Toyota Supra (A90)

[Supaboost]

The only Supra I have any preference for is the A60.


You mean whiny people on A80 forums, including those who make three dozen posts on unrelated forums they joined purely to bitch about it even though they "couldn't care less," never asked for or wanted.


You mean like the Supra was for every year of its life except for 1993, 1994, 1997 and 1998.


You mean like the Supra was for every year of its life except for 1993-1996.

I mean people who can actually buy one not just talk on a forum about it.

Same way the other Japanese cars cost more, yen / exports.

Mkv ain't even out yet and its already slower then the competition

@Supaboost times change man.

Sure for the better not for the pathetic, while everyone is getting better overall and with more hardcore versions of constantly better cars toyota is releasing a joke.

A 50k camaro or mustang with annihilate this car in any performance test. Go check for your self the car you can build.

 

[VXR]

A Focus ST will annilhate my Swift Sport, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. What it does, it does very well. The same could be true of this Supra; it is just being its own thing. Not everything is a competition.

 

[homeforsummer]

Mkv ain't even out yet and its already slower then the competition

What are you classing as competition?

The new Supra does 4.3sec to 62mph/100km/h (so a bit less to 60mph) and an electronically limited 155mph, for $50k.

A Mustang GT is cheaper (~$35k) but no quicker (also 4.3sec to 62mph with the equivalent auto, slower with a manual) and matches its top speed. A GT350 is marginally quicker than the Supra but $10k more expensive. A Camaro 1SS is also cheaper (~$38k) and has similar acceleration (4.1sec to 60mph - so probably similar to 62mph) and once again does 155mph. Again, you can get a faster Camaro, the ZL1, but like the Mustang that's also significantly more expensive ($12.5k more than the Supra). More or less the same deal with a Challenger: R/T is cheaper (~$34k) but slower (4.4sec to 60mph). Top speed is very difficult to find for some reason (I've had this problem before with American stuff) but I'd be surprised if it's significantly different. A Hellcat, obviously quicker, is once again more expensive (by $10k+)

So the Americans field cars which are cheaper for similar performance or quicker for significantly more expense. Whether you consider them competition depends I suppose on whether 0-60 times are literally the only metric you measure a car by, but I'd not personally class a four-seat 3705lb Mustang, 3760lb Camaro or 4162lb Challenger as rivals for a two-seat 3300lb Supra.

Asian brands? $50,790 gets you a Lexus RC 350 F Sport (5.8sec to 60mph, 143mph, 3748lb). Nissan gets you a 370Z Nismo (4.9sec, 155mph, 3520lb) for $45,690. I can't see what Infiniti's closest product is because Nissan and Infiniti's US sites are somehow blocked for me, but I suspect nothing overly different from the equivalent Lexus. Honda and Mitsubishi, I assume, have nothing comparable. Hyundai no longer sells a Genesis coupe. I like the Kia Stinger, but nobody is gonna be cross-shopping that with a Supra, so that's out too.

So the Japanese and Koreans can't really be considered competition either - the two best offerings are either similarly priced and slower (Lexus) or marginally cheaper and slower (Nissan, which is also as old as time itself). You can get a faster Lexus RC obviously (or an LC), but that's a) more expensive and b) it's literally another Toyota anyway so not really competition.

So now the Europeans. Closest Merc C-class Coupe is a C43. Great car - but more expensive (~$56k) and slower (4.6sec). Audi? S5 Coupe. More expensive (but only just, at $52,400) and slower (0-60mph 4.4sec). Both are also larger and heavier (3968lb and 3860lb respectively), both are all-wheel drive, and neither is really a sports car. The obvious one: BMW. M240i has the same engine as the Supra. It's cheaper - $45,800 - but slower (4.4sec) and heavier (3439lb). The new Z4 then! It's literally the same car, if the internet is to be believed. More or less the same price too ($49,700). But... err, it's slower (5.2sec) and also has no roof, which may not interest everyone.

Want to get weird? The Alfa 4C. Proper two-seat sports car like the Supra. But oh, it's $66k, now Spider-only, and only marginally quicker at 4.1sec to 60mph. Plus if people are complaining about the Supra being too small they ain't gonna want to live with a 4C. Alpine A110? For me personally it's the car I'd likely choose over a Supra - mid-engined, great styling, similar price, great brand heritage. But (sad trombone) it's not available in the US. And like most of the others here, it's slower.

Now I'm not familiar with every car in every market so I'm no doubt missing something (possibly even something obvious) but I feel like I've covered pretty much every base here. Very few of the Supra's "competition" is quicker than it, and while some (the Americans mainly) are cheaper and give you more cylinders, they're also large, heavy and unlikely to be a dynamic match for the Supra in anything other than lateral grip (which admittedly people seem obsessed by but then if you're obsessed by 0-60 numbers then I guess skidpad figures matter too).

Oh, and an A80? $45k in 1994 for the Turbo (so $76k in 2019 money), 0-60mph in 4.9sec, and 155mph. So... more expensive and slower.

So again... what competition are you actually referring to?

 

[Tornado]

I mean people who can actually buy one not just talk on a forum about it.

I'd like to see your polling data, then. So far the extent of your methodology has been "the people on the A80 forums."

Same way the other Japanese cars cost more, yen / exports

That specifically applies to the years of 1995 and 1996; and the Supra was also significantly more expensive than the rest of the Japanese cars on top of that. We've already been over this in this thread. They all got expensive. None of the rest of them got anywhere near 50 large at a time when a Corvette cost around 35.


What it does not apply to is the years where the yen/dollar ratio wasn't spiraling out of control. Even in years where Toyota had the economies of sale from the Celica the base Supra was still a significantly more expensive car than a loaded Camaro, Firebird or Mustang.

Mkv ain't even out yet and its already slower then the competition

Assuming the A90 is, then it would just be like the A40, A60 and A70 then.

A 50k camaro or mustang with annihilate this car in any performance test.

Assuming that's true, then it would be just like they could with the A40, A60 and A70.




The A60 still won awards every year it was in production, shockingly.

 

[Disco_Volante]

What are you classing as competition?

The new Supra does 4.3sec to 62mph/100km/h (so a bit less to 60mph) and an electronically limited 155mph, for $50k.

A Mustang GT is cheaper (~$35k) but no quicker (also 4.3sec to 62mph with the equivalent auto, slower with a manual) and matches its top speed. A GT350 is marginally quicker than the Supra but $10k more expensive. A Camaro 1SS is also cheaper (~$38k) and has similar acceleration (4.1sec to 60mph - so probably similar to 62mph) and once again does 155mph. Again, you can get a faster Camaro, the ZL1, but like the Mustang that's also significantly more expensive ($12.5k more than the Supra). More or less the same deal with a Challenger: R/T is cheaper (~$34k) but slower (4.4sec to 60mph). Top speed is very difficult to find for some reason (I've had this problem before with American stuff) but I'd be surprised if it's significantly different. A Hellcat, obviously quicker, is once again more expensive (by $10k+)

So the Americans field cars which are cheaper for similar performance or quicker for significantly more expense. Whether you consider them competition depends I suppose on whether 0-60 times are literally the only metric you measure a car by, but I'd not personally class a four-seat 3705lb Mustang, 3760lb Camaro or 4162lb Challenger as rivals for a two-seat 3300lb Supra.

Asian brands? $50,790 gets you a Lexus RC 350 F Sport (5.8sec to 60mph, 143mph, 3748lb). Nissan gets you a 370Z Nismo (4.9sec, 155mph, 3520lb) for $45,690. I can't see what Infiniti's closest product is because Nissan and Infiniti's US sites are somehow blocked for me, but I suspect nothing overly different from the equivalent Lexus. Honda and Mitsubishi, I assume, have nothing comparable. Hyundai no longer sells a Genesis coupe. I like the Kia Stinger, but nobody is gonna be cross-shopping that with a Supra, so that's out too.

So the Japanese and Koreans can't really be considered competition either - the two best offerings are either similarly priced and slower (Lexus) or marginally cheaper and slower (Nissan, which is also as old as time itself). You can get a faster Lexus RC obviously (or an LC), but that's a) more expensive and b) it's literally another Toyota anyway so not really competition.

So now the Europeans. Closest Merc C-class Coupe is a C43. Great car - but more expensive (~$56k) and slower (4.6sec). Audi? S5 Coupe. More expensive (but only just, at $52,400) and slower (0-60mph 4.4sec). Both are also larger and heavier (3968lb and 3860lb respectively), both are all-wheel drive, and neither is really a sports car. The obvious one: BMW. M240i has the same engine as the Supra. It's cheaper - $45,800 - but slower (4.4sec) and heavier (3439lb). The new Z4 then! It's literally the same car, if the internet is to be believed. More or less the same price too ($49,700). But... err, it's slower (5.2sec) and also has no roof, which may not interest everyone.

Want to get weird? The Alfa 4C. Proper two-seat sports car like the Supra. But oh, it's $66k, now Spider-only, and only marginally quicker at 4.1sec to 60mph. Plus if people are complaining about the Supra being too small they ain't gonna want to live with a 4C. Alpine A110? For me personally it's the car I'd likely choose over a Supra - mid-engined, great styling, similar price, great brand heritage. But (sad trombone) it's not available in the US. And like most of the others here, it's slower.

Now I'm not familiar with every car in every market so I'm no doubt missing something (possibly even something obvious) but I feel like I've covered pretty much every base here. Very few of the Supra's "competition" is quicker than it, and while some (the Americans mainly) are cheaper and give you more cylinders, they're also large, heavy and unlikely to be a dynamic match for the Supra in anything other than lateral grip (which admittedly people seem obsessed by but then if you're obsessed by 0-60 numbers then I guess skidpad figures matter too).

So again... what competition are you actually referring to?

Hey man, that Camaro. 4.1 0-60. The Supra is 4.3. That 0.2 second difference is a disgrace. The new Supra is just so much slower. It should be burned. By the way the Mk IV was much better.

