2020 Toyota GR Supra Revealed!

[WolfpackS2k]

4 cylinder Supra would be tempting if the weight difference was bigger, if it had a manual transmission, and if Toyota wasn't stripping the hell out of it. And for over $40k, not a chance.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

When was the last model of car that only existed for one year?

When was the last model of car that NOBODY bought in the first year?

[nextcar]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

When was the last model of car that NOBODY bought in the first year?

Fisker comes close...

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by nextcar

Fisker comes close...

Edsel was also close. But still some people bought them when they first came out so they at least tried for a couple of years.

[userjack6880]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

When was the last model of car that only existed for one year?

Originally Posted by Tcoat

When was the last model of car that NOBODY bought in the first year?

While I can't find evidence of a car NOBODY bought (just weak sales), there have been models of things that existed for one year, for various reasons. Mostly can think of two trucks and a hatchback. H3T, Blackwood, and the G3. Granted, two of those models were killed off not because of sales, but because their brands got axed. The Lincoln Blackwood just made no sense.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by userjack6880

While I can't find evidence of a car NOBODY bought (just weak sales), there have been models of things that existed for one year, for various reasons. Mostly can think of two trucks and a hatchback. H3T, Blackwood, and the G3. Granted, two of those models were killed off not because of sales, but because their brands got axed. The Lincoln Blackwood just made no sense.

There are unconfirmed rumours that of the 4 years that the Aztec were produced they ended up crushing more vehicles than they sold.

[userjack6880]

I mean, you also have the EV-1, which I believe nobody actually bought. Just paid to use for a little while before GM decided nobody should have one.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

There are unconfirmed rumours that of the 4 years that the Aztec were produced they ended up crushing more vehicles than they sold.

You mean to say, someone at GM had a conscious

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

You mean to say, someone at GM had a conscious

Not really. With the penalties they would have had to pay to all of the parts suppliers for cancelling their orders it was just cheaper to build and scrap them than it was not build them. The industry is weird that way.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by userjack6880

I mean, you also have the EV-1, which I believe nobody actually bought. Just paid to use for a little while before GM decided nobody should have one.

They were a lease only vehicle though so they don't count. The whole car was more an experiment than an actual long term proposition.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by nextcar

Perhaps... but then again, what exactly does Toyota lose by cannibalizing the low end of the Supra? It seems like the real loser would be BMW, since they bear the brunt of both manufacturing and engineering for the Supra.

IMHO Toyota doesn't really care if BMW recoups its costs or not, and in this type of arrangement there is typically not a lot of profit for the company that rebrands another company's product in the low end cars anyway. BMW is not selling this car to Toyota at cost...

If the next generation truly is based on Toyota's TNA then they might actually make more money on a highly optioned GR86 than a base Supra.

Pure speculation on my part...

I have no idea what Toyota's profit margins are on the Supra and 86, but I would bet they're significantly higher on a $50,000 car than a $30,000 one. Even if the profit percentages are similar for both (since they're each bought from someone else, BMW and Subaru respectively), there's an element of the fixed cost to build the car. Such as, it might cost $20,000 to build a $30,000 car, and perhaps $30,000 to build a $50,000 car. So from a purely financial perspective, they probably make a lot more on each Supra sold than an 86.

So, just like Porsche with the 911 and Cayman, Toyota won't want to risk losing a Supra sale to an 86 if buyers see them as too close. Toyota is a completely financially driven company, and will always do whatever makes them the most money.

As an aside, way back in 1990 I interviewed for a job in new product planning with Toyota (in California). Everyone I met with proudly pointed out to me that they were not car enthusiasts, they were strictly business people. They told me about the decision-making process, how there was a 'right way', a 'wrong way', and the 'Toyota way' of doing things, and everyone there must always do things the Toyota way, which meant strictly according to objective financial metrics.

I didn't get the job. The reason they gave me was they were concerned that I was 'too much of a gear head', and that I would let passion and emotion get in the way of making strictly financially-based decisions the Toyota way. Imagine that, a car company not wanting to hire someone because they liked cars too much.

This approach clearly works for Toyota, as they are the largest and arguably most successful car company in the world. But it doesn't always result in the kind of cars enthusiasts want.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

I have no idea what Toyota's profit margins are on the Supra and 86, but I would bet they're significantly higher on a $50,000 car than a $30,000 one. Even if the profit percentages are similar for both (since they're each bought from someone else, BMW and Subaru respectively), there's an element of the fixed cost to build the car. Such as, it might cost $20,000 to build a $30,000 car, and perhaps $30,000 to build a $50,000 car. So from a purely financial perspective, they probably make a lot more on each Supra sold than an 86.

So, just like Porsche with the 911 and Cayman, Toyota won't want to risk losing a Supra sale to an 86 if buyers see them as too close. Toyota is a completely financially driven company, and will always do whatever makes them the most money.

As an aside, way back in 1990 I interviewed for a job in new product planning with Toyota (in California). Everyone I met with proudly pointed out to me that they were not car enthusiasts, they were strictly business people. They told me about the decision-making process, how there was a 'right way', a 'wrong way', and the 'Toyota way' of doing things, and everyone there must always do things the Toyota way, which meant strictly according to objective financial metrics.

I didn't get the job. The reason they gave me was they were concerned that I was 'too much of a gear head', and that I would let passion and emotion get in the way of making strictly financially-based decisions the Toyota way. Imagine that, a car company not wanting to hire someone because they liked cars too much.

This approach clearly works for Toyota, as they are the largest and arguably most successful car company in the world. But it doesn't always result in the kind of cars enthusiasts want.

The average profit margin on new cars is 1-2% regardless of sale price. The companies make so much money through volume not margin.
I doubt that either of these models even make the 1% mark. They are not intended to be profit makers. Never were. Their value is in the attention they bring to the brand.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

They were a lease only vehicle though so they don't count. The whole car was more an experiment than an actual long term proposition.

Here is a shell for sale. Wonder how many survived?

https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?f...tofT1YaqHf-LWU

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Here is a shell for sale. Wonder how many survived?

https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?f...tofT1YaqHf-LWU

I know there was one said to be in a garage in Atlanta someplace. Saw it in a Youtube about abandoned tech at some point.

Edit: That was easy https://www.hagerty.com/articles-vid...parking-garage