2020 Toyota GR Supra Revealed!

[Irace86.2.0]

That brings the starting price of the GR Supra down to $44,990.

Uh, you mean it brings it down to $73,681...

https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-...ckType=listing

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by gymratter

for those that missed it. interview done by @ichitaka05

https://www.supramkv.com/threads/sup...gr-supra.3445/

Great interview. One thing is odd to me though. It seems like with the Supra 2.0t, Toyota was specifically targeting Twins owners who wanted more power from the factory. In other words, the "bridge" between the 86/BRZ and Supra 3.0t.

In that case, I think one area that Toyota completely missed the boat was by not offering a manual. I think the take rate for the MT with the Twins is pretty significant, probably close to 50% averaged between the two models. And it's probably close to 100% for the performance-oriented buyers (i.e., the ones that would likely want more power and might upgrade to the Supra 2.0T or 3.0T). From personal experience at the track, I've seen plenty of Twins and NONE were automatic. Zero.

So why didn't Toyota offer the 2.0T, the supposed performance bridge between the Twins and the Supra 3.0T, with a manual? I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't even consider one due to the lack of a MT option. I can sort of understand for marketing purposes if they were chasing laptimes and 0-60/quarter times in the 3.0T and only wanted an automatic offered in that car, but in the 2.0T who cares?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

There were 2,800 Supras sold last year. You don't think there are a few thousand Mustang and Camaro buyers from the 150,000+ buyers who would cross shop a Supra, so Toyota could meet its sales goal of 5-6k/year?

I didn't say that, I just said of the ones I know, I don't believe any of them would move to a Supra, or any other two seater because they use the back seats in their cars, or at least like that flexibility. It's also one of the primary reasons I wouldn't own one. (And yes, I have used the back seats in my 86 on more than one occasion).

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I didn't say that, I just said of the ones I know, I don't believe any of them would move to a Supra, or any other two seater because they use the back seats in their cars, or at least like that flexibility. It's also one of the primary reasons I wouldn't own one. (And yes, I have used the back seats in my 86 on more than one occasion).

Not much point in such a comment then.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Not much point in such a comment then.

The point is, I don't think Toyota can depend on there being a huge market in the Mustang/Camaro crowd for a Supra. Yes, there may be some, just as there some in the 100s of thousands of truck buyers every year, but its not the target audience.

The Supra is Toyota's lowest volume mainstream car in the US. I doubt they really care how many they sell, it's a prestige thing more than a volume thing. I personally also think they screwed up the opportunity, and lost a lot of potential buyers along the way. Add to that the dealerships trying to make a fortune off each car and it all adds up to an opportunity lost.

Your opinion, not doubt, varies.

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Great interview. One thing is odd to me though. It seems like with the Supra 2.0t, Toyota was specifically targeting Twins owners who wanted more power from the factory. In other words, the "bridge" between the 86/BRZ and Supra 3.0t.

In that case, I think one area that Toyota completely missed the boat was by not offering a manual. I think the take rate for the MT with the Twins is pretty significant, probably close to 50% averaged between the two models. And it's probably close to 100% for the performance-oriented buyers (i.e., the ones that would likely want more power and might upgrade to the Supra 2.0T or 3.0T). From personal experience at the track, I've seen plenty of Twins and NONE were automatic. Zero.

So why didn't Toyota offer the 2.0T, the supposed performance bridge between the Twins and the Supra 3.0T, with a manual? I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't even consider one due to the lack of a MT option. I can sort of understand for marketing purposes if they were chasing laptimes and 0-60/quarter times in the 3.0T and only wanted an automatic offered in that car, but in the 2.0T who cares?

i believe in one of his videos Guff said Toyota is now seriously considering a MT for the Supra. i imagine that poor sales, internet backlash, and pretty much every review video ends with something along these lines "the auto trans in the Supra is good, but we wish Toyota would still offer a MT for those that like to row the gears" is finally making Toyota reconsider.

[Joveen]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Great interview. One thing is odd to me though. It seems like with the Supra 2.0t, Toyota was specifically targeting Twins owners who wanted more power from the factory. In other words, the "bridge" between the 86/BRZ and Supra 3.0t.

