Toyota GR Supra First Drive Review: Worthy of the Name
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 96 comments
- 13,561 views
- 1,998
- Ontario
- bloodyboyblue
They also have the 4
Aw man, I knew the review was going to drum up discussion, but was hoping at least some of it might be related to the review itself!
Fair points, but the Supra was never a V8-powered luxury coupe either.
I dunno, I don't think the "lack of JDMness" will be an issue, because the people who whine about it, outside of a few exceptions, probably weren't ever in the market for one anyway.
I wouldn't call it generic either, since nothing else on the road really looks like it. I meant what I said in the article that I've not driven a car that drew so much attention. It was comparable to when we were part of the classic car convoy in freakin' Monaco, such was the level of rubbernecking.
"Better" is subjective. And "same" is flat-out wrong.
That homebrew Miata won't be as reliable, and when something does go wrong, you can't take it to a dealer. It won't ride as nicely. It won't carry as much stuff nor be as comfortable, but I suppose it might match the Supra on fuel efficiency.
It will out-perform it on a track, sure, but that's been the case for nearly any used-versus-new comparison for the history of cars. It's an apples to aardvarks comparison. People looking for performance-above-all-else won't be looking at a Supra, but people considering a Supra aren't going to be considering $15k on a modified 30-year-old car either.
Being supremely condescending to people because they're balking at your genuinely comparing the new Supra to the freakin' Aztek isn't helping your case. So maybe try a different angle?
@homeforsummer's post up-thread provides a few examples of how concepts can and do change for production. For the Supra specifically, Calty knew going in that the production car would differ from the concept, and "purposely blew it up to be a true exotic".
That'd be why this year's allotments are already sold out in the UK, Europe, and Japan, then.
Hey, the RC comes with a V6 as well, and in Canada at least the RC350 is almost exactly the same price as the Supra. It’d be much cheaper if it didn’t have the Lexus badge and didn’t have AWD. But it’s a COMPLETELY different car with a totally different purpose. But more to my taste, personally, who would never take my street car onto a track.
If I was running Toyota I just probably would have never made the RC, I would have just taken the same car, made it swoopy instead of origami, stiffen it up, offer it in 4 and 6 cylinder versions (and put the V8 in the IS instead, like they did before), maybe a hybrid version as well, taken as much weight out of it as possible (but it’d still be heavy), offer both stripped out and luxurious trim levels, slap a Supra badge on it and called it a day. Try to offer a manual with the 6 cylinder if possible. Enthusiasts would’ve hated it even more than the A90 but it would’ve been cheaper and still profitable, and would’ve left more room in the lineup for the 86. It would not have handled anywhere close to as good as the A90 does, though, but I don’t really think that matters in this day and age. It would’ve handled as well as the MK4.
The lack of JDM in the new Supra will sway certain buyers, since that was a huge part of the MK4’s appeal, even though it was sold everywhere. Cars like the WRX and Civic Type R (even though it’s built in UK) still sell based on that. The NSX has moved so far upmarket it doesn’t matter what Honda does with it at this point, it’s all about the prestige and performance up there. I also think it’ll reflect in the values of the A90 in the future, which some people (but not many) will care about, but it’s something to think about when many of its competition (GT350, Camaro, C7, 6 cylinder Porsches, maybe the Z if they massively change the next one) are future classics/the last of their breeds.
But my opinion isn’t really valid since the only Supra I lust over is the MK2.
Last edited:
- 71
- The United Federation of Milk
Ah, that's right. It's your opinion. Now lets view the facts
It's a sporty car
Almost no car looks identical to the concept. Due to modern regulations, that's just about impossible.
Your opinion is not fact. You do not speak for the masses.
You've stated it yourself: It's selling well
Though honestly, it's really funny seeing how defensive you get about this "extremely ugly car".
dabz343
(Banned)
- 950
- United States
- dabz343
Yea, keep telling yourself that.
It's not hate. It's criticism from someone who wished for so much more. I can't wait to drive it, but I'll never own it.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 27,213
- United Kingdom
I'm not sure it was. It is now, because the people buying them grew up with the car as a cultural icon, but back then it was just another sports car in a line of sports cars from a brand that was probably attempting to punch above its weight at the prices it was trying to sell at.
On a purely personal level, the Mk4 doesn't feel that Japanese to me. I mostly associate it with America, because the US seems to have played such a role in boosting its fan culture, because it's a relatively large, heavy and softly-styled car for its era, and because the US is currently where clean Mk4 Supra prices are going through the roof.
