Sponsored
MKV Toyota Supra Dimensions & Specs leaked in Best Car Magazine
- Thread starter johnny_10196
- Start date
- Watchers 0
- Status
supraboi
Well-Known Member
Don't take my word for it. Guff showed us a side by side comparison; I guess we're both smoking the same thing. So members from both the UK and Australia had a chance to see it up close and in person. Yet no one complained about it being tiny or too small to be a Supra. The only one that seems to be complaining is some old fart that got a quick look on the highway.
Exactly, there is just more overhang in the rear and front.
- Banned
- #275
39 is an old fart to you? You must be really young... and yes eventually you will grow hairs on your balls, it’s normal, just give it time, should start around age 12 or so.Don't take my word for it. Guff showed us a side by side comparison; I guess we're both smoking the same thing. So members from both the UK and Australia had a chance to see it up close and in person. Yet no one complained about it being tiny or too small to be a Supra. The only one that seems to be complaining is some old fart that got a quick look on the highway.
Exactly, there is just more overhang in the rear and front.
supraboi
Well-Known Member
You act like you're all wise, but you're the most immature one on this thread. You keep treating everyone here like they're kids. Also when presented with facts you change the subject. Don't dish it if you can't take it. Keep trolling bro...
Last edited:
- Banned
- #278
Lol, I can take it no problem but at least be funny about it, your stuff is lame dude. It’s not about being wise or smarter than you, I just like to stay grounded and I don’t let hype become fact because I can’t hold my load.
johnny_10196
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #280
An overlap comparison was made. Slightly shorter wheelbase, and less rear overhang.
- Banned
- #282
Wait until you see it in person, I was very surprised how small the new Z4 looks.An overlap comparison was made. Slightly shorter wheelbase, and less rear overhang.
johnny_10196
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #283
I'm really looking forward to it. According to our UK counterpart; the guys that attended the meeting with Tada-san at Goodwood had said the size is good and it is a really nice looking car. I just wished Toyota would hurry up with the debut already!
MA617M
Well-Known Member
Having been in the A90 GR prototype, it is reminiscent of 86 size. Slightly longer bonnet, smaller back - just on feel. It doesn't scream "tiny" compared to the A80 - but the proportions and lines are far less bulbous. It screams tiny compared to other cars on the road.
Inside, it feels small, and focused. the lack of room behind the drivers seat makes it feel really, really focused and sporty.
The seating position feels on the ground - given this was the race concept, but it will only be 50-100mm worst case (2-4" for you guys) higher in the road car.
Remember - every supra has gotten smaller in overall size (bar width) and wheelbase with every generation.
Inside, it feels small, and focused. the lack of room behind the drivers seat makes it feel really, really focused and sporty.
The seating position feels on the ground - given this was the race concept, but it will only be 50-100mm worst case (2-4" for you guys) higher in the road car.
Remember - every supra has gotten smaller in overall size (bar width) and wheelbase with every generation.
I think the reason the Supra looks as long as it does is because the greenhouse is smaller than that of most modern cars. This visually causes a proportional skew. For example, this is a picture from my driveway:
From this angle, the Supra looks bigger. But from the complementing angle with the BRZ in front, the BRZ looks bigger.
In reality, the cars are actually very similar when you put them next to each other, and in general, the 86 look oddly large once the two cars are side by side. But as I mentioned earlier, this is a proportional difference. The smaller greenhouse on the Supra is complemented by the width of the car, as well as the hood length. The 86 however, has a much wider and larger greenhouse, with a squarer nose, and thus looks like a much smaller car. Physically though, they are very similar. The larger greenhouse also is exacerbated by much thicker pillars all around, but makes for a much roomier (and safer) cabin.
The MKV will likely have a greenhouse much more like the BRZ (wider overall w/ thicker pillars), because this is simply the way you build a rigid roof structure nowadays that also has ample space for occupants. This is also why the MKV looks more like an 86 to the eye than it does the MKIV. Certainly, the body of the car could have been made larger to help create the long proportion that the MKIV has, but the chassis was developed with specific regard to both the target wheelbase/track-width ratio and the target weight. I have no doubt that the chassis was tested at a variety of wheelbases, but the 1.6 WB/TW ratio was set in stone early on in order to meet the targets of neutral balance characteristics while still maintaining significant rotational moment.
I will absolutely concede that the MKIV is a sexier design compared to the MKV. The MKIV may even continue on to age far better, as the sheetmetal is really masterfully done while still retaining simplicity, whereas the MKV is perhaps too modern. But I also understand that cars are not made with the sheetmetal first. They are designed first as chassis' to target certain driving characteristics, safety standards, space constraints, etc. and then the sheetmetal is made after. As such, the MKV looks the way it does, love it or hate it.
From this angle, the Supra looks bigger. But from the complementing angle with the BRZ in front, the BRZ looks bigger.
In reality, the cars are actually very similar when you put them next to each other, and in general, the 86 look oddly large once the two cars are side by side. But as I mentioned earlier, this is a proportional difference. The smaller greenhouse on the Supra is complemented by the width of the car, as well as the hood length. The 86 however, has a much wider and larger greenhouse, with a squarer nose, and thus looks like a much smaller car. Physically though, they are very similar. The larger greenhouse also is exacerbated by much thicker pillars all around, but makes for a much roomier (and safer) cabin.
The MKV will likely have a greenhouse much more like the BRZ (wider overall w/ thicker pillars), because this is simply the way you build a rigid roof structure nowadays that also has ample space for occupants. This is also why the MKV looks more like an 86 to the eye than it does the MKIV. Certainly, the body of the car could have been made larger to help create the long proportion that the MKIV has, but the chassis was developed with specific regard to both the target wheelbase/track-width ratio and the target weight. I have no doubt that the chassis was tested at a variety of wheelbases, but the 1.6 WB/TW ratio was set in stone early on in order to meet the targets of neutral balance characteristics while still maintaining significant rotational moment.
I will absolutely concede that the MKIV is a sexier design compared to the MKV. The MKIV may even continue on to age far better, as the sheetmetal is really masterfully done while still retaining simplicity, whereas the MKV is perhaps too modern. But I also understand that cars are not made with the sheetmetal first. They are designed first as chassis' to target certain driving characteristics, safety standards, space constraints, etc. and then the sheetmetal is made after. As such, the MKV looks the way it does, love it or hate it.
Sponsored
- Status
Similar threads
