2020 Toyota GR Supra Revealed!

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by gymratter

Good video. No LSD (even as an extra cost option) on the 2.0 makes no sense. What was Toyota thinking? Also, I am still amused that this version of the Supra shares its B48 engine with a Mini Cooper S. BMW get good use out of that motor!

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Red-86

Good video. No LSD (even as an extra cost option) on the 2.0 makes no sense. What was Toyota thinking? Also, I am still amused that this version of the Supra shares its B48 engine with a Mini Cooper S. BMW get good use out of that motor!

Did you know all McLarens have an open diff? That means they are useless.

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by Red-86

Good video. No LSD (even as an extra cost option) on the 2.0 makes no sense. What was Toyota thinking?

im just guessing but as the site's mod said; once you start adding on stuff to the 2.0 it starts stepping on the toes of the 3.0

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Did you know all McLarens have an open diff? That means they are useless.

LOL, pretty sure McLaren’s brake based torque vectoring is in another league to the Supra’s. Much bigger brakes, exotic compounds, way better tyres etc.

Brake based systems save weight and cost, but they are inherently less efficient than a proper LSD. The excess heat and brake wear generated by brake based torque vectoring results in some loss of power - not as much of an issue when you are playing with 500+ HP, more of an issue in a 250HP car.

Last but not least, if Toyota felt brake based torque vectoring offered superior performance in the A90 they wouldn’t bother putting an LSD in the more expensive 3.0 would they? Of course not. Let’s face facts, the lack of an LSD in the 2.0 is a cost saving measure, nothing more.

[nashcarr]

The automatic scares me away from the 2.0 MORE than the fact that it only has an open differential. For the fun factor of simple "driving pleasure" (not speaking about straight line speed here, go get a Mustang for that) it's tough to beat the nimble 86. Especially when you consider the cost.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Red-86

LOL, pretty sure McLaren’s brake based torque vectoring is in another league to the Supra’s. Much bigger brakes, exotic compounds, way better tyres etc.

Brake based systems save weight and cost, but they are inherently less efficient than a proper LSD. The excess heat and brake wear generated by brake based torque vectoring results in some loss of power - not as much of an issue when you are playing with 500+ HP, more of an issue in a 250HP car.

Last but not least, if Toyota felt brake based torque vectoring offered superior performance in the A90 they wouldn’t bother putting an LSD in the more expensive 3.0 would they? Of course not. Let’s face facts, the lack of an LSD in the 2.0 is a cost saving measure, nothing more.

Sarcasm mode engaged
But...
But...
But...
I want all of the features of the top line for the cost of an economy car!
I am ENTITLED to it since the manufacturers make 1000% profit on each car anyway.
Sarcasm mode off

[ZDan]

$43k is hardly the cost of an "economy" car. And the FT86 comes with a limited slip at a MUCH lower price.

They are assuming that people interested in the 2.0 don't care about handling performance any more than they care about straight-line performance. In my case they're wrong. I would be at least somewhat interested in the 2.0 at the asking price if it came with a limited slip and the Brembo brakes. Without those, not so much...

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ZDan

$43k is hardly the cost of an "economy" car. And the FT86 comes with a limited slip at a MUCH lower price.

They are assuming that people interested in the 2.0 don't care about handling performance any more than they care about straight-line performance. In my case they're wrong. I would be at least somewhat interested in the 2.0 at the asking price if it came with a limited slip and the Brembo brakes. Without those, not so much...

Did you not notice the sarcasm alert?
You do know what sarcasm is right?
That was sarcasm by the way.


The point was exactly what you just said you wanted. You want full features on the less expensive version of the car. For it to be less expensive they have to cut some things out. The fact it is $43K means it is still less costly than the other. We are not talking Twins here since without the diff they would be even cheaper.

[ZDan]

Yeah I caught the sarcasm and obviously I took it exactly as you intended it...

[WolfpackS2k]

Anyone trying to convince people that a brake based LSD function is a good thing, is running a fool's errand. Its the cheapest and worst LSD band-aid available. Especially for anything being run around a race track (rear brakes never get a chance to properly cool off).

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Anyone trying to convince people that a brake based LSD function is a good thing, is running a fool's errand. Its the cheapest and worst LSD band-aid available. Especially for anything being run around a race track (rear brakes never get a chance to properly cool off).

My comment on McLaren's open diffs was a satire of this conversation:

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...=139570&page=5

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Papadakis has given me blue balls for the final video. Just thought I would share.

Awwwww...relieved...

[gymratter]

(before the official press release) the pro 2.0 people over at the MKV forum said the it was going to have all the bells and whistles of the 3.0 but minus 2 cylinders for $10k less. now that we found out that its basically Japan's 2.0 stripped down version with the 255hp tune for only $8k less, the interested has seem to die down.

[BA9092]

Originally Posted by nashcarr

The automatic scares me away from the 2.0 MORE than the fact that it only has an open differential.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by ZDan

$43k is hardly the cost of an "economy" car. And the FT86 comes with a limited slip at a MUCH lower price.

And this.

The "automatic only" is where they dropped the ball on the 2.0.

Sure, it would've been nice to have a manual in the 3.0 as well, but more and more performance cars are going the auto-only way - C8, the Italians, R8... Even the R35 has always been auto-only.

But, coming back to the 2.0. In auto-only, it can't really compete with anything. The MX-5, 86 and Mustang all get manuals and they'd be the closest competitors.

And while the 2.0 is light and lively, it still begs for performance upgrades to be a formidable target to attract buyers away from the aforementioned models. But already at $43k, there is little room for justifiable mods when you "should've just gotten..."

It also maybe more balanced and better handling than the 3.0. True. But it certainly has come with a cost.