Discussion in 'Motors' started by Lowe, Mar 6, 2018.
That part was a bit silly, but they say one might come later.
If there’s enough demand apparently. Which is odd, because it’s been raised so often so looks as though there’s a lot of demand.
Make one with manual, all those fake vents removed with real aero and then a big wing. Supra GT.
All will be forgiven.
Or make the vents actually work like they should on a car this expensive (brake cooling).
When I say remove, I mean pop them out and make it functional, not fill it in.
I've been watching video reviews/reveals on this car now for the past couple of days, and I'm sooooooooooooooo dissapointed. I mean I knew it was always going to be "just a BMW with Supra styling", that was announced by Toyota ages ago, but the Supra fan in me still hoped it would have enough... Supraness to warrant the name, I was still putting off getting a new car until this hit, I wanted to like it, but now I'm kinda lost.
I think the biggest problem here is the price, it's far too cheap (accounting for inflation it's ~ half the price of it's predacessor). Now that may sound ridiculous but it means this car has been built to a budget, not a spec/vision/reputation and you just can't do that when bringing back a legend, imagine if Nissan had decided the R35 GTR would be priced the same as the 370z, what corners would they have had to cut? With the MK5 Supra the cost cutting is obvious, it may look vaguly like a MK4 Supra from the outside but there is no Supra styling in the cabin, it's just a BMW interiour with a Toyota badge on the wheel, gone is the Supra style interiour from the MK3/4. Now obviously some limitations of the Z4 base would have been impossible for Toyota to work around (I.E no rear seats) but the interiour debacle could have been fixed simply by spending more on production (and raising the price). Toyota are not aiming this car at the type of person who would have previously bought a Supra, they are aiming it at the type of person who previously would have bought a 10 year old used Supra, and this "budget Supra" design mentality has a detrimental effect on both the car and it's attempt to live up to the legacy.
The hilerious thing is, Toyota say they had to partner with BMW to make the car and that it couldn't have been done 100% in house/etc. But we all know they are lying through their teeth because all they had to do was take an IS/GS350 engine, add an aftermarket bolt on turbo kit, put it in the Lexus LC500 (which actually has a modern Supra style interiour and feels more like being in an MK4 than anything else on the market) and they would have had an instant MK5 Supra. They just wern't willing to risk canabalising Lexus sales/product line to make the new Supra (which is comical as Lexus spent it's first 15 years just selling rebadged Toyotas with added leather), which in itself shows they were never serious about brining back the Supra, it was just a cash grab.
Don't get me wrong, it looks to be a great car, if it was called the "Toyota Spectre" or something it would 100% be capable of standing on it's own two feet. However IMO trying to boost sales by nailing on the Supra name does more to hurt this car than help it as it cannot live up to the requirements of that name.
HKS has already been working on it, fitted the old 2JZ engine ibnto it with a huge turbo, running at over 800bhp apparently.
What whereas the Mk IV Supra NA did?
NA with a naff auto too!
The 8 speed in the new one is (as I'm sure you're aware) a bloody good 'box and in all honesty, the people that are banging on about wanting a manual are a) the press b) people that'll never by the car anyway. But this is the internet, got to whine about something eh.
Will the BMW auto gearbox hold up though
If you read the link, they put in a manual box.
The ZF box is great, but it doesn't really fit with the ethos of that car does it.
I'm a big proponent of manual gearboxes in sports, but the reality is that autos are now faster and more efficient. It's hard for a manufacturer to justify the effort of building manual cars for the much smaller niché of drivers who want a manual gearbox/clutch for the experience rather than the numbers. As @InvaderGIR said, those drivers probably wont be buying new anyway.
That said, I am a little surprised. I thought Toyota were aiming to go after the Porsche Cayman sector with the Supra, so I thought offering a manual might have given them the edge in that market.
Was it not the case that most Supra Twin Turbos had an autobox?
There seems to be quite a lot of nostalgic revisionism going on here.
The MkIV Supra was mostly a lardy automatic GT in its day. Not a precision sports car.
To be honest the ZF8 put me of the SVR having driven other cars with the ZF8, but in the SVR with the ZF8 I was shocked how good it was, as the Jaguar/SVR guys has really tweaked it so well it essentially felt like a dual clutch gearbox, instant acceleration from a dig, no delay whatsoever, torque converter just instantly locked and fired you off, which was way more responsive than the dual clutch in my Golf R which always had a moment delay from pressing the throttle unless you used LC. Gear changed had zero delay up or down and there was even a slight inertia jolt in lower gears, this really made me respect how damn good the ZF8 is in manual mode and its also very smart in S auto. Plus when you drop it in D it has all the advantages of a super smooth effortless automatic, so really best of both worlds.
For example the DCT in the Ferrari is super sharp, super quick and rifle bolt like, but in full auto it can of course be jerky and rather dislikes crawling in traffic.
I'd not worry about the ZF8, anyone buying a Supra as a daily the ZF8 is a must, for those looking to buy the Supra as a weekend only fun car, then yes a manual would be more preferable.
As Fox says the MKIV Supra had a really pathetic automatic gearbox in most of them, that was slow and un-responsive, you had to change up 500rpm before the limiter because thats how long it took to make the up-change, so all the complaints do seem odd, and as a car manufacturer Toyota have to make the decision that will give the most sales and most profit, hence using a shared platform and using the ZF8.
I personally think the new Supra is a great car, yes at 50k it seems a touch rich, but I reckon give it 6-12 months and these things are going to look awesome with some body kits that come available and I can see them reaching 400-450HP with some basic mods and easily 500 plus with some more fettling, but with around 400-450HP they will be seriously quick.
..buy something else?
No one wants the auto Supra mkIVs though, which is why they are worth significantly less. It's always the same with sports cars, once they reach classic status everyone wants the manual versions.
It's almost like the demand profile for expensive new cars is very different to the demand profile for old used cars.
A few thoughts, ubersonic.
The Supra is only a legend to a comparative handful, most of who would never actually buy one anyway. The MkIV was good car but it was a (back then) large, heavy and refined GT. It didn't sell particularly well, it often didn't fare fantastically well in group tests/road tests of the era and the vast majority were boggo NA variants. You don't hear people demanding Lexus to bring back the Soarer; the only reason the MkIV has so much prominence is purely because of its F&F association and the tuning scene that blossomed afterwards.
The difference here is that the R35 has a lot more to trade on, and a lot more to gain, so it justified the investment – which is why that never happened; its generations have been far more successful, it's a far more prominent car, it's better known around the world, it's got miles more competition history and so on – developing a new model which would last for a long time, and help spur the development of other aspects of the brand, made good sense. Not the case for the Supra, really.
The problem, in my mind, is that there were two options: bring back the Supra name, and capitalise on its current popularity, at a sensible price point or do nothing. There is no market for a larger, more expensive or more complicated coupe; hell, Toyota only expects to sell a handful a month in the UK, if that (pre-orders aside).
Now, with the LC500 already occupying the big GT spot in the TMC, there's no room for an equivalent Supra – they're not, as you rightly say, going to cannibalise sales from something that's had a tremendous amount of development and resources poured into it. Particularly given that the LC, too, doesn't sell particularly well.
No – because most of the people who previously bought a Supra are now either dead or in retirement. They're not aiming it at people looking at older Supras, either; it's aimed at people who venture into Toyota showrooms and get derailed by this interesting bright coupe sat in the corner. It might also snare a few Mustang/Camaro/370Z/Cayman buyers, although I don't really think many would cross-shop the Cayman with it. Nor the Alpine; that's a different car altogether. Perhaps some Supra buyers might consider it in a few years, when depreciation has taken its toll a little.
After all, all the enthusiasts screamed out for what ultimately became the GT86... then no one bought one.
It's not a budget issue, at the end of the day, it's just a case of what was viable and a sound business case.
It could have been done in house, of course, but there was no way to justify such an exercise for such a niche, low-volume car. You have to remember that production of ICE vehicles is becoming increasingly stringent, the rules are ever-changing and fewer and fewer people are actually buying sports cars, too.
It's like the complaints about manuals; well, fewer than two per cent of sales in the US were manuals last year. What's the point of marketing to such a niche audience? There isn't – and those complaining would probably never buy one anyway. You don't hear people grumbling about the lack of manual Ferraris these days and, truth be told, a lot of these engines simply don't pair well with manual transmissions.
Well, they'd have to do a lot of development to produce a car that ultimately only a handful of people would buy, while crippling sales of a car they already build. And so on...
I think the LS400 might like to say something about that.
Now, this I more agree with. I think it is cashing in on the opportunity – which is fine, of course, but it would have been gratifying to see something more interesting – and I, too, don't think the Supra name should have been used.
That said, outside of enthusiast circles, the name is moot to most. Has it hurt the Supra brand? For the die-hard fans, perhaps. To anyone else? Nope. Hell, I mean it's not like the MkIV was entirely bespoke. Asin-Warner transmission, an engine derived from a saloon, platform and underpinnings shared with an earlier Lexus (that had more advanced suspension options at the time), etc...
It couldn't have been called Celica, though, that's for sure. Definitely an interesting point of conversation, though, in any case.
Indeed, plus no one really bought the manual introduced at 16MY. All be it only V6 flavours.
That’s the problem with nostalgia, it’s not what it used to be.
Separate names with a comma.