/s

 

[homeforsummer]

Hey man, that Camaro. 4.1 0-60. The Supra is 4.3. That 0.2 second difference is a disgrace. The new Supra is just so much slower. It should be burned. By the way the Mk IV was much better.

Dammit, you've got me... that 0.2sec is a yawning chasm which I'm sure any driver would be able to feel out on the road, so I really should have given it more attention...

 

[05XR8]

Well, We know the A90 would walk all over a stock A80. We'll wait and see what the Tuner crowd do in the 1320. But have no doubt, an A90 will demolish an A80 on a race track. Better value to buy an A90 than just get an A80 for nostalgia sake. Better value to buy a Corvette over an A80(for those concerned with "reliability", because who knows what those young shade tree mechanics do to such classics).

 

[Famine]

Hey man, that Camaro. 4.1 0-60. The Supra is 4.3. That 0.2 second difference is a disgrace.

Don't confuse 0-60mph with 0-100km/h, which is 0-62mph. Porsche does indeed claim 4.6s for the manual... from 0-62mph. Industry standard - and I personally hate this - is to subtract 0.2s from the 0-62mph time for 0-60mph, and indeed Porsche USA, which uses 0-60mph rather than 0-100km/h used in Europe, Japan and Australia, has the 4.4s claim.

Makes me shudder every time I see it done too.

 

[homeforsummer]

Makes me shudder every time I see it done too.

That post reminds me that I forgot the Cayman in my own.

So a 718 Cayman: More expensive ($56,900), slower (0-60 in 4.9sec), finally lighter (3100lbs). Among the closest competition the Supra will have, but joins the long list of stuff that doesn't make the Supra slower than its competition.

Also forgot the Corvette. $55,900. Quicker! 3.7sec to 60mph (unless I'm accidentally quoting a higher-end model), and from what I can find a top speed of 195. This, finally, might be one of the cars to which our A80 fanboi is referring, but then we come back to a) it being in a very small minority that actually corroborates his theory and b) the Venn diagram of Supra and Corvette buyers somehow overlapping enough for it to actually matter.

 

[CarGuru]

The exact competition for the A90 is the Cayman, Alpine, Evora, 4C, and maybe Z4, SLC, TT-S and Boxster in regard to mostly lightweight slightly smaller sports cars. For the money it does pretty well when compared to them.

 

[Supaboost]

What are you classing as competition?

The new Supra does 4.3sec to 62mph/100km/h (so a bit less to 60mph) and an electronically limited 155mph, for $50k.

A Mustang GT is cheaper (~$35k) but no quicker (also 4.3sec to 62mph with the equivalent auto, slower with a manual) and matches its top speed. A GT350 is marginally quicker than the Supra but $10k more expensive. A Camaro 1SS is also cheaper (~$38k) and has similar acceleration (4.1sec to 60mph - so probably similar to 62mph) and once again does 155mph. Again, you can get a faster Camaro, the ZL1, but like the Mustang that's also significantly more expensive ($12.5k more than the Supra). More or less the same deal with a Challenger: R/T is cheaper (~$34k) but slower (4.4sec to 60mph). Top speed is very difficult to find for some reason (I've had this problem before with American stuff) but I'd be surprised if it's significantly different. A Hellcat, obviously quicker, is once again more expensive (by $10k+)

So the Americans field cars which are cheaper for similar performance or quicker for significantly more expense. Whether you consider them competition depends I suppose on whether 0-60 times are literally the only metric you measure a car by, but I'd not personally class a four-seat 3705lb Mustang, 3760lb Camaro or 4162lb Challenger as rivals for a two-seat 3300lb Supra.

Asian brands? $50,790 gets you a Lexus RC 350 F Sport (5.8sec to 60mph, 143mph, 3748lb). Nissan gets you a 370Z Nismo (4.9sec, 155mph, 3520lb) for $45,690. I can't see what Infiniti's closest product is because Nissan and Infiniti's US sites are somehow blocked for me, but I suspect nothing overly different from the equivalent Lexus. Honda and Mitsubishi, I assume, have nothing comparable. Hyundai no longer sells a Genesis coupe. I like the Kia Stinger, but nobody is gonna be cross-shopping that with a Supra, so that's out too.

So the Japanese and Koreans can't really be considered competition either - the two best offerings are either similarly priced and slower (Lexus) or marginally cheaper and slower (Nissan, which is also as old as time itself). You can get a faster Lexus RC obviously (or an LC), but that's a) more expensive and b) it's literally another Toyota anyway so not really competition.

So now the Europeans. Closest Merc C-class Coupe is a C43. Great car - but more expensive (~$56k) and slower (4.6sec). Audi? S5 Coupe. More expensive (but only just, at $52,400) and slower (0-60mph 4.4sec). Both are also larger and heavier (3968lb and 3860lb respectively), both are all-wheel drive, and neither is really a sports car. The obvious one: BMW. M240i has the same engine as the Supra. It's cheaper - $45,800 - but slower (4.4sec) and heavier (3439lb). The new Z4 then! It's literally the same car, if the internet is to be believed. More or less the same price too ($49,700). But... err, it's slower (5.2sec) and also has no roof, which may not interest everyone.

Want to get weird? The Alfa 4C. Proper two-seat sports car like the Supra. But oh, it's $66k, now Spider-only, and only marginally quicker at 4.1sec to 60mph. Plus if people are complaining about the Supra being too small they ain't gonna want to live with a 4C. Alpine A110? For me personally it's the car I'd likely choose over a Supra - mid-engined, great styling, similar price, great brand heritage. But (sad trombone) it's not available in the US. And like most of the others here, it's slower.

Now I'm not familiar with every car in every market so I'm no doubt missing something (possibly even something obvious) but I feel like I've covered pretty much every base here. Very few of the Supra's "competition" is quicker than it, and while some (the Americans mainly) are cheaper and give you more cylinders, they're also large, heavy and unlikely to be a dynamic match for the Supra in anything other than lateral grip (which admittedly people seem obsessed by but then if you're obsessed by 0-60 numbers then I guess skidpad figures matter too).

Oh, and an A80? $45k in 1994 for the Turbo (so $76k in 2019 money), 0-60mph in 4.9sec, and 155mph. So... more expensive and slower.

So again... what competition are you actually referring to?

For 50k you can build a camaro

Camaso 2ss

• Head-Up Display
• Brembo® brakes with 6-piston monobloc front 2-piece rotors and 4-piston rear caliper
• Magnetic Ride Control
• Electronic Limited-Slip Differential (eLSD)

• 6.2L V8 DI engine
  • 455 hp @ 6000 rpm
  • 455 lb-ft of torque @ 4400 rpm
• 6-speed manual transmission

$ 49,575

Or a BMW M240i xDrive 4.2 0-60 for $50,300

Hell since your comparing a 35k mustang 17k less to a mkv, why not a Shelby gt350 which at 59k a mere 7k more, or M2 at 58.9 ?

Stock manual base Vett will make mince meat out of the MKV, 55k car.

The exact competition for the A90 is the Cayman, Alpine, Evora, 4C, and maybe Z4, SLC, TT-S and Boxster in regard to mostly lightweight slightly smaller sports cars. For the money it does pretty well when compared to them.

Got to call bs on that, if they wanted to compete with those they should have build a new Mr2. Mkv is closer to a vett then it is a an 4c or evora. And if really this car is to compete with those why the hell call it a Supra. Whats next a Miata competing GTR from nissan.

 

[homeforsummer]

For 50k you can build a camaro

Camaso 2ss

• Head-Up Display
• Brembo® brakes with 6-piston monobloc front 2-piece rotors and 4-piston rear caliper
• Magnetic Ride Control
• Electronic Limited-Slip Differential (eLSD)

• 6.2L V8 DI engine
  • 455 hp @ 6000 rpm
  • 455 lb-ft of torque @ 4400 rpm
• 6-speed manual transmission

$ 49,575

Cool, you can read the brochure.

While being three tenths of a second to 60mph (and whatever it does to 62mph, which is the Supra figure I quoted) is objectively quicker, we're hardly talking an "annihilation" here. What you've demonstrated is that two cars at more or less the same price have more or less the same performance... which is basically true of almost all the cars I mentioned further up.

Or a BMW M240i xDrive 4.2 0-60 for $50,300

Whoo-eee! One tenth quicker to 60mph than the Supra is to 62. You'd really feel that in the small of your back.

Hell since your comparing a 35k mustang 17k less to a mkv, why not a Shelby gt350 which at 59k a mere 7k more, or M2 at 58.9 ?

Stock manual base Vett will make mince meat out of the MKV, 55k car.

Yet more cars I basically already mentioned. Neat. What are you trying to prove again? That one single car, a Corvette (which most people probably won't cross-shop with a Supra anyway - because Japanese car folk and American car folk are a massive overlap, right?) is meaningfully quicker than the new Supra?

You're cherry-picking a bunch of not-that-similar cars that marginally beat (if at all) the Supra at vaguely similar (some higher, some lower) prices on one single metric (I'm guessing 0-60 which is why I used it in my examples - but which is barely relevant in most driving conditions) and using it to claim the Supra is "slower" like the only reason buy sports cars is for their acceleration alone.

If you'd just come into this thread, said you didn't like the styling or conceded that you preferred the A80 you drove on Gran Turismo once all would have been well, but I'm not sure why you're continuing to peddle nonsense about it being too slow at its price point when it's demonstrably untrue.

 

[Tornado]

And if really this car is to compete with those why the hell call it a Supra.

I think the better question is why the hell are you so incapable of realizing that Toyota had in fact called three very different cars "Supra" before they called the A80 "Supra."

 

[Grandea GTR]

What are you classing as competition?

The new Supra does 4.3sec to 62mph/100km/h (so a bit less to 60mph) and an electronically limited 155mph, for $50k.

