Toyota confirms 2.0-litre Supra for Europe

Toyota confirms 2.0-litre Supra for Europe

Author
Discussion

RazerSauber

693 posts

10 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
ChrisPackit said:
Urghh, a watered down Supra variant! What the Supra should have been is a Nissan GTR rival, so go bigger CC's not smaller. Having owned a 750hp MK4 Manual many years ago, the new Supra makes me sad... Sadly not a car I would consider in the future.
Why should it?
Don't forget, your Supra didn't come out of the factory with 750 horses either.

I'd have either engine, I quite like this Supra. I'm not much of a fan of the Mk4.

Leon R

426 posts

46 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
ChrisPackit said:
Urghh, a watered down Supra variant! What the Supra should have been is a Nissan GTR rival, so go bigger CC's not smaller. Having owned a 750hp MK4 Manual many years ago, the new Supra makes me sad... Sadly not a car I would consider in the future.
So it should have cost around 85 thousand and come with the twin turbo v8 from the M5?

Hoofy

70,003 posts

232 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
I feel like the centre console is the wrong way round and to be used by the passenger.

Red6

20 posts

6 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
Maybe somebody has said this already, but instead of a 2.0 Supra. Why not re-introduce the Celica? Surely that would make more sense.

J4CKO

29,253 posts

150 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
ChrisPackit said:
Urghh, a watered down Supra variant! What the Supra should have been is a Nissan GTR rival, so go bigger CC's not smaller. Having owned a 750hp MK4 Manual many years ago, the new Supra makes me sad... Sadly not a car I would consider in the future.
Its not watered down though really is it ?

The only Supra of any generation that was more powerful than this was the Mk4 TT, which had 324 bhp in its most powerful guise.

None ever came with 750 bhp, some came with as little as 110 bhp, most of the Turbo ones started out nearer 280 bhp and the NA Mk4 was 220 bhp. I bet the performance figures between this and a MK4 TT arent that far apart, the new 3.0 is markedly faster.

Not everyone wants some single turbo 750 bhp rocket powered nightmare on wheels that comes on boost and tries to go sideways, they want a usable fun car that will do more than 10 to the gallon, not break and go plenty fast enough for them.




Black S2K

949 posts

199 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
samoht said:
The weights listed in Japan are 1410kg for the base 197hp four-pot SZ, 1450kg for the 258hp four-pot SZ-R, and 1520kg for the six-cylinder RZ. I wouldn't be expecting 1395kg anywhere.
https://toyotagazooracing.com/jp/gr/supra/specs/sp...

The weight balance of the six-pot Supra is 52/48 as weighed here

(also mentioned here https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27456854/2020-t... )

If you assume the 70kg drop from the RZ to the SZ-R is over the front axle, then the four-pot SZ-R would have a true 50-50 weight balance.
Ah - thanks for the facts!

Antj

720 posts

150 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
Stop cocking about with the Supra, bung the same 2.0 turbo in the GT86 with a manual box and everyone will be happy, job done.

SidewaysSi

6,461 posts

184 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
Are these things actually selling?

Angpozzuto

270 posts

59 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
SidewaysSi said:
Are these things actually selling?
I regularly see a new Supra parked down the road from my work. It stands out so much compared to the other ordinary cars parked around it

Fetchez la vache

5,212 posts

164 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
snorkel sucker said:
If it was circa £30k and had a manual gearbox .. and Toyota decided to release it in the UK, I have little doubt they would make an absolute killing..
Depends how much it costs to build, obviously. scratchchin

ChrisPackit

150 posts

73 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
ChrisPackit said:
Urghh, a watered down Supra variant! What the Supra should have been is a Nissan GTR rival, so go bigger CC's not smaller. Having owned a 750hp MK4 Manual many years ago, the new Supra makes me sad... Sadly not a car I would consider in the future.
Its not watered down though really is it ?

The only Supra of any generation that was more powerful than this was the Mk4 TT, which had 324 bhp in its most powerful guise.

None ever came with 750 bhp, some came with as little as 110 bhp, most of the Turbo ones started out nearer 280 bhp and the NA Mk4 was 220 bhp. I bet the performance figures between this and a MK4 TT arent that far apart, the new 3.0 is markedly faster.

Not everyone wants some single turbo 750 bhp rocket powered nightmare on wheels that comes on boost and tries to go sideways, they want a usable fun car that will do more than 10 to the gallon, not break and go plenty fast enough for them.
In my opinion, the Supra has always been Toyotas flagship model, much like the NSX and GTR are with Honda and Nissan respectively. Back in the 90's and 00's, the Supra would give both of these a good run for their money and I would imagine many of Toyotas target audience will be those who had or remembered Supras of old. The fact that the modern day version would in no way be even comparable to those two, makes me believe it's missing the mark. If it did cost £85k and was comparable to those mentioned, then in my eyes that would make a worthy successor and one that I would consider buying.

aka_kerrly

11,090 posts

160 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
SidewaysSi said:
Are these things actually selling?
Perhaps we are still a bit slow on the uptake in the UK.
Based on the Tokyo auto show there were plenty of already highly modified ones from the well known tuners/garages, plus a already substantial range of TRD products.

Hoping to see more of them in 2.0 and 3.0 forms.

J4CKO

29,253 posts

150 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
Fetchez la vache said:
snorkel sucker said:
If it was circa £30k and had a manual gearbox .. and Toyota decided to release it in the UK, I have little doubt they would make an absolute killing..
Depends how much it costs to build, obviously. scratchchin
Yeah, sure BMW would be thrilled at Toyota doing it so much cheaper than their offering which is pretty much the same thing.

