RE: Toyota GR Supra: Driven

RE: Toyota GR Supra: Driven

Author
Discussion

Ares

8,484 posts

61 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
foxhounduk said:
Let me guide you here as a starting point: https://jalopnik.com/bmw-engines-are-gigantic-piec...

Edited by foxhounduk on Thursday 16th May 14:00
Freddy sounds almost as angry as you. Justly filed to 'rants' laugh




Did both of your wives have affairs with a BMW exec? Or just a BMW owner?

foxhounduk

204 posts

121 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Ares said:
Freddy sounds almost as angry as you. Justly filed to 'rants' laugh




Did both of your wives have affairs with a BMW exec? Or just a BMW owner?
Generally people wake up in the morning, not wanting to be angry. Most people in this world want to relax and be merry! If there are lots of people getting angry with their engines and reliability, then's there's a reason why...

300bhp/ton

36,547 posts

131 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
sr.guiri said:
Difficult to compare this to the original. The OG was an icon of it's time
What does OG mean?

sr.guiri said:
, and people of a certain age will always look on this new model as a poor imitation of the real deal. In it's day was the old one really that remarkable? Maybe it was just pretty average like this and only in hindsight do we look back on it with fondness....
Personally while I like the MK IV, it wasn't anything overly special IMO. I actually prefer the MKIII's styling. The MK IV was I believe also more expensive than model it replaced and pitched at a slightly different market and sector. You could argue the MK III was very much a Ford Capri type of vehicle and market placement. The MK IV was not.

sr.guiri said:
Personally, I think ths design is unimaginative, it could be a GT86, a Mazda or whatever.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion. But I struggle to understand it if I'm honest. This new Supra is very distinctive and the opposite of subtle. i.e. it seems to carry a lot of visual drama and presence and good performance too. And doesn't really look like anything else on the road. I'm not sure how this is 'unimaginative'??? confused

It does share some styling ques with the MK IV too. And to be fair the MK IV shared no styling traits from any previous Supra models.


sr.guiri said:
Wasn't the old one famous for being able to release monster amounts of power, relatively cheaply.
Not really, big power costs regardless of the car most of the time. The engine is overbuilt and very strong, meaning it can take a lot of boost before needing to beef it up. But other engines manage this too. Maybe to some extent this makes them cheaper to get big power from.

sr.guiri said:
I don't think that it is the case with this one.
What makes you conclude this?

Ares

8,484 posts

61 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
foxhounduk said:
Ares said:
Freddy sounds almost as angry as you. Justly filed to 'rants' laugh




Did both of your wives have affairs with a BMW exec? Or just a BMW owner?
Generally people wake up in the morning, not wanting to be angry. Most people in this world want to relax and be merry! If there are lots of people getting angry with their engines and reliability, then's there's a reason why...
...how bizarre that despite having repeatedly unreliable BMW engines, you kept going back for more....7 times?

Or maybe it's just the trait of an angry person that needs to find an outlet for their anger?

Either way, chill dude.

MX6

4,047 posts

154 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
Maybe I've just been lucky but I don't associate Bmw engines with unreliability at all.
I've had a bad experience with the dreaded N47 timing chain letting on in my other halfs 120D. Something of a harrowing experience, my perception of BMW engineering reached a subsequent nadir and hasn't picked up much since. We're both back in 1.6L petrols now...
Advertisement

Slow

4,343 posts

78 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
You can get 500bhp out of a bmw m50b25 engine without taking apart the block.

It’s after then when st goes sideways, with the 2jz it’s less stuff to do to chase the 700/800 bhp mark.

foxhounduk

204 posts

121 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Ares said:
...how bizarre that despite having repeatedly unreliable BMW engines, you kept going back for more....7 times?

Or maybe it's just the trait of an angry person that needs to find an outlet for their anger?

Either way, chill dude.
I like how a discussion about cars has become a therapy session from you. Are you a trained psychologist? lol

sr.guiri

286 posts

30 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Pie-n-Peys said:
Pretty sure you're not actually referring to the original supra. I've never heard anyone mention that as being an 'OG' icon.

The mk4 maybe, but not the original.
Yes, you are correct, I'm referring the the big twin turbo one of the 90s, momentarily forgetting its predecessors.

Ares

8,484 posts

61 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
foxhounduk said:
Ares said:
...how bizarre that despite having repeatedly unreliable BMW engines, you kept going back for more....7 times?

Or maybe it's just the trait of an angry person that needs to find an outlet for their anger?

