The Lexus LC500 & LC500h, Plus LC-F Talk

BRX

Well-Known Member
First Name
Abdulla
Joined
Jul 9, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
295
Reaction score
616
Location
United Arab Emirates
Car(s)
Tundra, Celica, GT86
The new Supra/Z4 is not based on any existing chassis, that's the main point! It's an all-new platform designed from the ground up specifically for Supra/Z4 use, that's why it is capable of being exactly what the Chief Engineer wants it to be, completely independent of any existing platform from Toyota or BMW. That's also why the project was so expensive, ie. why the Toyota board decided to make this part of their BMW-Toyota partnership. I agree if Toyota was just using the old Z4 platform then they were much better off using any of their own existing FR platforms. And yes, I still wish it was an all-new platform made entirely by Toyota, but I also know that's not happening anytime soon.

And as far as just making the RC stiffer and better and it would magically work, c'mon guys you can't honestly just believe its that simple.
I guess that makes sense. From all the negativity regarding the MKV being co-developed with the Z4 and how it's usually phrased as a "rebadged Z4" I got the mentality that it used an existing Z4 chassis.

I need to see the MKV in person or at least it's final production form. From all the photage we have with the camo it makes the car look very underwhelming. Like a new gen 86, small, nimble and not at all threatening if you know what I'm saying.

I wish it was a bit more aggressive and dare I say bulky? That's why I have been wanting the RC/LC platform to be used.
Sponsored

 

EDub

Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Jul 14, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
23
Reaction score
74
Location
Vancouver, BC
Car(s)
Toyota Mark II
I find it pretty funny talking about "reinforcing" an already overweight chassis in the RC to make some new new Supra out of it. Sure if you want an 80k Supra that weighs 3800lbs.

I agree with Guff on every point. Why does it matter what the bolts say on them? Technically a 3rd party is building this car anyways. To simply disregard what everyone has been doing at Toyota for the last 6-7 years on this car because you think it could have been built differently is ignorant.
 

BRX

Well-Known Member
First Name
Abdulla
Joined
Jul 9, 2018
Threads
0
Messages
295
Reaction score
616
Location
United Arab Emirates
Car(s)
Tundra, Celica, GT86
I find it pretty funny talking about "reinforcing" an already overweight chassis in the RC to make some new new Supra out of it. Sure if you want an 80k Supra that weighs 3800lbs.
80k Supra at 3800lbs with 500hp would put it on par with the R35 which wouldn't have been far fetched thanks to the MKIV and R34 rivalry.

I agree with Guff on every point. Why does it matter what the bolts say on them? Technically a 3rd party is building this car anyways. To simply disregard what everyone has been doing at Toyota for the last 6-7 years on this car because you think it could have been built differently is ignorant.
We're just arguing for the sake of arguing, everyone knows Toyota will never do that at this point. To be honest the LC500 and the future LC-F were made for those who want a high performance coupe from Toyota (Lexus). If it was only labeled a Toyota Soarer with less gadgets and all the Lexus crap weighing 3800lbs. At 60-70k this thing would cannibalize the new MKV and RC-F.
 

PerformanceSound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Threads
19
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
3,357
Location
USA
Car(s)
2020 Tundra TRD Pro, 1994 MKIV Supra TT
Vehicle Showcase
2
I find it pretty funny talking about "reinforcing" an already overweight chassis in the RC to make some new new Supra out of it. Sure if you want an 80k Supra that weighs 3800lbs.

I agree with Guff on every point. Why does it matter what the bolts say on them? Technically a 3rd party is building this car anyways. To simply disregard what everyone has been doing at Toyota for the last 6-7 years on this car because you think it could have been built differently is ignorant.
Here we go....here we go...another band-wagoneer.

Oh it's ignorant is it, right....it's so ignorant for Toyota to work on an in-house cross-platform chassis, one that can be made to suit luxury sport driving (RC) and the other for more hardcore performance driving (Supra). Wait....isn't that what Toyota is doing with BMW...in another country??? A collaboration to make two dynamic chassis from one??? If I recall, the MKV Supra's chassis and the Z4 are identical except for hardtop/convertible, and base reinforcements. So why is this not hard to believe, yet a much easier collaboration between Toyota and Lexus is far-fetched???

You need to take more engineering classes with a few electives in marketing to understand that no matter how long or hard an engineer works on a project, it doesn't mean the end-product will be superior...it just means too many hands were in the cookie jar. The MKV Supra took this long because two different mindsets (companies) constantly bumped heads to come to an agreement on various areas of the project. Go back a few months on this forum, and read! Toyota could have very easily modified an existing chassis to suit the MKV Supra, the problem was that "...the enthusiasts wanted an inline six..." bull crap and non of the late model Lexus chassis were designed for a inline six, they were all designed for a V6. That is why I said, had they reinforced a low cost RC chassis (not RCF) put a cheaper interior, and gave the MKV a TTV6 from the LS500 with some beefy gear, we would have an affordable MKV Supra...all made in-house. I compliment Tada San's hard work in trying to do what his mentor did (the chief engineer of the MKIV), however, I feel Tada San was focusing too much on the handling of this car when the majority of buyers won't give a hoot about hairpins and apexes.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, all I know is Tada San was sent to Germany to work on a Supra....Albert Beirmann (or whoever it is now) wasn't sent to Japan to work on a Z4. Get it?....or is that still too ignorant for ya?
 

bogglo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2017
Threads
1
Messages
246
Reaction score
441
Location
california
Car(s)
Lexus GS
Here we go....here we go...another band-wagoneer.

Oh it's ignorant is it, right....it's so ignorant for Toyota to work on an in-house cross-platform chassis, one that can be made to suit luxury sport driving (RC) and the other for more hardcore performance driving (Supra). Wait....isn't that what Toyota is doing with BMW...in another country??? A collaboration to make two dynamic chassis from one??? If I recall, the MKV Supra's chassis and the Z4 are identical except for hardtop/convertible, and base reinforcements. So why is this not hard to believe, yet a much easier collaboration between Toyota and Lexus is far-fetched???

You need to take more engineering classes with a few electives in marketing to understand that no matter how long or hard an engineer works on a project, it doesn't mean the end-product will be superior...it just means too many hands were in the cookie jar. The MKV Supra took this long because two different mindsets (companies) constantly bumped heads to come to an agreement on various areas of the project. Go back a few months on this forum, and read! Toyota could have very easily modified an existing chassis to suit the MKV Supra, the problem was that "...the enthusiasts wanted an inline six..." bull crap and non of the late model Lexus chassis were designed for a inline six, they were all designed for a V6. That is why I said, had they reinforced a low cost RC chassis (not RCF) put a cheaper interior, and gave the MKV a TTV6 from the LS500 with some beefy gear, we would have an affordable MKV Supra...all made in-house. I compliment Tada San's hard work in trying to do what his mentor did (the chief engineer of the MKIV), however, I feel Tada San was focusing too much on the handling of this car when the majority of buyers won't give a hoot about hairpins and apexes.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, all I know is Tada San was sent to Germany to work on a Supra....Albert Beirmann (or whoever it is now) wasn't sent to Japan to work on a Z4. Get it?....or is that still too ignorant for ya?
LMAO

This thing is common sense. Before Toyota decided to start building a Supra, They know they have an RC, LC, 86, ISC, and even the old SC and MKIV it self. using your logic, do you really think Toyota did not think of all those cars before they decided that they will build a new Supra from the ground up? Do you really think they did not think about how easy it would have been for them to work from Japan without flying back and forth between two continents? especially after how they were treated at the beginning of the project. Give this guys some credit. Everything we can think of on what they could have done to keep this car 100% Toyota, I can bet they already taught of it. They have been in this business long enough to know what they want and how to achieve it. Toyota definitely brought something to the table especially if they claim the car is more rigid than the LFA. Remember the LFA started as a Toyota.

Lets just enjoy this wait...
 

PerformanceSound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Threads
19
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
3,357
Location
USA
Car(s)
2020 Tundra TRD Pro, 1994 MKIV Supra TT
Vehicle Showcase
2
LMAO

This thing is common sense. Before Toyota decided to start building a Supra, They know they have an RC, LC, 86, ISC, and even the old SC and MKIV it self. using your logic, do you really think Toyota did not think of all those cars before they decided that they will build a new Supra from the ground up? Do you really think they did not think about how easy it would have been for them to work from Japan without flying back and forth between two continents? especially after how they were treated at the beginning of the project. Give this guys some credit. Everything we can think of on what they could have done to keep this car 100% Toyota, I can bet they already taught of it. They have been in this business long enough to know what they want and how to achieve it. Toyota definitely brought something to the table especially if they claim the car is more rigid than the LFA. Remember the LFA started as a Toyota.

Lets just enjoy this wait...
Of course they thought about it and ran through thousands of scenarios. However, I truly believe that the biggest factor was the inline six engine. Toyota exclusively paired up with BMW because they are the only manufacturer right now that utilizes inline six engines....and apparently that’s allllll the Supra enthusiasts cared about. Toyota does not currently make an inline six engine....or a chassis to house an inline six engine. If an inline six “requirement” wasn’t in the picture, then yes Toyota would have built the MKV in-house.
 

bogglo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2017
Threads
1
Messages
246
Reaction score
441
Location
california
Car(s)
Lexus GS
Of course they thought about it and ran through thousands of scenarios. However, I truly believe that the biggest factor was the inline six engine. Toyota exclusively paired up with BMW because they are the only manufacturer right now that utilizes inline six engines....and apparently that’s allllll the Supra enthusiasts cared about. Toyota does not currently make an inline six engine....or a chassis to house an inline six engine. If an inline six “requirement” wasn’t in the picture, then yes Toyota would have built the MKV in-house.
I agree with you on that. Can we also agree that thanks to Toyota another iron block inline 6 engine is on the way?
 

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
Alright guys, agree to disagree. We're in the wrong thread really anyways.

So about that LC500h... Anyone driven one? I know @Chikane has. The drivetrain is whatever but the transmission is really the interesting bit for me in that car. An Electronic Power Splitter/psuedo-CVT with a traditional 4 speed Auto stuck on the back of it, this being able to simulate 10 gears at various ratios, without feeling like a CVT and giving direct power from both the combustion engine and electric motors.

It splits the first 3 gears on the auto trans by 3 ratios each, thus making 9 gears, and then uses a combo of the 4th gear with a high ratio gearing on the Power Splitter in order to make a long 10th gear for cruising. Pretty clever stuff, but also very complex. I'm interested to see how far they can push a system like this torque-wise.
 

PerformanceSound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Threads
19
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
3,357
Location
USA
Car(s)
2020 Tundra TRD Pro, 1994 MKIV Supra TT
Vehicle Showcase
2
I agree with you on that. Can we also agree that thanks to Toyota another iron block inline 6 engine is on the way?
Yep, that’s why I’m still hanging around on this forum.
 

Nurburgring

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Threads
5
Messages
209
Reaction score
866
Location
Chile
Car(s)
911 Turbo, M3 E46, Turbocharged NA Miata, S2000, Mazda FC3S & FD3S, EP91 Starlet, EK9 Type R, EG6 Sir2, AE86, 3SGE AE86, Evo7RS, F3 race car
The drivetrain is whatever but the transmission is really the interesting bit for me in that car. An Electronic Power Splitter/psuedo-CVT with a traditional 4 speed Auto stuck on the back of it, this being able to simulate 10 gears at various ratios, without feeling like a CVT and giving direct power from both the combustion engine and electric motors.

It splits the first 3 gears on the auto trans by 3 ratios each, thus making 9 gears, and then uses a combo of the 4th gear with a high ratio gearing on the Power Splitter in order to make a long 10th gear for cruising. Pretty clever stuff, but also very complex. I'm interested to see how far they can push a system like this torque-wise.
Damn. Sounds like something Audi would develop.
 

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
Damn. Sounds like something Audi would develop.
Yeah true, the Audi way is "complicated for apparently no practical benefit". Although, maybe there's something we're missing. Need to read the engineering publication on it to get a better idea of what they were targeting. As far I know, it can target peak efficiency in the ICE as well as a CVT can, but eliminates any of the rubber band feel. Wonder what the weight penalty is though? The weight difference between the 2 models is 101lbs (4370 vs 4471lbs), but I wonder how much is actually transmission related.
 
 




Top