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

[bogglo]

There are so many things taming this supra. And IMO i think the biggest one has been overlooked. I think with Lexus F line now in the game, it restricts what they can do with the supra performance and pricewise. Especially with the lexus Line up now having a turbo V6.

Sponsored

 

[DesmoSD]

I don't know about that. The PDK is awesome 99% of the time, don't get me wrong. I've had two. But, that transmission has some issues with predictability that sometimes can put you in bad situations.

I also recall that Matt Farah said this is the best tuned ZF trans he has driven, high praise for a journalist with experience with so many cars.

He also said the Supra is literally the same size as the 86 but who's counting. Listen to his podcast where he's unfiltered and doesn't have to appease the masses that walk the same floor that Tada-san is standing on.

 

[Bryster]

The MKV is only being benchmarked with the Cayman because that's the card that they had chosen; a 2 seater Z4 platform to work off of. The MKIV TT was going up against the big dogs, 300ZX TT, Acura NSX NA1, 911 turbo (964 and 993), Corvette C4 ZR-1, Skyline GTR, RX-7 TT and E36 M3.

 

[Captain_Kirk]

He also said the Supra is literally the same size as the 86 but who's counting.

Why do you MK4 guys make such a big deal about that? You do realize past Supras and Celicas were not that far apart.

A80: 177.8 in
T200: Coupe 177.0 in & Liftback & 174.2 in

 

[kona61]

He also said the Supra is literally the same size as the 86 but who's counting. Listen to his podcast where he's unfiltered and doesn't have to appease the masses that walk the same floor that Tada-san is standing on.

That honestly doesn't bother me at all. I would rather it be smaller than larger, and considering I wouldn't have used the rear seats either way, it is not great loss to me.

 

[Supra Turbo]

Not ruffled per-se. I understand the points that such as the lack of a manual, or the fact that Toyota has the capability to have developed it themselves. However, I still am willing to give the car a chance simply because times have changed.

Similarly, these arguments of prices from the 90's to now are not equivalent. We must recall the Japanese economy was much stronger back then and the yen was much weaker than the dollar. Therefore, inflation is not the only metric one must take into account when speaking of historical prices and whatnot.

No argument that the car doesn't deserve a chance or that it isn't a great car. But I can see how some are not happy with the collaboration for a company's halo vehicle, especially when taking such polar opposite companies. Additionally, there was such a great leap between the MKIII and MKIV, it's understandable why some "hate" on the prior generations or why some think that the current car doesn't live up to the expectations.

Didn't ruffle my feathers. I got no skin in this game. I'd be interested in this car no matter what its name was.

I'm interested in the car too and hope it succeeds, but IMO it should have been called something else.

 

[Supra Turbo]

Granted I agree...that's my point! Would you rather have a $140k Supra to compete with it?! Surely it'll be quite the performer; however, where would the market be?! Companies already have difficulty pushing low volume sports cars in cheaper segments! How many would Toyota actually sell at that price point and considering that minuscule quantity, would the R&D make financial sense.
Furthermore, compared to the 90's Porsche's sports car range has grown and they were able to do so when it was financially feasible (not to mention, Porsche is a sports car company...it's what they do). Hence, new competition and another market segment the Supra fits into.
Like many...I'm just happy Toyota made a Supra that's attainable and aftermarket friendly. Remember...more aftermarket friendly than Porsche.

Where did you get the $140k price point from? Surely if a smaller company such as Nissan, can manufacture Godzilla and sell at $100k, Toyota can create something attainable in the $75-80k range that is built in-house and has revolutionary performance?

How much financial sense did the development of LF-A make? Toyota still made it and lost money on it. As such, I would assume there's value in creating the car that is not captured by looking at R&D costs vs. sales price.

 

[DesmoSD]

Why do you MK4 guys make such a big deal about that? You do realize past Supras and Celicas were not that far apart.

A80: 177.8 in
T200: Coupe 177.0 in & Liftback & 174.2 in

That honestly doesn't bother me at all. I would rather it be smaller than larger, and considering I wouldn't have used the rear seats either way, it is not great loss to me.

I'm not making a big deal and grew up in a household of ol skool compact Toyotas. My point was to take MF's of the ZF 8HP tranny with a grain of salt. Sure the PDK has some issues and MF drove 60 laps on the Supra but until there is a true head-head comparison and data to prove otherwise, the PDK has been proven on the track.

 

[SupraFiend]

The lack of Toyota DNA is a big deal. If you don't get that, you've probably haven't spent years driving around in Toyota's greats from the 70s, 80s and 90s.

