Toyota Supra (A90)

[Dan]

They still haven't fixed that huge gap between the wheel and the well. The production car better have larger wheels to fill up that dead space. Also, what is the purpose of that protrusion on the front? It looks like a pig's nose. It better be a piece to disguise the car's final shape. As for the roof, are the two humps there for headroom?

I get the distinct feeling this will not be a looker.

I'm hoping Toyota will prove us wrong, but I'm doubtful.

Maybe it'll look good. Dependent on color.

A good car should look perfect in every color, not a few.

 

[05XR8]

Toyota use yellow, orange, gold, red, green, metallic mixes of lavender, blues and silver.

Some may see the car as ugly no matter what. Some may prefer it in black. Some just want to see it in default white.
Toyota might miss with the colors.

I feel it'll look good. Red might be better than blue for this car. Yellow may suit it over black.
Verde probably doesnt make a Ferrari look perfect as Scuderia Rosso.

 

[RACECAR]

I get the distinct feeling this will not be a looker.

I'm gonna wait until its closer to production. There were many times where I thought the same only to be proven wrong.

 

[Philipp Albin]

Honestly. I liked the concept car (FT1) much better. I welcome the cooperation with BMW.

 

[Castrol96]

This going to one of the most disappointing things in my life by the looks and specs so far.

 

[Turbo]

This going to one of the most disappointing things in my life by the looks and specs so far.

Seriously? If you really think that, then you've set your expectations too high.

340 horsepower and a weight of 1,350 kg is nothing I'd complain about and is actually pretty respectable. I's obvious that the new Supra was never meant to be a GTR competitor or anything like that. Visually, it's too early to tell, since no pictures have been released of the Supra without wearing camo. Once the production spec is released and it is tested on the track, then we can really judge whether it's a disappointment or not.

Also, just because it is a Supra, it doesn't mean it will be just like the iconic Supra Twin Turbo from the '90s.

 

[Bram Turismo]

This going to one of the most disappointing things in my life by the looks and specs so far.

This is one of the most disappointing and useless comments in this thread.

The car won't even be released until 2019. That's two years from now. We don't even have the full specs, neither any idea about what's it going to look like.

And judging by Toyota's brilliant sportscars of the last decade, the LFA and the GT86 being arguably the best in their class, coupled with a BMW engine, who are always on top of their game, I wouldn't be surprised if this is going to be an epic sportscar as well.

 

[Castrol96]

This is one of the most disappointing and useless comments in this thread.

The car won't even be released until 2019. That's two years from now. We don't even have the full specs, neither any idea about what's it going to look like.

And judging by Toyota's brilliant sportscars of the last decade, the LFA and the GT86 being arguably the best in their class, coupled with a BMW engine, who are always on top of their game, I wouldn't be surprised if this is going to be an epic sportscar as well.

Just look at the Prototype than look at the FT-1!

It's like they compressed it into a GT-86. My major concern is over simplification of the design, the headlights look like late 90's. However for the specs 340hp is not too bad for a 3.0 which makes it more affordable compared to the others. Also, the 2.0 with 192hp.

 

[Turbo]

Also, the 2.0 with 192hp.

And? Maybe not everyone wants loads of power. Just because it offers a lower horsepower engine doesn't mean it's an awful car.

 

[Castrol96]

And? Maybe not everyone wants loads of power. Just because it offers a lower horsepower engine doesn't mean it's an awful car.

What? You've got it wrong!

Where did I say "awful car"!?

I was complimenting the 192hp and 2.0 which is affordable.

 

[Turbo]

What? You've got it wrong!

Where did I say "awful car"!?

I was complimenting the 192hp and 2.0 which is affordable.

You said it was one of the most disappointing things you have seen in your life, which is almost the same thing.

 

[Castrol96]

You said it was one of the most disappointing things you have seen in your life, which is almost the same thing.

I "seeeeeeen", which meeeeeans.

The design.

 

[Tornado]

And? Maybe not everyone wants loads of power. Just because it offers a lower horsepower engine doesn't mean it's an awful car.

That's the excuse people give for the Breezefrees to fob off its performance, so I'd be impressed if it didn't get far worse for a car that is supposedly a couple hundred pounds heavier and undoubtedly even more expensive.

 

[05XR8]

That's the excuse people give for the Breezefrees to fob off its performance, so I'd be impressed if it didn't get far worse for a car that is supposedly a couple hundred pounds heavier and undoubtedly even more expensive.

Is it the same as putting the small engines from cars like a 3 series into a 5 series? Or when Mercedes put that 4-cylinder & manual in the S-Klasse(or was it C-Klasse) Coupe?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Is it the same as putting the small engines from cars like a 3 series into a 5 series? Or when Mercedes put that 4-cylinder & manual in the S-Klasse(or was it C-Klasse) Coupe?

Are you talking about the CLA cause if so it's not even comparable.

 

[Castrol96]

I can imagine this car being in GT300 other than GT500.

 

[05XR8]

Are you talking about the CLA cause if so it's not even comparable.

http://www.drive.com.au/new-car-rev...ass-coupe-new-car-review-20170308-gutvtp.html
First up is the E300 which, at $110,900 (plus on-roads), comes with a 180kW, 2.0-litre turbo four cylinder that will propel it to 100km/h in 6.4 seconds.

The range topper is the E400 4Matic with its 245kW, twin-turbo 3.0-litre V6 that will hit 100km/h in 5.3 seconds and costs $145,900 (plus on-roads).

As its name suggests, the E400 also has permanent all-wheel-drive and like the E300 has fully air-sprung suspension and 20-inch wheels, compared with the E220d's more prosaic coil-sprung and adaptive damper set-up and 19-inch alloys.

To justify the E400's price there are also niceties such as a panoramic glass sunroof, head-up display, 13-speaker stereo and metallic paintwork thrown in.

Remarkably, all this gives Mercedes an ace up its sleeve against rivals BMW and Audi, whose 4-Series and A5 coupes are based on the smaller 3-series and A4 respectively. BMW has the larger 6-Series coupe, but its prices start at around $180,000.

While the E-Coupe's exterior is distinctively different to the donor sedan's, and the frameless side glass with no visible B-pillars make for a perfect transformation into the just-announced E-Class Cabriolet, from the driver's seat it's all very familiar to anyone who's sat in the sedan.

 

[bremics]

240 bhp isn't bad, besides it's a luxury sedan, not a cheap sports car.

If you cheap sports car is slow, then it's pretty goddamn useless. Cheap interior, little storage or passenger space.

Especially when "cheap sports car" means about $30k starting.

 

[05XR8]

I still don't see having 2 engines as a problem. It's been like that from the Celica Supra days to offering the TT and NA versions, when they were discontinued.

 

[McLaren]

This is one of the most disappointing and useless comments in this thread.

The car won't even be released until 2019. That's two years from now. We don't even have the full specs, neither any idea about what's it going to look like.

And judging by Toyota's brilliant sportscars of the last decade, the LFA and the GT86 being arguably the best in their class, coupled with a BMW engine, who are always on top of their game, I wouldn't be surprised if this is going to be an epic sportscar as well.

The LFA was a bit lack luster. It suffered from the same thing the NSX suffers from; a fresh start halfway through development, putting it behind the competitors. Great cars to enjoy on their own merits, but the LFA isn't grabbing any "Best in Class" trophies at $375,000 with a 550Hp V10 in 2010-2012. The price point was just too much of a factor; more expensive than a Ferrari 599 GTB that had a 620Hp V12 derived from the Enzo. Similar 0-60s, the redhead slightly faster in the QTR mile, LFA had a couple quicker lap times around 1-2 seconds, but hard to be impressed with the price difference & the 599 on its way out of production after 5 years. The Ferrari was also much friendlier for regular use, unfortunately for Lexus.

On the new Supra, I'm not disappointed by the current specs. I'm saddened by obvious change of design (unless that becomes the best camo ever) from the FT and how the car has appeared to changed target competitors. Hearing the Supra name come back & seeing the concept makes me think Toyota wanted to jump into the GT-R/NSX race. But, seeing what's been shown so far, I'm heavily assuming that's not what they're after with 340Hp at the top.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I still don't see having 2 engines as a problem. It's been like that from the Celica Supra days to offering the TT and NA versions, when they were discontinued.

Once again you're far off, the E300 is a luxury sedan, not a sport anything. The CLA is a sport compact and far more comparable. Also it runs various sets up, like the engine you showed with 220+ horsepower, the diesel versions, and the AMG version that runs at 381hp with the same 2.0l 4cyl turbo engine.

This is far better than the lifeless BRZ/86 versions that people seem to have clinged to due to being a better continuation of Scion ideology (make your own affordable sportcar), and the fact that it is rear wheel drive and affordable.

However, what strikes me horribly still is the fact that there are cars as much as the GT86 that are sedans or compacts and have more powerful engines. Hell my Sonata is less then a top of the line GT86, and it has more power wise to offer, without being asinine.

Two engines isn't the problem, it's making a very different class car, be the same as a lower class one with a higher price. Why give another GT86 and charge more for calling it a Supra? I'm fine with various options like a six cylinder, six cylinder twin turbo hybrid, four cylinder turbo, even an EV model as well if they so decided. But not the the current speculation.

 

[Grandea GTR]

The LFA was a bit lack luster. It suffered from the same thing the NSX suffers from; a fresh start halfway through development, putting it behind the competitors. Great cars to enjoy on their own merits, but the LFA isn't grabbing any "Best in Class" trophies at $375,000 with a 550Hp V10 in 2010-2012. The price point was just too much of a factor; more expensive than a Ferrari 599 GTB that had a 620Hp V12 derived from the Enzo. Similar 0-60s, the redhead slightly faster in the QTR mile, LFA had a couple quicker lap times around 1-2 seconds, but hard to be impressed with the price difference & the 599 on its way out of production after 5 years. The Ferrari was also much friendlier for regular use, unfortunately for Lexus.

I thought the LFA was built for just pure driving pleasure and not things like 0-60 times and lap times?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I thought the LFA was built for just pure driving pleasure and not things like 0-60 times and lap times?

Then why did the car get developed by it's F1 outfit and later seen as an LMP1 outfit, yes that Toyota GMBH. The car had a good number of parallels to derived technology from F1 and racing in general from journalist and even Toyota themselves.

 

[YSSMAN]

Toyota knows they've got to launch a good product, but at the same time, protect three other sports cars in their lineup. There isn't a particularly easy way to do that. Getting too far away from the GT86 isn't difficult, but you've gotta walk a line between it, the RC, and the LC as well. At 340 BHP, its enough to take a step up from the RC350, but keeps its distance from the RCF and LC500. Assuming they do a better job with the ride and handling balance compared to the RC, it'll largely be regarded as a success.

 

[McLaren]

I thought the LFA was built for just pure driving pleasure and not things like 0-60 times and lap times?

Even if so, it was a supercar and supercars are always benchmarked for their performance against others.

You can't be "Best in Class" on pure driving pleasure. Even that will be debatable when your market has a Ferrari in it.

 

[05XR8]

Once again you're far off, the E300 is a luxury sedan, not a sport anything. The CLA is a sport compact and far more comparable. Also it runs various sets up, like the engine you showed with 220+ horsepower, the diesel versions, and the AMG version that runs at 381hp with the same 2.0l 4cyl turbo engine.

This is far better than the lifeless BRZ/86 versions that people seem to have clinged to due to being a better continuation of Scion ideology (make your own affordable sportcar), and the fact that it is rear wheel drive and affordable.

However, what strikes me horribly still is the fact that there are cars as much as the GT86 that are sedans or compacts and have more powerful engines. Hell my Sonata is less then a top of the line GT86, and it has more power wise to offer, without being asinine.

Two engines isn't the problem, it's making a very different class car, be the same as a lower class one with a higher price. Why give another GT86 and charge more for calling it a Supra? I'm fine with various options like a six cylinder, six cylinder twin turbo hybrid, four cylinder turbo, even an EV model as well if they so decided. But not the the current speculation.

I'm only referencing the point from these two posts.

And? Maybe not everyone wants loads of power. Just because it offers a lower horsepower engine doesn't mean it's an awful car.

That's the excuse people give for the Breezefrees to fob off its performance, so I'd be impressed if it didn't get far worse for a car that is supposedly a couple hundred pounds heavier and undoubtedly even more expensive.

Regardless of a car being luxury. The point being, charging more for a car that isn't much better than its lesser model in the family.

Is the base Supra going to have a TRD suspension over an 86/86 GT? Leather? Auto-start? What's going to justify the premium over the 86? Nothing. I doubt the base Supra will have a TRD/trick magnetuc ride/cloud simulating air ride suspension.

Is the 45yo in the 86 auto, going to drive away from the 54yo in the base Supra auto? We'll see when Motor Trend and every other car video blogger, does a head to head.

I'll be glad to see the racing versions, above anything else.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm only referencing the point from these two posts.



Regardless of a car being luxury. The point being, charging more for a car that isn't much better than its lesser model in the family.

Is the base Supra going to have a TRD suspension over an 86/86 GT? Leather? Auto-start? What's going to justify the premium over the 86? Nothing. I doubt the base Supra will have a TRD/trick magnetuc ride/cloud simulating air ride suspension.

Is the 45yo in the 86 auto, going to drive away from the 54yo in the base Supra auto? We'll see when Motor Trend and every other car video blogger, does a head to head.

I'll be glad to see the racing versions, above anything else.

No it's not, the point is you're making a narrow comparison between a base model version and a premium luxury version which is why the price is what it is as well as being a bigger car than the car that the sourced engine comes from.

As for the other part, that is what I'm saying, if the cars in the same class do this I see nothing wrong with it so long as you're getting more. In the E class situation, you have the base and then the premium 300, and there are vast differences to justify the price. Here you'd have hypothetically the GT86 (SE?) and the Supra lower model with the 4 cylinder. Both making the same power, but one would be a Supra and arguably more money due to various reasons than the 86.

However, both are labeled sport cars, under the same manufacture so what exactly more do you get from a Supra with the boxer engine over the 86 to justify price? This is why I have issue with them doing it in the first place if the speculation is correct.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The LFA was a bit lack luster. It suffered from the same thing the NSX suffers from; a fresh start halfway through development, putting it behind the competitors. Great cars to enjoy on their own merits, but the LFA isn't grabbing any "Best in Class" trophies at $375,000 with a 550Hp V10 in 2010-2012. The price point was just too much of a factor; more expensive than a Ferrari 599 GTB that had a 620Hp V12 derived from the Enzo. Similar 0-60s, the redhead slightly faster in the QTR mile, LFA had a couple quicker lap times around 1-2 seconds, but hard to be impressed with the price difference & the 599 on its way out of production after 5 years. The Ferrari was also much friendlier for regular use, unfortunately for Lexus.

On the new Supra, I'm not disappointed by the current specs. I'm saddened by obvious change of design (unless that becomes the best camo ever) from the FT and how the car has appeared to changed target competitors. Hearing the Supra name come back & seeing the concept makes me think Toyota wanted to jump into the GT-R/NSX race. But, seeing what's been shown so far, I'm heavily assuming that's not what they're after with 340Hp at the top.

Lack Luster? It had a 550hp V10 that would rev to 10,000rpm while sounding a lot like an early 2000s F1 car. Lexus had no difficulty selling them all. From a historical lens, performance is even less important. Does anyone really care that the NSX was technically slower than a Ferrari 348 in 2017? No way. One is a legend, the other is just another entry-level Ferrari in a long line of them. I suspect the LF-A will be more appreciated than the 599 in the future as well. Not to mention Jeremy Clarkson saying

"[it is] the best car I have ever driven"

which should carry some heft in the "best in class" department. I know which one I'd rather have anyway.

 

[McLaren]

Lack Luster? It had a 550hp V10 that would rev to 10,000rpm while sounding a lot like an early 2000s F1 car. Lexus had no difficulty selling them all. From a historical lens, performance is even less important. Does anyone really care that the NSX was technically slower than a Ferrari 348 in 2017? No way. One is a legend, the other is just another entry-level Ferrari in a long line of them. I suspect the LF-A will be more appreciated than the 599 in the future as well. Not to mention Jeremy Clarkson saying which should carry some heft in the "best in class" department. I know which one I'd rather have anyway.

All of what you just said is based on nothing more than the car itself, an area I already said the car is great in.

But to be "Best in Class", it has to be compared to others and for the price point at the time, it was lack luster.

As far as selling them all, completely false. I can bring up at least 3-4 that are still new, and Lexus reported a tiny amount in last year's sales report.

I'll give Clarkson's judgment merit but he's also just 1 journalist and this forum has a history of not holding his word as final say.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

The thing about the LFA is that it really was much greater than the sum of its parts. It wasn't designed to be the fastest, but rather it was designed to look and feel special. On that front, I think it succeeded. It's also worth noting that both Evo and Car and Driver put the LFA up against the 599 (In GTO and HGTE trims, respectively) and in both cases the Lexus was declared the winner.