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

RyanGT3RS said:

Love the E9X for the V8, but imo, that was it, getting up there in weight and I hate the steering. Lol

Click to expand...

True, but that S65 V8 makes up for quite a lot.

Bryster said:

2019 Nissan is a far cry from 2009 Nissan tbh

Click to expand...

In what sense?

I could write a novel on how different they are, but it's not 2009 Nissan vs 2019. The R35 was greenlit in 2001 lol

It just took forever in development... There's a reason there's no new GTR or Z atm and it has everything to do with money and a strong shift towards emissions, safety, etc.

Supra Turbo said:

In what sense?

Click to expand...

Quality

In any case, yes Toyota could have built a new Supra in-house for double the current price lol, hence Tada's comments that it could have been done and cost would have been around $100k.

It would likely be about the same spec wise (sans I6) as well, for reference. Next to no one would pay for that IMO (same as above, people already complain it's $50k)

RyanGT3RS said:

Like I said, try to get your hands on a 997 GT3, and don’t look back, lol.

Click to expand...

Supra Turbo said:

IMO, one of the best cars when new and on the used market still to this day.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah! I'm still trying to gravitate to that level!

The 997.1 GT3 market is starting to slowdown but the 997.2 GT3 market is still crazy. I know it's a significant delta from a 997.1 C2S to a 997.1 GT3, I would rather have a .2 GT3. I almost shook on a 997.2 GT silver GT3 in AZ for 92K with 20K miles 2 yrs ago. I used the the coolant lines not being welded/pinned as leverage to bring down the price and he agreed. That's the cheapest I saw a "high mileage" GT3 for and kicking myself for not pulling the trigger.

A 511 white/gold 997.2 GT3 RS would be my keeper. I'd sell the Supra and C2S for that in a heartbeat if we could agree on a price. It's pure perfection!

A70TTR said:

I could write a novel on how different they are, but it's not 2009 Nissan vs 2019. The R35 was greenlit in 2001 lol

It just took forever in development... There's a reason there's no new GTR or Z atm and it has everything to do with money and a strong shift towards emissions, safety, etc.

Click to expand...

I’ve read they are having trouble developing the new one, with electric or no electric? Revised same platform as the current, price going to go up, that sort of thing.

I have a friend that's on the current team, I believe still under Tamura-san, and it's an absolute shit show.

The Z has been dead for a while too; that company is a husk.

A70TTR said:

In any case, yes Toyota could have built a new Supra in-house for double the current price lol, hence Tada's comments that it could have been done and cost would have been around $100k.

It would likely be about the same spec wise (sans I6) as well, for reference. Next to no one would pay for that IMO (same as above, people already complain it's $50k)

Click to expand...

No offense, but I'm kinda tired of hearing this right now. Largely because thats the narrative Toyota has been spinning at all of the recent Supra media events, so all of the reviewers are picking it up running with it.

The reality is Toyota has never developed a new Supra on its own, its always shared a platform with a Lexus or other Toyota luxury coupe (or even base 4cyl sports car as well). The platform sharing going on between the Z4 and new Supra is identical to how the mk4 and sc300/400 shared platforms. And Lexus developed the RC300 in the same development timeframe as the mk5. Its not that they couldn't have done this again, they just chose not to. Politics, timeframes, less risk/cost? Unsure the exact reasons. But its not fair to say Toyota would have made a 100k Supra if they had not involved an external partner, they had branches within the company to share them with already. And man, some peeps at Lexus must be more then a little miffed that they went to their biggest competitor to build this car.

Also tired of hearing in these reviews that it was Toyota who decided to build a new Supra and needed an inline 6 so they called up BMW! As I recall, that's not how this started. In the original version Tada gave in interviews last year, it was BMW who was at the launch event of the FRS/BRZ and went, "we want a piece of that!" as they wanted a new Z4 but didn't want to pay for all of it, so approached Tada to make "a sports car". Many months if not years passed till it was even decided that that co-developed sports car was going to be the Supra. But of course, the current yarn they are telling sounds better, and the YouTuber reviewers havn't been paying as close attention as us so they just keep repeating the lie.

