JJR
Active Member
Toyota's not stupid. If they price it higher than the C7 then the Supra is going to be better than the C7. And at this price range for a Toyota, you can bet we're gonna get a hell of a performer and high quality car.
Sponsored
Not just the company name but many people including myself will not consider a 2 seater only. Considering they only sold 11-12k markIV Supras in the US ('93-'98) and the corvette sold about 15K in 2013 and i think more than double that this year. Obviously being a domestic car it's a different comparison but point is , they have their work cut out for them in the US.I was thinking bout this more and even if it is priced higher than Corvette it'll still sell even if it just matches the performance. I know people that wouldn't buy a GM car no matter what and would pay a bit more for Toyota's reliability.
G'damm Mustangs can be optioned out to $50k now?Considering the domestic muscle cars will continue to be the best bang for buck and the new Mustang GT can be optioned to almost 50K, is a porky pig with no carbon fiber, uses a 5 year old 5.0L engine and has an interior that for sure will not compare to what the MKV Supra's interior will be like.....I just dont see how you can expect the MKV to be less than 60K with all that it is rumored to be. Let's face it, you pay for quality. If you want cheap power and don't care about much else you go and buy a Ford.
That carbon fiber chassis (rumor) alone would justify the cost.
MkV Supra is going to blow the Corvette out of the water.Toyota's not stupid. If they price it higher than the C7 then the Supra is going to be better than the C7. And at this price range for a Toyota, you can bet we're gonna get a hell of a performer and high quality car.
Never thought about it that way. Interesting perspective and makes sense actually. My worry though is market perception about a $60k+ Toyota. It's not something people are used to for a Toyota.This is going to be Toyota's flagship sportscar, not some midrange warmed-over 370Z competitor. It's going to have a solid pricetag, but we're going to be getting something really special instead of something underwhelming. The worst news that we could hear is that this thing is going to start out at $35k, which would mean that the underlying car is crap no matter how fast the ultimate spec is.
IMO knowing that it's going to cost more than a C7 vette is inspiring and only builds my confidence that the new Supra is going to be nothing less than stunning and a true world-class performer.
For what it's worth, Toyota has sold the Land Cruiser for years, which currently stickers for over $80,000. Sequoia platinum is $65k. Granted they sell only a handful of Land Cruisers per year, but it evidences Toyota's willingness to maintain an expensive low-volume car (likely at a loss) simply to maintain a bit of the brand's history and prestige.Never thought about it that way. Interesting perspective and makes sense actually. My worry though is market perception about a $60k+ Toyota. It's not something people are used to for a Toyota.
It would cost too much on an already costly project, and would increase the pricetag of all versions of the car in the lineup.I think that's why the case for a multi-engine/trim Supra makes sense. Maintaining a niche car that will be optioned up to 70K is going to be more of a money pit. If they can create more volume in the big white space between the Scion and what we are all expecting (let's say a 65-70K MKV), they could recoup more of the costs involved in a low volume sports car. This is what Ford does with the Mustang, making most of its money from the V6 rentals which really help keep the V8 and all those special editions alive and possible.
So why not 3 engines with a 4 cylinder base going for 55K, a NA V6 for 55-60K, and a TTV6 or V8 being the flagship for 65 and up. Just an idea.
I really dont think it would have 3x the costs even with 3 models to choose from. The majority of the R&D comes from engineering the platform/chassis itself. all of the hard points, body panels, sheet metal etc would be the same. there's no different stamping processes or different tooling needed for each model. Just engine and transmission basically.It would cost too much on an already costly project, and would increase the pricetag of all versions of the car in the lineup.
On a relatively low-volume car like this it is very cost prohibitive to offer multiple option packages, let alone engine and transmission setups. It's not like the '60s and '70s where Chevy could just drop in any size crate motor into any given car just by drilling new holes and turning different sized bolts. Toyota would literally have 3x the r&d costs to package 3 motors for one car, along with additional costs of marketing, extra cars sitting on lots for longer periods of time, etc.
None of the competition's engineers and marketing departments have found it worthwhile to offer these sort of multi-tiered powerplant options anymore, and it's unlikely that Toyota will come to any different conclusion. GT-R option list is pretty damn short, and you get no choice for engine or transmission. You could argue that the Z06 is an engine package for Corvette (for $25,000+ more). Closest thing to this is Porsche with their terribly convoluted system of base car, S, 4, 4S, GTS, Turbo, GT3, RS, Turbo S, GT2... (which are all essentially different renditions of the same flat six) and the customer pays dearly for it. Maybe you could say Jaguar offers several engines, but they're hardly a brand to emulate at this point.
3x powertrain development costs. While they could pull existing engines from their lineup, but they'd still have packaging costs. And it's not just dropping in an engine, they've got to get each particular setup to work with all of the electronics of the car. With modern safety standards they will have to vet each setup with governmental regulations and they might even have to crash test different engines in other markets to comply with pedestrian impact regs, etc.I really dont think it would have 3x the costs even with 3 models to choose from. The majority of the R&D comes from engineering the platform/chassis itself. all of the hard points, body panels, sheet metal etc would be the same. there's no different stamping processes or different tooling needed for each model. Just engine and transmission basically.
The different motors don't have to be completely distinct either. A hotted up 4 cylinder could be modified from the FA20 boxer engine. Tada san already hinted that it shares the same mounting points as Subaru's 2.5L turbo boxer 4. I recall he also mentioned that they are evaluating supercharged GT86's. So the costs would not be the same as a clean sheet engine.
The mid level could borrow the 3.5L from the Lexus RC350 and IS350 maybe? Twin turbos on that and it could conceivably be the flagship model.
I know it would be add a ton to the costs of the project but just saying maybe there is enough sales for each price point to make it worth it overall. It sure would make me a lot more comfortable in the long term viability of the Supra knowing it wasn't just some niche halo car.
GTR started in 60-70k when it was introduced. So if Toyota wants to go after cars slightly higher than that, they can price it in this range to steal GTR / 911 / Cayman buyers and then raise price over time to make back the profits after the car has a successful launch. Call me Toyota I can count your beans for youI really think they're either going to play it safe and price it around the RC-F so it can compete for buyers of the RC-F, M3, ATS-V, C7 at like $50-60k or go for broke and price it in the $80k-90k range to compete with the 911 and GT-R type cars.