2020 Toyota GR Supra

bcp2011 said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

But the existing product isn't amazing?  Don't get me wrong, I have a twin, so I appreciate the car for what it is, but that's more in regard to the weight, rather than the wheelbase.  Is the Camaro's wheelbase that big of a hinderance performance wise (I would think maybe it's not great for autox but better for tracks?)?

That's a good question. I used to own a twin (on Ground Controls, 18x9.5 RPFs and 255/35 Direzza Star Specs) I test drove a new Camaro SS 1LE back at the end of 2017.

It was an amazing car just in a short test drive (outside of the visibility). But being short, I found the ergonomics perfect for me, everything about it was perfect except me trying to justify to myself a $45k+ track that would rarely see the track. 

Long story short, the newer, heavier cars........they have really learned how to hide it with modern engineering. 

JG Pasterjak said:

On the alternate timeline where Toyota used a turbo 4 in the Supra, this thread is equally as bitchy if not moreso than it currently is.

I was thinking of one of their V8s, actually.  That would make the Supra pretty super!

In reply to z31maniac :

I'm seriously contemplating a new turbo w/ 1LE for $30k in about a year or so.  It's just so much car for the money, and hopefully without chopping the car up I can lose a couple hundred pounds in the process.  In some ways the Camaro has become the standard in which I judge other cars (including the Supra) this side of a $50k sticker, which I would have never thought would be possible... 

Without the Camaro I think my opinion on the Supra actually would be more favorable, except its looks.

No thanks. I wouldn't want to have to look at it every day even if it was free. And, I'll add that I was given a (arguably better looking) free new car once and gave it back so it's not something I wouldn't do.

z31maniac said:

I'm not sure it's fair to compare a $50k car, to ones that cost more than double. Even when you adjust for inflation the current Zupra is markedly cheaper than if you tried to buy a TT Supra in 1997.

A GTR starts at $100k. 

An NSX starts at $158k.

And the Ford GT was around $500k, if you were able to buy one new. 

An M4 starts at $70k. An M5 starts at $103k!

But that's just it, the fact that it's not comparable is my problem. It's awesome that it's a 50k hardtop Z4 and I'm glad they're making it - the more options for us the better! But calling it a Supra carries baggage. The fact that it's not even in the class of an M3 (aka M4), let alone the GTR, which it was historically pitted against (and to a lesser extent, the NSX) is the source of the letdown in my opinion (compounded by the fact that it's a halo JDM car that's not Japanese). In a similar fashion, I'm personally annoyed that the forthcoming mid-engined car from GM will be called a Corvette. I'm sure it will be better than any other Corvette in every measurable way. But why must you call it a Corvette? Is it so hard to come up with a name for a new, awesome car? Or is cashing in on the brand more important... In the case of the Supra, I can't help but feel like it might hurt them more than had they either made it proportionally up-market to be on par with the GTR, or called it something else. But hey, opinions are like bootypipes, it will be interesting to see what happens regardless.

BigD said:

z31maniac said:

I'm not sure it's fair to compare a $50k car, to ones that cost more than double. Even when you adjust for inflation the current Zupra is markedly cheaper than if you tried to buy a TT Supra in 1997.

A GTR starts at $100k. 

An NSX starts at $158k.

And the Ford GT was around $500k, if you were able to buy one new. 

An M4 starts at $70k. An M5 starts at $103k!

But that's just it, the fact that it's not comparable is my problem. It's awesome that it's a 50k hardtop Z4 and I'm glad they're making it - the more options for us the better! But calling it a Supra carries baggage. The fact that it's not even in the class of an M3 (aka M4), let alone the GTR, which it was historically pitted against (and to a lesser extent, the NSX) is the source of the letdown in my opinion (compounded by the fact that it's a halo JDM car that's not Japanese). In a similar fashion, I'm personally annoyed that the forthcoming mid-engined car from GM will be called a Corvette. I'm sure it will be better than any other Corvette in every measurable way. But why must you call it a Corvette? Is it so hard to come up with a name for a new, awesome car? Or is cashing in on the brand more important... In the case of the Supra, I can't help but feel like it might hurt them more than had they either made it proportionally up-market to be on par with the GTR, or called it something else. But hey, opinions are like bootypipes, it will be interesting to see what happens regardless.

We just have different opinions. I don't care about the name, or some heritage, that stuff doesn't matter to me. And I realize I may be in the minority on this one.

Build a cool car with great performance...........I'm in. I like BMWs simple, minimal interiors. I also like an engine that makes peak torque from below 2k RPMs to nearly 6k RPMs. 

But I admit, I'm likely biased since I'm on my 4th BMW. They are a pain in the ass to own, expensive to maintain, but anytime a company releases a new coupe/sedan, at this price point, it's called "The M3/4 fighter." And for a good reason. The 3/M series cars have been the standard of relatively affordable coupes, that are drivers cars, for nearly 3 decades. 

z31maniac said:

We just have different opinions. I don't care about the name, or some heritage, that stuff doesn't matter to me. And I realize I may be in the minority on this one.

