Quote:
Originally Posted by go2brz
Name me one Toyota car that is remembered or listed by auto writers, classic car magazines, as being a memorable "sports car". Don't list off thier failures and classify them as meaningful cars to the sports car history.
I don't care one bit what you think about my history of rebuilding, racing and winning trophies with sports cars that are remembered and gaining in value as they grow older. I only went there because you or some other Toyota excuse maker decide I was just a fanboy and questioned my knowledge and experience with automobiles. It was that person who seemed to think it was important to have some credentials so I listed them It was not bragging, it was out of defense of being told that I must not know much. If you missed that, then you should read every post and give smart responses instead of giving me crap. You are the one making personal remarks.
I never said anything about Subaru being great, I only said that this car was great and that Subaru had more to do with it being great than Toyota, and that they had more purity of concept when they went to make a vehicle than Toyota does. And yes I do believe that one of the largest and richest auto companies in the world should be able to make this care if they felt they could do it right. But they asked Subaru to do it. (One of he smallest independent mass producer of cars in the world could not sell enough units to justify development costs of a complete platform not usable for other models, so yes they needed Toyota. To make the car viable in sales numbers to be profitable and sustainable) If a wealthy car company wanted to build a game changing "affordable" sports cars, why would they ask someone else to do the design work of the platform, and use their engine design, providing little else. So just tell me what is made by Toyota in this car besides the ECU managment with direct injection system? Not much. What input did they have in the platform layout and engineering? Not much according to the chariman of Toyota which again is in public print from back in April of 2012. Facts are facts. people can ignore them quite easily if they don't want to believe them, but don't condemn me for reminding people of those facts.
You see different reasons than I do. Fine, I don't really care if you agree with me. But it turned into a bunch of bull from people who either choose to ignore things as they were written, or to put words in my posts that were never there. Believe what you like, but to say that Toyota dragged Subaru into making a car for them says many things that conflicts with your base argument. All of which some here choose to ignore.
My point exactly. If Toyota had of mass produced the GT2000, then my earlier post would have been wrong. But they did not. There were very, very few of them built, never sold in production numbers.
In General as to the what constitutes a sports car, I tried to be clear but obviously was not. My reference would be a Lotus Elan, or a Datusn 240Z, or a Mazda Miata (and others) when I said a "true" sports car. A car that is very light, well balanced and has great road holding capability making it a fun car to drive around a road coarse or to autocross, and be truly competitive yet is affordable to most buyers. There are lots of great sporting cars, GT's, Touring and exotic cars made by mass producers, but not many of them fit this category. I think this car is in that class. Name me a Toyota that has dominated it's SCCA class, or it's autocrossing class in decades. There are none. But a little company that you want to disparage has done that. If a sports car can not do that then it has been compromised in design for sales/marketing or the power of bean counters. That seems to be the story of Toyota and sports/sporty cars that they mass produce. Sorry if you do not like my opinion, but at least it has a good amount of facts behind it, not blind allegiance to any one company.
|
the supra was a pretty memorable car and received much praise. the mr2 is every bit as sports car as the elan or miata (in fact, the spyder is over 100lbs lighter than the same year miatas). the gt2000 was a super car. why would you expect that to be mass produced? scca classes are stupid to judge cars by becuase when i car is good, they let it be outclassed. do you honestly believe the na6 miata is better than the na8? it wins more in autox races.
you might not have said anything explicitly great about subaru but you said was at least they were "a force in wrc" right after you talked about toyotas "miserable failures." not to sound like a broken record but, toyota has done better in wrc than subaru. thats one of those "facts" you initally brought up but, lately, keep ignoring.
look, i could go on and debate the doezens of pointless statements youve made. im not judging you by the cars youve owned. im judging you by the ridiculous things youre saying.
my bottom line is that toyota knows how to make great sports cars. when you put a bunch of subaru engineers with a bunch of toyota engineers, you get a great sports car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.b
Subaru fans aren't coming here talking about a great sportscar heritage.
-Justin
|
that guy was. i dont really mean to disrespect that company any. i had a huge spot in my heart for the first wrx to make it stateside. it just bothers me when people talk like subaru did all the work because toyota cant make a sports car. if none of the dozen sports cars over the decades isnt a sports car, subaru has never even attempted to make a sports car. im not sure there is anything subaru can do better than toyota and thats okay because i really can respect them for their whole niche market thing.