C&D: Supra vs Z vs M240 vs Mach 1

[e_iva]

Seems like much of the same in regards to the Supra vs Z comparisons we’ve seen, but kind of surprising to read their thoughts on the M240.

https://www.caranddriver.com/review...nissan-z-vs-2022-toyota-gr-supra-30-compared/

Sponsored

 

[Sub-MkV]

It seems like the only reason the Supra came in 2nd has a lot to do with "no manual" yet. C&D is the same mag that has a motto "Save the Manuals"

 

[Rocksandblues]

poor Z folks....

 

[Schang105]

There's a pdf that has the detailed running tally, there's a link to it that I missed when I I initially read through it. The pony car sound and manual I think were more to the liking of the C&D staff which makes sense. Supra got low marks for external styling; obviously beauty is subjective. Would have liked to see Chevy Camaro SS too as I think someone may cross shop that around the same price.

 

[gixxersixxerman]

I know i/we are biased a little, but the features and amenities only getting a 4??? Other than vented seats, and driving itself, (which the Supra damn near does anyways) I don't know what other features they can really have in it lol. And exterior styling a 5??? And the Mustang a 9?? The Mustang has the same overall lines and look for the last 7 years, it takes more than a bumper cover and rear valance to have one look way different then the eco boost rental car.. I agree with the rest of it except those 2 things. And hahahahahahahah the Z

 

[Blackbeard]

I mean is there a way to tell the difference between the 2.0and the 3.0

 

[trev_rs]

I always get tired of this comment:

Lows: Claustrophobic cabin, highest base price, no manual (yet).

Good luck finding any of the other cars at "base price" with no options. ... and in Canada at least, the MACH 1 costs a couple K more than a 3.0 Premium, not that it's a significant amount.

Also, the styling bit is comical. I guess they had to come up with something to give the win to the Mustang by a single point.

The car most likely of the 4 to turn heads and look like it's worth supercar money to a casual observer gets the worst score?

 

[gixxersixxerman]

I always get tired of this comment:

Lows: Claustrophobic cabin, highest base price, no manual (yet).

Good luck finding any of the other cars at "base price" with no options. ... and in Canada at least, the MACH 1 costs a couple K more than a 3.0 Premium, not that it's a significant amount.

Also, the styling bit is comical. I guess they had to come up with something to give the win to the Mustang by a single point.

The car most likely of the 4 to turn heads and look like it's worth supercar money to a casual observer gets the worst score?

Thats how I felt. Owning a 2018 i had to do a lot to it to even stand out, and in the 3 years of ownership only a hand full of people ever said anything about it. The Supra I was just walking out the bank signing the paperwork and people were gawking at it, and it's been like that ever since. There are some Mustangs that just stand out. GT500, GT350. you know those are different even without being next to another Mustang. The Mach 1, only car enthusiast knows it's something special. to just about anyone else it looks like a mustang with wider wheels.

 

[RenRed2]

LOL - its not the tires or fuel lol - its just-- s l o w e r!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The problems were likely due to our Z tester's pre-production status. Our hurry to compare the Z meant that we couldn't get a full-fledged production car. Nissan does admit that the V-6's peak power corresponds to 93 octane fuel. We borrowed another pre-production Z for a follow-up test in Michigan on the local 93 brew, and times fell to 4.1 seconds to 60 mph and 12.6 seconds in the quarter-mile. Those times still trail the Supra's 91-octane numbers by 0.4 second. "

 

[Chgu]

Interesting to see the 91 octane notes. I think even the Supra’s manual says something about “HP rating is based on premium fuel." Don't recall if it specifically says 93 or 91 octane, but I also recall reading around somewhere that BMW tends to rate HP numbers based on what the engine can consistently do, not necessarily peak. Of course, there's the other idea running around that it's a WHP rating.

 

[Sub-MkV]

Supra 3.0 is tuned to make max power on 93 and Supra 2.0 is tuned to make max power on 91.

 

[e_iva]

I always get tired of this comment:

Lows: Claustrophobic cabin, highest base price, no manual (yet).

Good luck finding any of the other cars at "base price" with no options. ... and in Canada at least, the MACH 1 costs a couple K more than a 3.0 Premium, not that it's a significant amount.

Also, the styling bit is comical. I guess they had to come up with something to give the win to the Mustang by a single point.

The car most likely of the 4 to turn heads and look like it's worth supercar money to a casual observer gets the worst score?

Yeah, somehow this didn’t make sense to me either. I think the new 2 series is probably the least attractive gasoline powered BMW, G80/82 included lol

 

[trev_rs]

Yeah, somehow this didn’t make sense to me either. I think the new 2 series is probably the least attractive gasoline powered BMW, G80/82 included lol

This was their way of appeasing the "Anti-Zupra" crowd. They couldn't admit that it was in fact the best car of these 4. Sometimes I think they shouldn't have called it a Supra at all. It looks more like the original 2000GT than a Supra anyways. You could look at this article as a big win for the Supra. A lot of rags would have done everything they could to put it in 4th.

 

[underdonk]

Fun article. I'm telling you, while we all like to joke about 'em (more specifically those behind the wheel of 'em), the current generation Mustang is a fun and fast car. It came down to a Mustang GT PP2 vs the Supra for me when I was shopping for a fun car. As recently as this weekend I had that feeling deep down inside that I should have gone that direction. We're pretty near the end of being able to buy a big V8 sportscar.

EDIT: Just noticed they gave the Supra an 8 on "steering feel." In what world does this car get an 8 on steering feel?!

 

[jchadwell]

I'm actually a big CD fan and been a subscriber for, ahem, a very long time. However, they irritate me to no end with their absolute refusal to account for cars that come with what I feel are cheater tires like the Mustang. The "we test them like they build them" crap is just the dumbest ass thing ever. We're talking about tires here not the effing engine and transmission. By this logic, those sticky Cup 2s should be staying on the 40,000 mile test cars right through the Michigan winter. That's how they built it after all. Let's put the same tires on each car and see what happens. You know, like those of us out in the real world might.

The styling thing is a head scratcher as well. I get styling is subjective. There's no getting around that but seriously a 5 versus a 9. Someone who has a lot of pull at CD is in the hate the Supra's styling camp apparently. That's just stupid and I'm a pretty big Mustang fan actually. I like them a lot. I actually like a huge number of cars, including the new Z but given inherent taste differences a 5-9 difference should be an impossibility unless one of the cars is a Pontiac Aztek.

This comparo reminds me a lot of a previous Corvette versus Cayman GT4 test where the Vette lost despite winning every single performance category and a close look at the scoring showed it was the ride category that made all the difference. A previous Cayman review stated the ride was borderline too much for the street and if you saw the car on the side of the road with the driver outside, they may have just needed a break from the beating. That same car also knocked the driver's head into the roof three times in succession. A previous Vette article talked about the car being all day comfortable and you could drive it across country without it tiring you out. Yet, miraculously, all it takes is putting a less aggressive seat in the Cayman and a more aggressive seat in the Vette and suddenly both score a 9?? Morale of the story here is ride has nothing to do with the chassis or suspension components/tuning. It's all in the seat. Come to think of it, my favorite car mag also recently claimed the 911 has become "too soft" to be a Corvette competitor now. Seriously? Are they on crack? It wasn't but a couple articles before that a 911 Carrera S came in at 11.2 in the quarter, 2.9 to sixty, pulled 1.09 G, and stopped from 70 in 141 feet. Yep, that is a soft car alright. And the Cayman GT4 that according to CD has "taken the throne at Porsche as the de-facto sports car"? It did 12.1 in the quarter, 3.9 to sixty, 1.08 G (on Cup 2s no less), and 149 feet from 70 seem. Does that sound like the 911 is the softer of the two?? Sure as hell doesn't to me. Seems more likely they couldn't figure out a way to finagle the scoring for a twice as expensive 911 to come out on top. A stripper Cayman though, at only about $27,000 more expensive. No problem. Where's that ride category...

It's like they sometimes have a desired finishing order and then need to come up with a way to make it happen. Still enjoy the mag. It's just every once in a while they put something out that just makes me wonder WTF they are thinking.

Sponsored