Either way, chill dude.
I like how a discussion about cars has become a therapy session from you. Are you a trained psychologist? lol
Psychology graduate, ironically. "lol"



J4CKO

27,203 posts

141 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Some BMW engines do have some problems with various issues, int he past it was always headgaskets on the sixes.

Nowadays its timing chain related, some fuel pump and turbo issues as well.

They aren't paragons of reliability it has to be said, though not heard of many issues with N55's and B58's, i.e. the recent 300 odd bhp turbo sixes.

cerb4.5lee

11,350 posts

121 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
MX6 said:
cerb4.5lee said:
Maybe I've just been lucky but I don't associate Bmw engines with unreliability at all.
I've had a bad experience with the dreaded N47 timing chain letting on in my other halfs 120D. Something of a harrowing experience, my perception of BMW engineering reached a subsequent nadir and hasn't picked up much since. We're both back in 1.6L petrols now...
Sorry to hear that and I can understand your disappointment. frown

I had the N47 in a E61 520d Touring and I did quite a few miles in it without issue but I only had it for 11 months. I really liked that car overall, but I can't say that I thought much of the engine(It didn't suit the 1700kg kerbweight for me).

I'm a big fan of the M57/N57 3 litre engine though, and I've done a combined mileage of over 220k miles in a E90 330d/F13 640d without any problems.

Ares

8,484 posts

61 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
Some BMW engines do have some problems with various issues, int he past it was always headgaskets on the sixes.

Nowadays its timing chain related, some fuel pump and turbo issues as well.

They aren't paragons of reliability it has to be said, though not heard of many issues with N55's and B58's, i.e. the recent 300 odd bhp turbo sixes.
Yes, as do all engines, but to therefore describe the Supra's engine as "Oil-leaky, unreliable 6 cylinder garbage" is at best disingenuous.

GT6 Jonsey

512 posts

63 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Don’t know how much of this is correct but an interesting vid on the bmw/Toyota partnership
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_jbyzmtgU_0

Ho Lee Kau

1,442 posts

66 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Cayman is lighter and steers better
M2 CS is more practical, stronger, probably steers better

Supra looks different, not sure what else is has going for it.

Slow

4,343 posts

78 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Ho Lee Kau said:
Cayman is lighter and steers better
M2 CS is more practical, stronger, probably steers better

Supra looks different, not sure what else is has going for it.
Designed for tuners.

As mentioned is has brackets for braces, reinforced for spoiler etc.

CABC

2,494 posts

42 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
there's a lot of venting around this launch. i guess the expectation has been building for a while.
however, i really do not remember the mark IV being such a revered car in the 90s. it's a different era, different car. get over it.
The original Golf GTi is a million miles from a mk7, but it morphed gradually.
further, i don't see many good looking cars being released today. current lack of pleasing or cohesive design is not limited to Toyota. most now come with fake vents, add-on bits and butt ugly grills. the new Supra seems no worse than any other new car. A110 looks even more like a (retro) breath of fresh air.

interested to see Jalopnik's comparison with the GT86 and how they're reminded what a straightforward fun driver's car that is.

rottenegg

136 posts

4 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
up_shift said:
The new Supra gives me such massively conflicting feelings.

On the one hand at certain angles I find it looks dated and almost ugly - but then at the same time I love it because it still looks like a Supra.

On the one hand I hate that it "only" makes 340 hp, on the other I know that the thing that made the MKIV such a hit was its tunability. It isn't all that often you find a mkIV that is still "only" 328hp; I guess the only difference is that back in the 90's we were talking Ferrari and Porsche power, today we're not even talking M-car power.

I can't expect it to be the most dynamic thing out there either given the supra was never a thoroughbred sports car either. The more I think about it, the more they have stayed true to what a Supra always was, and the more the supra fanboy in me starts to forgive it and with the added bonus of German-esque interiors etc after the dust has settled I'm starting to warm to them again.

Edited by up_shift on Wednesday 15th May 01:32
Yeah, same. It does look quite nice in the anthracite paint though, imo.

340hp doesn't sound a lot, but it is in the real world. It's only because 300+ hp hot hatches have diluted what used to be considered good hp numbers for sports cars in the 90s/00s. M cars wouldn't be where they are now without turbos, or massive capacity.

Don't forget the BMW 3.0 has 1000cc more capacity over those buzzy litte boxes, so merely needs a bigger snail and more boost to slap them into the weeds.