I know it's a Japanese car and not an American one, but then sense of ownership can be hazy. The Datsun 240Z is obviously Japanese too, but that car was almost entirely designed to succeed in the American market.
On a related note, having driven the new Supra a few times now, one of my biggest problems is that it doesn't really feel like a product of anywhere. Bits of it feel BMW, obviously, but it doesn't feel like a BMW. It doesn't feel like a Toyota either - there's little family DNA to the GT86 (though that's a Subaru, so maybe that's unsurprising). It doesn't feel German or Japanese. It's got a bit of an identity crisis.
Also on a related note, I also think the comments here about the styling are massively overblown.
Obviously not everyone's going to like it, but most of the discourse above seems like an attempt to justify an opinion to try and present it as fact, rather than having the confidence to just state an opinion that people may or may not disagree with.
The importance of concept cars is hugely variable. Some (as in the post of mine quoted on the previous page) are basically jazzed-up production cars that show of a design already set in stone. There are too many of these to list, because they're probably among the most frequent sort of concept car - but a few examples include the Audi TT and Land Rover LRX mentioned before, plus things like the Toyota XYR concept and, to a more exaggerated degree, BMW's i8 Concept in 2011, which itself was inspired by the Vision EfficientDynamics of 2009. In this latter case, I'd be surprised if the production car wasn't pretty much set in stone by this point in 2009 - design is one of the first things to be signed off because it's hard to engineer a car if the shape changes significantly during development.
Others are designed to give the vibe of future vehicles, but not necessarily preview one directly. Others are a general indication of a brand's future design direction, be that in overall forms or smaller details (nobody expected the Renault DeZir concept of 2010 to go into production, but elements of it went into virtually every Renault production car that followed).
And others still are simply designers having a play around and have no relevance or importance whatsoever - but if executed well, at least get people talking about a brand. The Ford 021C is one of my favourites ever, then there's Toyota's S-FR from Tokyo 2015 (sadly, as this would be a wonderful production car).
You can figure out the FT-1 vs Supra relevance from the timeline of the two cars. Discussions for the Supra project started in May 2012. It really got off the ground in about 2014 when Herbert Diess left BMW (for the record, I was in the room for that conversation quoted on Jalopnik - my notes differ slightly but the gist is the same). 2014 is also the year the FT-1 appeared.
I'd say it's fair to assume designers working on the project were beginning to get an idea of what the production car looked like at that stage (having probably already sketched ideas since Tada drew up a feasibility study after that meeting in 2012). That would include its proportions, given Toyota knew by that time it would be based on a BMW platform.
I think it's probably unfair as a result to claim Toyota simply slapped FT-1 styling cues onto something without the proportions to support it. It's more likely that the designers had already come up with a design for the production car not unlike the one that's now on the road, and then developed an exaggerated version (in the FT-1) to drum up some buzz about a "new Supra" knowing the production car was still years away.
Car manufacturers should make concept cars with modern regulations in mind.
Problem solved.
BTW @SlipZtrEm good article.
Problem solved.
BTW @SlipZtrEm good article.
I’m sure it is a great car. I know it has a brilliant engine, because it’s the same mulitiple award winning one as found in my 535i.
Car enthusiasts however, do not like it when manufacturers work together, like BMW and Toyota did here and all the rest have been doing for decades. They’re supposed to be rivals, competing with each other in a market, pushing each other to create the best car for the customer, not collaborating to cut costs and then still try and pretend the product is all their brand in the end and charge the same or more than the previous model that really was all their own work.
I can see how it makes business sense for BMW and Toyota. I cannot see how this is really any good for the end user, the paying customer.
Brands are becoming diluted with these collaborations.
Car enthusiasts however, do not like it when manufacturers work together, like BMW and Toyota did here and all the rest have been doing for decades. They’re supposed to be rivals, competing with each other in a market, pushing each other to create the best car for the customer, not collaborating to cut costs and then still try and pretend the product is all their brand in the end and charge the same or more than the previous model that really was all their own work.
I can see how it makes business sense for BMW and Toyota. I cannot see how this is really any good for the end user, the paying customer.
Brands are becoming diluted with these collaborations.
- 2,677
- UK
- Outspacer
Aw man, I knew the review was going to drum up discussion, but was hoping at least some of it might be related to the review itself!
OK, I'll tease you with a grammar pedant question then, that should cheer you up
Shouldn't "an mkIV owner" be "a mkIV owner" because mk is an abbreviation not an initialism? Don't you say it as mark 4 not emm kay eye vee?
