Toyota Supra (A90)

[SlipZtrEm]

I'm not doubting C&D's times, but that is insanely fast. Though looking at it more even the official figure is 4.1s. Not an unreasonable improvement then. Nearly a full second quicker than the quoted 0-60mph for the mkIV is plenty funny, though.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

That seems like magic given the 3100lb curb weight. I guess with the right gearing and of course the paddle shifters, but still... I'm not sure how that's being done.

If you just sat me down and said "3100lbs, 3.8s to 60, estimate a horsepower", I'd have said like 500. Sure, put that engine in an elise and you can get your times down there. My intuition is not properly calibrated here.

Edit:

It's not even the high 300s... this is E46 M3 territory in terms of HP and weight (ish).

The biggest difference between your frame of reference (E46 M3) is the MASSIVE advancements in tire technology and gearboxes. The Supra is geared extremely aggressively, because it can be, because it has 8 forward ratios. Also, while it may be "only" 335hp, it has a very sizeable amount of torque and its available on a broad plateau. Couple that with the fast-shifting 8 speed auto...and 3.8 sounds believable to me.

edit:

E46 M3 weighs 3460lbs. It makes 338hp, 269lbs*ft, and the total torque multiplication for the first 3 ratios are: 15.31, 9.16, and 6.04. So according to my theory that what you "feel" when accelerating is really the multiplied-torque to weight ratio, the E46 has:
4118lbs*ft / 3460lbs = 1.19lbs*ft / lbs in first gear
2464lbs*ft / 3460lbs = 0.71lbs*ft / lbs in second gear
1624lbs*ft / 3460lbs = 0.47lbs*ft / lbs in third gear

A90 Supra weighs ~3400lbs. It makes 335hp, 365lbs*ft, and the total torque multiplication for the first 3 ratios are: 16.58, 10.60, and 6.85. ...

6051lbs*ft / 3400lbs = 1.75lbs*ft / lbs in first gear
3869lbs*ft / 3400lbs = 1.13lbs*ft / lbs in second gear
2500lbs*ft / 3400lbs = 0.75lbs*ft / lbs in third gear

As you can see, the A90 Supra should pull very nearly as hard in 2nd gear as the E46 M3 does in first. Lighter, a lot more torque, more aggressive gearing, and much faster shift times. Add launch control to the mix and I can see how the Supra is quite fast.

 

[CarGuru]

I think we can now say that the engine is underrated, like some other BMW engines. It's only a question of how underrated it is.

 

[Danoff]

The biggest difference between your frame of reference (E46 M3) is the MASSIVE advancements in tire technology and gearboxes. The Supra is geared extremely aggressively, because it can be, because it has 8 forward ratios. Also, while it may be "only" 335hp, it has a very sizeable amount of torque and its available on a broad plateau. Couple that with the fast-shifting 8 speed auto...and 3.8 sounds believable to me.

This is what you get instead of a manual I guess.

 

[ND4SPD]

Can't wait to see what numbers this thing actually does on the dyno.

 

[Vegard]

If you just sat me down and said "3100lbs, 3.8s to 60, estimate a horsepower", I'd have said like 500. Sure, put that engine in an elise and you can get your times down there. My intuition is not properly calibrated here.

Perhaps it's because you're putting too much emphasis on peak power figures instead of looking at the power curve?
If you want to re-calibrate your intuition start looking at the area under the power curve.

 

[JC_Dude]

BMW TwinScroll engines have super flat torque curves throughout basically the entire usable rev range and they usually accelerate faster than they should based on raw power/mass/drivetrain numbers combo.

And underrating the power would certainly be in the spirit of the Mk4 Supra

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps it's because you're putting too much emphasis on peak power figures instead of looking at the power curve?
If you want to re-calibrate your intuition start looking at the area under the power curve.

But how much difference does peak power vs. low end power really make for 0-60 times. Surely we're not spending a ton of time at low rpm for a 0-60 dash.

 

[Vegard]

But how much difference does peak power vs. low end power really make for 0-60 times. Surely we're not spending a ton of time at low rpm for a 0-60 dash.

The low end only matters in 1st gear but as you know, a good launch is critical for a good 0-60 time.
For the rest of the gears you only look at the rev range that the engine operates in. Depending on how closely your gears are stacked that will probably be 1000 rpm - 2000 rpm wide. So you find correspondingly wide range in the power curve* that has the highest area under the curve and that's where you keep the engine for the best acceleration. If the power curve is very spiky, a 1500 rpm wide range can have a high peak but a much lower average. An engine with similar peak power but a flat curve, like the Supra, will have close to peak power as average.

*This is a bit tricky because the rpm drop is a percentage of the current rpm, more specifically it's the ratio between the gear ratios you're shifting between.

 

[GTboyz]

I thought this is appropiate here.

Wow, regret not pre-ordering one now.

 

[Vegard]

 

[kikie]

Is there no news/reviews about the 2.0L version? Maybe it is not ready to be tested yet?

 

[homeforsummer]

I thought this is appropiate here.

Wow, regret not pre-ordering one now.

It's no Gazoo Racing one though, is it?

 

[Nessy]

Despite the bulbous looking arches, this new Supra has really grown on me.

 

[GTboyz]

It's no Gazoo Racing one though, is it?

View attachment 822002​

Nah

 

[GTV0819]

The biggest difference between your frame of reference (E46 M3) is the MASSIVE advancements in tire technology and gearboxes. The Supra is geared extremely aggressively, because it can be, because it has 8 forward ratios. Also, while it may be "only" 335hp, it has a very sizeable amount of torque and its available on a broad plateau. Couple that with the fast-shifting 8 speed auto...and 3.8 sounds believable to me.

edit:

E46 M3 weighs 3460lbs. It makes 338hp, 269lbs*ft, and the total torque multiplication for the first 3 ratios are: 15.31, 9.16, and 6.04. So according to my theory that what you "feel" when accelerating is really the multiplied-torque to weight ratio, the E46 has:
4118lbs*ft / 3460lbs = 1.19lbs*ft / lbs in first gear
2464lbs*ft / 3460lbs = 0.71lbs*ft / lbs in second gear
1624lbs*ft / 3460lbs = 0.47lbs*ft / lbs in third gear

A90 Supra weighs ~3400lbs. It makes 335hp, 365lbs*ft, and the total torque multiplication for the first 3 ratios are: 16.58, 10.60, and 6.85. ...

6051lbs*ft / 3400lbs = 1.75lbs*ft / lbs in first gear
3869lbs*ft / 3400lbs = 1.13lbs*ft / lbs in second gear
2500lbs*ft / 3400lbs = 0.75lbs*ft / lbs in third gear

As you can see, the A90 Supra should pull very nearly as hard in 2nd gear as the E46 M3 does in first. Lighter, a lot more torque, more aggressive gearing, and much faster shift times. Add launch control to the mix and I can see how the Supra is quite fast.

It sure has better specs than the aging 86, I suppose.

 

[GTPNewsWire]

This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:

TRD Reveals Toyota GR Supra Tuning Package

This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on May 20th, 2019 in the Automotive News category.

 

[MaxAttack]

Inb4 hurrdedurr its a beee emm doubleyerr.

Looks pretty hotboi to me. Can't see anyone using the door bits though. Feel like for the most part people will follow Supra procedure: TE37s and a giant wing. Way bigger than that one.

 

[kikie]

Nope, nope TRD. Just no!

 

[JC_Dude]

They look alright, but still don't adress my biggest issues with this cars styling, namely the front and the weird Mercedes-SLK-esque F1/LMP1 styling cues. Also, the price is asinine.

 

[CodeRedR51]

They look alright, but still don't adress my biggest issues with this cars styling, namely the front and the weird Mercedes-SLK-esque F1/LMP1 styling cues. Also, the price is asinine.

It could have been $100k like the GT-R...

 

[LOonIE]

I guess, the Dude means the price of the TRD package, which seems pretty hefty to me, too. I mean, what does "the rest" of the car cost?

 

[ZedNinetySix]

Aww isn't that cute, they blocked off their precious fake side-vents completely that they literally originally claimed were for "So the tuning companies can remove the fake vent to allow for better airflow in brake cooling" ect, weird claim by themselves to justify bad/fake design qeues, and now completely deleted as a whole.

 

[JC_Dude]

It could have been $100k like the GT-R...

Yeah, like @LOonIE said, I meant the TRD package itself. The whole car costs like $60k, so you can pay 30% more to get some bumpers.

 

[Danoff]

Lots of carbon fiber, any weight reduction?

 

[Griffith500]

Looks like mostly additional weight to me!

 

[Dsavage27]

And I didnt see anywhere where it mentions any extra horsepower which granted the car is quick but a nice boost to maybe 365hp wouldn't hurt.

 

[kikie]

 

[CyborgGT]

And I didnt see anywhere where it mentions any extra horsepower which granted the car is quick but a nice boost to maybe 365hp wouldn't hurt.

Whatever Toyota themselves offer as an official package, it'll likely be a lot cheaper in the aftermarket. A simple fuel system upgrade (pump+injectors) and tune will do a lot towards waking it up.

 

[05XR8]

Aww isn't that cute, they blocked off their precious fake side-vents completely that they literally originally claimed were for "So the tuning companies can remove the fake vent to allow for better airflow in brake cooling" ect, weird claim by themselves to justify bad/fake design qeues, and now completely deleted as a whole.

View attachment 822252 View attachment 822253 View attachment 822254

This may appeal to owners that want looks over taking it to the track. However, if they do take it to the track, it offers aero benefits.

The whole thing with removing the pieces that open the vents, are for additional cooling. If you are going to take it to the track, same removal to expose the vents requires someone to engineer ducting. That's something the person that buys the TRD kit, probably won't do anyway.