2019 Special Edition BRZ, any ideas???

[krayzie]

And the 2nd gen if it does happen might not turn out to be better than the first. Cue IS300/Altezza -> IS250/350.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by dtbdan

He said that Europe tanked, you read it wrong, anyways improvements are improvements, I don't know why everyone is always so quick to think the twins are being discontinued it was the same way before the refreshes as well, just because they're not reinventing the car doesn't mean they aren't going to keep producing it and they limited 86 production to 8,600 units last year which they almost hit for sales, they expect the sales they're getting as they may fall each year but it's not like sales were 40,000 at one point, a car doesn't make any more sense at moving 2,000 a month than at 1,000 a month because both are incredibly small when compared to sales of other cars. If they were going to discontinue this generation, they wouldn't have refreshed the cars, since sales from 14 till now have been pretty steady


Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

First of all, sales have declined significantly since 2014. Secondly, the "improvements" may have been done for other reasons like corporate changes in the engine design. And I'm not saying the car will be discontinued next year, only that all of the signs and logic say it is not a priority and will probably discontinued over the next few years if volume continues to decline.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

They sold the shareholders a high development cost, low margin, joint venture, limited production number car in the first place. By the mistaken logic being applied here the car should never of hit the market at all.

Are you implying that this is a low priced car with high costs and low margin? In fact its price in Europe is quite high and it doesn't look to have a low margin. The US premium like offering has a retail price here of 35k and if you consider that the retail price of the WRX STI is 45k which is a much bigger, much more powerful AWD car (2.0 NA vs. 2.5 turbo) and more importantly with much more expensive STI parts (e.g. brembo brakes, 19" wheels, better suspension etc.), then I believe that in fact the situation is quite the opposite.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Are you implying that this is a low priced car with high costs and low margin? In fact its price in Europe is quite high and it doesn't look to have a low margin. The US premium like offering has a retail price here of 35k and if you consider that the retail price of the WRX STI is 45k which is a much bigger, much more powerful AWD car (2.0 NA vs. 2.5 turbo) and more importantly with much more expensive STI parts (e.g. brembo brakes, 19" wheels, better suspension etc.), then I believe that in fact the situation is quite the opposite.

I am not implying anything I am saying it as fact. Both Subaru and Toyota have said it as fact. Stop looking at individual units. The others have economy of scale due to common parts. Just because parts are bigger does not mean they cost more. The R&D costs are covered across the whole line up not one odd ball model. All these add up to a lower margin car. The profit from the worldwide sales of the Twins is probably something around the monthly corporate toilet paper expenses for Toyota. They don't care since it is a teeny tiny portion of their total annual sales. Percentage wise there are probably several zeros after the decimal point. What the car sells for is not an indicator of what it costs to make and the profit margin.

[Adam_L]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

That would make it a replacement for the 86 not the next gen of it. The costs for the Supra are going to be much greater though so if there is any change in profit it will probably be less not greater.

The talk was $40k entry level Supra , but I doubt that (probably at least $45k) , but to spend $50k with some options should be easy.

What about price points ? To have someone single or a couple come in looking for something fun/sporty, yet inexpensive = 86. Or if it's a upper level manager, someone making $75k+ per year, you sell them a Supra. Different budgets need different cars to fill that need/want.

BMW had a hand/ influence with engine development , so they get a piece of the pie as well , correct ? Maybe not as much as splitting things with Subaru in making the FRS/ BRZ. So is it then truly a 100% Toyota product / car ? To some degree I like the looks of the "concept" Supra (the one on Jay Leno's garage) , but again with too many cuts /slices, the lines begin to look too Mickey Mouse, like Disney had a influence with all their "digital artists". I like cleaner lines, like '13-'16 FRS/BRZ , 911's and even Caymans. It's like Mickey is mating with Bobby-Joe , to then produce a Adolf. Too many hands in the cookie jar.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I am not implying anything I am saying it as fact. Both Subaru and Toyota have said it as fact. Stop looking at individual units. The others have economy of scale due to common parts. Just because parts are bigger does not mean they cost more. The R&D costs are covered across the whole line up not one odd ball model. All these add up to a lower margin car. The profit from the worldwide sales of the Twins is probably something around the monthly corporate toilet paper expenses for Toyota. They don't care since it is a teeny tiny portion of their total annual sales. Percentage wise there are probably several zeros after the decimal point. What the car sells for is not an indicator of what it costs to make and the profit margin.

Do you have actual factual quotes that came during this last year or are you talking about the "quotes" they gave 2-6 years ago (which are promotional -- hoping for greater sales). Quotes that were given even 2 years ago are worthless given the continual drop in sales volume. And are the R&D costs that are amortized over the 4WD system in the twins -- or perhaps the roof rack and the FWD configuration. Perhaps the amortized costs are in the factory turbo used or in the wheels on the car. Maybe the interior design is amortized across the Subaru line.

It looks like you just don't get it. Every car takes up a slot in their line-up and keeping a low volume car in production that doesn't sell their other cars is a huge opportunity cost. Running out a production run is cheap. In business, we call that "milking" a brand. You don't make major engine or body changes, because that would completely kill the car. Think about the parts and servicing costs of inventory, training (both sales and technical), and continual IT updates. As long as you don't have any significant body changes or advertising, or engine replacements, the ROI's may remain acceptable. Once you tool a new body or engine -- even if the engine exists in other models -- your ROI tanks with low volume. They have given up on the twins because there is no advertising. And with no promotion, sales will only continue to drop. That is the telltale sign of a corporate decision to drop a line.

The other factor, is that with any upgrades or body changes, you need a significant rise in price to maintain an acceptable ROI. You cannot sell that to any management -- to take investment capital and throw it down the drain on a low priced, low volume brand. In point of fact, you'd probably have to raise the price of the car by $5-15K for any new investment -- and that would put it much closer to a potential Supra. Toyota would surely kill the 86 and that would leave the BRZ with less than half of it's current volume.

So I'll be waiting for those recent FACTUAL quotes regarding future development of the twins from corporate sources.....

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by rvoll

Do you have actual factual quotes that came during this last year or are you talking about the "quotes" they gave 2-6 years ago (which are promotional -- hoping for greater sales). Quotes that were given even 2 years ago are worthless given the continual drop in sales volume. And are the R&D costs that are amortized over the 4WD system in the twins -- or perhaps the roof rack and the FWD configuration. Perhaps the amortized costs are in the factory turbo used or in the wheels on the car. Maybe the interior design is amortized across the Subaru line.

It looks like you just don't get it. Every car takes up a slot in their line-up and keeping a low volume car in production that doesn't sell their other cars is a huge opportunity cost. Running out a production run is cheap. In business, we call that "milking" a brand. You don't make major engine or body changes, because that would completely kill the car. Think about the parts and servicing costs of inventory, training (both sales and technical), and continual IT updates. As long as you don't have any significant body changes or advertising, or engine replacements, the ROI's may remain acceptable. Once you tool a new body or engine -- even if the engine exists in other models -- your ROI tanks with low volume. They have given up on the twins because there is no advertising. And with no promotion, sales will only continue to drop. That is the telltale sign of a corporate decision to drop a line.

The other factor, is that with any upgrades or body changes, you need a significant rise in price to maintain an acceptable ROI. You cannot sell that to any management -- to take investment capital and throw it down the drain on a low priced, low volume brand. In point of fact, you'd probably have to raise the price of the car by $5-15K for any new investment -- and that would put it much closer to a potential Supra. Toyota would surely kill the 86 and that would leave the BRZ with less than half of it's current volume.

So I'll be waiting for those recent FACTUAL quotes regarding future development of the twins from corporate sources.....

I repeat. If they based all their decisions on pure per unit profit as you seem to think this car would never have been built in the first place.


I have no new quotes to give. In fact that has been my point all along. There are no new quotes. You are basing your theories upon your own opinions of the matter and since the opinions are flawed so are you statements.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I repeat. If they based all their decisions on pure per unit profit as you seem to think this car would never have been built in the first place.


I have no new quotes to give. In fact that has been my point all along. There are no new quotes. You are basing your theories upon your own opinions of the matter and since the opinions are flawed so are you statements.

This is totally wrong, Grasshopper.... This was a joint development between Toyota and Subaru and Toyota is one of the most profit oriented companies in the business. I happen to know a couple of Toyota execs. Toyota was, indeed, looking for a sporty coupe to round out its product line like their Supra did years ago. However, being profit oriented, they wanted to amortize development expense which is why they went on a joint development approach with Subaru. However, they maintained control of the development process. That developer is now working with BMW on the Supra. They will only have one sports car in their line-up in the long term.

And even though you said you had quotes, as usual, you cannot back that up. And yes, these are my opinions based on a background of corporate product development and financial analysis.

It is not my opinions that are flawed, Grasshopper.... It is the fact that your OPINIONS make little sense and can't be backed up either with your promised quotes or corporate development strategy. You seem to be saying it is understandable and acceptable that a public company who had fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders put out a product that doesn't make any money either for itself or its product line. Certainly that is not a flawed opinion....

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by rvoll

This is totally wrong, Grasshopper.... This was a joint development between Toyota and Subaru and Toyota is one of the most profit oriented companies in the business. I happen to know a couple of Toyota execs. Toyota was, indeed, looking for a sporty coupe to round out its product line like their Supra did years ago. However, being profit oriented, they wanted to amortize development expense which is why they went on a joint development approach with Subaru. However, they maintained control of the development process. That developer is now working with BMW on the Supra. They will only have one sports car in their line-up in the long term.

And even though you said you had quotes, as usual, you cannot back that up. And yes, these are my opinions based on a background of corporate product development and financial analysis.

It is not my opinions that are flawed, Grasshopper.... It is the fact that your OPINIONS make little sense and can't be backed up either with your promised quotes or corporate development strategy. You seem to be saying it is understandable and acceptable that a public company who had fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders put out a product that doesn't make any money either for itself or its product line. Certainly that is not a flawed opinion....

1) As soon as you start with "I happen to know some..." all credibility goes out the window.
2) The "developer" as you can him stated officially that there was a plan for a 3 sports car line up.
3) All old quotes I cited are easily found but I am not doing your homework for you. I have made no claims of knowing about new quote or official information. In fact my dispute is people are making assumptions without such information.
4) Your background is questionable at best as you seem to have no clue how the auto industry works.
5) My opinions seem strange because the industry is strange and does not always appear to follow the "normal" patterns. I have lived it for 30 years in Tier One parts manufacturing.
6) Show me a business plan where they state the car must make a substantial profit. It is not rare nor unusual for some models of a car to have little profit or even a loss based upon the plan. This is a simple concept that you just dismiss because it doesn't make sense. Without knowing the plan very little in this industry makes sense.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

1) As soon as you start with "I happen to know some..." all credibility goes out the window.
2) The "developer" as you can him stated officially that there was a plan for a 3 sports car line up.
3) All old quotes I cited are easily found but I am not doing your homework for you. I have made no claims of knowing about new quote or official information. In fact my dispute is people are making assumptions without such information.
4) Your background is questionable at best as you seem to have no clue how the auto industry works.
5) My opinions seem strange because the industry is strange and does not always appear to follow the "normal" patterns. I have lived it for 30 years in Tier One parts manufacturing.
6) Show me a business plan where they state the car must make a substantial profit. It is not rare nor unusual for some models of a car to have little profit or even a loss based upon the plan. This is a simple concept that you just dismiss because it doesn't make sense. Without knowing the plan very little in this industry makes sense.

Hmmm...
1. Actually one of those execs is a family member... I've been in car clubs for over 40 years and have met a lot of auto execs.... But then, you don't seem to care about facts...

2. The "developer" plan was years ago, based on growing volume, and has no relevance today. But perhaps you know of some secret recent developer plan?

3. Making assumptions based on old quotes is much worse than making an educated guess based on corporate principles. If you have worked in the industry as you have said, you'd know that. Only the companies that keep up with change survive.

4. Do you really believe the auto industry at the corporate level is different than other industries. It's interesting that every person I've ever spoken with who has a one industry experience thinks that their industry is different. I've worked with a couple of dozen different industries, and they are not different.

5. The auto industry is not strange at all. Product development and financial analysis for the major brands are no different than any other large company. This is true for all mature industries. Yes, there are small developers in a lot of industries that do strange things. And yes, years ago some of the larger companies did strange things. That just doesn't happen anymore because of the increased competitiveness and need to keep the stock price rising. Auto companies have increasingly focused on product lines with themes and broad attributes. That's one of the reasons Subaru has moved to a global platform (which you mistakenly believe will work for their sports car).

6. The introduction of a new model is a complex process. And today, with all of the research options available, it is always oriented towards a potential profit or they don't get the development money. It starts with product concepts which go through preliminary ROI financial analyses. If there is promise, it then goes to the design team for prototype development and consumer research. After that, they may build a concept car for auto shows so they can further judge response and make the design more acceptable. So I'll ask the same question of you. Show me a new model from a major auto manufacturer that doesn't talk about how popular it will be. This does not include high priced, high margin cars like Ferrari, or even the high end Porsche models. We are talking about lower priced cars, like the twins, for the masses. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

I do understand where you are coming from. But the only way to accept your argument is to believe that large, public, corporations are not profit oriented. I would agree that private companies have the opportunity to do stupid things, and occasionally have successes. But there is absolutely no factual or theoretical support for your POV. And yes, what I say is TOTALLY my opinion based on a background in corporate development utilizing proven developmental principles and data like sales volumes and publicized CURRENT development efforts. Arguments like yours, based upon the belief that public corporations do not make decisions based on potential profits, is just not one that I can accept.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by rvoll

Hmmm...
1. Actually one of those execs is a family member... I've been in car clubs for over 40 years and have met a lot of auto execs.... But then, you don't seem to care about facts...

2. The "developer" plan was years ago, based on growing volume, and has no relevance today. But perhaps you know of some secret recent developer plan?

3. Making assumptions based on old quotes is much worse than making an educated guess based on corporate principles. If you have worked in the industry as you have said, you'd know that. Only the companies that keep up with change survive.

4. Do you really believe the auto industry at the corporate level is different than other industries. It's interesting that every person I've ever spoken with who has a one industry experience thinks that their industry is different. I've worked with a couple of dozen different industries, and they are not different.

5. The auto industry is not strange at all. Product development and financial analysis for the major brands are no different than any other large company. This is true for all mature industries. Yes, there are small developers in a lot of industries that do strange things. And yes, years ago some of the larger companies did strange things. That just doesn't happen anymore because of the increased competitiveness and need to keep the stock price rising. Auto companies have increasingly focused on product lines with themes and broad attributes. That's one of the reasons Subaru has moved to a global platform (which you mistakenly believe will work for their sports car).

6. The introduction of a new model is a complex process. And today, with all of the research options available, it is always oriented towards a potential profit or they don't get the development money. It starts with product concepts which go through preliminary ROI financial analyses. If there is promise, it then goes to the design team for prototype development and consumer research. After that, they may build a concept car for auto shows so they can further judge response and make the design more acceptable. So I'll ask the same question of you. Show me a new model from a major auto manufacturer that doesn't talk about how popular it will be. This does not include high priced, high margin cars like Ferrari, or even the high end Porsche models. We are talking about lower priced cars, like the twins, for the masses. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

I do understand where you are coming from. But the only way to accept your argument is to believe that large, public, corporations are not profit oriented. I would agree that private companies have the opportunity to do stupid things, and occasionally have successes. But there is absolutely no factual or theoretical support for your POV. And yes, what I say is TOTALLY my opinion based on a background in corporate development utilizing proven developmental principles and data like sales volumes and publicized CURRENT development efforts. Arguments like yours, based upon the belief that public corporations do not make decisions based on potential profits, is just not one that I can accept.

You keep saying "development" but never what you "developed".


Yes I believe that the automotive industry at the corporate level is different than most. That is because I am in the automotive industry at the corporate level and have been for many years now.


You still fail to understand the idea that the ROI from a new model car can reach into other areas other than pure profit.


I think you are putting words on my mouth that I have not said.
I have never said there was no profit from these cars just that it is a low margin one. That is a fact.


I have made no assumptions. That has all been you. My debate is that those assumptions are false.


If the industry is all pure profit based explain to me why Toyota would invest one BILLION dollars into a ride sharing program that as such will not return one single dollar in pure profit.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

You keep saying "development" but never what you "developed".


Yes I believe that the automotive industry at the corporate level is different than most. That is because I am in the automotive industry at the corporate level and have been for many years now.


You still fail to understand the idea that the ROI from a new model car can reach into other areas other than pure profit.


I think you are putting words on my mouth that I have not said.
I have never said there was no profit from these cars just that it is a low margin one. That is a fact.


I have made no assumptions. That has all been you. My debate is that those assumptions are false.


If the industry is all pure profit based explain to me why Toyota would invest one BILLION dollars into a ride sharing program that as such will not return one single dollar in pure profit.

So are you saying that I'm lying about my developmental experience in a number of industries? Are you lying about your experience in auto parts? Have you ever developed a new car at a large auto company? I've worked in a number of industries including mass consumer products, large business oriented technology companies, and large financial and insurance companies. My primary avocation was marketing and business development. That's my particular expertise. I've never worked in a large auto company or developed a new car. Saying that you know all about the auto industry because you work in an auto parts company is like saying you know all about football because you produce football helmets.

Your statement about ROI not being related to profits is totally nonsensical. Do you understand that profit is one of the main components of ROI? They are inseparable.

So you say it is a fact that the twins are low margin cars. Do you have access to the financials? If not, how do you know this? You are assuming this because of price -- you don't know it so it is not a "fact". If you think this is a low margin car, how could it be highly profitable if the volume is low (and we do know sales volumes)? I have also not said there is no profit, only that because volume levels are low, profits cannot be high. Do you really disagree with that?

You've made nothing but assumptions. You assume that your parochial parts experience means you know about developing new cars. You assume that modern, public corporations will put out cars that don't make much money on purpose. You assume that statements made several years ago still apply today given a significant decline in volume. You have nothing but assumptions in your argument.

I guess I'll have to explain why Toyota is investing a billion dollars in a ride sharing company.... This is totally for profits. When you buy shares of a company, you expect to make money off of those shares. You seem to say there is no profit motive. Wrong, Grasshopper... In addition, Uber is working with Toyota for self-driving vehicles specifically for ride sharing. So not only should Toyota make money off of their investment, but now they are able to test their development of self-driving vehicles because they are a major owner of a ride sharing company. I'm sure Toyota did an ROI on this total plan.

I see you post an average of 33 posts a day over several years -- so posting must be your primary job. I'm retired and produce an average of 2 posts per day. I'm already over my quota for today and have other things to do in my life. If you respond to this, I'll get back to you in the coming days. Have a great day.....

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by rvoll

So are you saying that I'm lying about my developmental experience in a number of industries? Are you lying about your experience in auto parts? Have you ever developed a new car at a large auto company? I've worked in a number of industries including mass consumer products, large business oriented technology companies, and large financial and insurance companies. My primary avocation was marketing and business development. That's my particular expertise. I've never worked in a large auto company or developed a new car. Saying that you know all about the auto industry because you work in an auto parts company is like saying you know all about football because you produce football helmets.

Your statement about ROI not being related to profits is totally nonsensical. Do you understand that profit is one of the main components of ROI? They are inseparable.

So you say it is a fact that the twins are low margin cars. Do you have access to the financials? If not, how do you know this? You are assuming this because of price -- you don't know it so it is not a "fact". If you think this is a low margin car, how could it be highly profitable if the volume is low (and we do know sales volumes)? I have also not said there is no profit, only that because volume levels are low, profits cannot be high. Do you really disagree with that?

You've made nothing but assumptions. You assume that your parochial parts experience means you know about developing new cars. You assume that modern, public corporations will put out cars that don't make much money on purpose. You assume that statements made several years ago still apply today given a significant decline in volume. You have nothing but assumptions in your argument.

I guess I'll have to explain why Toyota is investing a billion dollars in a ride sharing company.... This is totally for profits. When you buy shares of a company, you expect to make money off of those shares. You seem to say there is no profit motive. Wrong, Grasshopper... In addition, Uber is working with Toyota for self-driving vehicles specifically for ride sharing. So not only should Toyota make money off of their investment, but now they are able to test their development of self-driving vehicles because they are a major owner of a ride sharing company. I'm sure Toyota did an ROI on this total plan.

I see you post an average of 33 posts a day over several years -- so posting must be your primary job. I'm retired and produce an average of 2 posts per day. I'm already over my quota for today and have other things to do in my life. If you respond to this, I'll get back to you in the coming days. Have a great day.....

No. I did not say you were lying about anything. It was a simple questions as to what the products were. They are notably not automotive.


Yes. I have participated in the development and manufacturing of new designs at both the individual part and assembled product level. I did not claim to be an expert at all aspects of the industry but do have a very good knowledge of the systems and why things are done.


The fact that companies do make and sell cars at or even below cost is well know and has always been a part of the industry. They make up for it in other ways.


The declining sales numbers are meaningless data without knowing the number planned and built. If the decline was forecast and planned for then they met their goals. You still fail to produce the Toyota business plan which shows they have an issue with the reduced number of units sold.


The testing of the self driving vehicles is exactly an example of a non monitory ROI that I was talking about. In fact your whole statement of why they invested is my point. Not all the "profit" from ROI is directly related to cash on each individual unit.


Ahhhh there it is, the good old "you are here a lot so you don't work" argument that always comes up when there is nothing real to put forward. There are several people here that know where I work and what I do that can vouch that I do indeed hold the credentials and position that I stated. The fact that I am at that level in the industry is precisely why I have the time to argue with people that don't have a clue what they are talking about but want to spread their own gospel.

[dtbdan]

Originally Posted by rvoll

Hmmm...
1. Actually one of those execs is a family member... I've been in car clubs for over 40 years and have met a lot of auto execs.... But then, you don't seem to care about facts...

2. The "developer" plan was years ago, based on growing volume, and has no relevance today. But perhaps you know of some secret recent developer plan?

3. Making assumptions based on old quotes is much worse than making an educated guess based on corporate principles. If you have worked in the industry as you have said, you'd know that. Only the companies that keep up with change survive.

4. Do you really believe the auto industry at the corporate level is different than other industries. It's interesting that every person I've ever spoken with who has a one industry experience thinks that their industry is different. I've worked with a couple of dozen different industries, and they are not different.

5. The auto industry is not strange at all. Product development and financial analysis for the major brands are no different than any other large company. This is true for all mature industries. Yes, there are small developers in a lot of industries that do strange things. And yes, years ago some of the larger companies did strange things. That just doesn't happen anymore because of the increased competitiveness and need to keep the stock price rising. Auto companies have increasingly focused on product lines with themes and broad attributes. That's one of the reasons Subaru has moved to a global platform (which you mistakenly believe will work for their sports car).

6. The introduction of a new model is a complex process. And today, with all of the research options available, it is always oriented towards a potential profit or they don't get the development money. It starts with product concepts which go through preliminary ROI financial analyses. If there is promise, it then goes to the design team for prototype development and consumer research. After that, they may build a concept car for auto shows so they can further judge response and make the design more acceptable. So I'll ask the same question of you. Show me a new model from a major auto manufacturer that doesn't talk about how popular it will be. This does not include high priced, high margin cars like Ferrari, or even the high end Porsche models. We are talking about lower priced cars, like the twins, for the masses. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

I do understand where you are coming from. But the only way to accept your argument is to believe that large, public, corporations are not profit oriented. I would agree that private companies have the opportunity to do stupid things, and occasionally have successes. But there is absolutely no factual or theoretical support for your POV. And yes, what I say is TOTALLY my opinion based on a background in corporate development utilizing proven developmental principles and data like sales volumes and publicized CURRENT development efforts. Arguments like yours, based upon the belief that public corporations do not make decisions based on potential profits, is just not one that I can accept.

If you really know that exec why not just ask him whether or not it's going to continue rather than arguing with us on the internet. Lexus, which last time I checked is toyota, lost money on every LFA sold. The common commuter car or SUV is 100% tied to profits, cars like the lfa or 86/brz serve a separate purpose besides just making a profit, and both companies in every interview with their executives seem proud of what they made in the the twins platform. I can guarantee that subaru or toyota do not lose money on the twins when they sell them, they add to the brand's profile since they are offering a sports car, and that's value that goes above just profit margins. Once a car is developed the CEO is the final authority on whether a car is killed or saved. Considering toyota is still spending ludricious amounts of money at le mans, is developing their own hypercar, and has a stated commitment to making their lineup sportier, I can guarantee you that the car will survive. I really don't care what you think because their decision is made regardless of what any of us say on these forums. Just stop taking these arguments so personally.