Toyota have done well imo. They've offered exactly what they did with the MK4 but modernised. A 2 door coupe with a strong, tuneable inline 6. They could have used the Nissan GTR's V6 I guess, but they insisted on an inline 6....and I can't think of a better engine. They couldn't afford to make another inline 6 themselves and the 2JZ would never get through emissions.

I think Toyota should be applauded, rather than criticised. Loads of car makers platform share, so I'm not sure why Toyota are getting a roasting for it.








white_goodman

3,252 posts

132 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Much negativity on here re the new Supra but in reality, it seems fairly well pitched to me and I think with the new car market being dominated by SUVs/crossovers, people like us should celebrate the revival of 50k sports cars. Sure, they could have gone down a similar route to the GTR. Unique platform, bespoke engine, more power, 2+2 and possibly AWD but that would no doubt be a 100k car in today's market and who would buy a 100k Toyota? Honda did this with the NSX (incidentally a car that was engineered and built in the USA) and to be fair the original NSX was always more expensive than the Supra and its rivals and I hear it's a very impressive car but I don't see any on the road and fans of the original may be upset by the turbocharging and AWD. It's a great car but completely irrelevant when you can get a Porsche/Aston/R8 for similar money or a GTR with similar performance for considerably less.

Toyota have made a few great sports cars in the past but are mostly known for making dull but reliable "white goods" with well-built but sub-par interiors, so I don't really see the BMW tie-up as a bad thing. BMW have a more illustrious history of making great sports cars/driver's cars, make a great straight six engine (and I think that Supra fans would have complained if they had gone V6) and do a nice interior. Should they have called it a Celica? No, not really. GT4 aside, the Celica never had this level of performance and has been a fairly affordable 4 cylinder, FWD 2+2 coupe since the 80s. Surely the GT86 is the "new" Celica? Is the fact that it shares it's engine with a 1-Series an issue? Not really, it's a great engine and Lotus models share their engines with Corollas and Camrys. Does that make them any less special? It's also more powerful than the 370Z engine and on a par with the Cayman S and V6 F-Type, so right on the money really. True, you could get an M2 Comp for similar money and if you need 4 seats, you probably should but the M2 has more humble origins and doesn't benefit from a purpose-built sports car chassis.

Not so long ago, if you had 50k to spend on a sports car, the choice was pretty much a Boxster/Cayman or nothing. I think that Porsche's choice to go 4 cylinder on the Boxster/Cayman has opened up the 50k sports car market significantly. If you're alright with 4 cylinders, then the Alpine is arguably a lighter, more delicate, more exclusive and compelling alternative to a Cayman but if you need a more well-rounded all-rounder and would prefer 6 cylinders, then you could get a Supra or Z4 instead. I like both these cars actually but see the Z4 as more of a comfortable cruiser in the vein of a Mercedes SLK/SLC (a car that is not long for this world) and the Supra as a bit sportier (and arguably a bit "cooler"?) like a Cayman or the much missed Z4 Coupe.

I was a big fan of the 90s Japanese performance cars but not many of them have modern equivalents now, so it's good to see the Supra back. I tend to favour performance German metal these days because they tend to offer more of the type of cars that I like but I'm a Japanese performance car fan at heart, so it's good to have a relatively affordable "Japanese" option again at last. I think one needs to focus on how it makes you feel rather than who made the engine or where it's built. Toyota manufacture vehicles all over the world and they're still up to the quality of Toyotas made in Japan. Is the mk5 a "proper" Supra? Is it fast? Yep. Straight six TT? Yep. RWD? Yep. Does it look like a Supra? Subjectivity aside, yes it does and it could only be from a Japanese manufacturer. The mk4 Supra TT was a 50k car back in the 90s, which if I recall, was 911 Carrera money? That it still offers similar performance in 2019 for the same money, when the 911 has practically doubled in price is surely pretty impressive and keeps it as a relevant and attainable performance car for ordinary folk that will also no doubt, be highly tuneable/customisable.

glazbagun

9,534 posts

138 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
rottenegg said:
I think Toyota should be applauded, rather than criticised. Loads of car makers platform share, so I'm not sure why Toyota are getting a roasting for it.
They called it the Supra. Can you imagine the roasting if, when Jaguar finally released the F-Type, it was a platform share with Mercedes looking like an SLK with a bodykit? Or Porsche revealed the next 911 would be based on a Lotus?

If they'd called it the GT-99 or something, I think people would be more objective.


SidewaysSi

5,273 posts

175 months

Thursday 16th May
quotequote all
Was the Mk4 actually any good? I can't remember it getting great reviews at the time.