In that case, I think one area that Toyota completely missed the boat was by not offering a manual. I think the take rate for the MT with the Twins is pretty significant, probably close to 50% averaged between the two models. And it's probably close to 100% for the performance-oriented buyers (i.e., the ones that would likely want more power and might upgrade to the Supra 2.0T or 3.0T). From personal experience at the track, I've seen plenty of Twins and NONE were automatic. Zero.

So why didn't Toyota offer the 2.0T, the supposed performance bridge between the Twins and the Supra 3.0T, with a manual? I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't even consider one due to the lack of a MT option. I can sort of understand for marketing purposes if they were chasing laptimes and 0-60/quarter times in the 3.0T and only wanted an automatic offered in that car, but in the 2.0T who cares?

More power but where the manual transmission at tho? I agree with you that I would only consider one if the manual transmission was made available.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The point is, I don't think Toyota can depend on there being a huge market in the Mustang/Camaro crowd for a Supra. Yes, there may be some, just as there some in the 100s of thousands of truck buyers every year, but its not the target audience.

The Supra is Toyota's lowest volume mainstream car in the US. I doubt they really care how many they sell, it's a prestige thing more than a volume thing. I personally also think they screwed up the opportunity, and lost a lot of potential buyers along the way. Add to that the dealerships trying to make a fortune off each car and it all adds up to an opportunity lost.

Your opinion, not doubt, varies.

My point is, there doesn't need to be a huge market. 1% of the domestic market would be enough, which makes the comment irrelevant. There are plenty of people that cross shop different cars, and there are plenty of people that jump to new rides just to experience something different, and there are plenty of people that don't need four seats in a sports car. There has to be because there are many companies that sell Mustang and Camaro rear seat delete kits.

[gymratter]

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.

[Irace86.2.0]

Most manufacturers have downsized displacement and added a turbo for emissions. BMW doesn’t even have a NA I6 in production. The Supra wouldn’t be immune to the industry changes. I see no need why the SZ or SZ-R needs to have a six cylinder to be a Supra, and I think the only reason they considered a separate model wasn’t because of the engine, but because they could make the quality of the model less than the Supra, so it could be priced lower. As it is, the Supra SZ-R will probably be priced in the high thirties to low forties, so something could have existed in the $32k-$40k range.

[ichitaka05]

Man, after re-reading that interview, I swear I did proofread before publishing, but so many errors (my bad).

To answer few things. From the beginning, 2.0L 4cylinder Supra wasn’t in Tada-san’s mind. He was only focusing only inline 6 RWD Supra. More than half way through the development, 2.0 came along (prob from BMW side). After much debate, Toyota side tested out 2.0L ver and enjoyed it a lot more than they expected. Then Tada-san took it as step latter for current 86 owner, instead of having a huge step going from 2.0 NA 86 to 3.0 Turbo Supra.

Now, everyone will think “Well if that’s the case, they should of brought it in MT.” I hear ya. But keep in mind, 2.0L Supra wasn’t in the development time sheet. Plus MT isn’t in there as well, so they can’t just LEGO things together & call it good.

Another thing I hear is “Why they brought more hp ver yr after the launch? They could of just do that from first yr.” That’s another thing need to keep in mind. Tada-san IS Chief Engineer, but still need to get approval. Within Supra project, he decide, from there, he need to present to the board & Morizou. If they approve, Tada-san can keep going to next phase of the project. B58 engine they were giving, tested, developed, presented & approved by the board was the first gen Supra engine. Almost the end phase, BMW showing off their version. It’s not like they can just swap em in there w higher hp B58 & call it good. They need to be tested, developed, improved, presented & approved before make it into the production.

Biggest question I still hear is “Why didn’t they make MT?” and sadly, I don’t have answer to this. Maybe they have some deal w BMW. Maybe upstairs Toyota said something. Maybe Tada-san didn’t want to kill off 86 sales. Truth of matter is, I don’t know the reason why and prob won’t find out.

