2020 Toyota GR Supra

Ian F said:

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

The original Supra started out as a hopped up Celica.

When I talk to people about the new Supra I have to mention the only legendary one was the 4th gen.  The 3rd was a bit of a pig and the first 2 were upgraded Celicas.  This new Supra is not a halo car, but Toyota's performance GT car like the first 2 gens.  I'd say the LC500 is the halo car.

j_tso said:

When I talk to people about the new Supra I have to mention the only legendary one was the 4th gen.  The 3rd was a bit of a pig and the first 2 were upgraded Celicas.  This new Supra is not a halo car, but Toyota's performance GT car like the first 2 gens. 

Maybe not legendary, but ugraded Celica or not, I liked the 2nd Gen a lot...

lnlogauge said:

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

Why?

Hardtop, cloth seats, and just enough options to make it not seem like a stripper, but also not bloated. It had stuff like cruise and a slightly better than base stereo, but didn't have all the fancy climate control and mega-power Bose stuff that the high-end cars did.

The turbo motor was stout, but it was still an early-90s turbo motor, which meant lag and an imprecise throttle once the boost came up. The S was enormously satisfying to drive. It felt like a 944 with more power, perfect ergonomics and somehow even more direct handling without being harsh.

We had one as a press car back in the day and I honestly don't know if I've ever seen another one since then. I can't really find any info on them online, either. I'll have to check some of our old Toyota press materials at the office. I *think* it was introduced as a "turbo-lite" option on that year that the Turbo wasn't available with a manual. 

Rodan said:

j_tso said:

When I talk to people about the new Supra I have to mention the only legendary one was the 4th gen.  The 3rd was a bit of a pig and the first 2 were upgraded Celicas.  This new Supra is not a halo car, but Toyota's performance GT car like the first 2 gens. 

Maybe not legendary, but ugraded Celica or not, I liked the 2nd Gen a lot...

That is extremely '80s in all the best possible ways.

The 2nd gen Supra is one of my favorite Japanese cars and a nice one would definitely have a spot in my lottery garage. 

The 2nd gen Supra is my favorite, and I still prefer the looks of the Celica.

I'll mostly plead "I'm clearly not the target audience" on the new one, but I can't resist a dig at any full-bodied car whose nose pretends to reference an F1 car, with the high "nose" and vertical bits that look like they're supposed to be supporting the front wing below...

Don't worry, Toyota, Mercedes couldn't pull it off, either.

Reminds me of Humpty Hump, somehow...

In reply to Ransom :

Nitpicking here, but Toyota was going for the LMP1 look which is just as awkward aesthetically.

I'm quite partial to the 3rd gen notchback Celica, definitely peak 80s:

JG Pasterjak said:

On the alternate timeline where Toyota used a turbo 4 in the Supra, this thread is equally as bitchy if not moreso than it currently is.

I mean probably the most famous Supra in the world had a turbo 4 cylinder. 

And really, can you say a NA MKIV is better than a factory TT with a straight face? The factory sequentials have almost no lag even by today’s standards, the 6 speed getrag was way better than the 5 speed. No point listing all the high points really since I don’t think there is anybody that would call an NA mkiv the better drivers car. Everybody was just dying to give those more power by going NA-T or swapping them, myself included.

dculberson said:

JG Pasterjak said:

MichaelYount said:

Sorry - can't get past the fact that it's just a (barely) re-bodied BMW.  

82 242-6.2L Volvo; '17 Mazda3; '16 X-Trek

Serious question: Why is this a bad thing?

There are differences between a Toyota and a BMW beyond just the badge. How it’s built and serviced, how reliable it is, and how it “feels.” Does this feel like a bmw or a Toyota? Why buy this over the z4? 

I don't know, maybe because it costs over $10k less to buy and has a fixed roof instead of being a convertible?

bcp2011 said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

But the existing product isn't amazing?  Don't get me wrong, I have a twin, so I appreciate the car for what it is, but that's more in regard to the weight, rather than the wheelbase.  Is the Camaro's wheelbase that big of a hinderance performance wise (I would think maybe it's not great for autox but better for tracks?)?

It's more that the backseat is absolutely useless, and that the space could be better utilized for either a bigger trunk or just gutted for a shorter wheelbase

Ransom said:

The 2nd gen Supra is my favorite, and I still prefer the looks of the Celica.

I'll mostly plead "I'm clearly not the target audience" on the new one, but I can't resist a dig at any full-bodied car whose nose pretends to reference an F1 car, with the high "nose" and vertical bits that look like they're supposed to be supporting the front wing below...

Don't worry, Toyota, Mercedes couldn't pull it off, either.

Reminds me of Humpty Hump, somehow...

Questionable, but I'd say it'd look 1000x better if it had the normal MB hood ornament instead of that stupid oversized badging that they do on everything nowadays

nderwater said:

dculberson said:

Why buy this over the z4? 