Thanks for the review, sounds like you had fun! As for the car, I'd have to say I'm not surprised that it's great to drive. Pretty much none of the bickering has been over its abilities.
dabz343
(Banned)
- 950
- United States
- dabz343
Do yo really think the top OEMs, with their thin margins, have a bunch of cars that are ready for production with all the tooling in-line, then suddenly pull together a coalition of designers and engineers to design a concept version of the already designed production car--just to create a buzz?
This is sad. It doesn't reflect my industry experience and suggests a daft version of reality. You seem to not understand the fundamental purpose for all the design studio in the SoCal area AND perhaps more importantly--the underlying economics that motivate business choices. No OEM develops, runs and grows their costly design studios for marketing purposes--especially of an already designed production car. This is just laughable, try sitting down and conversing with a trans designer and comprehend the responsibilities that these studios have. Talk with a modeler too, ask him why he spends weeks on a door panel, or a lighting cluster, or for that matter, why he still exists in the era of CAD.
As you explore, you will find that designs/modelers/engineers in these studios are constantly engaged in pushing the envelope of what must be possible for their beloved brand to continually succeed. If you think OEMs throw away tens of millions/year operationalizing design studios for the purpose of marketing, you just don't understand the fundamental reason for their existence--and will never comprehend how they are directly linked to the business.
Question to you. Can you tell me how you conclude that BMW's Vision EfficiencyDynamics was established in 2009? I have many friends at the Calabasas studio during the transition from Bangle to Adrian and I have a hard time believing this was established in 2009 as you stated. I could be wrong here, so it's a sincere question.
Back to design of concept cars. From my knowledge of product development, below is what a typical process looks like at these concept studios like Designworks, Calty, etc.
- Strategic planning and financial planning
- Project brief with scope/package constraints/budget/resources/timing/deliverables/etc.
- Team formation and management governance
- Project Kick-off
- Creative exploration in 2D
- Selection of lead concept
- Refinement of lead concept in 2D/3D and 1/4 scale models using rapid prototyping tools such as 5-axis mills
- Further refinement in 3D CAD and full size clay model
- Integration of color&trim team with initial analysis of production requirements such as tooling, supply chain and feasibility checks
- Near final design in 3D CAD with class-A surfacing for milling
- Final concept design delivered and presented for approval
- Analysis and strategy for production
- Adaptation and tooling for production
Conceiving and designing concept cars is a serious business...and a challenging task even for the very talented. Do some homework before asserting things like--"It's more likely that the designers had already come up with a design for the production car not unlike the one that's now on the road, and then developed an exaggerated version (in the FT-1) to drum up some buzz about a "new Supra" knowing the production car was still years away".
Last edited:
Silver Arrows
(Banned)
- 4,715
- Brandon, MB
- Silver-Arrows21
Seriously, stop. The fact that you're now trying to be condescending to a literal automotive journo who has probably more knowledge on how these things work then you do, all to prove the point that the A90 should have been like the FT-1 (When there has been proof after proof of why it wouldn't be) has really just sunk whatever arguments you (definitely didn't) have.
dabz343
(Banned)
- 950
- United States
- dabz343
When did I every suggest that the Supra should have been like the FT-1? Do you have retention issues?
Automotive journalist should understand the fundamental role concept design studio fulfill and not state delusional perspectives about how they operate. Seriously, go speak to someone who is employed at these studios before suggesting naive perspectives about how concepts are conceived.
The fact remains, the Supra DOES look a lot like the FT-1. This is Toyota's final decision--this is their wish and they have put forth a production car. Does this compute? You may keep asserting that I wanted the Supra to look like the FT-1 (never said so), but the reality is--that Toyota actually did, hence the styling of the Supra. Does this compute?
Evaluating through a real-world lens, the Supra is a dismal, ugly, uninspiring version of the exotic FT-1, and it could have been so much more.
Your strawman arguments arise because you have no knowledge about the industry, I get that. Thanks for playing.
You don't know me or my professional background silver arrows, you're a waste of time.
Automotive journalist should understand the fundamental role concept design studio fulfill and not state delusional perspectives about how they operate. Seriously, go speak to someone who is employed at these studios before suggesting naive perspectives about how concepts are conceived.
The fact remains, the Supra DOES look a lot like the FT-1. This is Toyota's final decision--this is their wish and they have put forth a production car. Does this compute? You may keep asserting that I wanted the Supra to look like the FT-1 (never said so), but the reality is--that Toyota actually did, hence the styling of the Supra. Does this compute?
Evaluating through a real-world lens, the Supra is a dismal, ugly, uninspiring version of the exotic FT-1, and it could have been so much more.
Your strawman arguments arise because you have no knowledge about the industry, I get that. Thanks for playing.
You don't know me or my professional background silver arrows, you're a waste of time.
Last edited:
- 27,213
- United Kingdom
Firstly, cut the condescending crap. Criticising @Silver Arrows for not knowing your background is pretty rich considering you've done exactly the same to me two posts running. Start behaving like an adult.
Secondly, what you've said above is neither what I said, nor implied. Not least because I gave examples of several different reasons for concept cars existing, only some of which were to create a buzz.
But designs are nailed down many, many years before production equivalents hit the road, which is why so many "concepts" are subsequently followed by production cars that look near identical. And it's why camouflaged development vehicles exist - because why bother camouflaging something if you can change its form at the 11th hour anyway?
That coalition of designers and engineers you mentioned often work on concept and production car simultaneously if the concept is referencing a model the company actually intends to put into production. Some concepts aren't, of course (I gave examples of some in my previous post), but many are.
There are a lot of assumptions there considering you're directly addressing just a couple of short lines of what I wrote above. Not least because you're implying I write off concept cars solely as fancy trinkets to generate headlines (some are, some aren't), or that design studios' sole purpose is to create those fancy trinkets (I didn't even mention design studios in my post, but if I had, it would be under the understanding they design actual cars as well as just aesthetic studies).
And you're right, I should sit down with designers, modellers et al. More of them, anyway - I've interviewed several in the past already. Ian Callum, Peter Horbury, Marc Lichte, Peter Schreyer, among others. My publication doesn't expend much effort on design so it doesn't happen often, but certainly often enough that I'm not completely clueless about the industry. Not least because I've also spoken to CEOs, engineering chiefs, marketing chiefs etc about a great deal more than just concept cars.
How do you mean "established"? I didn't use that word, and it's somewhat ambiguous you using it now.
The concept was literally launched in 2009. That's what I wrote above. The i8 concept was launched in 2011 (at the Frankfurt motor show - I was at the reveal event). The production car was launched in 2014.
It's highly likely the i8 had broadly already taken shape, with a strong idea already of how the car would be engineered as a production model, by the time BMW presented the Vision EfficientDynamics as a concept.
What almost certainly didn't happen is that BMW threw together a clay buck for a motor show called the EfficientDynamics and then thought, "right, do you reckon we can turn this into a production car?"
I don't disagree with any of this, which makes me wonder whether you've just misinterpreted what I was getting at before.
What I'm saying with the Supra's process was probably similar to the EfficientDynamics/i8 above.
By 2014, Toyota already knew it was putting the Supra into production, and that it would be based on a BMW platform (that is undisputable: Tada had been to BMW for his meeting two years previous to discuss precisely that, as per the Jalopnik article, the conversation behind which I was in the same room for and taking the same notes).
2014 is also when the FT-1 debuted. You can interpret the FT-1 two ways - it's either the Galaxy Brain Supra from which the production car was reluctantly derived, or it's a swoopy concept whose primary purpose was to give the world a taste of what Toyota already had cooking. The latter seems more likely to me, given at the point the FT-1 was first revealed, Toyota would already have known it was making a Supra on a platform with quite different proportions to its concept.
What Toyota probably didn't do - just like BMW didn't - was design an FT-1 concept and then think "oh bugger, how do we squeeze all this onto a Z4? Well, we did the best we could".
Whether you think the end result is successful or not is a moot point (I don't mind it, but then I was never that wowed by the FT-1 anyway). My point is very much not that design houses serve no purpose other than to fart out pretty concepts for motor shows, but that your original point that Toyota just "slapped on" the FT-1's styling elements is a discredit to the way cars are designed and engineered.
dabz343
(Banned)
- 950
- United States
- dabz343
Look, your rants are not cohesive, read your original comments that I quoted and ask yourself, "how may others interpret this?"
As for the condescending tone, telling people who differ with you to start acting like an adult...how do yo think that lands?
If you want a coherent conversation on how/why concept cars are developed, let's have a discussion through personal message. I don't doubt your credentials, but there are many industry experts besides journalists that do possess keen views on the industry, particularly with regards to design. I'm one of them and here's your chance to dialogue to learn more.
