Who wore it better? A visual comparison of the Supra & Z4

[Australian of The North]

[content removed]

Sponsored

 

[SupraFiend]

Z4. It has a couple big advantages. One, it doesn't have all of that vent BS on the door totally hampering the Supra, which leads to the second advantage. The Supra suffers massively from having too many jarring body seams visible from the side. Not only does the Z4 not have the baggage of being styled after a pie in the sky, no production limits concept with details that make zero sense, it has an intentional body crease on its side that beautifully hides the body seams of the clamshell hood. Besides that the crack heads who put the front ends of the preproduction Supras together haven't the foggiest idea what "panel alignment" is, it is painfully obvious the clamshell hood was chosen for the z4 as it worked with the design, and because of the shared platform (note the engine bays are practically identical), the clam shell must have been forced on the Supra, and it just doesn't work on that shape.

 

[SupraFiend]

The Z4 just looks so "coherent", the wheel arch looks so right with the dimensions, the hip of the car also looks so right

The profile looks great

The Supra is not bad, but the overhangs look a big off... the wheel base may be a bit short. I feel that had they made it 2+2 with a short back seat, extending the wheel base by a couple of inches would have made it perfect. I've posted profile comparison overlay of the 370Z and Supra and the 370Z looks just about "right" in regards to wheel base and overhang fit.

Agreed. Both cars have a 97.2 inch wheelbase. I'm sure this is another case where it was chosen because it was right for the Z4s design, and the supra just got stuck with it. Though they did say they set the hard points early in development and then went their separate ways so this could be one of them and the Z4 simply has the advantage of being designed after the wheelbase was set, while the Supra had to squeeze the massive FT1 concept onto this tiny wheelbase. I really like the FT1, but I really wish they hadn't let it restrict the production cars design so much.

 

[kona61]

Agreed. Both cars have a 97.2 inch wheelbase. I'm sure this is another case where it was chosen because it was right for the Z4s design, and the supra just got stuck with it. Though they did say they set the hard points early in development and then went their separate ways so this could be one of them and the Z4 simply has the advantage of being designed after the wheelbase was set, while the Supra had to squeeze the massive FT1 concept onto this tiny wheelbase. I really like the FT1, but I really wish they hadn't let it restrict the production cars design so much.

Well, the thing is all Supra's have shrunk with each iteration. To get smaller, this car needs big overhangs to meet pedestrian impact laws.

 

[DesmoSD]

Agreed. Both cars have a 97.2 inch wheelbase. I'm sure this is another case where it was chosen because it was right for the Z4s design, and the supra just got stuck with it. Though they did say they set the hard points early in development and then went their separate ways so this could be one of them and the Z4 simply has the advantage of being designed after the wheelbase was set, while the Supra had to squeeze the massive FT1 concept onto this tiny wheelbase. I really like the FT1, but I really wish they hadn't let it restrict the production cars design so much.

Well, the thing is all Supra's have shrunk with each iteration. To get smaller, this car needs big overhangs to meet pedestrian impact laws.

Not true. The transition from the MKIII to the MKIV was the major reduction in length yet still managed to maintain the 2+2 seating. The MKV as @SupraFiend mentioned, was reduced even more to fit the 2 seater Z4 unibody. Nobua san talks about the difficulty him and his team had.

MKI: 181.7
MKII: 183.5
MKIII: 181.9
MKIV: 177.8
MKV: 172.4

AM: How different is it?

NN: I’m not sure the specific number, but maybe four or five inches shorter. It’s a big difference. And, as I mentioned, I didn’t decide the direction but I knew the Supra fans loved the FT-1 concept, but the actual dimension is really smaller than the FT-1, so it’s difficult to make FT-1 concept with that package. It’s impossible, I thought.

AM: Right, because I would imagine at that point you probably already knew what you were working with in terms of hard points on the joint-development project.

NN: Yeah. But I wanted to keep that FT-1 spirit, the feeling and the impact, so I made the theme of design concept what we called “condensed extreme.” I wanted to keep the extreme feeling of FT-1. So we shaved the material or volume as much as possible. After that, we can make space for the shape, I thought. That’s why, at the very beginning I made a condensed extreme concept for this project. Taking those elements of the FT-1 and then putting it in within those limits, these constraining limits, while keeping the flares and the raw impact.

https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2020-toyota-supra-design-interview/

 

[kona61]

Not true. The transition from the MKIII to the MKIV was the major reduction in length yet still managed to maintain the 2+2 seating. The MKV as @SupraFiend mentioned, was reduced even more to fit the 2 seater Z4 unibody. Nobua san talks about the difficulty him and his team had.

MKI: 181.7
MKII: 183.5
MKIII: 181.9
MKIV: 177.8
MKV: 172.4

AM: How different is it?

NN: I’m not sure the specific number, but maybe four or five inches shorter. It’s a big difference. And, as I mentioned, I didn’t decide the direction but I knew the Supra fans loved the FT-1 concept, but the actual dimension is really smaller than the FT-1, so it’s difficult to make FT-1 concept with that package. It’s impossible, I thought.

AM: Right, because I would imagine at that point you probably already knew what you were working with in terms of hard points on the joint-development project.

NN: Yeah. But I wanted to keep that FT-1 spirit, the feeling and the impact, so I made the theme of design concept what we called “condensed extreme.” I wanted to keep the extreme feeling of FT-1. So we shaved the material or volume as much as possible. After that, we can make space for the shape, I thought. That’s why, at the very beginning I made a condensed extreme concept for this project. Taking those elements of the FT-1 and then putting it in within those limits, these constraining limits, while keeping the flares and the raw impact.

https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2020-toyota-supra-design-interview/

Sorry, I should have rephrased that, MKIII to MKIV. But still, I have never found the rear seats in the MKIV to be particularly useful.

 

[DesmoSD]

Sorry, I should have rephrased that, MKIII to MKIV. But still, I have never found the rear seats in the MKIV to be particularly useful.

Haha yeah and there are many 2+2 coupes where they only people that can sit comfortably in the back are kids, Asians and little people. The Supras have always been that configuration except for the MKV and that's because of what was given to them to use; the Z4 unibody and parts bin. It's very unfortunate but it is what it is.

 

[SupraFiend]

But its more in tune with the 2000gt, which is really the grand father of the Supra. I don't mourn the lost rear seats, the loss of front double wishbone suspension and any semblance of Japanese DNA far more.

 

[MA617M]

the rear seats were fucking useless anyway - in the A80 anyway. A60 and 70 weren't as bad

 

[Australian of The North]

[content removed]

 

[MA617M]

you must have midget friends. i cannot fit more than one adult in the back of mine lol... they have to sit behind the driver and have their feet behind the passenger

 

[AsupramkvC]

Toyota Supra vs. BMW Z4 https://www.topspeed.com/cars/2020-toyota-supra-vs-2019-bmw-z4-ar184483.html

 

[AsupramkvC]

I can understand why people say that, because looking at the 2+2 config they look to small to be of any use, but I've found its more myth than truth. I've had 4 adults in my A80 on numerous occasions. YES, its tight, and comparatively uncomfortable experience for everyone, it would be terrible for long long trips, and very tall or fat people will likely not fit at all(never had either in the rear seats), but I've proven many times that the rear seats are actually usable by ordinary people. Mostly though I use them all the time to put various little things in the back, bags, jackets, etc,etc... rather than using the rear hatch.

Is having rear seats better than the A90? or is the A90's much bigger boot/trunk an advantage?
Its entirely a personal preference based on your circumstances. I don't think it makes a real difference either way. Neither car is likely purchased with the idea of passengers or hauling gear. There are plenty of times id be happy to get rid of the rear seats in my A80, and other times when they have been invaluable.

IMO, the A90 is best for the driver alone. It’s a driver’s car; a car for the driver(not for the passenger/s). If you have a passenger beside you, it’s already considered a bonus. But me, personally, I’d prefer driving a Supra alone so I could have all the focus enjoying the drive. I would welcome a hot woman who would motivate me to drive better. If you want 2+2 configuration, better get a sleeper car. You get the benefits of performance and space, as well as luxury, in 1.

 

[Supra93]

 

[DesmoSD]

the rear seats were fucking useless anyway - in the A80 anyway. A60 and 70 weren't as bad

Not 100% useless. I've took my 8 and 7 yr old nephews for rides and they absolutely love it. They laugh the entire time whenever it spools up and when the BOV goes off, 'vrrrooooooommmmmm pwwwssssshhh'. I've folded down the seats and used the room to load tires, a DP, exhaust and random stuff that a hatchback allows.

Sponsored