I'm trying to find specific numbers, but I believe that the Supra is a couple hundred lbs lighter than the Z4.

For those of you up in arms about Torque Converter! I ask whether you've ever driven a car with one of these modern ZF paddle shift automatics. They've set the standard for sports cars and sports sedans for more than a decade and are really, really good.

ZF builds the autos in Dodge RAM trucks; owned one and wouldn’t want it in a sports car.  ZF built the automatics for Porsche before the PDK.  Driven then, don’t want to own one.  Sure they set the standard based on numbers produced, but a lot of enthusiasts still don’t WANT one for their sports car.  

In reply to AnthonyGS :

Have you driven an 8spd ZF?  The ones I've driven are very, very good.  With good programming, in a lot of driving it becomes easy to forget the trans exists.  And that's a pretty high compliment.  Plus, turbos and torque converters are very good friends for a lot of types of driving.  

bcp2011 said:

In reply to Snrub :

I think the context is important.  As a self proclaimed japanese car fan boy I've been incredibly impressed by what GM has done with Camaro over the past few years.  Track spec options + warranty on track?  For $30k new car and the same weight as the Supra?!  So while it's not a bad car on an absolute basis the competition has improved quite a bit (not suggesting Camaro is the direct competitor, just an example).  

I made similar arguments in the past. ...But I took my own advice and now I'm the wrong guy to make the Camaro argument to. :) No exaggeration, easily one of the worst decisions of my life to pick up a Camaro. I haven't updated my horror show thread recently, but the pain continues and it has literally months of accrued time in service. Warranty support?  Let's be serious. :)

I utterly loath my Camaro, but trying to be objective - the more time I spend with it, the more I dislike the size. I'm impressed with the size of the Supra. A short wheelbase may not make a difference in lap times, but it does increase the fun.

yupididit said:

In reply to BigD :

The next Corvette being mid engine makes it not fit the Corvette name? Whaaaaaa

When they start making electric hybrid f150's will they no longer fit the f series name?  

Yeah, I agree with this. Throw “heritage” out the window; is the car good? It isn’t competing against someone’s memories of a 25 year old car. It’s competing against other cars in the showroom now.

Dootz said:

I don't know, maybe because it costs over $10k less to buy and has a fixed roof instead of being a convertible?

See, that's good info that I didn't know. They sold a Z4 coupe previously, I didn't know the current generation will not have it. I also didn't know it was that much cheaper.

In reply to Ransom :

That is a seriously hideous front end. I saw an SLK for a really good price recently and was tempted but just couldn't get over the front end.

Snrub said:

I made similar arguments in the past. ...But I took my own advice and now I'm the wrong guy to make the Camaro argument to. :) No exaggeration, easily one of the worst decisions of my life to pick up a Camaro. I haven't updated my horror show thread recently, but the pain continues and it has literally months of accrued time in service. Warranty support?  Let's be serious. :)

I utterly loath my Camaro, but trying to be objective - the more time I spend with it, the more I dislike the size. I'm impressed with the size of the Supra. A short wheelbase may not make a difference in lap times, but it does increase the fun.

Oh no!!  That's so disappointing to hear.  Link to your thread?  And an update to it?  Would love to hear what's been the issues... 

In 1993 the base Supra had 35 more hp than a v6 Camry.  In 2020 the base Supra has... 34 more hp than a v6 Camry.  In 1993 the turbo supra had 135 more hp  than the v6 camry. Now the turbo supra has... 34 more hp than a v6 Camry.   It seems like even though we're getting a strong turbo engine, we're getting the base model. Maybe this is the one that in 20 years everyone will look back and throw the one guy that liked the base model better under the bus. Depends what the next level up looks like, i guess.

On the flip side, in 1993 a base supra was only a few tenths faster in the 1/4 mile than a v6 camry (both with a 5spd manual). Now it's a full second and 10mph faster (both with 8spd auto). So.. that's something. 

Vigo said:

In 1993 the base Supra had 35 more hp than a v6 Camry.  In 2020 the base Supra has... 34 more hp than a v6 Camry.  In 1993 the turbo supra had 135 more hp  than the v6 camry. Now the turbo supra has... 34 more hp than a v6 Camry.   It seems like even though we're getting a strong turbo engine, we're getting the base model. Maybe this is the one that in 20 years everyone will look back and throw the one guy that liked the base model better under the bus. Depends what the next level up looks like, i guess.

On the flip side, in 1993 a base supra was only a few tenths faster in the 1/4 mile than a v6 camry (both with a 5spd manual). Now it's a full second and 10mph faster (both with 8spd auto). So.. that's something. 

I think the "next level", or direct comparison to the old Turbo Supra would be the BMW Z4M40i. This Supra is basically a decontented and detuned version of that car. The Z4 M40i comes with nearly 50 more hp, better interior materials/tech, a mechanical differential, and more drive modes in the software. It'll also probably be around $75-80k which matches the price of a Mk4 Supra Turbo after inflation is accounted for.