Btw, concepts are developed first, then the production is scaled, not the other way around. If you are confusing this, consider the complexity of bringing a new vehicle to the masses. Yes, there is usually a through research phase where certain platforms/packages are analyzed prior to defining a scope for a concept initiative. This setting of the stage--if you will--is the necessary business protocol for product evolution and allows the OEMs to define their strategy against market share. To say differently using Toyota as an example, they did a feasibility study along with BMW to green light an joint-venture initiative (with a through investigation on partnership terms with financial planning). The outcome--I'm assuming here based on experience--was a strategic partnership with an agreed package, among other pertinent details. This then enabled the senior management to secure funding with key deliverables and they began engaging their concept studios to begin design exploration. Yes, there is a parallel path that the concept and production vehicle take and I agree that often, the production elements precede the concept (sometimes they don't--blue-sky initiatives), but the primary function is to set the package requirements along with business metrics for profitability (this is the primary mission for establishing a pathway to scaleability). No design work is commenced on the production vehicle until the concept development has been given time to mature. This is why relevant tooling doesn't begin until a final design has been confirmed--and why typically the designer responsible for the winning design travels to HQ and oversees the production teams.
No one that I know of in the industry follows a different route and to suggest an alternative like in this quote by you makes you seem uninformed.
"2014 is also when the FT-1 debuted. You can interpret the FT-1 two ways - it's either the Galaxy Brain Supra from which the production car was reluctantly derived, or it's a swoopy concept whose primary purpose was to give the world a taste of what Toyota already had cooking. The latter seems more likely to me, given at the point the FT-1 was first revealed, Toyota would already have known it was making a Supra on a platform with quite different proportions to its concept."
Like I said, my door is open if you want to chat.
As for the condescending tone, telling people who differ with you to start acting like an adult...how do yo think that lands?
If you want a coherent conversation on how/why concept cars are developed, let's have a discussion through personal message. I don't doubt your credentials, but there are many industry experts besides journalists that do possess keen views on the industry, particularly with regards to design. I'm one of them and here's your chance to dialogue to learn more.
Btw, concepts are developed first, then the production is scaled, not the other way around. If you are confusing this, consider the complexity of bringing a new vehicle to the masses. Yes, there is usually a through research phase where certain platforms/packages are analyzed prior to defining a scope for a concept initiative. This setting of the stage--if you will--is the necessary business protocol for product evolution and allows the OEMs to define their strategy against market share. To say differently using Toyota as an example, they did a feasibility study along with BMW to green light an joint-venture initiative (with a through investigation on partnership terms with financial planning). The outcome--I'm assuming here based on experience--was a strategic partnership with an agreed package, among other pertinent details. This then enabled the senior management to secure funding with key deliverables and they began engaging their concept studios to begin design exploration. Yes, there is a parallel path that the concept and production vehicle take and I agree that often, the production elements precede the concept (sometimes they don't--blue-sky initiatives), but the primary function is to set the package requirements along with business metrics for profitability (this is the primary mission for establishing a pathway to scaleability). No design work is commenced on the production vehicle until the concept development has been given time to mature. This is why relevant tooling doesn't begin until a final design has been confirmed--and why typically the designer responsible for the winning design travels to HQ and oversees the production teams.
No one that I know of in the industry follows a different route and to suggest an alternative like in this quote by you makes you seem uninformed.
"2014 is also when the FT-1 debuted. You can interpret the FT-1 two ways - it's either the Galaxy Brain Supra from which the production car was reluctantly derived, or it's a swoopy concept whose primary purpose was to give the world a taste of what Toyota already had cooking. The latter seems more likely to me, given at the point the FT-1 was first revealed, Toyota would already have known it was making a Supra on a platform with quite different proportions to its concept."
Like I said, my door is open if you want to chat.
- 29,862
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
See this, in addition to your repeated disparaging lobs, this shrugging off others' comments to you as contrarian just for the sake of it is the sort of thing that leads to you being advised to grow the hell up. Stay your course and I have the nagging suspicion you won't be long for these forums.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I might be tree'd on this one, haven't made it to the end of the thread, but in general sometimes it's good to see the design that happens when the shackles are taken off. Then you can get some clever engineers to try to implement it even when the shackles are on. The designer might not be aware of every trick the engineers might think of.
dabz343
(Banned)
- 950
- United States
- dabz343
- 17,165
- United Kingdom
Sometimes it is worth clicking the un-ignore links. Comedy gold.
- 9,055
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
dabz343
(Banned)
- 950
- United States
- dabz343
This thread died down quickly...it's not an existential question guys, just a topic about a mediocre sports car.
Homeforsummer, you disappeared...you still believe the FT-1 was conceived after the production model was designed?
Homeforsummer, you disappeared...you still believe the FT-1 was conceived after the production model was designed?
Similar threads