The mk5 appears to be a good car today, will it be a good car in 10 years? 15? 20? That's really hard to say right now, but looking at today's BMWs that are that old, it's a little scary. For instance I'd say the ones that are 20 years old today are better then the ones that are currenty 10 years old. The 2000s were not BMWs best decade either.

 

[kona61]

The lack of Toyota DNA is a big deal. If you don't get that, you've probably haven't spent years driving around in Toyota's greats from the 70s, 80s and 90s.

The mk5 appears to be a good car today, will it be a good car in 10 years? 15? 20? That's really hard to say right now, but looking at today's BMWs that are that old, it's a little scary. For instance I'd say the ones that are 20 years old today are better then the ones that are currenty 10 years old. The 2000s were not BMWs best decade either.

My favorite BMW of all time is the E92 M3. The current M2 is very good. My old F80 wasn’t bad. Now I understand the reliability concerns, but if BMW has been as thorough as they make it sound you should have nothing to worry about.

 

[Supra21]

Where did you get the $140k price point from? Surely if a smaller company such as Nissan, can manufacture Godzilla and sell at $100k, Toyota can create something attainable in the $75-80k range that is built in-house and has revolutionary performance?

How much financial sense did the development of LF-A make? Toyota still made it and lost money on it. As such, I would assume there's value in creating the car that is not captured by looking at R&D costs vs. sales price.

I was just keeping a 40k gap with the 911 Turbo...and 70-80k?! Remember people are already complaining about a 50-60k. Also the GTR was introduced 11 years ago...I'm sure many financial underpinnings have changed since then...maybe in regards to this, 10 years ago it was much easier and cheaper to launch a car as such (plus...the GTR was initially to be launched at a 70k price tag which quickly rose in the short run and over time).

 

[RyanGT3RS]

This is the problem with Toyota. Their focus shifted to sedans, SUVs and hybrids creating a bigger division within itself (Lexus/Toyota/Scion) leaving the sports car segment to Lexus. Now after this long hiatus, Toyota can only fill the sports car market with joint developments.

I still want to see the MKV up close n personal and spend some time to survey the lines, exterior, interior bits, engine bay with my own eyes. My 911's value is slowly on the rise and in the used market, cheaper then a MKV at MSRP. That rear engine flat 6 and the driving experience are remarkable all with being in the similar spec; 355hp. 0-60 in 4.1, 3130 lbs

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

The lack of Toyota DNA is a big deal. If you don't get that, you've probably haven't spent years driving around in Toyota's greats from the 70s, 80s and 90s.

The mk5 appears to be a good car today, will it be a good car in 10 years? 15? 20? That's really hard to say right now, but looking at today's BMWs that are that old, it's a little scary. For instance I'd say the ones that are 20 years old today are better then the ones that are currenty 10 years old. The 2000s were not BMWs best decade either.

The E46 M3, CSL, GTS, E9X M’s, 1M, E39 M5, E60 M5.....

Only time will tell, but to say it wasn’t BMW’s best decade, I disagree. If you are referring from 2010 to now, there might be some truth to it.

 

[RyanGT3RS]

My favorite BMW of all time is the E92 M3. The current M2 is very good. My old F80 wasn’t bad. Now I understand the reliability concerns, but if BMW has been as thorough as they make it sound you should have nothing to worry about.

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

 

[Supra Turbo]

I was just keeping a 40k gap with the 911 Turbo...and 70-80k?! Remember people are already complaining about a 50-60k. Also the GTR was introduced 11 years ago...I'm sure many financial underpinnings have changed since then...maybe in regards to this, 10 years ago it was much easier and cheaper to launch a car as such (plus...the GTR was initially to be launched at a 70k price tag which quickly rose in the short run and over time).

I went by the '93 figures of $45k for MKIV TT 6sp in '93 is roughly $75k today. $100k for 964 turbo in 93 is roughly $180k today. Not sure what those people are complaining about - something has to give, either heritage or cost. For a halo car, I'd say former is more important.

The point I was trying to make with the GTR is that Nissan is a smaller company, yet in 2019 they can still produce an in-house supercar slayer for roughly $100k, with AWD, etc. Surely Toyota can do something similar in RWD for roughly $80k.

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

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

 

[Bryster]

I went by the '93 figures of $45k for MKIV TT 6sp in '93 is roughly $75k today. $100k for 964 turbo in 93 is roughly $180k today. Not sure what those people are complaining about - something has to give, either heritage or cost. For a halo car, I'd say former is more important.

The point I was trying to make with the GTR is that Nissan is a smaller company, yet in 2019 they can still produce an in-house supercar slayer for roughly $100k, with AWD, etc. Surely Toyota can do something similar in RWD for roughly $80k.

2019 Nissan is a far cry from 2009 Nissan tbh

Sponsored