JG Pasterjak said:

But Lexus already has the RC F. Do you just slap some Toyota badges on that and call it a Supra? Do you try and come up with something between the $70,000 base RC F and the $100,000 Track Edition? Even if you decontent it a bit, you still have a $70,000+ car that directly competes with something you already build. 

I know they have to sell cars and they want to make money, so I understand why they did things the way they did. I've really got no horse in the race- I'm not a Supra fanboy, and I've got no intention to buy a $55k two seat car. I also hope they sell a bunch of them. 

If they just delivered the RC-F as a Supra in the first place, I'm sure there would have been another discussion and another flavor of complaints- but nobody would've been able to complain that it wasn't a Toyota product. Lexus has become both a big revenue generator for Toyota and a strong brand marquee in its own right, and it seems like this is where their real Halo cars exist now. Times change. I think a lot of people forget that, for the JDM market, the 90s were a bit of the golden age- the manufacturers were flush with cash and the future appeared to have no bounds, so they were doing things for the sake of bragging rights. When the last Supra was in development,  the Toyota brand was well known and Lexus was just a fledgling brand. The move upmarket by Toyota wasn't just the lay of the land, like it is today, and the US market was still the largest auto buying segment in the world, back then.

If they somehow managed to use the economies of scale and deliver the RC-F as a Supra at a lower price, we'd also be hearing complaints that it isn't a special and unique product.

We're all just armchair quarterbacking and enjoying the debate- people will vote with their money.  If the Supra suddenly becomes the hot new car in China, our opinions won't matter for a hill of beans.


 

There will for sure be bitching no matter what, and most of the time its just people's personal preferences being reflected but in this case I think the sourness is due to the letdown. Being teased with a Supra coming back set certain expectations, with people interpolating what the car was then to what it should be now, and I don't think you can make a reasonable argument that they were met (not within some specific framework of parameters but the level of car most people expected vs got).

But yesterday in a dive down the youtube related video rabbit hole, I watched the Demuro review of the new NSX and he pointed out how it's an amazing car, precisely what I'm talking about above, an interpolated equivalent of the original (mid engined V6, almost as fast as all of the exotics of the day but not quite, while being extremely practical in terms of comfort and usability etc). And no one's buying them. I'm not sure how Nissan made it work, maybe because it was the original resurrection car, there weren't a ton of alternatives at the time, onto whose nuts for people to latch. Audi released a bunch of S cars at the same time as the R8 so they refreshed themselves as a cool car brand to go with the halo sports car. But Acura just has some meh SUVs and sedans, there isn't even an Acura TypeR anymore. So no one wants a $150k Acura, even though it seems to be REALLY freaking good.

So maybe Toyota beancounters just faced reality that they could build a really cool car that forums and youtubers would rave about and not sell any of them. Or build a really good affordable car based on a known quantity with some of their own input, eat some E36 M3 from the fans and sell a pile of them...

I have a quite a bit of experience with the 4th gen cars, NA and Turbo, and it wasn't until the F&F movie that all the fan boi craze started.  Early on there was the usual bitching that it wasn't a RX7TT, it was too expensive, the interior sucked, I don't like the wing, etc., etc., etc..  The gen 4 cars were excellent cars however, built like a tank, fast, easy to drive and more affordable as time went on.  The SE car JG was referring to do exist, we had one, and I've seen others, but the loaded ones are far more common.

I personally like the new car.  Sure its not as fast as a supercar, nor look like a Ferrari, but I think it looks decent, is a nice size, and it exists.  It's a car I could actually buy, unlike the NSX, if I wanted one.  In terms of inflation dollars, its cheaper than the 370Z I bought several years back, at least for the base model.  As for not offering a manual, I'm getting over that pretty quickly.  Lately I've driven a few nice autos that are so much better than in years past, not having a manual seems like a no brainer.  

TULSA, Oklahoma – Local car enthusiast John Thompson took to Twitter like a fly to poop when it was revealed that the revived Toyota Supra may not include a manual transmission and boy is he hot about it.  “How can you not give it a manual? There’s nothing better than slamming through the gears on a curvy, country road!” said Thompson, “Man and machine.  Not like these sissy flappy paddles everyone wants today.  Not me though, give me that six speed H pattern and I’ll show you how a car should be driven.”

It was later pointed out to Mr. Thompson by “@jk479hotboi” that he currently owns and drives a 2012 Honda Civic LX with an automatic transmission while his wife daily drives a 2016 Chrysler Town and Country.

dculberson said:

Dootz said:

I don't know, maybe because it costs over $10k less to buy and has a fixed roof instead of being a convertible?

See, that's good info that I didn't know. They sold a Z4 coupe previously, I didn't know the current generation will not have it. I also didn't know it was that much cheaper.

The Z4 hasn't been available as a fixed roof coupe since the E85/E86 ended back in 2008. The current (G29) and previous (E89) versions have only been convertibles although the E89 had a retractable hardtop.