Toyota GR Supra Racing Concept Officially Revealed!

[SupraFiend]

Jeff, regarding this quote "Back in 93 Toyota took a catastrophically sized risk on mass production of the supra. It was INSANELY expensive and a massive leap ahead,"

My takeaway was he meant the development costs for the mk4 were insanely expensive. Though of course with the yen falling back then, the car had gone up a good 25% in cost by 98.

Well lets see what the new Z series gets for a diff and drivetrain. Even if this new b58 motor is really good, it won't mean much if the rest of the car falls apart once you turn up the boost. I know for instance on the first Z4, the diff's weren't that strong. I wouldn't expect the Z series cars to be as robust as the current M4/M3 either. Thats a totally different weight and likely price class. Wild mk4 Supra power levels will probably shatter this car.

Sponsored

 

[vb22]

Jeff, regarding this quote "Back in 93 Toyota took a catastrophically sized risk on mass production of the supra. It was INSANELY expensive and a massive leap ahead,"

My takeaway was he meant the development costs for the mk4 were insanely expensive. Though of course with the yen falling back then, the car had gone up a good 25% in cost by 98.

Well lets see what the new Z series gets for a diff and drivetrain. Even if this new b58 motor is really good, it won't mean much if the rest of the car falls apart once you turn up the boost. I know for instance on the first Z4, the diff's weren't that strong. I wouldn't expect the Z series cars to be as robust as the current M4/M3 either. Thats a totally different weight and likely price class. Wild mk4 Supra power levels will probably shatter this car.

I read on many articles and over at bimmerpost that both the new Z4 & Supra will use the M3' rear differential.

 

[Jeff Lange]

Jeff, regarding this quote "Back in 93 Toyota took a catastrophically sized risk on mass production of the supra. It was INSANELY expensive and a massive leap ahead,"

My takeaway was he meant the development costs for the mk4 were insanely expensive. Though of course with the yen falling back then, the car had gone up a good 25% in cost by 98.

Yeah, I reckon that would make sense as to what he was talking about.

As far as pricing goes, the cost of the Supra did go up over the years, however there was actually a big price drop in 97. The 1998 Supra Turbo sold for $40,508, only $600 more than the MSRP for the 1993 Turbo.

Jeff

 

[HKz]

*Edit - Im ranting but i really hope Toyota is reading this for market response purposes:*

For the most part I would agree.... We have all heard what Toyota and other manufactures would tell us " its ridiculously too expensive to a build a sports car today, let alone a fast one. No one wants to buy one anymore, we have to farm R&D out and share production, we cant take the financial risks/or cant afford to producer cars no one wants to buy"

However - don't let them tell you that total crap. Its simply Big business BS to avoid risks and keep profits safe and comfortable. Modern CEO's are all pussies worshiping the $, not the product. They wont take the risks anymore, and don't believe in their product. They choose to stay safe, stay boring, and stay profitable as the accountants would say.

Back in 93 Toyota took a catastrophically sized risk on mass production of the supra. It was INSANELY expensive and a massive leap ahead, plus a much bigger risk than the LFA program was just a few years back. The small number of LFA failures cost 100's of Millions, against a multip billion kitty to back it up. Had the supra failed, it would have been FAR far worse. Its failure could have destroyed Toyota as they literally banked/invested on it working, constructing whole plants, tooling and thousands of workers in multiple countries. Most legendary cars are the same - born on a risk it all/we believe in our product - attitude. Their companies often staked themselves on the car making or breaking -The real "Ride or Die".

Flash forward to today, and it why Toyota's range is boring - it is no risk. Its safe its boring, it sells. They cant fail, they have no R&D, are cheap to make, share global assembly lines and thus are highly profitable to sell. They don't need to believe in the product, the cars are like everything else on the essential transport market, - low risk, low investment, good return. Safe, Boring, Comfortable. Toyota make BILLIONS, its not a company struggling these days, even though it would like you to believe that.

Toyota should look to its fore bearers who commissioned the supra and grow a pair. Take the same Damn risk that first brought cars like GT40, E-type, the DB7 to life. Make the best damn product you can. Don't compromise and say "650 is what we want for the new supra, but 340 is more cost effective" - Bank everything on it like the legends of the past - believe in your product - Don't let the accountants tell you that its yield and ROI is "too low for production consideration". Instead make the product because its worth it. Take the risk, and just get sh#t done - That's is how legends are made.

If you don't take risks you end up with cars like the Camry, Avensis and the Prius. Good cars, but safe, boring, forgettable, and disposable, and ultimately what the brand has become.

good write up but the simple answer is unfortunately these are totally different times with emissions, safety, politics, other regulations, etc...one could argue, as you pointed out, that toyota should & could be spending more money on these types of products and I'm with you on that on many levels but unfortunately there is a lot of complexity with such an ask. look what happened during the last major recession, sure the detroit 3 kept pumping out cars for enthusiasts but they nearly collapsed and what would we say then if the role was reversed? obviously toyota hasn't been in their position necessarily but trying to draw the line on where to stop the bleeding has shown to be difficult for car companies...

personally i think in many ways, lexus has stretched toyota's talent and resources thin when it comes to performance car development. after all, where did the talent & equipment from the motomachi plant that built the mk4 supra go after it was discontinued? they all went to the LFA project and now that plant is building the LC 500.

 

[LEG1T]

Toyota...

I want a manual transmission. Please make this car a manual transmission car not for me alone but for the whole community.

Make this car attractive to the die hard tuners and pure driving feel lovers.

How can I justify selling a manual NSX for an automatic Supra.

I can't.
Now just think of how many other people are in the same boat.

" a puzzle missing just one piece, is still incomplete."

Complete the puzzle, Toyota you've nailed it on Styling. Only Manual and Good Performance left for a perfect puzzle.

 

[Mike]

What the production car might finally look like...
-Michael Papas-

Another angle...
-michael papas-

 

[50_Supra]

If it looks like that and the power is on point, +1 Supra sale from me.

 

[DevonK]

Looks good, although the windshield seems a bit too pillbox-like, needs another inch of two in height.

 

[Mike]

Looks good, although the windshield seems a bit too pillbox-like, needs another inch of two in height.

Its the exact car released in the official photos. The differences are the normal fenders, splitters, sides, instead of the racing ones, colors, etc..

 

[dawsonj87]

So, I saw an article from Car and Driver pop up on my Facebook feed this morning, and I think you guys might like this:

https://blog.caranddriver.com/more-...much-more/?src=socialflowFBCAD&mag=cdb&dom=fb

Thankfully the guys from Car and Driver know how to have our voices heard. I'm remaining positive and hopeful. Although, I'm a little irked that it seems we'll be waiting until Detroit. Again.

 

[DevonK]

Its the exact car released in the official photos. The differences are the normal fenders, splitters, sides, instead of the racing ones, colors, etc..

Looking closer at your second image I see you've left some of the black banner across the top of the windshield which makes it appear a bit shorter in height than it really is.

 

[bogglo]

picking from what everybody has said, I think the good thing about reviving the supra name is that an MKVI is very possible. Also, maybe partnering with BMW is a blessing in disguise. I really don't know too much about the supra's history but, what have been able to gather is that every supra is different at the core as far as who worked on the development. Example, as it was stated earlier the 1JZ was worked on by Yamaha while the 2JZ was a tweak work from Toyota. So, maybe BMW is playing the role of Yamaha right now and Toyota might tweak that engine later become the true 2JZ replacement.

Also like somebody said earlier Lexus is now in the picture. That kind of restricts how far Toyota can go with the supra. I think while the supra might not be able to go toe to toe with a GTR is because Nissan formula did not change Toyota's formula changed the day the ISF was born. look at nissan performance line up the GTR is a Nissan GTR also look at the Z its a Nissan also. Infiniti kind of stick to been the luxury line of nissan. Back in the day Lexus was like that even when they put the 2JZ in the SC and GS they were still tuned for luxury not performance. Fast forward to today and you have ISF, RCF, GSF, and we are already talking of the LCF.

 

[dsds]

Looks great @Mike

 

[turboflgrl]

So, I saw an article from Car and Driver pop up on my Facebook feed this morning, and I think you guys might like this:

https://blog.caranddriver.com/more-...much-more/?src=socialflowFBCAD&mag=cdb&dom=fb

“while Tada wouldn’t promise to match the tunability of the fourth-gen car—he says its ability to handle four-figure horsepower was more an accidental byproduct of trying to make it reliable than by design—we were told that having a close connection between car and driver is very important to him and his team.”

I can’t help but think he’s saying this because it’s a BMW engine and already aware it doesn’t have near the reliability of the 2J (not shocking but surprised at the admission here). In other words, this engine didn’t have the same care concerning reliability (and therefore tunability) that went into the 2J so..... enjoy the driving experience while it lasts. Sounds exactly like BMW’s mentality - all about the driving experience no matter how fleeting it might be. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic and looking too far into this statement but it stuck out to me.

 

[mkivalex]

I think he really means what he is saying. The 2JZs robustness was a fluke. The way safety margins are built into engines are much different now than they were then. But the B58 is showing to be a fairly robust engine

Sponsored