...From here, it’s just me rambling, so take it as a grain of salt & nothing official. Later that day, I had a chance to go to PEC in LA w 3 other men. There, we learn what makes Porsche the Porsche. Me & friend were explaining to other person that even now, Porsche makes MT, lighter driver oriented sports car within all the PDK sports cars they make. Even limited amount and might be lil bit expensive than other models. Maybe be lil bit slower 0-60 than PDK, they still make one. Why? Because they know that, there are buyer who’s interested in those kind of niche car, even though Porsche sports car is already a niche car as is. There a buyer who like shifting through the gear, because that’s part of driving. Part of owning sports car that talk to you more. Not about can shifting 0.1 sec. it’s about knowing you’re shifting through the gears... & all sort of gearhead talk. After experiencing through PEC, one of them really rethink how important of having MT & driver oriented car.

There’s also rumor saying, riding Porsche Taycan Turbo I almost shit brick from doing the 1/4 mile... it’s only a rumor lol

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

To answer few things. From the beginning, 2.0L 4cylinder Supra wasn’t in Tada-san’s mind. He was only focusing only inline 6 RWD Supra. More than half way through the development, 2.0 came along (prob from BMW side). After much debate, Toyota side tested out 2.0L ver and enjoyed it a lot more than they expected. Then Tada-san took it as step latter for current 86 owner, instead of having a huge step going from 2.0 NA 86 to 3.0 Turbo Supra.

Now, everyone will think “Well if that’s the case, they should of brought it in MT.” I hear ya. But keep in mind, 2.0L Supra wasn’t in the development time sheet. Plus MT isn’t in there as well, so they can’t just LEGO things together & call it good.

Biggest question I still hear is “Why didn’t they make MT?” and sadly, I don’t have answer to this. Maybe they have some deal w BMW. Maybe upstairs Toyota said something. Maybe Tada-san didn’t want to kill off 86 sales. Truth of matter is, don’t the reason why and prob won’t find out.

After experiencing through PEC, one of them really rethink how important of having MT & driver oriented car.

Seems like the MT was definitely part of the development, but I believe it was said that it wasn't good enough for the Supra. Maybe the car was losing too much traction and the automatic was just so much better that the manual didn't do the car justice.

I question the notion that the car wouldn't come with a 2.0T, and then when that was determined, they decided to release two versions of the 2.0T (SZ and SZ-R). It seemed like there are always multiple engines available in Japan and in Europe for insurance, registration and fuel costs. Why those versions didn't have the manual transmission is beyond me, especially when the manual transmission is so popular in markets like Japan and Europe and even more for sports cars. It also eliminates the Supra from drifting unless someone swaps in a manual. Just annoying.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Seems like the MT was definitely part of the development, but I believe it was said that it wasn't good enough for the Supra. Maybe the car was losing too much traction and the automatic was just so much better that the manual didn't do the car justice.

I question the notion that the car wouldn't come with a 2.0T, and then when that was determined, they decided to release two versions of the 2.0T (SZ and SZ-R). It seemed like there are always multiple engines available in Japan and in Europe for insurance, registration and fuel costs. Why those versions didn't have the manual transmission is beyond me, especially when the manual transmission is so popular in markets like Japan and Europe and even more for sports cars. It also eliminates the Supra from drifting unless someone swaps in a manual. Just annoying.

FYI that pic is a 2.0 ver (iirc), & you can clearly see that it's Z4 model from the looking at the interior. I know there's a 3.0 MT ver as well... but don't quote me on this. When they start testing 2.0 ver, they tested out BMW Z4 prototype MT on both 2.0 & 3.0. Both failed (why? idk). So they axed the idea of MT.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

but I believe it was said that it wasn't good enough for the Supra.

Maybe they meant this in a qualitative sense, not a quantitative one. BMW manuals suck. You know how the BRZ shifter is tight and precise, with nice feedback and short throws? How the clutch has a short throw and it's pretty predictable and linear?

BMW manuals are nothing like that. The shifter is rubbery as hell, imprecise, long throws and no feedback. The clutch is vague and totally unpredictable. This is partly by design (Clutch Delay Valve) and partly because they use a flimsy plastic pedal with a varying mechanical advantage over the master cylinder. On top of that the clutch travel is so large you have to lift your knee up to release it fully. BMW manuals are manual, but that is really the extent of it. They’re not really rewarding to operate.

This is coming from me as a long time BMW driver, I've gone through 4 manual BMWs and drive several friends' ones regularly.