Honestly, I think the car has had a healthy life span - why do we need to perpetuate the new manufacturing of this platform? All good things come to an end - let the manufacturers dedicate their resources to the up and coming, rather than re-heating old, but good pizza.

Yep. They offered up an inexpensive, lightweight, NA powered car based on extensive market research that told them it was what was wanted. If it isn't what some people want then they really don't care. Should they change it to what one group wants then there will just be another group that will complain it is different. Whatever plans they have were made before the first car ever rolled off the line and no amount of internet whining will change them.
Don't think this will be a model that will carry on through several different versions until the end result is a vehicle that only shares the name with it's predecessors. Ya, I am looking at YOU "Supra".

Thunderbird

https://media.giphy.com/media/JIe9KLItH0cCc/giphy.gif

Spoken words truer¿ been never have

Chevy Blazer

Pontiac GTO?

https://www.allpar.com/model/images/...68-charger.jpg
https://d2v4ufu9spmik6.cloudfront.ne...90/2685063.JPG

I want the 86 to last as long and have as many variations as teh Porsche 911...it's only three years younger than me...


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cn08mGnBTh...e-Simpson.jpeg


Just realized the first 911T 1973 model I drove only had 140hp and 148.5ftlb of torque and weighed 2315lbs...that was a fun car with tires sized 165mm70 15...127mph top end like the twin too...

https://www.excellence-mag.com/resources/specs/23


It was bright Orange-Red...We called it "Hand-grenade Orange"


http://www.spannerhead.com/wp-conten...che_911T_1.jpg

So what, specifically, does a manufacturer need to do to make a "good" successor?

For example, what changes should be made to the current Charger to make it more worthy of the name? Could the modern Challenger just have a Charger nameplate slapped onto it instead and be a "better" successor? What would you change about the new Supra?

Make constant improvements...not bloat like the 70's 240-260-280 Z cars...and don't go backward ala Mustang II...to start

https://dxsdcl7y7vn9x.cloudfront.net...998898CD_1.jpg

http://1-photos7.motorcar.com/used-2...987-1-1024.jpg

Well for starters let's not take a 4 door sedan, slap a badge on it and call it something it has zero in common with.
The Challenger is a good example of doing it well. So are the Camaro and Mustang. Even though they have changed over the years you can still see the heritage.
So exactly what can you say about the Supra that ties it to the previous generations? You can't even go with "Toyota made it". I am not saying I would change anything but that does not make a brand new designed from the ground up car a continuance to anything other than in name. It is just marketing in the long run.

A "Supra" would have a Toyota inline six. Hand it over to the same engineers who did the LFA engine.

Supra needs a tweeked 3.5L twin-turbo V6 engine from the new Lexus.

IMO a V6 has better harmonics than IL6.

Sadly, the Supra is a BMW not a Toyota.

Just like the Toyota 86 is really a Subaru BRZ with a couple of Toyota P/N's.

It's just lucky the twins come from the breeding of 2 Jap car makers with good reliability.

If the twins were a Subaru and BMW mix I would not have a Toyota 86 :scared0016: