ago. Especially for Toyota, after the MkIII Supra/7M-GTE debacle.

There are a couple of 1000bhp 2JZ builds on PH, and they weren't entirely stock internally.

Wasn't thinking of emissions, was thinking that a lighter engine will improve both acceleration and handling, so making it much stronger and heavier than it needs to be for the production power output isn't necessarily a good thing.

I was thinking of emissions only indirectly. Modern cars have to be as light as possible in order to meet emissions targets, and, to that end, the engines have to be as light as possible, so they are designed for the required output and no more. There is nothing in reserve for tuning. Just look at the Nissan R35 - you can't just chuck a load of extra boost at it and expect the engine to survive, whereas you could with the RB26 (albeit not as much as the 2JZ will take).

Toyota didn't have that constraint 30 years ago, at least, not to anything like the same extent, so they could go overboard in making the strongest, most reliable engine possible to replace the 7M.

Edited by gareth_r on Wednesday 16th January 11:42

[otolith]

They could, but the standard car would have been quicker and better handling if they hadn't.

I think the impact of engine weight on dynamics is probably greater than it is on emissions, to be honest.

[TwinExit]

otolith said:

Wasn't thinking of emissions, was thinking that a lighter engine will improve both acceleration and handling, so making it much stronger and heavier than it needs to be for the production power output isn't necessarily a good thing.

Edited by otolith on Wednesday 16th January 11:28

Oh dear, 1960's Lotus 'weight is the enemy' paradigm alert.

Tell Nissan that they got it all wrong, that the 3.8 V6 Twin Turbo is a poor design and that the GT-R would have been better/faster if it used a Rover 4 banger like Lotus did in the early 00's...

Your maths is flawed, 100 kg off the power train still wont yield as much performance gain as 100 extra lbs/ft of torque with the Supra...

[otolith]

TwinExit said:

otolith said:

Wasn't thinking of emissions, was thinking that a lighter engine will improve both acceleration and handling, so making it much stronger and heavier than it needs to be for the production power output isn't necessarily a good thing.

Edited by otolith on Wednesday 16th January 11:28

Oh dear, 1960's Lotus 'weight is the enemy' paradigm alert.

Tell Nissan that they got it all wrong, that the 3.8 V6 Twin Turbo is a poor design and that the GT-R would have been better/faster if it used a Rover 4 banger like Lotus did in the early 00's...

Your maths is flawed, 100 kg off the power train still wont yield as much performance gain as 100 extra lbs/ft of torque with the Supra...

What maths? My point is that if your engine makes 300bhp and you made it strong enough that the aftermarket can get a reliable 1000bhp from it, you've made it stronger and heavier than it ever needed to be, and have made your car worse as a result.

[spikyone]

TwinExit said:

Oh dear, 1960's Lotus 'weight is the enemy' paradigm alert.

Tell Nissan that they got it all wrong, that the 3.8 V6 Twin Turbo is a poor design and that the GT-R would have been better/faster if it used a Rover 4 banger like Lotus did in the early 00's...

Your maths is flawed, 100 kg off the power train still wont yield as much performance gain as 100 extra lbs/ft of torque with the Supra...

More power is beneficial in the traffic light grand prix. Less weight is beneficial everywhere: acceleration, braking, and cornering. And if you reduce the sprung weight, you can also reduce the weight of suspension components and brakes - i.e. unsprung weight, which is hugely beneficial.

Unfortunately the modern world seems to have lost its driving enthusiasts and replaced them with spec sheet racers, intent on one-upping their neighbours with increasingly irrelevant bhp figures. All the comparisons of a new, 2 seater sports car with tarted up 5-door hatchbacks are depressing evidence of the way things have become.

(And to your point on flawed maths, whether it's better for acceleration to increase power or reduce weight depends on what the initial power and weight were. If you're removing rotating mass, that will also be more beneficial than reducing static mass. You should stop mixing metric and imperial too )

Edited by spikyone on Wednesday 16th January 12:57

[TwinExit]

otolith said:

What maths? My point is that if your engine makes 300bhp and you made it strong enough that the aftermarket can get a reliable 1000bhp from it, you've made it stronger and heavier than it ever needed to be, and have made your car worse as a result.

You make it strong enough for durability, all the aftermarket have done was take advantage of the design.

In any case, a 300 HP engine does not necessarily weigh less than one that will make 1000 HP.

If we compare a 240 PS / 151 lbs/ft F20C from Honda, it's approx 70 kg lighter than a 320+ HP 2JZ motor

The 2JZ produces 320-350 lbs/ft, that 70 kg you save will be overcome many times over from the extra output.

[otolith]

TwinExit said:

otolith said:

What maths? My point is that if your engine makes 300bhp and you made it strong enough that the aftermarket can get a reliable 1000bhp from it, you've made it stronger and heavier than it ever needed to be, and have made your car worse as a result.

You make it strong enough for durability, all the aftermarket have done was take advantage of the design.

Then it's not making 1000bhp reliably as claimed, is it? Durability has been compromised.

TwinExit said:

In any case, a 300 HP engine does not necessarily weigh less than one that will make 1000 HP.

If we compare a 240 PS / 151 lbs/ft F20C from Honda, it's approx 70 kg lighter than a 320+ HP 2JZ motor

The 2JZ produces 320-350 lbs/ft, that 70 kg you save will be overcome many times over from the extra output.

I'm not saying they should have used a four pot. I'm saying that perhaps choosing an iron block over an aluminium one - for example - is an unnecessary waste of mass if all it does is enable some kid to turn up the boost when it's five years old. "Buy this new car, the engine is a boat anchor but the fifth owner will love tuning it" isn't a strong pitch to me.

[mrfunex]

spikyone said:

Unfortunately the modern world seems to have lost its driving enthusiasts and replaced them with spec sheet racers, intent on one-upping their neighbours with increasingly irrelevant bhp figures. All the comparisons of a new, 2 seater sports car with tarted up 5-door hatchbacks are depressing evidence of the way things have become.

We can only hope this spec sheet one-upmanship is a fashion craze... take, for example the BMW M5, 600+bhp, 0-60 in around 3 seconds, and delimited I’m sure it’ll do over 200mph - where can you use it? We don’t live in the age of trans-continental road trips, on fully derestricted roads, or autoroutes where the police turn a blind eye and watch on in awe. We live in an era of potholes, speed bumps, traffic jams and when the road clears, average speed cameras.

I’m guilty of partaking in the bhp arms race a bit myself, but realisation has dawned that most modern, powerful cars have outgrown the road. Small (narrow), characterful and great sounding are my new aims! I’d much rather have a new Alpine or MX5 than a remapped Golf R or M5.

Back on topic, it seems Toyota have lost their way a bit. They’re a press release away from announcing a 2.0TDi version of this Supra which is, in my opinion, a bit of a munter. The interior is nice, but very generic/boring. I await an Evo ‘Supra v Z4’ review, I’m sure it’ll be along soon.

[TwinExit]

spikyone said:

More power is beneficial in the traffic light grand prix. Less weight is beneficial everywhere: acceleration, braking, and cornering. And if you reduce the sprung weight, you can also reduce the weight of suspension components and brakes - i.e. unsprung weight, which is hugely beneficial.

Which means nothing except in the realms of top level (formula mandated) motorsport.

On the street, or weekend track events - any theoretical advantage yielded from less unsprung weight from say ..... a gutless GT86? will be overturned by a simple 30-70 mph overtake from something like a midrange 3 series diesel or a Golf GTi.

spikyone said:

Unfortunately the modern world seems to have lost its driving enthusiasts and replaced them with spec sheet racers, intent on one-upping their neighbours with increasingly irrelevant bhp figures. All the comparisons of a new, 2 seater sports car with tarted up 5-door hatchbacks are depressing evidence of the way things have become.

That's because the 'tarted up 5-door hatchbacks' you speak of provide real world access to performance to most drivers, which is something that low powered cars built to a budget fail to do day in day out.

What is depressing is we have self-appointed driving gods sitting behind their computers, many under the illusion that their 'enthusiasm' for risky/racey driving styles will make up for the lack of grunt and traction.

spikyone said:

(And to your point on flawed maths, whether it's better for acceleration to increase power or reduce weight depends on what the initial power and weight were. If you're removing rotating mass, that will also be more beneficial than reducing static mass. You should stop mixing metric and imperial too )

Mixing metric and imperial is fine providing the numbers are correct.

Preaching impractical design theory (removing arbitrary amount of mass in the name of more acceleration) reeks of someone who is misinformed and never experienced or worked/tuned powerful engines.

[TwinExit]

otolith said:

I'm not saying they should have used a four pot. I'm saying that perhaps choosing an iron block over an aluminium one - for example - is an unnecessary waste of mass if all it does is enable some kid to turn up the boost when it's five years old. "Buy this new car, the engine is a boat anchor but the fifth owner will love tuning it" isn't a strong pitch to me.

The weight savings between iron to aluminium has been done, but this is not the deciding factor towards a car's end-game performance.

The Aluminium block Chevrolet LS1 was touted to be far lighter and therefore a superior power unit to the iron-block 2JZ back in the early 00's - I remember many a heated argument between both camps. The reality? The 2JZ weighed within a dozen kilos of it.

The obsession of low weight has muddled many 'enthusiasts' judgement in their pursuit for a better car...

[otolith]

I'm simply unconvinced that "over-engineering" an engine to be able to exceed its design parameters (including durability) at the expense of weight is admirable. Everything is a trade-off, and the job is to fit them to the purpose.

[DoubleD]

Reducing a cars weight is always a good thing, that we can all agree on. But the weight loss needs to be done in the right way for the type of car.