Official: Toyota FT-1 Concept / First New Supra Prototype Spotted!

[Guff]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Thinking back I am pretty sure I have never even SEEN a Supra much less drove one.


Many sports cars are not used for sports and many cars used for sports are not sports cars.
It is an unwinnable debate as to what constitutes a "sports car" that has raged on for about 80 years. Especially when technology changes so fast and what was a "sports car" once is left out a few years later because the baseline criteria changed.

Come to Chicago and you can take your pick on Supras to drive. I have a basic stock Twin Turbo 6-spd here and a 620whp Built 3.2L Single Turbo 6-spd car. And if you find yourself in Dallas, there's an Non-turbo 5-spd car for you to sample as well.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Guff

Come to Chicago and you can take your pick on Supras to drive. I have a basic stock Twin Turbo 6-spd here and a 620whp Built 3.2L Single Turbo 6-spd car. And if you find yourself in Dallas, there's an Non-turbo 5-spd car for you to sample as well.

Never know where I may go for work so maybe one day.
Now if at my old job I was in Chicago about 6 times a year.

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Thinking back I am pretty sure I have never even SEEN a Supra much less drove one.


Many sports cars are not used for sports and many cars used for sports are not sports cars.
It is an unwinnable debate as to what constitutes a "sports car" that has raged on for about 80 years. Especially when technology changes so fast and what was a "sports car" once is left out a few years later because the baseline criteria changed.

I was about to make this point, and here Tcoat has helped me out.

While the term "sports car" is actually quite open to debate, an actual GT car has pretty defined parameters. A GT and a sports car both have capable engines, precise steering, 2 doors, and for the sake of argument, drive the rear wheels.

Where the GT differs is that luxury is not compromised in its sportiness. It's a Grand Tourer; capable of allowing the driver to cross the continent without discomfort and offering up the amenities found in actual luxury vehicles, while simultaneously offering up sports car power and handling. I literally did this in my MK3 (Nashville to LA in 30 hours with a friend), and honestly we could've driven an LS400 and probably have been only slightly more comfortable the entire trip.

My point is simply (in the context of this conversation regarding C&D); if it's not a GT, then its just a sports car.
@Guff Thanks man! I've been lining myself up to buy a twin for a few months now and have started posting around again because of it.

[Re_Invention]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

I was about to make this point, and here Tcoat has helped me out.

While the term "sports car" is actually quite open to debate, an actual GT car has pretty defined parameters. A GT and a sports car both have capable engines, precise steering, 2 doors, and for the sake of argument, drive the rear wheels.

Where the GT differs is that luxury is not compromised in its sportiness. It's a Grand Tourer; capable of allowing the driver to cross the continent without discomfort and offering up the amenities found in actual luxury vehicles, while simultaneously offering up sports car power and handling. I literally did this in my MK3 (Nashville to LA in 30 hours with a friend), and honestly we could've driven an LS400 and probably have been only slightly more comfortable the entire trip.

My point is simply (in the context of this conversation regarding C&D); if it's not a GT, then its just a sports car.
@Guff Thanks man! I've been lining myself up to buy a twin for a few months now and have started posting around again because of it.

Valid argument. I don't buy the 'MK3 is but MK4 isn't' notion but that's a moot point... I personally consider a Supra a GT car and consider this:



to be Toyota's "Sports Car" of the 90's with the Celica as the "sporty" car. My only experience with a Supra was a 95' N/A automatic, not exactly the bonafide Supra poster car but the proportions felt like all of 177" (an NSX is 174", a 911 or RX-7 are 168", an Esprit 172", an F355 167", etc.) with it's nose filled with inline 6 goodness... which was ditched in racing for a boosted 4 cylinder, right? Point is, in addition to the stated length, it personally felt like a bigger car to hustle around the corners... but not like a Corvette, now that I think about it.. huh... Anyways... GT or GT sport or Sport.. The Supra/FT-1 is gonna be cool if they deliver on concept!

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

I was about to make this point, and here Tcoat has helped me out.

While the term "sports car" is actually quite open to debate, an actual GT car has pretty defined parameters. A GT and a sports car both have capable engines, precise steering, 2 doors, and for the sake of argument, drive the rear wheels.

Where the GT differs is that luxury is not compromised in its sportiness. It's a Grand Tourer; capable of allowing the driver to cross the continent without discomfort and offering up the amenities found in actual luxury vehicles, while simultaneously offering up sports car power and handling. I literally did this in my MK3 (Nashville to LA in 30 hours with a friend), and honestly we could've driven an LS400 and probably have been only slightly more comfortable the entire trip.

My point is simply (in the context of this conversation regarding C&D); if it's not a GT, then its just a sports car.
@Guff Thanks man! I've been lining myself up to buy a twin for a few months now and have started posting around again because of it.

Holy smokes, OldSkoolToys you're back!

I really agree with the idea behind this, but it goes to show that "GT" is subjective, because one man's "luxury" is another man's "barebones". Some people say a Miata is a real sports car and a MR2 isn't because the MR2's suspension is not as good. Some people say the Miata isn't a real sports car because it's too slow. Some people say a Mustang isn't a real sports car because it's "too heavy" (nevermind the fact that a Lambo weighs even more).

If it's faster than average and has 2 doors, I'll call it "sports car" if it doesn't feel particularly luxurious to me.

This is where everyone's opinion diverges: I think a Porsche Cayman is a "GT" car because it has faux leather or real leather covering everything, a fancy climate control and entertainment system, and is very quiet on the road (well, depends on which tires you have). I feel about as comfortable sitting in one as I do sitting in a Lexus or Mercedes. Compared to a lowered MR2 or Lotus, even a Cayman R or GT4 might as well be a Lexus.

Other people think the Cayman is a "pure sports car" and set the "GT" bar higher at say, Bentley.

Then you have cars like an Aston Martin Vantage GT8 for example, which has a beautiful interior, but stiff ride (FWIW I have not driven one but would really love to). Some people would call a base Vantage or M3 a "real sports car", but IMO that's a big stretch, because they have hundreds of pounds of electric actuators, leather, and sound deadening which are taking a lot away from the performance.

IMO the FR-S is in an awkward position where it doesn't have much grip because of the poor weight distribution, doesn't have much power, and doesn't have a nice interior either. I'm super biased since I'm selling mine and going back to an MR2 Spyder though lol.

[Captain Snooze]

I thought a sports car was a car that played sports.

[joe strummer]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I thought a sports car was a car that played sports.

Attachment 141289

My God that's hilariously funny. Seriously, Captain, how do you come up with these?

[MR2fan]

First actual Supra prototype spotted!

http://www.supramkv.com/threads/2018...e-spotted.358/

[MR2fan]

Thought the new Supra might have been vaporware eventually Good to see it's not. Hope it's got the FT-1 style nose under the camouflage.

http://www.supramkv.com/threads/2018...e-spotted.358/

[Guff]

Originally Posted by MR2fan

First actual Supra prototype spotted!

http://www.supramkv.com/threads/2018...e-spotted.358/

I know that cars look strange in camo, but seriously that shape looks horrible. All bulbous and nasty.

[wbradley]

The tail lights look like they are just the round inside part of the twins enclosure, I guess the real tails are under the wrap. The heads are from the previous Supra I think. The dash they are using for this mule looks like a Lexus CT200H, console and all.

Toned down for sure.

They probably removed the big openings in the rear bumper of the concept car. The F1 nose for sure is toned down.

Let's face it, concept cars are exaggerated show car versions of a mass market product hopefully in the pipeline. Manufacturers make a dream car, then if everyone reacts positively they do their work taking out all the not feasible things they can hopefully without losing their captive audience in the process.

One of the worst tone-downs of recent memory for me was the current Subaru WRX. The reason I opted for the 5:AD body kit for my FR-S was that it makes the car more closely resemble the concept.

[Summerwolf]

Oh no. Hopefully that isn't indicative of the actual taillights being obscene 3d circles hanging off the rear. General size seems almost twin like now.


Hopefully more shots come out, and they stay as true as possible to the original concept. First spy shots though, gotta say I'm disappointed.

[funwheeldrive]

I have faith. It looks like the perfect size.

[Summerwolf]

There are a bunch of people on FB saying its the next gen 86. Either way, the big, round 3d taillights are a huge disappointment on either car. I'm hoping that is nothing like what the Supra will look like bodywise. The tear drop, angular tails of the concept, the active wing, it looks like they took the concept, cheapened it up, and miniaturized it. Obviously it is just a test car, so hopefully there are lots of changes before launch.