A Mustang GT is cheaper (~$35k) but no quicker (also 4.3sec to 62mph with the equivalent auto, slower with a manual) and matches its top speed. A GT350 is marginally quicker than the Supra but $10k more expensive. A Camaro 1SS is also cheaper (~$38k) and has similar acceleration (4.1sec to 60mph - so probably similar to 62mph) and once again does 155mph. Again, you can get a faster Camaro, the ZL1, but like the Mustang that's also significantly more expensive ($12.5k more than the Supra). More or less the same deal with a Challenger: R/T is cheaper (~$34k) but slower (4.4sec to 60mph). Top speed is very difficult to find for some reason (I've had this problem before with American stuff) but I'd be surprised if it's significantly different. A Hellcat, obviously quicker, is once again more expensive (by $10k+)

So the Americans field cars which are cheaper for similar performance or quicker for significantly more expense. Whether you consider them competition depends I suppose on whether 0-60 times are literally the only metric you measure a car by, but I'd not personally class a four-seat 3705lb Mustang, 3760lb Camaro or 4162lb Challenger as rivals for a two-seat 3300lb Supra.

Asian brands? $50,790 gets you a Lexus RC 350 F Sport (5.8sec to 60mph, 143mph, 3748lb). Nissan gets you a 370Z Nismo (4.9sec, 155mph, 3520lb) for $45,690. I can't see what Infiniti's closest product is because Nissan and Infiniti's US sites are somehow blocked for me, but I suspect nothing overly different from the equivalent Lexus. Honda and Mitsubishi, I assume, have nothing comparable. Hyundai no longer sells a Genesis coupe. I like the Kia Stinger, but nobody is gonna be cross-shopping that with a Supra, so that's out too.

So the Japanese and Koreans can't really be considered competition either - the two best offerings are either similarly priced and slower (Lexus) or marginally cheaper and slower (Nissan, which is also as old as time itself). You can get a faster Lexus RC obviously (or an LC), but that's a) more expensive and b) it's literally another Toyota anyway so not really competition.

So now the Europeans. Closest Merc C-class Coupe is a C43. Great car - but more expensive (~$56k) and slower (4.6sec). Audi? S5 Coupe. More expensive (but only just, at $52,400) and slower (0-60mph 4.4sec). Both are also larger and heavier (3968lb and 3860lb respectively), both are all-wheel drive, and neither is really a sports car. The obvious one: BMW. M240i has the same engine as the Supra. It's cheaper - $45,800 - but slower (4.4sec) and heavier (3439lb). The new Z4 then! It's literally the same car, if the internet is to be believed. More or less the same price too ($49,700). But... err, it's slower (5.2sec) and also has no roof, which may not interest everyone.

Want to get weird? The Alfa 4C. Proper two-seat sports car like the Supra. But oh, it's $66k, now Spider-only, and only marginally quicker at 4.1sec to 60mph. Plus if people are complaining about the Supra being too small they ain't gonna want to live with a 4C. Alpine A110? For me personally it's the car I'd likely choose over a Supra - mid-engined, great styling, similar price, great brand heritage. But (sad trombone) it's not available in the US. And like most of the others here, it's slower.

Now I'm not familiar with every car in every market so I'm no doubt missing something (possibly even something obvious) but I feel like I've covered pretty much every base here. Very few of the Supra's "competition" is quicker than it, and while some (the Americans mainly) are cheaper and give you more cylinders, they're also large, heavy and unlikely to be a dynamic match for the Supra in anything other than lateral grip (which admittedly people seem obsessed by but then if you're obsessed by 0-60 numbers then I guess skidpad figures matter too).

Oh, and an A80? $45k in 1994 for the Turbo (so $76k in 2019 money), 0-60mph in 4.9sec, and 155mph. So... more expensive and slower.

So again... what competition are you actually referring to?

The Q60 400 Red Sport will nail 60 in 4.5s and makes, as said exactly on the tin, 400 HP.

I think the better question is why the hell are you so incapable of realizing that Toyota had in fact called three very different cars "Supra" before they called the A80 "Supra."

This.

Note that each Supra was more or less completely different from each other, and while the A90 breaks away from the traditional GT format (2+2), it can still be considered a Supra.

 

[homeforsummer]

The Q60 400 Red Sport will nail 60 in 4.5s and makes, as said exactly on the tin, 400 HP.

That was the one I was trying to think of but couldn't find, thanks 👍 So also slower than the really really slow Supra...

 

[Supaboost]

I think the better question is why the hell are you so incapable of realizing that Toyota had called three very different cars "Supra" before they called the A80 "Supra."

Yes 3 cars that kept gaining performance each iteration, mkv is 5 steps backyards. Its basically what the FRs should have been. Maybe we can get leaf springs in the next mustang.

Yet more cars I basically already mentioned. Neat. What are you trying to prove again? That one single car, a Corvette (which most people probably won't cross-shop with a Supra anyway - because Japanese car folk and American car folk are a massive overlap, right?) is meaningfully quicker than the new Supra?

You're cherry-picking a bunch of not-that-similar cars that marginally beat (if at all) the Supra at vaguely similar (some higher, some lower) prices on one single metric (0-60, which is barely relevant in most driving conditions) and using it to claim the Supra is "slower" like the only reason buy sports cars is for their 0-60 times.

If you'd just come into this thread, said you didn't like the styling or conceded that you preferred the A80 you drove on Gran Turismo once all would have been well, but I'm not sure why you're continuing to peddle nonsense about it being too slow at its price point when it's demonstrably untrue.

lmao you kill me, most of you do. And you didn't cherry pick lol comparing it to a slightly slower 35k mustang.

You are the one that chose to do your little comparison using 0-60, i have no doubt that a 50k camaro or base vett smokes the Supra on a track. Power to weight is not in the mkvs favor no matter how much you wish other wise.

But hey easier comparing the 51k mkv to a 35k mustang then 59k GT350

 

[homeforsummer]

But hey easier comparing the 51k mkv to a 35k mustang then 59k GT350

I literally compared it to both:

A Mustang GT is cheaper (~$35k) but no quicker (also 4.3sec to 62mph with the equivalent auto, slower with a manual) and matches its top speed. A GT350 is marginally quicker than the Supra but $10k more expensive.

It's not cherry-picking on my part to list almost every potential rival available within $15k of the Supra and pointing out how there's very little difference in performance between almost all of them. Which there isn't, when you're talking one or two tenths of a second to 60mph. I'm sure you love to argue on the internet about how one car "annihilates" another by being two tenths quicker but in the real world it is - and this is the technical term - sod all.

I'm less sure than ever of what you're actually trying to prove. You started out by saying that it wasn't a worthy successor to the previous Supra based on some arbitrary performance ladder that all cars must apparently climb. But it's a different car (smaller, lighter, not a 2+2), so the comparison doesn't really apply. In spite of that, it's still quicker, will undoubtedly drive better and costs significantly less, inflation-adjusted, than its predecessor - so arbitrarily or not it's an improvement.

You've since attempted to claim that it's "slower than the competition". By which you mean slower than one or two cars cherry-picked for comparison (even if they're highly unlikely to be cross-shopped - you might as well have picked a used Audi R8 or some dude's backyard Mitsubishi Evo build). In the context of the wider market (the dozen or more cars I mentioned further up, and a much more realistic basis for comparison) it's either as-quick or quicker than most similar cars at its price point, and only marginally slower than several more expensive ones.

Would a Corvette or Camaro be quicker around a track? It's too early to say, but then American cars traditionally do well on this metric because companies give them huge amounts of tire. Again, great for skidpad figures (something, coincidentally, the A80 was good at too) but not the be-all and end-all of what makes a good sports car. You could put semi-slicks on a Camry and get good track times too but as before, there's much more to sports cars than numbers.

 

[McLaren]

Its hilarious seeing regular people potential customers defend a corporation and their financials, one with 50 billion in the bank.

It's hilarious seeing a Supra owner let his emotions dictate how a car should be built.

So there was no demand for the Ft1 ehh ? What there truly was demand for is a mediocre overpriced toyota badged bmw, well ill be dammed.

Maybe if you had paid attention to homeforsummer's post, you'd learn something.

Both cars were design studies (it's literally in the FT-1's name; Future Toyota 1). While there was demand for both cars, one has to take in account the manufacturer & market. Toyota had to do their research & analyze if they built both cars, what can they take to production and what market they could successfully sell each car in. The Lexus went through nearly unscathed because the demand was to introduce the car's design exactly as it was seen in concept form. Read that again. The design is what people wanted. Now, given that Lexus had the advantage of a higher market and a car wanted for its looks, Toyota was in a much easier position to study how to sell the car and what its buyers would accept. Given that it would be the brand's new flagship, means a much easier way to market the car at $100,000+. There were no performance aspirations, it was a luxury car wanted for its looks in a high end market. Production numbers weren't expected to be high, so the focus was just getting the car out there.

Toyota didn't have that path with the FT-1. It was first conceived as a design study and then used a video game to help sell it. Yes, the car had huge aspirations. Akio green-lit it based on a supercar concept being faster than the LFA in GT.

In preparation for pitching the concept to Toyota management, Calty worked with Polyphony Digital, creators of the popular Gran Turismo driving simulator, to bring FT-1 to life in a virtual world that captured the excitement, passion and performance conveyed by the concept model. Toyota executives were offered the opportunity to take FT-1 for a timed lap around a computer-generated Fuji Speedway. Behind the wheel of the concept, Toyota president Akio Toyoda, an accomplished race car driver, completed the virtual circuit faster than his best real-world lap time at Fuji in his LFA. From that moment, he was convinced and the concept was approved to be built in model-form for the international auto show circuit.

The problem comes post-concept. How extensive & expensive would it be to bring the concept as it sits, to reality? How could Toyota sell it? What market do they target? Can they move enough units in a upscale market? Can development recoup costs if the car doesn't sell well in that market? Toyota already took a hit going down the supercar road once before. Where does Toyota make compromises then?

Toyota probably could've took a bigger risk and not relied so heavily on BMW, but the other side of the coin is what cost does the car pass on to the consumer? It's already $55,000 which is a high market for Toyota. Is the Supra name enough to get into the $80,000-$100,000 market? Possibly, but does Toyota rely solely on Supra fanboys to buy them? What happens to the manual-owners who would burn the car at the stake for no manual? Does the car affect Toyota's other brand, Lexus? What does Toyota have to do to compete with other performance cars in that price bracket? Z06, GT500, etc. is a hard market to develop against. We go right back around: Can development costs be regained? Will the non Supra dingdongs actually buy it?

This is what those "silly" bean counters take into account.

 

[Tornado]

Yes 3 cars that kept gaining performance each iteration, mkv is 5 steps backyards.

So you're so deluded that you've been whining about how much slower a single acceleration number is than the C7 without realizing how much faster it is than the A80?

 

[Supaboost]

So you're so deluded that you've been whining about how much slower a single acceleration number is than the C7 without realizing how much faster it is than the A80?

Your desperate need to defend this flop is in priceless delusion territory.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15142755/toyota-supra-turbo-instrumented-test/

1993 Mkiv 4.6
2019 mkv - 4.3

lmao yahh So much faster, and that's with a modern automatic and modern tires.

 

[Disco_Volante]

I think we should leave the guy alone. He's just going to continue saying stupid bs for reasons only he knows. If we don't respond to him, he'll just go away. Or at least we'll not waste our time with useless arguments.

 

[McLaren]

Your desperate need to defend this flop is in priceless delusion territory.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15142755/toyota-supra-turbo-instrumented-test/

1993 Mkiv 4.6
2019 mkv - 4.3

lmao yahh So much faster, and that's with a modern automatic and modern tires.

As opposed to your desperate need to lie?
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a12635049/2019-toyota-supra-what-we-know/

When you compare the specs of the MkIV Supra Turbo and the MkV on paper, they're strikingly similar. The new car is a little lighter and shorter, but ever so slightly taller and wider. The MkV only has 15 more horsepower and 50 more lb-ft of torque than the MkIV Turbo, though it's shaved almost a second off the 0-60 mph time. The top speeds on both are electronically limited.

Edit* In case, you want to cry foul, not only did R&T's original test indicate a 0-60 of 5 seconds, so did Motor Trend.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a25695/drive-flashback-1993-toyota-supra-turbo/

But then why get on and off the throttle when you can keep it pressed down and thunder to 60 mph in 5.0 seconds? Nice round number, five seconds. And bettered in our Road Test Summary by only the Dodge Viper, Ferrari's 512TR and F40, the Lamborghini Diablo, Shelby's 427 Cobra and the Vector W8 TwinTurbo. Average price: $36,917.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/1998-toyota-supra-turbo/

On the track, the car runs to 60 mph in 5.1 seconds-swift by any standard except that of its companions in this test. The 13.6-second quarter-mile elapsed time matches the 320-horsepower Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4, but at a trap speed of 106.0 mph, the Toyota is more than five mph faster through the timing lights. Bouncing against the ostensibly 155.1-mph speed limiter produced a 158-mph top speed.

 

[Tornado]

I'd hope he wouldn't cry foul, since he already brought up a couple tests where it took a whole lot more time to 60 than 4.6 and would thus be well aware that it wasn't actually that fast (as opposed to a likely preproduction one that Car and Driver noted was "particularly brisk").




Otherwise I'm just stunned that he's convinced himself that a typical A80 could actually outrun an F355. That was just a movie.

 

[McLaren]

I'm just stunned that he's convinced himself that production A80s could actually outrun an F355. That was just a movie.

But A80's sell for $100,000 therefore the new Supra is a flop!

 

[05XR8]

But A80's sell for $100,000 therefore the new Supra is a flop!

Oh, that can be trumped with the
$2,100,000 Supra. No more excuses.

 

[CarGuru]

For 50k you can build a camaro

Camaso 2ss

• Head-Up Display
• Brembo® brakes with 6-piston monobloc front 2-piece rotors and 4-piston rear caliper
• Magnetic Ride Control
• Electronic Limited-Slip Differential (eLSD)

• 6.2L V8 DI engine
  • 455 hp @ 6000 rpm
  • 455 lb-ft of torque @ 4400 rpm
• 6-speed manual transmission

$ 49,575

Or a BMW M240i xDrive 4.2 0-60 for $50,300

Hell since your comparing a 35k mustang 17k less to a mkv, why not a Shelby gt350 which at 59k a mere 7k more, or M2 at 58.9 ?

Stock manual base Vett will make mince meat out of the MKV, 55k car.



Got to call bs on that, if they wanted to compete with those they should have build a new Mr2. Mkv is closer to a vett then it is a an 4c or evora. And if really this car is to compete with those why the hell call it a Supra. Whats next a Miata competing GTR from nissan.

I get that the Supra and Vette are both front engined, but with the Supra being more focused on handling and considering its smaller footprint, I'm sure the customer overlap between the Supra and the vette is much smaller when compared to the others. As I've said a while ago, in regard to calling it a Supra, even though Toyota could have avoided a lot of the outcry by giving it a different name, and maybe even making it a Lexus to better appeal to the Cayman market, there isn't actually anything wrong with calling it a Supra at all. Lots of expectations on what makes it a "Supra" were based solely on the love for the A80, but the generations before that were all different kinds of cars as well. If the Supra ended production with the A70, there would be no complaints about this new one. Also, the next generation of a car doesn't always have to be faster and keep moving up a category, look at the MR2. When it got to the third gen, despite downgrading in performance after moving to a lower category, it was considered to be the best handling of them all and was still loved by lots of people. If you want the GTR rivaling $100K+ FT1, just get the LC-F. That will be the best option there.

 

[05XR8]

I get that the Supra and Vette are both front engined, but with the Supra being more focused on handling and considering its smaller footprint, I'm sure the customer overlap between the Supra and the vette is much smaller when compared to the others. As I've said a while ago, in regard to calling it a Supra, even though Toyota could have avoided a lot of the outcry by giving it a different name, and maybe even making it a Lexus to better appeal to the Cayman market, there isn't actually anything wrong with calling it a Supra at all. Lots of expectations on what makes it a "Supra" were based solely on the love for the A80, but the generations before that were all different kinds of cars as well. If the Supra ended production with the A70, there would be no complaints about this new one. Also, the next generation of a car doesn't always have to be faster and keep moving up a category, look at the MR2. When it got to the third gen, despite downgrading in performance after moving to a lower category, it was considered to be the best handling of them all and was still loved by lots of people. If you want the GTR rivaling $100K+ FT1, just get the LC-F. That will be the best option there.

Most likely, "he'll" wait 15 years to buy the LC-F and complain the 2034 LC-F, is slower than the competition.

 

[Supaboost]

I get that the Supra and Vette are both front engined, but with the Supra being more focused on handling and considering its smaller footprint, I'm sure the customer overlap between the Supra and the vette is much smaller when compared to the others. As I've said a while ago, in regard to calling it a Supra, even though Toyota could have avoided a lot of the outcry by giving it a different name, and maybe even making it a Lexus to better appeal to the Cayman market, there isn't actually anything wrong with calling it a Supra at all. Lots of expectations on what makes it a "Supra" were based solely on the love for the A80, but the generations before that were all different kinds of cars as well. If the Supra ended production with the A70, there would be no complaints about this new one. Also, the next generation of a car doesn't always have to be faster and keep moving up a category, look at the MR2. When it got to the third gen, despite downgrading in performance after moving to a lower category, it was considered to be the best handling of them all and was still loved by lots of people. If you want the GTR rivaling $100K+ FT1, just get the LC-F. That will be the best option there.

Don't buy into bs pr, focused on handling is just an excuse for lack of power. This is not a miata its supposed to be a Supra. Good luck out handling the Vett or do you honestly think it will out handle the Vett ? This just show how out of touch they are, these days the stang and camaro have hardcore track versions with handling that rival super cars. Power and handling are a given these days for a serious sports car. And as you say your self a Lexus would better appeal to the cayman market. Id say more will cross shop a chevy and a toyota then a toyota and Porsche lol.

If they wanted a lower category sports car just call the damn thing a celica or come up with a new name. It would fit their heritage and leave space to create a proper Supra on the same platform. You don't see M Amg Gtr vett Stang Camaro ex going backwards.

I just don't see the LCF competing with he GTR, though that rumored v8 tt could be interesting. I als want a GTR competing lexus as much as i want a mustang comepeting KIa, aka not very mush.

Most likely, "he'll" wait 15 years to buy the LC-F and complain the 2034 LC-F, is slower than the competition.

LOL i'm not the one arguing pro a cheap "affordable" Supra, you all are. If i wanted a LC id go buy one today.

I have no issue with a proper Supra at 100k, most of you do.

Otherwise I'm just stunned that he's convinced himself that a typical A80 could actually outrun an F355. That was just a movie.

Where did i say that ? got reading compensation issues ehh.

 

[05XR8]

Don't buy into bs pr, focused on handling is just an excuse for lack of power. This is not a miata its supposed to be a Supra. Good luck out handling the Vett or do you honestly think it will out handle the Vett ? This just show how out of touch they are, these days the stang and camaro have hardcore track versions with handling that rival super cars. Power and handling are a given these days for a serious sports car. And as you say your self a Lexus would better appeal to the cayman market. Id say more will cross shop a chevy and a toyota then a toyota and Porsche lol.

If they wanted a lower category sports car just call the damn thing a celica or come up with a new name. It would fit their heritage and leave space to create a proper Supra on the same platform. You don't see M Amg Gtr vett Stang Camaro ex going backwards.

I just don't see the LCF competing with he GTR, though that rumored v8 tt could be interesting. I als want a GTR competing lexus as much as i want a mustang comepeting KIa, aka not very mush.



LOL i'm not the one arguing pro a cheap "affordable" Supra, you all are. If i wanted a LC id go buy one today.

I have no issue with a proper Supra at 100k, most of you do.



Where did i say that ? got reading compensation issues ehh.

Misssed my other post again. $2.1 million ain't cheap.

 

[Supaboost]

Misssed my other post again. $2.1 million ain't cheap.

Wish it sold for 10 million given it was for charity.