RE: Toyota GR Supra: Driven
Discussion
The Vambo said:
Have you bought a new manual sports car in the last 10 years?
If not, for all the whining you are cause of your own misery.
In the last 10 years only the M135i, which had a few high speed aero issues (the car wonders around in wind at high speeds) and the pedals were horribly offset to the right which hurt my knee but other than that I really liked that car. Superb engine, very practical, economical and fun to steer. I was inspired by the many good reviews to put my money where my mouth was.If not, for all the whining you are cause of your own misery.
Ohh and also the R56 cooper works which was a hoot to drive and I bought new because they had only just changed the interior plastics from that horrible silver to black and it was nice to play with the options configuration, as you could customise everything! Other than that.. no because there hasn't been a lot to inspire me. I'd love the F-type if I hadn't seen the way it moves on a handling circuit. It looks so heavy and cumbersome. I've also read the manual is stodgy and not very engaging.
Scootersp said:
lol pot kettle.........
You said the guy was living in cloud cuckoo land, yet the only Porsche in 1993 faster than the Supra was the 911 turbo.
My point is not why must it be up there at the same comparative level is was in 1993 but it could be hence why some are disappointed (I have no real hard feeling either way). The R35 at launch was up there with the high end stuff, new engine new design etc, so the Supra could have been if they'd chosen to.
I've just seen another thread about the special edition M5.......this has 625bhp, the M5 in 1993 had the same as a Mkiv Supra. So do you see what I mean? is that unreasonable? Could Toyota have chosen to make something like that of course they could but they haven't taken on the upper echelons this time round that's all.
Just eh???You said the guy was living in cloud cuckoo land, yet the only Porsche in 1993 faster than the Supra was the 911 turbo.
My point is not why must it be up there at the same comparative level is was in 1993 but it could be hence why some are disappointed (I have no real hard feeling either way). The R35 at launch was up there with the high end stuff, new engine new design etc, so the Supra could have been if they'd chosen to.
I've just seen another thread about the special edition M5.......this has 625bhp, the M5 in 1993 had the same as a Mkiv Supra. So do you see what I mean? is that unreasonable? Could Toyota have chosen to make something like that of course they could but they haven't taken on the upper echelons this time round that's all.
Do you live in reality. Maybe you should have a long hard look at the performance of other cars available and how many you see about.
Btw have you checked the list price for a new M5
But now I'm looking this summer and I'm really struggling.
I'd like something new again. I'm tired of big maintenance bills on older sports cars but there's just nothing to inspire like a 944 turbo once would have for me.
A want a car I can take to the track once or twice a year and enjoy the thrill of driving, but I can also take on long trips when I go away and don't want to take the diesel. It needs motorway power, a nicely balanced chassis and some heated seats. It's a hard combination to find but not so much to ask.
I'd like something new again. I'm tired of big maintenance bills on older sports cars but there's just nothing to inspire like a 944 turbo once would have for me.
A want a car I can take to the track once or twice a year and enjoy the thrill of driving, but I can also take on long trips when I go away and don't want to take the diesel. It needs motorway power, a nicely balanced chassis and some heated seats. It's a hard combination to find but not so much to ask.
Edited by Niffty951 on Friday 17th May 22:22
But now I'm looking this summer and I'm really struggling.
I'd like something new again. I'm tired of big maintenance bills on older sports cars but there's just nothing to inspire like a 944 turbo once would have for me.
A want a car I can take to the track once or twice a year and enjoy the thrill of driving, but I can also take on long trips when I go away and don't want to take the diesel. It needs motorway power, a nicely balanced chassis and some heated seats. It's a hard combination to find but not so much to ask.
I'd like something new again. I'm tired of big maintenance bills on older sports cars but there's just nothing to inspire like a 944 turbo once would have for me.
A want a car I can take to the track once or twice a year and enjoy the thrill of driving, but I can also take on long trips when I go away and don't want to take the diesel. It needs motorway power, a nicely balanced chassis and some heated seats. It's a hard combination to find but not so much to ask.
Edited by Niffty951 on Friday 17th May 22:24
Niffty951 said:
I'm so deeply disappointed. I'm going to become a one track record, bordering on militant over the no manual option in 'sports cars' issue.
"People don't want or buy manuals" yes they do! What is the point of a drivers car, a car with hard suspension and feeling of engagement when you can't engage with the drive train. The most fundamental component and pivotal in turning a two dimensional experience into one where the driver forms part of the machinery. On track more than anywhere you cannot get the same control over the car when you are separated from the controls by a layer of digital intervention, no matter how clever it may be.
Today if I want to drive a manual with a chassis and performance one level above the MX5, BRZ entry level experiences then my options are getting more and more limited.
M2 - Soggy body control, poor brakes.
718 Cayman - Soulless engine
Either Lotus V6 S model - A trip to le mans will feel like an endless journey that will leave me in pain for a week.
Anything else manual tends to be another level up in budget or more than a few years old. It's getting tough!
Corvette?"People don't want or buy manuals" yes they do! What is the point of a drivers car, a car with hard suspension and feeling of engagement when you can't engage with the drive train. The most fundamental component and pivotal in turning a two dimensional experience into one where the driver forms part of the machinery. On track more than anywhere you cannot get the same control over the car when you are separated from the controls by a layer of digital intervention, no matter how clever it may be.
Today if I want to drive a manual with a chassis and performance one level above the MX5, BRZ entry level experiences then my options are getting more and more limited.
M2 - Soggy body control, poor brakes.
718 Cayman - Soulless engine
Either Lotus V6 S model - A trip to le mans will feel like an endless journey that will leave me in pain for a week.
Anything else manual tends to be another level up in budget or more than a few years old. It's getting tough!
Edited by Niffty951 on Friday 17th May 21:14
300bhp/ton said:
Niffty951 said:
Today if I want to drive a manual with a chassis and performance one level above the MX5, BRZ entry level experiences then my options are getting more and more limited.
M2 - Soggy body control, poor brakes.
718 Cayman - Soulless engine
Either Lotus V6 S model - A trip to le mans will feel like an endless journey that will leave me in pain for a week.
Anything else manual tends to be another level up in budget
Corvette?M2 - Soggy body control, poor brakes.
718 Cayman - Soulless engine
Either Lotus V6 S model - A trip to le mans will feel like an endless journey that will leave me in pain for a week.
Anything else manual tends to be another level up in budget
Niffty951 said:
The Vambo said:
Have you bought a new manual sports car in the last 10 years?
If not, for all the whining you are cause of your own misery.
In the last 10 years only the M135i, which had a few high speed aero issues (the car wonders around in wind at high speeds) and the pedals were horribly offset to the right which hurt my knee but other than that I really liked that car. Superb engine, very practical, economical and fun to steer. I was inspired by the many good reviews to put my money where my mouth was.If not, for all the whining you are cause of your own misery.
Ohh and also the R56 cooper works which was a hoot to drive and I bought new because they had only just changed the interior plastics from that horrible silver to black and it was nice to play with the options configuration, as you could customise everything! Other than that.. no because there hasn't been a lot to inspire me. I'd love the F-type if I hadn't seen the way it moves on a handling circuit. It looks so heavy and cumbersome. I've also read the manual is stodgy and not very engaging.
Funny how it always boils down to that on these types of threads.
The Vambo said:
That will be no sports cars in 10 years then, so realistically you wouldn't have bought the Supra if it came with a manual box.
Funny how it always boils down to that on these types of threads.
If when I had bought my 321hp RWD manual 3.0t BMW there had been a 346hp RWD manual 3.0t 2 coupe available I'd have probably bought that.. as I did 14 years ago when I went to buy an E46 m3 and the salesman said ..have you considered the Z4m Coupe? I drove, I paid, I left happy.Funny how it always boils down to that on these types of threads.