The BMW with this engine does 100 mph in 13.2 seconds, the Supra MK4 TT does it in 12.3, not bad for the diet version, less than a second in it

Shappers24

330 posts

36 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
It’ll be interesting to see how it’s priced. The 2.0 new Z4 is about £12K cheaper than the 40i version... if Toyota go then same way it would start from around £40K.

Addymk2

308 posts

122 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
aka_kerrly said:
Perhaps we are still a bit slow on the uptake in the UK.
Based on the Tokyo auto show there were plenty of already highly modified ones from the well known tuners/garages, plus a already substantial range of TRD products.

Hoping to see more of them in 2.0 and 3.0 forms.
Some of the Supras at the Tokyo show looked phenomenal. The UK never seems to take well to cars that are built to be modified, the USA/Japan are well ahead of us in terms of uptake.

Similar to the GT86, the Supra is built to be tuned.

cerb4.5lee

13,657 posts

130 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
SidewaysSi said:
Are these things actually selling?
I haven't seen one out on the road yet(although it isn't very often that you see any nice cars around my neck of the woods sadly). I've seen a couple at the car shows I've been to though.

Ash__89

1 posts

3 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
One thing I don't see being mentioned (maybe I missed it - also bear with me), is how dull the steering wheel looks. That bottom spoke should be narrower and look sporty.

In spite of the whole uproar of the exterior looks, it is actually much better in person, the steering being so dull to look at is at odds the character of the car even if it has lineage of a bit of a GT car (from what I understand).

KJH

39 posts

154 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
TheOrangePeril said:
Although the looks are actually (very slowly) growing on me, and I've no doubt that it's a hoot to drive, I can't help but feel that Toyota have missed a trick here.

It looks as if they've tried to knock out all of the FT-1 concept styling cues on a body to fit the Z4 (which is obviously what they've done). In a way, it's a bit like one of those MR2-based Ferrari kits from the 90s...

Why not use the Lexus LC as a base? Strip out a hell of a lot of weight, sharpen up the suspension, make a racey interior. Then they could've stayed truer to the dimensions of the concept and carried over the styling far more compellingly. Surely would have also been more profitable to use their own, already in production, parts? They could charge more and get some thin air between the GT86 and Supra, leaving the latter as the true, high performance halo model that everybody was expecting. I'm sure there were also enough LFA bits/engineers knocking about that could do with finding a more profitable use, especially as so much money and development had already gone into that.
There is already a LC-F in development? I bet most LFA engineers are already assigned to other Lexus projects.

Scootersp

1,165 posts

138 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
Its not watered down though really is it ?

The only Supra of any generation that was more powerful than this was the Mk4 TT, which had 324 bhp in its most powerful guise.

None ever came with 750 bhp, some came with as little as 110 bhp, most of the Turbo ones started out nearer 280 bhp and the NA Mk4 was 220 bhp. I bet the performance figures between this and a MK4 TT arent that far apart, the new 3.0 is markedly faster.

Not everyone wants some single turbo 750 bhp rocket powered nightmare on wheels that comes on boost and tries to go sideways, they want a usable fun car that will do more than 10 to the gallon, not break and go plenty fast enough for them.
It sort of is water down though.......as your stats on the previous Supra's show progression and these followed one after the other with no gap between models! So one month a mkiii with 232bhp then the next month a Mkiv with 326bhp (and a Normally aspirated one almost the same power as the exiting turbo version).

The Mkv was released 18 years minimum from the end of the Mkiv's production and is only 335bhp (although perhaps understated) but less than for example a A45 AMG or Golf R.

Now I'm not saying it isn't quick and capable but back in 1993 you had what the Nissan Sunny at 220 ish, Golf VR6 174, Clio Williams 150bhp?

It's hard to think of another car that had such a model gap and plateau? perhaps the Scirocco, 1992 top model 140PS 2009 top model 280bhp

The Mkv could have easily have been 500ish but they didn't do it hence why some feel the way they do.

J4CKO

29,253 posts

150 months

Wednesday 15th January
quotequote all
Scootersp said:
J4CKO said:
Its not watered down though really is it ?

The only Supra of any generation that was more powerful than this was the Mk4 TT, which had 324 bhp in its most powerful guise.

None ever came with 750 bhp, some came with as little as 110 bhp, most of the Turbo ones started out nearer 280 bhp and the NA Mk4 was 220 bhp. I bet the performance figures between this and a MK4 TT arent that far apart, the new 3.0 is markedly faster.

Not everyone wants some single turbo 750 bhp rocket powered nightmare on wheels that comes on boost and tries to go sideways, they want a usable fun car that will do more than 10 to the gallon, not break and go plenty fast enough for them.
It sort of is water down though.......as your stats on the previous Supra's show progression and these followed one after the other with no gap between models! So one month a mkiii with 232bhp then the next month a Mkiv with 326bhp (and a Normally aspirated one almost the same power as the exiting turbo version).

The Mkv was released 18 years minimum from the end of the Mkiv's production and is only 335bhp (although perhaps understated) but less than for example a A45 AMG or Golf R.

Now I'm not saying it isn't quick and capable but back in 1993 you had what the Nissan Sunny at 220 ish, Golf VR6 174, Clio Williams 150bhp?

It's hard to think of another car that had such a model gap and plateau? perhaps the Scirocco, 1992 top model 140PS 2009 top model 280bhp

The Mkv could have easily have been 500ish but they didn't do it hence why some feel the way they do.
Yeah, point taken, I do get what you mean. Toyota seemed to abandon the sporting side of car making for some time to concentrate on hybrids and stuff but seem to be getting back into it.

I do expect additional options as time goes on, there is so much scope for a properly hot model from the factory, wonder whether the S55 will end up in a Supra, in the meantime the 3.0 seems to make more power than 335 as standard and posts some pretty impressive times, plus a few quid to any of the tuners who do BMW's will get you 450 fairly easily and a lot more if you dont mind spending more.