Build a cool car with great performance...........I'm in. I like BMWs simple, minimal interiors. I also like an engine that makes peak torque from below 2k RPMs to nearly 6k RPMs. 

But I admit, I'm likely biased since I'm on my 4th BMW. They are a pain in the ass to own, expensive to maintain, but anytime a company releases a new coupe/sedan, at this price point, it's called "The M3/4 fighter." And for a good reason. The 3/M series cars have been the standard of relatively affordable coupes, that are drivers cars, for nearly 3 decades. 

Not as different as you think, I agree with you but I was also hoping for more to be delivered under the Supra moniker. Like the analogy I gave before, the Cayman is an awesome car but if we were teased about the new NSX coming back for years, and then ending up with a flavor of Cayman, I'd be just as disappointed but it would in no way mean that I think it will be a bad car, or even that I wouldn't buy one.

And it's not even like I even like the JZA80 *ducks*. I always found them homely looking, especially from the front, and performance to be nothing special. But for this car, they didn't pick the name "Supra" just because they wanted to save money on printing badges or trademark costs. They picked it and teased it all this time because of what the name and the heritage means. So to put a finer point on it, my gripe isn't with the car but with Toyota.

I'm with you on BMWs, I'm an instructor with CCA, my first car was one and I've owned one since, including an E34 M5. This is what the engine bay of my E30 currently looks like and there's a NASCAR 4 speed behind all that, so purist I am not. But I do think certain car models evoke a formula that you as the manufacturer, betray at your own peril.

We are closer than I thought! I like what you are doing with the S5x in the E30. 

One of my favorite cars ever was my S52, OBD-I swapped '88 325i. It put down 235whp, which in that tiny car is a blast. I can't imagine what you're looking at with that big hair dryer.

BigD said:

But for this car, they didn't pick the name "Supra" just because they wanted to save money on printing badges or trademark costs. They picked it and teased it all this time because of what the name and the heritage means. 

This. 

The Supra is arguably Toyota's halo car, and 'deserves' more than just a rebadge on a BMW.  If Toyota had built a chassis around the BMW drivetrain, I'm guessing a lot of the critics here would have had much less of a problem with it, as it would have its own identity.  Body panels, suspension tuning and a few emblems doesn't show much effort on Toyota's part.

The Twins, IMHO, are an apples/oranges comparison.  That was a brand new platform, intended from the start to be a collaboration.  No history to live up to there.  Now, if they had called it a "Supra", I'm guessing it would have generated the same kind of ire as the current car, but at least the Twins are good looking cars. 

z31maniac said:

I'M MAD ABOUT A CAR I WAS NEVER GOING TO BUY!!!!!!

 

So much hate, it's hysterical. From watching the videos, that 8spd seems to shift even faster than the DCT in my 135. Who cares what the actual tech is as long as it performs well?

I'm trying to understand the hate about "derp it's a BMW engine derp derp" it would take HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars for Toyota to design a brand new engine, for a sports car that is going not going to sell very much. Roll that engine development into the price of the car? It just went from $50k to $90k. 

But please, keep complaining about a car you never intended to buy regardless. 

 

See Exhibit A: BMW fanboy.

They already have a perfectly great V8.  No one was asking for a BMW turbo motor.  And since you can’t read, I was intending to buy a new Supra.  If I wanted a BMW, I’d buy one.

In reply to Rodan :

Everyone's favorite YouTube car reviewer has a similar opionion.  (although I disagree on your history point - there was a great deal of hype around the twins being the second coming of the AE86).

Doug also disagrees somewhat with JG about the lack of manual gearbox.

I see the gearbox choice as a necessary evil in order to meet the desired pricepoint. Especially since the Z4 is also an automatic only car, so developing a manual version would have added substantially to the cost.

Beyond that, I neither love it nor hate it. It's a nice looking car and I'll like seeing them on the road, but I don't really have a desire for one. I'm not sure a manual transmission version would change that.

pinchvalve said:

Great coverage. I can't help wonder how Toyota (and other press departments) view GRM. Years ago, GRM probably didn't even get an invite; too little, too specialized, not part of some giant conglomerate. Now, they have the highest page count, the most loyal readers, a large circulation, and a massive web presence, so they definitely get an invite.  But while they must worry about other hack journalists stuffing their press fleet into the tire wall, they probably wait for GRM to see what their cars can really do on track. Regardless of my feelings about the car being covered, the coverage was top-notch. 

Thanks for this, by the way.

While we stil get overlooked by some of the larger companies, simply because our reach is less than some other outlets, there are more than a few companies that have recognized the value of such an engaged fan base as this. They know that one of our people is worth 3-4 of what a reader of some of the "big" magazines are worth, because our people are super engaged, super knowledgeable and tend to be influence leaders in their peer groups. 

So if you enjoy what we're doing it's merely because we're doing it as a reflection of our fanbase, and trying to use our resources to help you make the decisions you want to make.

PS: Toyota has always been fairly savvy, if not always on a corporate level, then at least at other levels where we had "fans" on the inside that recognized our value to the market and advocated for us to be included in their functions. I remember going to the press drive of the Mk4 Supra in 1991. Pretty amazing to think we were driving around South Florida in a bunch of future $150,000 sports coupes.

I’m not the only person that has passed on the Supra after a long wait.  Friend just bought the LC500 because he would rather drive and mod that than the Supra.  And he has an E30 M3 with an S54 as his track car.

The group of guys I know who are all into performance and have the connections to get the first ones at dealer cost have passed.  None on them are putting their money down.

Brett_Murphy said:

JG Pasterjak said:

On the alternate timeline where Toyota used a turbo 4 in the Supra, this thread is equally as bitchy if not moreso than it currently is.

I was thinking of one of their V8s, actually.  That would make the Supra pretty super!

But Lexus already has the RC F. Do you just slap some Toyota badges on that and call it a Supra? Do you try and come up with something between the $70,000 base RC F and the $100,000 Track Edition? Even if you decontent it a bit, you still have a $70,000+ car that directly competes with something you already build. 

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

The original Supra started out as a hopped up Celica.

Another path Toyota could have taken would have been to build a new car based on the GT86. Maybe with their own engine. Honestly, I think that's what most of us were expecting. At least I was...

z31maniac said:

I'M MAD ABOUT A CAR I WAS NEVER GOING TO BUY!!!!!!

 

So much hate, it's hysterical. From watching the videos, that 8spd seems to shift even faster than the DCT in my 135. Who cares what the actual tech is as long as it performs well?

I'm trying to understand the hate about "derp it's a BMW engine derp derp" it would take HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars for Toyota to design a brand new engine, for a sports car that is going not going to sell very much. Roll that engine development into the price of the car? It just went from $50k to $90k. 

But please, keep complaining about a car you never intended to buy regardless. 

 

I've seen you post this "But you were never going to buy it anyway" thing several times over the years and while I'd say most wouldn't have bought it, some of us were legitimately hoping this car would fill a void in the garage.

Here's the thing with that sentiment though. If even the people that love the nameplate but weren't going to buy it anyway are disappointed then it brings down the brand value for those who ARE going to buy.

A car keeps it's premium nameplate and value because of it's reputation. If it's a good car but the masses aren't lusting after it like a 22 year old MKIV then they shouldn't have brought it back until they could build something that would.

If 5 years ago, somebody from Toyota came to track events, car shows, whatever around the world and straight up asked "If we slightly changed up a BMW z4 and sold it as the new Supra would you be excited about it?" The majority of people would have said no. When, your potential customer and the rest of the public are all varying degrees of disappointed, that's a pretty lame exercise.

Rodan said:

 

The Twins, IMHO, are an apples/oranges comparison.  That was a brand new platform, intended from the start to be a collaboration.  No history to live up to there.  Now, if they had called it a "Supra", I'm guessing it would have generated the same kind of ire as the current car, but at least the Twins are good looking cars. 

I'd disagree slightly. You don't see any nod to history to live up with? It's a direct homage to an AE86 trying to play off of it's legacy for balance, low priced RWD fun. People just complained it doesn't have a amazing Toyota inline for or a turbocharged Subaru boxer. A let down in both regards. Not the best points of either Toyota or Subaru.

Compromise is a 4 letter word and that's what most Japanese sports cars have been for 20 + years.

In reply to crankwalk :

The MKIV was a tough sell during its run too.  I had a NA MKIV and it was a good car,  but I always wished it was the TT.  Unfortunately, I was pretty young at the time and the insurance on the TT was a killer.

In reply to crankwalk :

OK, I'll concede on the tie in to the AE86, it was never that for me, but I'll aknowledge it was for many.

In reply to BigD :

The next Corvette being mid engine makes it not fit the Corvette name? Whaaaaaa

When they start making electric hybrid f150's will they no longer fit the f series name?  

I wonder if an LS engine & T56 combo will fit in there?

Cotton said:

In reply to crankwalk :

The MKIV was a tough sell during its run too.  I had a NA MKIV and it was a good car,  but I always wished it was the TT.  Unfortunately, I was pretty young at the time and the insurance on the TT was a killer.

HOT TAKE ALERT: The non-turbo Supra S was the best Mk4 Supra.

In reply to JG Pasterjak :

Why?

JG Pasterjak said:

But Lexus already has the RC F. Do you just slap some Toyota badges on that and call it a Supra? Do you try and come up with something between the $70,000 base RC F and the $100,000 Track Edition? Even if you decontent it a bit, you still have a $70,000+ car that directly competes with something you already build.  

Thats fair. But can’t they take out a decent portion of the expensive interior, etc and make it 55k?  I mean it’s an internal project with most of the development costs amortized so instead of sharing costs and profits with bmw they’d keep all of it. And if engine is a major cost they can do a v6 and v8 version like the NA and TT versions previously. I’m sure I’m simplifying but it’s not a crazy idea. 

This car looks like Chris Bangle and Fuore Design got together to design a sports car. It is not good.