300bhp/ton said:
Scootersp said:
lol pot kettle.........
You said the guy was living in cloud cuckoo land, yet the only Porsche in 1993 faster than the Supra was the 911 turbo.
My point is not why must it be up there at the same comparative level is was in 1993 but it could be hence why some are disappointed (I have no real hard feeling either way). The R35 at launch was up there with the high end stuff, new engine new design etc, so the Supra could have been if they'd chosen to.
I've just seen another thread about the special edition M5.......this has 625bhp, the M5 in 1993 had the same as a Mkiv Supra. So do you see what I mean? is that unreasonable? Could Toyota have chosen to make something like that of course they could but they haven't taken on the upper echelons this time round that's all.
Just eh???You said the guy was living in cloud cuckoo land, yet the only Porsche in 1993 faster than the Supra was the 911 turbo.
My point is not why must it be up there at the same comparative level is was in 1993 but it could be hence why some are disappointed (I have no real hard feeling either way). The R35 at launch was up there with the high end stuff, new engine new design etc, so the Supra could have been if they'd chosen to.
I've just seen another thread about the special edition M5.......this has 625bhp, the M5 in 1993 had the same as a Mkiv Supra. So do you see what I mean? is that unreasonable? Could Toyota have chosen to make something like that of course they could but they haven't taken on the upper echelons this time round that's all.
Do you live in reality. Maybe you should have a long hard look at the performance of other cars available and how many you see about.
Btw have you checked the list price for a new M5
I never said anything about prices, of course to be up there like the NSX of R35 Toyota would have had to invest more and the price would be higher, goes without saying? Just that they could have gone that route.
I really don't see what's so unreal in what I have said?
Point out in a clear concise manner something you think I said that's crazy/unreal etc
Looks are subjective and I'm sure there are as many people out there who find it interesting as there are those who don't.
Yes its hardware is mostly BMW but it's better to have it with the help of their parts bin than not to have it return at all.
The tuning/calibration is done entirely in-house so it doesn't matter as long as it feels like a properly sorted fast Toyota which it seems it does.
A lot of people moan about the weight but it is actually lighter than the last gen car while putting out a bit more power and torque, and how many new cars weigh less than their predecessors today? Plus its chassis rigidity is higher than the LFA, one of the best supercars of all time.
Going by most of the reviews surfaced on the net in the last week or so (this PH article excluded), it handles very well out of the box. I'd say it wouldn't have much trouble keeping up with the Cayman S and that's more than enough in my book.
It could've been a GTR rival and part of me wishes that was the case too. But had they gone that route, it would've been out of touch with much of the audience Toyota means to target.
Good news is, with an aftermarket chip, dampers, bushings and brakes that don't cost your savings for a new house, you can turn it into something that makes 911 drivers sweat around a track. And isn't it the whole point of getting a sportscar from Japan? The tunability? Those fussy-looking vents that can be made functional, room for strut brace, relatively spacious engine bay etc all point to that, if you ask me.
Yes its hardware is mostly BMW but it's better to have it with the help of their parts bin than not to have it return at all.
The tuning/calibration is done entirely in-house so it doesn't matter as long as it feels like a properly sorted fast Toyota which it seems it does.
A lot of people moan about the weight but it is actually lighter than the last gen car while putting out a bit more power and torque, and how many new cars weigh less than their predecessors today? Plus its chassis rigidity is higher than the LFA, one of the best supercars of all time.
Going by most of the reviews surfaced on the net in the last week or so (this PH article excluded), it handles very well out of the box. I'd say it wouldn't have much trouble keeping up with the Cayman S and that's more than enough in my book.
It could've been a GTR rival and part of me wishes that was the case too. But had they gone that route, it would've been out of touch with much of the audience Toyota means to target.
Good news is, with an aftermarket chip, dampers, bushings and brakes that don't cost your savings for a new house, you can turn it into something that makes 911 drivers sweat around a track. And isn't it the whole point of getting a sportscar from Japan? The tunability? Those fussy-looking vents that can be made functional, room for strut brace, relatively spacious engine bay etc all point to that, if you ask me.