The business case for the FRS/BRZ was rock solid, the previous guard had become successful and more profitable then ever, but also more boring then ever. Akio had the right idea, they needed a sports car ASAP. Wasn't it like 3 years concept to production for that car? But the Supra? That same reason to go to an external partner makes no sense, especially considering it actually took longer then if they had just done it with lexus (it was 7 years with BMW). Yes it would be a different car then what we have. It would be v6 powered (hopefully v6 TT, though maybe not turbo right away as the new LS v6 might not have been ready in time), bigger and heavier, and the RC would have been smaller and lighter then it is now. But that would be right in line with past Supras, and would have been truer to the brand and its actual enthusiasts.

SupraFiend said:

Yes it would be a different car then what we have. It would be v6 powered (hopefully v6 TT, though maybe not turbo right away as the new LS v6 might not have been ready in time), bigger and heavier, and the RC would have been smaller and lighter then it is now. But that would be right in line with past Supras, and would have been truer to the brand and its actual enthusiasts.

Click to expand...

LMAO.......... So you wanted a bigger, heavier car(not a drivers car) but with around same power levels as the actual MK5, and you also wanted to pay 100k(atleast 75k) for it just so it would be 100% Toyota? That makes a lot of sense.

right, because thats what happened last time?

Yes if they had built it with lexus it would have had a back seat, been bigger and heavier, you know, kinda like a mk4?
The new LS is actually a 2018 model, so its beat the mk5 to market by a year so I'm sure an in house Supra could have used its new TT V6, (which makes 416hp and 442lbs/ft btw). So yes, it would have been bigger and heavier, but also more powerful, and I think they could have done it even cheaper. People also love to quote the MSRP of the mk4 from 96, which is after the hefty price hike, and then add inflation, without acknowledging that the Yen to USD ratio was way different back then. Also as I recall there were some retaliatory tarrif BS going on then too. Regardles, the new LS500 with that motor, today starts at 75k USD. I'm sure a stripped down sports car version of the RC300, which starts at $41,000 USD, could match or beat that.

SupraFiend said:

right, because thats what happened last time?

Yes if they had built it with lexus it would have had a back seat, been bigger and heavier, you know, kinda like a mk4?
The new LS is actually a 2018 model, so its beat the mk5 to market by a year so I'm sure an in house Supra could have used its new TT V6, (which makes 416hp and 442lbs/ft btw). So yes, it would have been bigger and heavier, but also more powerful, and I think they could have done it even cheaper. People also love to quote the MSRP of the mk4 from 96, which is after the hefty price hike, and then add inflation, without acknowledging that the Yen to USD ratio was way different back then. Also as I recall there were some retaliatory tarrif BS going on then too. Regardles, the new LS500 with that motor, today starts at 75k USD. I'm sure a stripped down sports car version of the RC300, which starts at $41,000 USD, could match or beat that.

Click to expand...

The dollar to yen ratio made it cheaper if I recall correctly. At least in the beginning.

Yeah the turbo was about 40k in 93, but most are quoting the price a few years later after the yen skyrocketed.

A70TTR said:

In any case, yes Toyota could have built a new Supra in-house for double the current price lol, hence Tada's comments that it could have been done and cost would have been around $100k.

It would likely be about the same spec wise (sans I6) as well, for reference. Next to no one would pay for that IMO (same as above, people already complain it's $50k)

Click to expand...

A70TTR said:

I could write a novel on how different they are, but it's not 2009 Nissan vs 2019. The R35 was greenlit in 2001 lol

It just took forever in development... There's a reason there's no new GTR or Z atm and it has everything to do with money and a strong shift towards emissions, safety, etc.

Click to expand...

So is this a halo vehicle, or a profit maker?

Illsic_Design said:

LMAO.......... So you wanted a bigger, heavier car(not a drivers car) but with around same power levels as the actual MK5, and you also wanted to pay 100k(atleast 75k) for it just so it would be 100% Toyota? That makes a lot of sense.

Click to expand...

Yes it would have been bigger, but perhaps more comfortable; heavier, but perhaps more powerful, and $75k is actually right in line with what my A80 was in '94 accounting for inflation. And it would have been a Toyota product. There's two sides to everything...

RyanGT3RS said:

I’ve read they are having trouble developing the new one, with electric or no electric? Revised same platform as the current, price going to go up, that sort of thing.

Click to expand...

It's pretty confusing,first they wanted to incorporate Formula E technology on the R36, now they don't due to fan reception