Quote:
Originally Posted by BA9092
I agree, the 2.0 should be incorporated into the industry, but they should've made it more visually distinguishable to the 3.0 - maybe delete all the black trim around the front lip, side skirts and rear diffuser? Also, it should've been called something else - Celica?
Lastly, personal opinion - a true Supra is an inline-6 turbo. Adding a 4-pot in a Supra seems way more contradictory to its heritage than having a partnership with BMW.
If I were to upgrade from my FI manual BRZ, it would definitely be the 3.0.
|
so from the interview Tada said this didn't happen (2.0 being spin off as its own model) because of timing. i think it has more to do with cost. much cheaper and faster to just drop in a 2.0 and slap on a Supra badge vs giving the 2.0 different head & taillights, front & rear bumpers, and designing a new Celica badge.
yeah a lot of people feel the same way. one guy even used Tada's own words against him about how a Supra "must have an I6". so does that mean the 2.0 'Supra' isnt a real Supra?
before people start jumping on my back, im not anti 2.0. but maybe the execution could have gone a little better. now playing devil's advocate, i do understand that cost, market condition, and board members do make things a littler harder to achieve.