I still cannot get my head around the BMW engine - good though it is.
I saw on social media the inevitable - a 2JZ transplant. The 2JZ is one of the best engines ever made.
My view is the car should have had a UZ V8 fitted from the Lexus models - and perhaps breathed on to make more than 500bhp. For me, the spiritual successor to the Mk4 Supra is the LC500.
I saw on social media the inevitable - a 2JZ transplant. The 2JZ is one of the best engines ever made.
My view is the car should have had a UZ V8 fitted from the Lexus models - and perhaps breathed on to make more than 500bhp. For me, the spiritual successor to the Mk4 Supra is the LC500.
rallycross said:
Me too, I've had quite a few 335i with the N54 twin turbo engine, one of them was just short of 200,000 miles when I sold it (and it was still on its original turbos, clutch, etc. Pretty good going, the engine was very strong even at 197,000 miles and having taken a fair bit of abuse it never used any oil or water and loved to rev hard even at that mileage. BMW's are bad for throwing up engine lights which Toyota owners will take some getting used to as Toyota's are far more reliable....
The 335i turbo's were a problem for BMW with rattling waste gates due to a simple flaw in the design (made my Mitsubishi apparently not sure why BMW would use them).
The engine in the last Supra was somewhat legendary in terms of tuneable power but also reliability, I think using a BMW motor is going to cause them some problems.
100 times this. Modern BMW reliability will be a shock to Toyota owners - Toyota UK though will still give a 5yr 100k warranty so at least any troubles for new owners will be taken care of. They must have confidence in the drivetrain. The 335i turbo's were a problem for BMW with rattling waste gates due to a simple flaw in the design (made my Mitsubishi apparently not sure why BMW would use them).
The engine in the last Supra was somewhat legendary in terms of tuneable power but also reliability, I think using a BMW motor is going to cause them some problems.
Glasgowrob said:
wonder if the 5l v8 lexus lump would have went in?
460 bhp standard, maybe an option with a manual box down the line
I think the manner of the 2UR GSE would have suited this car really well but I suppose it needed to be turbo'd out the box for the tuner legacy part.460 bhp standard, maybe an option with a manual box down the line
Maybe missed a trick and should have ditched the legacy because with a Toyota badge on a version of that motor it may have been a much better car.
Shame they couldn't afford the r&d and given it a turbo version of that engine.
C.MW said:
Looks are subjective and I'm sure there are as many people out there who find it interesting as there are those who don't.
Yes its hardware is mostly BMW but it's better to have it with the help of their parts bin than not to have it return at all.
The tuning/calibration is done entirely in-house so it doesn't matter as long as it feels like a properly sorted fast Toyota which it seems it does.
A lot of people moan about the weight but it is actually lighter than the last gen car while putting out a bit more power and torque, and how many new cars weigh less than their predecessors today? Plus its chassis rigidity is higher than the LFA's, one of the best supercars of all time.
Going by most of the reviews surfaced on the net in the last week or so (this PH article excluded), it handles very well out of the box. I'd say it wouldn't have much trouble keeping up with the Cayman S and that's more than enough in my book.
It could've been a GTR rival and part of me wishes that was the case too. But had they gone that route, it would've been out of touch with much of the audience Toyota means to target.
Good news is, with an aftermarket chip, dampers, bushings and brakes that don't cost your savings for a new house, you can turn it into something that makes 911 drivers sweat around a track. And isn't it the whole point of getting a sportscar from Japan? The tunability? Those fussy-looking vents that can be made functional, room for strut brace, relatively spacious engine bay etc all point to that, if you ask me.
Yes its hardware is mostly BMW but it's better to have it with the help of their parts bin than not to have it return at all.
The tuning/calibration is done entirely in-house so it doesn't matter as long as it feels like a properly sorted fast Toyota which it seems it does.
A lot of people moan about the weight but it is actually lighter than the last gen car while putting out a bit more power and torque, and how many new cars weigh less than their predecessors today? Plus its chassis rigidity is higher than the LFA's, one of the best supercars of all time.
Going by most of the reviews surfaced on the net in the last week or so (this PH article excluded), it handles very well out of the box. I'd say it wouldn't have much trouble keeping up with the Cayman S and that's more than enough in my book.
It could've been a GTR rival and part of me wishes that was the case too. But had they gone that route, it would've been out of touch with much of the audience Toyota means to target.
Good news is, with an aftermarket chip, dampers, bushings and brakes that don't cost your savings for a new house, you can turn it into something that makes 911 drivers sweat around a track. And isn't it the whole point of getting a sportscar from Japan? The tunability? Those fussy-looking vents that can be made functional, room for strut brace, relatively spacious engine bay etc all point to that, if you ask me.
chunder said:
I think the manner of the 2UR GSE would have suited this car really well but I suppose it needed to be turbo'd out the box for the tuner legacy part.
.
The tuners could have done that - turbo or super charge it. .
I saw on Instagram the RCF with a 3UR-FE stroked to 6 litres
Fit a supercharger or pair of turbo's to that and you'd have really really big power.
LexyLex said:
100 times this. Modern BMW reliability will be a shock to Toyota owners - Toyota UK though will still give a 5yr 100k warranty so at least any troubles for new owners will be taken care of. They must have confidence in the drivetrain.
They apparently forced BMW to make quite a few changes to it to meet their reliability requirements. The plus side being that any BMW with it should have near-Toyota levels of reliability.LexyLex said:
rallycross said:
Me too, I've had quite a few 335i with the N54 twin turbo engine, one of them was just short of 200,000 miles when I sold it (and it was still on its original turbos, clutch, etc. Pretty good going, the engine was very strong even at 197,000 miles and having taken a fair bit of abuse it never used any oil or water and loved to rev hard even at that mileage. BMW's are bad for throwing up engine lights which Toyota owners will take some getting used to as Toyota's are far more reliable....
The 335i turbo's were a problem for BMW with rattling waste gates due to a simple flaw in the design (made my Mitsubishi apparently not sure why BMW would use them).
The engine in the last Supra was somewhat legendary in terms of tuneable power but also reliability, I think using a BMW motor is going to cause them some problems.
100 times this. Modern BMW reliability will be a shock to Toyota owners - Toyota UK though will still give a 5yr 100k warranty so at least any troubles for new owners will be taken care of. They must have confidence in the drivetrain. The 335i turbo's were a problem for BMW with rattling waste gates due to a simple flaw in the design (made my Mitsubishi apparently not sure why BMW would use them).
The engine in the last Supra was somewhat legendary in terms of tuneable power but also reliability, I think using a BMW motor is going to cause them some problems.
Even if Toyota had engineered a new engine, which I doubt they would, these days have over engineered it to the extent they did with the 2JZ. However, there are a few 700 plus bhp B58's out there now as well and the modifications are just bolt ons. Conceived wisdom says the 2JZ has a limit of about 800 bhp on stock internals.
The 2JZ has been around since the early nineties, so twenty five plus years of tuning know how.
Be interesting to see what the actual limitations of both are on stock internals, the B58 has a Forged crank and a closed deck block like the 2JZ, two of the main reasons the 2JZ was so tough and tunable, so to my mind it doesnt sound like the BMW unit has been under specced.
B58 is all Alloy, 2JZ is iron with an aluminium head. Both are turbocharged 24 valve overhead cam engines of 3 litre capacity.
Would love to see a renown tuner compare them and give the details of how they compare rather than a lot of people going on about the 2JZ being awesome and describing the BMW engine as "garbage" as one poster did earlier, I would rather hear an unbiased comparison by someone who knows what they are on about.
I really dont think the two engines are that far apart in terms of capability, based on my understanding, but happy to listen to information to the contrary.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff