RE: Toyota GR Supra: Driven
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
I think you are confusing the MK IV Supra and thinking it was the only car to bear the name. Not so:
Sure they are more GT than outright sports car, but then this new one would seem to be also.
The MK1 and 2 weren't that big compared to a MK4, but that's a natural trend - how many cars get smaller with each generation? Both MK3 and MK4 were big GT cars, so this just seems like an odd direction to take in respect of what the badge traditional means. Lots of the talk from Toyota mentioned in this article seems to talk about sports cars, rather than GT cars. I guess the problem is that the Celica monika wasn't seen as premium enough. Maybe they should have tapped BMW up for some 8-Series bits...Sure they are more GT than outright sports car, but then this new one would seem to be also.
300bhp/ton said:
Do you really think the MK IV was a pretty car from every angle? I'd say your description above fits it almost as well tbh. And I'm not sure it was exactly a HUGE seller.
Just over 11,000 according to here:
http://mkiv.com/specifications/sales_numbers/retai...
I'm pretty sure BMW sold a lot more Z3's....
It wasn't a pretty car from every angle, but much more cohesive than this new model.Just over 11,000 according to here:
http://mkiv.com/specifications/sales_numbers/retai...
I'm pretty sure BMW sold a lot more Z3's....
I'm sure BMW did sell more Z3s, but it wasn't a direct competitor to the Supra, so it doesn't mean a lot.
The Vambo said:
PaulB1 said:
Perhaps the wrong model has been used here, maybe Celica would have been more appropriate for the level of performance on offer. A Supra should be able to keep up with a GT-R.
Should it be priced at the same level too?PaulB1 said:
Perhaps the wrong model has been used here, maybe Celica would have been more appropriate for the level of performance on offer. A Supra should be able to keep up with a GT-R.
Why? Or are you talking b
ks? On what rational or factual level can you support this position?Btw you do realise this new Supra is both faster and more powerful than the old one.
300bhp/ton said:
PaulB1 said:
Perhaps the wrong model has been used here, maybe Celica would have been more appropriate for the level of performance on offer. A Supra should be able to keep up with a GT-R.
Why? Or are you talking bks? On what rational or factual level can you support this position?Btw you do realise this new Supra is both faster and more powerful than the old one.
If we return to back to the early 90's the Mk IV supra was doing 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, it's was competing with the RX-7 Turbo and 300 ZX all also around 5 seconds to sixty and 300 Bhp. At the time the NSX had around 270 Bhp.
So almost 30 years on, we have an improvement of some 40 Bhp and 0.3 seconds to 60.
The fact is the Supra, NSX, RX-7, and twin turbo 300ZX were all performance bargains in their time.
I paid less for my pre-reg M4 CP with an extra 100 Bhp than they're asking for this abomination.
In spirit a Mk V Supra it is not.
So almost 30 years on, we have an improvement of some 40 Bhp and 0.3 seconds to 60.
The fact is the Supra, NSX, RX-7, and twin turbo 300ZX were all performance bargains in their time.
I paid less for my pre-reg M4 CP with an extra 100 Bhp than they're asking for this abomination.
In spirit a Mk V Supra it is not.
300bhp/ton said:
PaulB1 said:
Perhaps the wrong model has been used here, maybe Celica would have been more appropriate for the level of performance on offer. A Supra should be able to keep up with a GT-R.
Why? Or are you talking bks? On what rational or factual level can you support this position?Btw you do realise this new Supra is both faster and more powerful than the old one.
The Supra was a range of cars, only the Mk4 TT was anywhere near, previous models topped out at 230 bhp, the MK4 NA was 200 ish bhp, much like the Nissan Skyline had many variations from 2 litres up.
And anyway, there are no rules for new cars that say it has to be this powerful based on what went before, its market research and the manufacturers know what they can make, at a profit by flogging to punters who want one, if they had made a slightly updated Mk4, the fanboys would wet themselves with joy, but then smiled and carried on fannying about with their old one with a turbo so big it pokes out of the bonnet.
Outside of internet Forum land, actual people will probably buy it and quite enjoy it, some may even vaguely remember a car from the past with a similar name, they wont know a B58 from a 2JZ, if asked they will say didn't one do Love Shack and the other is married to Beyonce. They will drive their new slow Supra thats faster than the old ones and think its pretty bloody rapid.
Like a lot of the current folk who buy Minis, their grandad has probably waxed lyrical about how wonderful the old "proper" ones were but they just pretend to listen and have never seen one, or if they have, they just thought either nothing or "look at that funny old thing"
Car companies dont generally make cars for fanboys of the old ones and forum inhabitants, we are all a bit too close to it, like Star Wars boffins who over analyze every aspect of a film, pull it to bits and remove any ounce of joy in the name of accuracy and slavish adherence to whats right, and at the end of the day its a daft film about spaceships and stuff and this is a sporty Toyota, even if its a BMW, the punters will love that bit as in their minds BMW > Toyota.
the MkV supra was often compared against the 8 series BMWs of the day... so this being basically a Z4 is a huge change of direction and target market.
Styling is subjective, but I'm not a fan of the z4 or the supra styling.
The fact that only an auto is offered is not surprising, if it was pitched as a big GT coupe as previous supra's, but this:
"...sudden engine braking jolt you get with every downshift in Sport mode both feels just right for a sports car as apparently purposeful as this one, while also helping to settle the rear end as you dive into a braking zone."
is just wrong for a sports car; the whole point of heel 'n toe in a manual gearbox car was to PREVENT a jolt; having the car "jolt" on downshift is only useful if you're a drifter... if the whole point of advancing technology of auto boxes is to be better than manuals, then you'd think they would make downshifts seamless (a la DSG boxes).
Styling is subjective, but I'm not a fan of the z4 or the supra styling.
The fact that only an auto is offered is not surprising, if it was pitched as a big GT coupe as previous supra's, but this:
"...sudden engine braking jolt you get with every downshift in Sport mode both feels just right for a sports car as apparently purposeful as this one, while also helping to settle the rear end as you dive into a braking zone."
is just wrong for a sports car; the whole point of heel 'n toe in a manual gearbox car was to PREVENT a jolt; having the car "jolt" on downshift is only useful if you're a drifter... if the whole point of advancing technology of auto boxes is to be better than manuals, then you'd think they would make downshifts seamless (a la DSG boxes).
Colonel D said:
Cliche I know, but all I can see is a Z4 in an ugly kit. From the rear quarter window and roofline it's hard to not see what it's based on. Hopefully it will sell good enough for Toyota to bring out another a few years down the line with a more original Toyota design.
What are you talking about? The Z4 doesn’t have a rear quarter window or hard top roofline!Colour me confused.
300bhp/ton said:
E65Ross said:
Because it's easier, in the same way changing my TV channel using a remote control is easier than pressing the button on the TV.
Daft point supported by a daft comment 
With the automatic parking brake on my old 7 series this was how it worked:
Drive along and come to a stop. Once stopped, the automatic parking brake would come on. You remove your foot from the brake pedal and you don't move. You then put your foot on the accelerator, the parking brake releases and you move off.
I can't see how this is worse than a manual parking brake? It never failed, it never needed adjusting (like several manual handbrakes do when cable tension reduces). For general driving and parking, how is a manual brake better than that? It occupies extra space in the cabin, too.
E65Ross said:
300bhp/ton said:
E65Ross said:
Because it's easier, in the same way changing my TV channel using a remote control is easier than pressing the button on the TV.
Daft point supported by a daft comment With the automatic parking brake on my old 7 series this was how it worked:
Drive along and come to a stop. Once stopped, the automatic parking brake would come on. You remove your foot from the brake pedal and you don't move. You then put your foot on the accelerator, the parking brake releases and you move off.
I can't see how this is worse than a manual parking brake? It never failed, it never needed adjusting (like several manual handbrakes do when cable tension reduces). For general driving and parking, how is a manual brake better than that? It occupies extra space in the cabin, too.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff