Toyota Supra (A90)

[AudiMan2011]

Looks pretty much as expected from the prototypes. Pretty decent attempt to compromise and retain as much of the FT-1 styling as possible for the Z4 platform.

Will be interesting to see what the confirmed performance figures will be next month for the straight-6 variant.

 

[05XR8]

It'll probably be a cool car. But i'm still offended by the MK4 "S" followed by MK3 "UPRA" logo >.>

This will be exactly how the GTR is to the Skylines except it thankfully dropped the name in order to not offend as many people about it not being a true Skyline anymore. Skyline GTRs ended with the R34, Supra ended with the MK4. That's my opinion.

True Skyline GT-Rs, are rwd 6-cylinders. Haven't been true Skyline GT-Rs since the '70s. R32-R34 aren't "True" to the originals. Closest modern true Skylines, are the Skyline 350/370GT/G35/G37 cars.

Supra staying true to its lineage: 6-cylinder sports coupe.

 

[Robin]

I wish that lower front bumper was less busy, it would look so smooth and clean giving the car an almost A80 equality. Still not sure about the pointy nose but then pretty much all the Toyota and Lexus range at the moment is pretty divisive stylistically.

 

[submaniac93]

@05XR8 True, the R32-34 aren't the originals, but those are the ones that gave the Skyline the legendary status. In the same way, the Supra A80 isn't the original, but it's the most recognizable with the A70.

Sure, the new Supra keeps the RWD straight-6 config, but it's nonetheless a BMW car underneath. Z4 chassis and BMW engine are, how I said earlier, what makes this a "fake" Toyota for me.

 

[trustjab]

The sooner they move away from the beak the better. I'm not a fan at all and this is from a guy who loves the (original) Supras and most things Toyota does.

 

[Grandea GTR]

I welcome the BMW-Toyota joint venture with this. So what if the engine is German made? The Supra is a Supra. As long as it drives well and has that fun factor, it'll stay true to the heritage.

 

[Robin]

The sooner they move away from the beak the better. I'm not a fan at all and this is from a guy who loves the (original) Supras and most things Toyota does.

For me it looks a lot worse the smaller the car gets, like for example on the Yaris it's not a great idea!

 

[Sage Ages]

I understand the concerns about this "not being a real Toyota" but if the final product turns out to be good, then I don't see it as that huge of an issue in the long-run. We'll just have to see how the car turns out.


Also, the argument about the R35 not being a real GT-R is ridiculous but since this is the Supra thread, I'm not gonna get into that here.

 

[05XR8]

Also, the argument about the R35 not being a real GT-R is ridiculous but since this is the Supra thread, I'm not gonna get into that here.

It's not a big argument. The original post mentions a reason R35 is not a true "Skyline" GT-R. Nissan made the R35 as a stand alone GT-R. It's all good.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@Disco_Volante

Mainly because of the BMW engine. To me, the engine of a car is basically it's heart and soul. If Toyota wants to make a new flagship car, I don't like that they didn't fully make it their car.

Reason why I compare it to the GTR is because the GTR dropped the RB engine in favour of a V6. I don't dislike the changes, but that's exactly the reason why me and many others felt when it came out that this car shouldn't have even been called a R35. It's a GTR, it's a great car, but it never was a true replacement for the Skyline GTR, more like a spinoff, new line of cars.

This to me is exactly the same. Except it kept the name. I don't particularly dislike the car as it is. In fact it might even be great, and that's great! Cause Toyota is so boring nowadays that it's refreshing seeing them make something half decent for once.
And i'm not even asking for a new 2J engine. Just something that Toyota produced 100% in order to be able to proudly say they made it. As it stands, it's a BMW just as much as the GT86 was really a Subaru BRZ that became more popular than it's sibling.

As such, I don't want to like it as a Supra, but as what it really is. Heck, i'd probably have less of an issue if it had been called GT-1, just like the FT-86 concept became the GT-86.

See that would make a bit of sense if it weren't from a general or rather popular knowledge stand point. Many long time automotive enthusiast (a lot here obviously) know Yamaha helped with the JZ effort. So how one could be miffed by a cross manufacture effort that sees the 3L inline BMW used is strange, especially when that plays quite honest and true to the legacy of the car through the MKIII and MKIV. It also makes sense from a business stand point, why manufacture a brand new engine especially with development costs the way Toyota/Lexus does it and only for one car?

As for the GT-R you said in your initial post they dropped the name of Skyline to not "offend people". That's not at all true, they'd have called it the Skyline if it weren't already in use for their luxury line of vehicles and one cross over. So if that was their intent, they failed because cars probably less worthy to those people were wearing the Skyline badge.

The GT-R is a true successor, AWD, Six cylinder, twin turbo, cutting edge ground up mechanics for its class level, pretty much the same niche the R30-34 were on about. So it's in a V rather than inline...hardly enough to justify it as a spinoff and not a continuation of a legacy brand for Nissan.

This is a Supra, and while it may not be what you want, reality still says it's a Supra and as I've said Toyota took measures even while going about it different that the previous model in some ways to ensure it kept with that legacy.

 

[submaniac93]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 Fair enough, I didn't know the JZ was co-developed with Yamaha. Yamaha doesn't make cars though, and they only helped, not made it entirely. Why not use a Toyota/Lexus engine then? I'm pretty sure there must be a ripe 6-cyl ready to be put into this car somewhere. But I understand it does make sense from a business point. It doesn't mean I have to like it however.

About the Skyline part, either I wasn't clear enough or you misunderstood a little part, but I meant that it was for the better that they dropped the Skyline name. I know they didn't drop it because people complained about it. But I do remember people saying back in '07 how it was a GTR, but not a Skyline anymore. And that's fine. I'm okay with that. It's a fantastic car in itself and it's still fundamentally a similar car, but in an entirely different category. It crossed from sports car territory into supercar with triple digit prices, even. Like you said it's niche, but it's not the same. To me at least.

 

[TorqueHappenS08]

Beautiful...omg i love it in silver.

I see so much MK4.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 Fair enough, I didn't know the JZ was co-developed with Yamaha. Yamaha doesn't make cars though, and they only helped, not made it entirely. Why not use a Toyota/Lexus engine then? I'm pretty sure there must be a ripe 6-cyl ready to be put into this car somewhere. But I understand it does make sense from a business point. It doesn't mean I have to like it however.

Because Toyota and Lexus don't have an inline six engine, clearly they wanted to respect those enthusiast of the mark, which is what I said in my previous post. Also the car is quite small and is slotted in a market above the 86/BRZ. No much is going to fit in this new Supra that is above an 86. So unless you want to see the GR in this car then sure maybe they could spend money and de-stroke the 3.5 to a 3.0 V6. Though it's ironic you ask for a 6-cylinder in general after claiming the GT-R isn't a true predecessor because it runs a V6 instead of an I-6. Now you're okay with that change for the Supra...okay. Also I'm not here to help you like a car you already don't like or the way they went about it. I'm hear to shed logic on a post that seems to be made from an emotional view by a fellow member.

About the Skyline part, either I wasn't clear enough or you misunderstood a little part, but I meant that it was for the better that they dropped the Skyline name. I know they didn't drop it because people complained about it. But I do remember people saying back in '07 how it was a GTR, but not a Skyline anymore. And that's fine. I'm okay with that. It's a fantastic car in itself and it's still fundamentally a similar car, but in an entirely different category. It crossed from sports car territory into supercar with triple digit prices, even. Like you said it's niche, but it's not the same. To me at least.

But you said in your own post that they dropped it and I quote:

It'll probably be a cool car. But i'm still offended by the MK4 "S" followed by MK3 "UPRA" logo >.>

This will be exactly how the GTR is to the Skylines except it thankfully dropped the name in order to not offend as many people about it not being a true Skyline anymore. Skyline GTRs ended with the R34, Supra ended with the MK4. That's my opinion.

Again they did not drop the Skyline name, the Skyline name was moved over to the luxury line starting with the V35 or as people know it in the U.S. Infiniti G35 and has kept it moving forward to following models like the 36 and 37. This also explains why it was purely a GT-R (the performance variant of the skyline for decades) rather than a Skyline that had actually be spun off into another segment and style of car. It's not an entirely different category, the previous GT-Rs were two door 2+2 sport cars and sold in that segment. Highly friendly to tuning and so forth along with all the other things I said the are in line with previous GT-R. Price for an R34 in 1999, was around $62k USD, you inflate that to current day prices and that's about $104k, which coincides quite easily with what you can pay for a current GT-R base.

The GT-R had performance back then that could compete with Super car of that time, and was compared to the Porsche 911 often along with a few other JDM high end Sports Cars. The point in all this beside trying to correct your knowledge on predecessors to successors is that things have to evolve and it's quite hard to try and sell in a market that has long been removed from previous eras. So the only way this car will make it is by evolving with said times while keeping the a factor of its past lineage. I think Toyota thus far has done this.

 

[VXR]

I like it. The front clearly modernises the forms of the Mk.IV without being a slavish copy. That's to be applauded.

 

[Danoff]

It's not like the BMW engine will suddenly grenade on you, engines outside of Japan nowadays are considerably well-made and sturdy.

Maybe not the engine per se... but the bits attached to it have a tendency to grenade. Like radiator expansion tanks that explode coolant and ruin your engine from overheating in a matter of seconds... or radiator fans that launch shrapnel into... everything.

And for some reason BMW seems to love engine gaskets that leak a lot.

 

[Sage Ages]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 Fair enough, I didn't know the JZ was co-developed with Yamaha. Yamaha doesn't make cars though, and they only helped, not made it entirely. Why not use a Toyota/Lexus engine then? I'm pretty sure there must be a ripe 6-cyl ready to be put into this car somewhere.

People would lose their 🤬 if they chucked a V6 in there and called it a day.

It's a fantastic car in itself and it's still fundamentally a similar car, but in an entirely different category. It crossed from sports car territory into supercar with triple digit prices, even.

The Skyline GT-Rs (or at the very least, the R34) weren't exactly the most affordable things either. Perhaps we don't really see the new GT-Rs as the same since it's no longer based on an existing chassis, but they've always been rather expensive, specialized cars.

That, and you're kinda getting screwed for prices outside of Japan.

 

[Tornado]

What is a Supra? The sportier-than-most lounge lizard sort of car that the A50 was? The car you bought if you were willing to trade a bit of performance and low cost of an F-body or Fox Body for a dramatically better car that the A60 was? The also-ran-from-the-start technology showcase that the A70 was? The brute force performance powerhouse of the A80 that blew all of its domestic competition to the curb but arrived too late and way too expensive for anyone to be impressed? The model did not spring forth fully formed in 1993.



Nissan made a deliberate break with the GT-R because they were chasing a different level of performance than they had in the past and needed a car even further removed from the Skyline of that time to do so. What about this Supra is so out of whack from the moving target Toyota always targeted with the car that it's a betrayel of the name? Because it isn't the Mark IV.5?

 

[kikie]

When was it that this car is going to be officially revealed? I'm very curious about this new Supra.

 

[05XR8]

When was it that this car is going to be officially revealed? I'm very curious about this new Supra.

Toyota preparing to unveil the Supra officially at the Detroit Motor Show in January 2019.

 

[Sage Ages]

The brute force performance powerhouse of the A80 that blew all of its domestic competition to the curb but arrived too late and way too expensive for anyone to be impressed? The model did not spring forth fully formed in 1993.

Apparently, a Turbo Supra cost somewhere around $38,000. In 1993.

That's about $65k in today's money. $55k if you went for a naturally aspirated model.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Apparently, a Turbo Supra cost somewhere around $38,000. In 1993.

That's about $65k in today's money. $55k if you went for a naturally aspirated model.

Pretty sure he's not talking about the 93', since that wasn't the "fully formed" version of the mk IV. I'm pretty sure he's talking about the later more powerful years for that car being 97 and 98. However, as far as I can tell those years weren't that much more expensive than the 93' costs, about 2k to 4k more at most.

 

[05XR8]

Still a lot of money back then. Car and Driver have the '94 RX-7 at $34,613. The sticker price in my old 1990 Saab 9000 turbo's glovebox, read : $35,000 including automatic transmission and metallic black paint. Twice the price of a Mustang LX 5.0!

 

[Sage Ages]

Pretty sure he's not talking about the 93', since that wasn't the "fully formed" version of the mk IV.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the Supra model line in general. All I'm doing is pulling some numbers to give people an idea of how much the MkIV in particular costed back then.

Assuming the price didn't change at all, you'd still be looking at a now-$60,000 car in 1997 (which I believe was the last year the Supra came to the US).

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the Supra model line in general. All I'm doing is pulling some numbers to give people an idea of how much the MkIV in particular costed back then.

Assuming the price didn't change at all, you'd still be looking at a now-$60,000 car in 1997 (which I believe was the last year the Supra came to the US).

You asked about a particular portion of what he was talking about, in that regard it is as I said. The Supra became slightly more expensive in its later years but was clearly too little too late. And the JDM market was shifting anyway toward cheaper tuner models. Along with a declining market in NA on Sport Coupes in general. Also the Supra's final production year in the U.S. was 98, not 97.

 

[Sage Ages]

You asked about a particular portion of what he was talking about

I never asked anything. I was simply providing information to further support his point.

 

[Tornado]

Pretty sure he's not talking about the 93', since that wasn't the "fully formed" version of the mk IV.

I was talking about the car in 1993, since that was when the too expensive, too late to market car came out that people act like was how the nameplate always was represented rather than the 15 years it was around prior.

However, as far as I can tell those years weren't that much more expensive than the 93' costs, about 2k to 4k more at most.

The Supra became slightly more expensive in its later years but was clearly too little too late.

Toyota slashed over ten grand off of it in 1997, possibly so it wouldn't look like a joke when the C5 came out costing less than the base Supra had the prior year. The Turbo crested 50 grand in 1996.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I was talking about the car in 1993, since that was when the too expensive, too late to market car came out that people act like was how the nameplate always was represented rather than the 15 years it was around prior.

Then the point where you talked about a fully formed (which wasn't 93 but 96 arguably) is what confused me. As for the pricing I don't really agree that 39k is far too expensive for the market when as said the cars it competed against in that same market were equally priced. The RX-7 was in that price range, the NSX was well above that price range, the VR-4 was in the same pricing as the Supra, and the 300zx was also in that pricing. So are you saying (now that it is more clear) that the car was actually "too expensive" or that entire segment of the market was? And to what? American products in said segment that weren't all that capable? Grey imports from other regions that occupied same stats but were more expensive and just as capable?

Toyota slashed over ten grand off of it in 1997, possibly so it wouldn't look like a joke when the C5 came out costing less than the base Supra had the prior year. The Turbo crested 50 grand in 1996.

Okay because the invoice and msrp that I could find for that year doesn't show such a massive reduction. Also I'd imagine that the 92' economic issues in japan and the slow down if imports into the U.S. that basically were the demise of that market played a bigger role than GM's C4 replacement incoming. Only because 95 and 96 were the last year for many cars the Supra competed against in the JDM import market.

I never asked anything. I was simply providing information to further support his point.

Sorry for that then, I confused for some reason your statement with asking

 

[Tornado]

So are you saying (now that it is more clear) that the car was actually "too expensive" or that entire segment of the market was?

The entire segment of the market was, and the Supra was at the top of the pile. And it accelerated from there even faster than its competitors were. This isn't something that should be surprising two decades after the fact.

As for the pricing I don't really agree that 39k is far too expensive for the market

Too bad you couldn't go back in time 25 years to convince all the people who weren't buying them otherwise.

The RX-7 was in that price range,

The FD RX-7 was so much cheaper than the Supra Turbo that it's price was in line with the normally aspirated Supra. By the time Mazda gave up on it it was a full ten grand cheaper. It's sales still collapsed as soon as the price increases started.

the NSX was well above that price range,

Which would be why the NSX sold even worse than the Supra Turbo, except the two years where the Supra approached/exceeded 50,000 and the NSX was the better seller.

the VR-4 was in the same pricing as the Supra

Which is reflected by its sales also collapsing around 1993.

and the 300zx was also in that pricing.

Which is reflected by its sales also collapsing around 1993.



So:

when as said the cars it competed against in that same market were equally priced.

Worked out well for them, didn't it?

American products in said segment that weren't all that capable?

This would also be the "too late" part. The 300ZX had the good graces of coming out when the Corvette looked the same as it had for 5 years and hadn't really changed in 4, the Camaro looked the same as it had for 7, the Mustang for 11, the 944 for (functionally) 13, etc. A lot of those still wouldn't be substantially updated or replaced for a few more years, even though some were already long in the tooth. It was affordable-ish (or at least not hopelessly more money than the competition), well designed and perfectly suited to its market in equipment, to the extent that American journalists didn't necessarily think the Supra was better even as the older 300ZX's price also marched steadily upward. That's why they sold so fantastically well the first year and not bad at all the second.


The A80 came out 4 years later. A Supra was a very capable car upon debut. It's not so capable that the normally aspirated model of the car could completely shame a 4th generation Z28 Camaro that it exceeded in price by over fifteen thousand dollars. Maybe if it had come out a year earlier.
And while I can see the argument that it was worth the extra 5 grand on top of a base LT1 C4 to get a somewhat better equipped, much better screwed together and thought out vehicle (not that anyone took much advantage of it then), it certainly wasn't 13 grand more capable than a (much better equipped compared to 1993) base LT4 C4

And to what?

The people who saw that these cars were approaching $35,000 and stopped buying them entirely. It didn't matter if it was the FD, the Supra Turbo, the VR-4 or the 300zx. The sales of all of them completely cratered as soon as they began sniffing (nevermind when they began greatly exceeding) Corvette money. The people buying them certainly didn't all go buy Corvettes and Trans Ams and Mustang Cobras instead, but they still weren't buying anything imported from Japan beyond the 160hp 3000GT.

Also I'd imagine that the 92' economic issues in japan and the slow down if imports into the U.S. that basically were the demise of that market played a bigger role than GM's C4 replacement incoming.

I'm not talking about the demise of the market in general. I'm talking about why Toyota slashed $11,000 off the cost of the car for its final two years on the US market, questioning aloud whether it was mere coincidence that it happened the same year as the debut of a highly anticipated entrant in the market that it couldn't so easily compete with anymore.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The entire segment of the market was, and the Supra was at the top of the pile. And it accelerated from there even faster than its competitors were. This isn't something that should be surprising two decades after the fact.

NSX was at the top of that if we're talking about MSRP. Also it's not surprising that wasn't why I asked the question really, I agree with you on most of what you originally said.

Too bad you couldn't go back in time 25 years to convince all the people who weren't buying them otherwise.

Convince them of what? So the context of what I said in that line was misread by you. The general market that the car occupied had several competitors that were JDM imports of equal performance and standard. All of which were priced to the same magnitude as the Supra and climbed as well like it over time. Thus the Supra wasn't insanely over priced for the market when you compare said other cars as I did. Was it expensive in a general context to the buyer market at the time is something entirely different than what I was speaking on.

The FD RX-7 was so much cheaper than the Supra Turbo that it's price was in line with the normally aspirated Supra. By the time Mazda gave up on it it was a full ten grand cheaper. It's sales still collapsed as soon as the price increases started.

In 93, the year you said you're using, the RX-7 was 34-35k USD. The base Supra in the same year came in under that at 32k and the top line supra was 38k. If you're shopping in that segment, 3k difference isn't "so much cheaper". I don't currently know the price of the 95 RX-7 to the 95 Supra since those weren't the cars I searched original invoice and msrp on.

Which would be why the NSX sold even worse than the Supra Turbo, except the two years where the Supra approached/exceeded 50,000 and the NSX was the better seller.

Okay? Is this answering a question that a posed or just making a general statement.

Which is reflected by its sales also collapsing around 1993.

Yeah I mentioned that with the economic fall out of 92 in Japan, which is what most of this segment if not all was in bad shape and never going to get the prices they were seeking.

Which is reflected by its sales also collapsing around 1993.

See above.

So:

Worked out well for them, didn't it?

Who was indicating it did? I wasn't, can't speak for others. You made a general claim that the car was too late and too expensive for the market it occupied. I just responded to that with a few general questions on how when it did what others did. I agree it was late to the market as far as the Mk IV goes and maybe the FD. In reality it wasn't all that more expensive, and you've more or less come to agree since you didn't dispute said numbers but even went further to say those cars mentioned by me didn't sale either because they were priced around the 93 supra. I'm just showing you why Toyota in general felt that the car should be priced as such. Whether it was a good call or not wasn't something I was making a claim to or even entertaining.

This would also be the "too late" part. The 300ZX had the good graces of coming out when the Corvette looked the same as it had for 5 years and hadn't really changed in 4, the Camaro looked the same as it had for 7, the Mustang for 11, the 944 for (functionally) 13, etc. A lot of those still wouldn't be substantially updated or replaced for a few more years, even though some were already long in the tooth. It was affordable-ish (or at least not hopelessly more money than the competition), well designed and perfectly suited to its market in equipment, to the extent that American journalists didn't necessarily think the Supra was better even as the older 300ZX's price also marched steadily upward. That's why they sold so fantastically well the first year and not bad at all the second.

Okay, my perspective wasn't about the domestics, because the domestic market at that time was clearly cheaper especially with the way grey imports were effected for one. Two I think many of these manufactured imports felt they could price cars like this because they were more advanced and better performing.

The A80 came out 4 years later. A Supra was a very capable car upon debut. It's not so capable that the normally aspirated model of the car could completely shame a 4th generation Z28 Camaro that it exceeded in price by over fifteen thousand dollars. Maybe if it had come out a year earlier.
And while I can see the argument that it was worth the extra 5 grand on top of a base LT1 C4 to get a somewhat better equipped, much better screwed together and thought out vehicle (not that anyone took much advantage of it then), it certainly wasn't 13 grand more capable than a (much better equipped compared to 1993) base LT4 C4

LT4 C4 wasn't around in 93...are you talking about the LT5 are you jumping to 96 production year and comparing that now?

The people who saw that these cars were approaching $35,000 and stopped buying them entirely. It didn't matter if it was the FD, the Supra Turbo, the VR-4 or the 300zx. The sales of all of them completely cratered as soon as they began sniffing (nevermind when they began greatly exceeding) Corvette money. The people buying them certainly didn't all go buy Corvettes and Trans Ams and Mustang Cobras instead, but they still weren't buying anything imported from Japan beyond the 160hp 3000GT.

I mean the C4 Corvette sales declined too and so did other similar domestics. It would seem that the market just wasn't good at the time which is exactly why they didn't go off buying domestics as you put it.

I'm not talking about the demise of the market in general. I'm talking about why Toyota slashed $11,000 off the cost of the car for its final two years on the US market, questioning aloud whether it was mere coincidence that it happened the same year as the debut of a highly anticipated entrant in the market that it couldn't so easily compete with anymore.

Perhaps it was? Or perhaps again it was because the market fell out from under. If I'm the only manufacture producing a car where all other competitors have left the U.S., what do you do? You either bring prices down to make up some kind of returned cost, or you leave as well, and since Toyota didn't leave until 2 years after everyone else did we can see what they tried.

 

[CSMDuty11]

Toyota must not've liked the Supra leak happening

Spoiler

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/toyota-now-sells-supra-wrapping-paper-course

Gotta hand it to them for the boldness of their decision atleast