Analysis, Comments & Reactions from the Web about the new Supra

Guff

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Threads
23
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
7,404
Location
USA
Car(s)
A80, A90, Mk1 Celica
Vehicle Showcase
1
So, if it gets factory upgrades, does this mean first year customers will have lower-powered cars, or will/can the upgrades be applied to all cars from this generation? Does he mean upgrades to the current B58?
Tada-San said that all the OE improvements will be backward-compatible on the earlier cars. So, just buy the part at the Toyota dealer and stick it on.


What about transmission upgrade? Is manual transmission coming, after all?
Still the same "maybe" answer. I will say though, Tada-San said that they were indeed testing a manual but it was not up-to-spec durability wise for what they wanted. Apparently there is still a manual in development somewhere, but honestly, I couldn't get any solid information. He said none of the BMW M manuals were up to spec for what he wanted.

Also, here's another interesting tidbit. Toyota and Tada-San evaluated doing the entire Supra project by themselves at the beginning of development; including building a brand new Inline-6. They projected a 10-year development cycle for the entire project, 3 years specifically for just repurposing a factory in Aichi with new tooling and whatnot just for the engine. But the project couldn't move forward, because there are regulations that go into effect in 2020+ in a number of world markets that will further restrict emissions, noise regulations, efficiency, etc. Tada-San did not want a hybrid, and still does not want a hybrid (he says battery tech isn't at the level he wants to keep a sports car light enough and cheap enough), so they continued with the BMW collaboration. The BMW Collab was projected to take 5 years, it took 7.

Basically, if Toyota tried to do it themselves, it likely wouldn't be possible to create a simple, gas-engine, fun-to-drive sports car, especially at an attainable price, before regulations put a stranglehold on them.

This also might be why they went ahead and released an auto only version in 2019. Once the model is already on sale, they can get by with the older constraints apparently. Does that mean a manual later on? Idk, nobody knows for sure.
Sponsored

 

DesmoSD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Threads
3
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
1,968
Location
San Diego
Car(s)
1993.5 Supra TT, 997.1 911 Carrera S, 1199 Panigale S
Fuck me. Not this again. Do I have to make posts again and again? You dumbfucks need to stop bitching. Here is my post that I made in Lexus Enthusiast in order to silence a couple of people who did not know what they were talking about. It's time people understand this and look at this COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from their original delusional opinion. Look at my excerpt from a different point of view. Read up bitches.

https://lexusenthusiast.com/forums/...cially-unveiled-pg-26.2666/page-29#post-42315

After you read that, I will simply finish by saying this:

Old Supra (MKIV)/New Supra (MKV):

Base NA Supra = GR Supra
Supra Turbo = Supra GRMN

Now they haven't built the GRMN, YET. But they will soon. ^_^

Well this should be common knowledge by now and they said a GRMN is coming. Insider information says ETA is 3 years from now.

That's generally the gap between a normal Porsche 911 Carrera to a Porsche 911 GT3/GT3RS. If you think about the GT2 RS the gap between that and a normal Porsche 911 Carrera is something along the lines of 4-5 years. You can make that comparison with the first Porsche Cayman GT4 and the other 981 Caymans. Another 3 year gap. It makes sense.

The GR Supra is gunning for the Cayman S but is reportedly faster than the GT4 on the Nürburgring Nordschleife. Imagine the GRMN.
Enough with the name calling...

Comparing the MKIV spec levels to the MKV GR and GRMN is irrelevant since the MKIV followed traditional Toyota spec (Turbo/NA and manual/auto) where as the MKV is following more of a BMW/German spec (regular model and then the M or a GT4 spec). When was the last time Toyota released a "race" version that was more performance based then a cosmetic joke... Toyota 86 TRD Special Edition... Toyota Camry TRD.

As I mentioned before in the SF forums, Toyota could have easily built the Supra in house with the help of BMW. They could have done what Morgan did; formulate a contract with BMW to only provide the B58 engine (long block in this case) and Magna for the auto and 6 speed transmissions. Toyota could have built the rest from their own parts bin (the MKIV used the steering wheel from the 90's Camry).

Toyota could have used the RC-F and even the LC chassis and when put it on a serious weight reduction (ditch the 125lbs seats). It's very similar to how the SC300/400 was developed then the MKIV.

397100-rc-f-aftermarket-wheels-merged-threads-img_5122.jpg
 

Captain_Kirk

Well-Known Member
First Name
Kirk
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Threads
23
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
2,253
Location
US
Car(s)
?
As I mentioned before in the SF forums, Toyota could have easily built the Supra in house with the help of BMW. They could have done what Morgan did; formulate a contract with BMW to only provide the B58 engine (long block in this case) and Magna for the auto and 6 speed transmissions. Toyota could have built the rest from their own parts bin (the MKIV used the steering wheel from the 90's Camry).

Toyota could have used the RC-F and even the LC chassis and when put it on a serious weight reduction (ditch the 125lbs seats). It's very similar to how the SC300/400 was developed then the MKIV.

397100-rc-f-aftermarket-wheels-merged-threads-img_5122.jpg
But that still would not address the major complaints from the die heart fan boys and enthusiast. It's the BMW drivetrain that appears to be the most heated debate. When this forum first started, people were ok with chassis share, but a majority wanted Toyota to use their V6 over BMW's I6.

I doubt Toyota has any future plans for anything RC related. Everything is going towards TNGA.
 

Modal170

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
1,714
Location
NJ
Car(s)
86
Enough with the name calling...

Comparing the MKIV spec levels to the MKV GR and GRMN is irrelevant since the MKIV followed traditional Toyota spec (Turbo/NA and manual/auto) where as the MKV is following more of a BMW/German spec (regular model and then the M or a GT4 spec). When was the last time Toyota released a "race" version that was more performance based then a cosmetic joke... Toyota 86 TRD Special Edition... Toyota Camry TRD.

As I mentioned before in the SF forums, Toyota could have easily built the Supra in house with the help of BMW. They could have done what Morgan did; formulate a contract with BMW to only provide the B58 engine (long block in this case) and Magna for the auto and 6 speed transmissions. Toyota could have built the rest from their own parts bin (the MKIV used the steering wheel from the 90's Camry).

Toyota could have used the RC-F and even the LC chassis and when put it on a serious weight reduction (ditch the 125lbs seats). It's very similar to how the SC300/400 was developed then the MKIV.

397100-rc-f-aftermarket-wheels-merged-threads-img_5122.jpg
A70 said something that still rings true.

Better to build something that's already light and go from there, than have something that's heavy and lose weight.

This was in regards to carbon fiber, but the concept of starting light from the get go still fits.

Taking a boat for a chassis and then cut weight would not help at all.
 

DesmoSD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Threads
3
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
1,968
Location
San Diego
Car(s)
1993.5 Supra TT, 997.1 911 Carrera S, 1199 Panigale S
But that still would not address the major complaints from the die heart fan boys and enthusiast. It's the BMW drivetrain that appears to be the most heated debate. When this forum first started, people were ok with chassis share, but a majority wanted Toyota to use their V6 over BMW's I6.

I doubt Toyota has any future plans for anything RC related. Everything is going towards TNGA.
Of course, you can't please everyone but that burn wouldn't have stung as much if it has more Toyota hard parts and less BMW.

When it was announced that BMW n Toyota were collaborating, many saw it as good things (like McLaren F1 with a nice BMW pedigree engine). Then, as it evolved, it went to Z4 and Supra sharing the same platform, no Toyota I6 (3JZ), 98% BMW parts and 2% Toyota tuning. The end result was not to many happy campers.

Now that the car has arrived in the U.S were starting to find out that it's loosely putting that it's more of a 60/40 build involvement ratio. People are now starting to slowly warm up to it.

A70 said something that still rings true.

Better to build something that's already light and go from there, than have something that's heavy and lose weight.

This was in regards to carbon fiber, but the concept of starting light from the get go still fits.

Taking a boat for a chassis and then cut weight would not help at all.
In 2014, the deal was already made so Toyota didn't build anything. Is the RC chassis the issue or is it all of the plush amenities, total luxury, extra sound deadening that are responsible for making it a boat?
 

justbake

Well-Known Member
First Name
Justin
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Threads
2
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
2,402
Location
Indy
Car(s)
F10 535i
Toyota could have used the RC-F and even the LC chassis and when put it on a serious weight reduction (ditch the 125lbs seats). It's very similar to how the SC300/400 was developed then the MKIV.
I do think this is a valid argument but I dont think it would have produced a car this light. Toyota is #1 in production for a reason, they think things out. So I truly believe it would not have been that easy.

A good example of this is the Lexus RC. Composed of the GS front, IS C midsection, and IS rear, it is heavier than the IS and the same as the bigger GS. Although weight savings wasn't their goal, it shows that using parts that weren't designed in harmony produces unnecessary bloat. Also the RC-F Track edition was able to shed 180 pounds but at a 50% price increase at $97,000
 

Modal170

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
1,714
Location
NJ
Car(s)
86
Of course, you can't please everyone but that burn wouldn't have stung as much if it has more Toyota hard parts and less BMW.

When it was announced that BMW n Toyota were collaborating, many saw it as good things (like McLaren F1 with a nice BMW pedigree engine). Then, as it evolved, it went to Z4 and Supra sharing the same platform, no Toyota I6 (3JZ), 98% BMW parts and 2% Toyota tuning. The end result was not to many happy campers.

Now that the car has arrived in the U.S were starting to find out that it's loosely putting that it's more of a 60/40 build involvement ratio. People are now starting to slowly warm up to it.



In 2014, the deal was already made so Toyota didn't build anything. Is the RC chassis the issue or is it all of the plush amenities, total luxury, extra sound deadening that are responsible for making it a boat?
I can re-phrase it to say Toyota go into the parts bin for something light to start and it won't change a thing. The RC is sturdy, and heavy because it was built to be a GT car, and the LC is also heavy at 4000 pounds. You can't just chip away. If toyota copped some M performance parts to fuel their Supra, that shows how much effort and care went into making the car.
 

twntrbo03'

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
249
Reaction score
573
Location
Alaska and Florida
Car(s)
1998 Supra Turbo Quicksilver ---1993 Supra Turbo Anthracite --- 2008 Toyota FJ Cruiser 4x4
I think it will be a fun car to drive and even more fun when we turn the boost up! As far as reliability goes, only time will tell. If this car follows suit to how BMW's are priced in the used market, then I can see myself picking one up after 3-4 years for pretty damn cheap.
 

supraboi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2018
Threads
25
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
2,473
Location
America
Car(s)
A70, GS300
I can re-phrase it to say Toyota go into the parts bin for something light to start and it won't change a thing. The RC is sturdy, and heavy because it was built to be a GT car, and the LC is also heavy at 4,280 pounds. You can't just chip away. If toyota copped some M performance parts to fuel their Supra, that shows how much effort and care went into making the car.
https://www.lexus.com/models/LC/specifications
 

2JZ-No-Sh*t

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Threads
14
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
3,389
Location
NM
Car(s)
My feet
Also, here's another interesting tidbit. Toyota and Tada-San evaluated doing the entire Supra project by themselves at the beginning of development; including building a brand new Inline-6.
Did you ask if there were any considerations of just using the V35AFTS?
 

justbake

Well-Known Member
First Name
Justin
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Threads
2
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
2,402
Location
Indy
Car(s)
F10 535i
I think it will be a fun car to drive and even more fun when we turn the boost up! As far as reliability goes, only time will tell. If this car follows suit to how BMW's are priced in the used market, then I can see myself picking one up after 3-4 years for pretty damn cheap.
I don't see this car deprecating at the same rate as BMW's mass produced sedans that are fresh off a lease
 

Guff

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Threads
23
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
7,404
Location
USA
Car(s)
A80, A90, Mk1 Celica
Vehicle Showcase
1
Did you ask if there were any considerations of just using the V35AFTS?
I did not, but I'll have my man on the ground ask tonight.

Also, you guys are talking about the RC and LC chassis', but guys, I don't think you realize how much of a step forward this chassis is compared to those cars. It's in an entirely different league, and that's just by the numbers. This thing is no joke! From a pure engineering standpoint, it is a modern marvel.
Sponsored

 
 




Top