Performance Wise - Almost Identical: FR-S vs. SLK 250

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by Supermassive

Pretty sure almost every one of the GT-R's produced sold. In fact Nissan made more GT-R's in 2011 than 2010. So up to but not including the 2012 MY 5,435 cars were made...the only sales figures i found showed up to the end of December 2010 with 4,153 sold up to that point. The car is intended to be rare and sells perfectly fine at it's price point. The Supra should fill that niche as well, we already have an affordable sports car in the FR-S/BRZ which will no doubt receive TRD/STi versions bumping performance up. Then they will have the entry level sports car in the MR2 successor. Toyota needs a sports car to compete with the likes of Corvette, Porsche, Nissan GT-R, Viper, etc.

Of course I could be completely wrong and they'll target it as a Grand Touring car and compete with the M3 coupe, C63, and Toyota's own IS-F.

just over 6000 gtr sold in the US.. I wonder why toyota would feel to create another niche car that wont sell well since they already got the lfa.. I sure hope they price it around a mustang or 370z as I'd sure want to own one one day

[ziggz501]

If they did decide to resurrect the supra, it would most likely end up being marketed as a lexus if the price point goes beyond 35k. even so, i'm not sure that toyota has the juevos to make an attempt on the gtr, so i just don't see them making the next gen supra at the 80k+ price point (not to mention all the other competition: 911, viper, corvette z06, etc). in all honesty, i think they should put it in the 35k-50k area. the IS-F is their supposed M3 competitor, so that's why they should stay below 50k.
meh. i'm just rambling. conclusion: from my perspective, toyota's current position in the market doesn't allow for much wiggle room to make a supra, less they drop their IS-F

[Supermassive]

Originally Posted by ziggz501

If they did decide to resurrect the supra, it would most likely end up being marketed as a lexus if the price point goes beyond 35k. even so, i'm not sure that toyota has the juevos to make an attempt on the gtr, so i just don't see them making the next gen supra at the 80k+ price point (not to mention all the other competition: 911, viper, corvette z06, etc). in all honesty, i think they should put it in the 35k-50k area. the IS-F is their supposed M3 competitor, so that's why they should stay below 50k.
meh. i'm just rambling. conclusion: from my perspective, toyota's current position in the market doesn't allow for much wiggle room to make a supra, less they drop their IS-F

I know, most of the people here don't really get what the Supra was. It was made specifically for the war for the best sports car in Japan. You had Nissan with the GT-R, Mazda with the RX-7, and Toyota with the Supra. There were obviously different trim levels thus the N/A examples, but the war was between the top trims. These cars were expensive for their time and not as widespread as everyone thinks. In Japan there is a competitive nature that's not really understood here in America. If someone in Japan makes something, you can bet that someone else is trying to beat it. The GT-R is in a class of it's own. It's a technical marvel, it will smoke an LFA at a quarter of the cost, and sells very well for a $80k+ car. Toyota doesn't need a $30k-ish car, the FRS/BRZ will fill that role when the performance versions come out. They don't need a $50k-$60k car because the ISF fills that role. They don't need a super exotic because the LFA fills that role.

So looking at it like that the Supra logically fits in a slot that directly competes with the GT-R. Wishing and hoping that the car will be priced equivalent to the G37 is silly. Would it be nice? yes. But the reality is I would prefer Toyota take it to Godzilla and do it in the name of the Supra, than to dilute the name by making it a middle of the road performance car that could have been greater. The Supra is meant to kick ass and take names, Toyota would be dumb to let Nissan get all the accolades for bending physics with the GT-R and not have something to show that Toyota is just as innovative.

[RazorHawk]

Originally Posted by Khánh

[/LEFT]


anyone cares to explain how this is possible? slower 0-60.. slower trap speed but yet still have the same 1/4 mile time?

FRS doesnt have the tires to launch well enough, but catches up at the end.

[cuddefred]

Err.. I'm not sure this answers the question. Whether it has poor tires doesn't really come into it because according to the figures the FRS reaches 60 before the Merc. Therefore it is in front at that point and also travelling quicker at the trap.

The answer can only be to do with gearing as the Merc must be travelling quicker than the FRS at some point between 60 mph and the trap speed for them to have the same quarter mile time. That said, the difference between the cars 0-60 and trap times would leave them pretty close to each other anyway. :happy0180:

Originally Posted by RazorHawk

FRS doesnt have the tires to launch well enough, but catches up at the end.

[RazorHawk]

Originally Posted by cuddefred

Err.. I'm not sure this answers the question. Whether it has poor tires doesn't really come into it because according to the figures the FRS reaches 60 before the Merc. Therefore it is in front at that point and also travelling quicker at the trap.

The answer can only be to do with gearing as the Merc must be travelling quicker than the FRS at some point between 60 mph and the trap speed for them to have the same quarter mile time. That said, the difference between the cars 0-60 and trap times would leave them pretty close to each other anyway. :happy0180:

The way I envision the race is, the SLK would take off imediately, lets say get a 1 car length lead right off the line, and then the FR-s reels it in all the way down the track.

[cuddefred]

Originally Posted by RazorHawk

The way I envision the race is, the SLK would take off imediately, lets say get a 1 car length lead right off the line, and then the FR-s reels it in all the way down the track.

Yep, that is possible. As I say, they are so close it really comes down only a matter of a few yards one way or the other.

[jshadeck]

Originally Posted by RazorHawk

The way I envision the race is, the SLK would take off imediately, lets say get a 1 car length lead right off the line, and then the FR-s reels it in all the way down the track.

Except this would negate the 0-60 data right? Id be interested to know the gearing, as 93mph in the fr-s requires 3 shifts, maybe the slks 3rd gear is slightly taller and there for would only require 2 shifts to hit the same speed?

[Pascal_TTH]

I own SLK R171 so previous model. It's a nice car but it's a heavy car. Mine weights 1520 Kg with tank full and myself in. BRZ is about 1320 Kg with a driver. I try the new SLK but I did not like it. About the same feeling as mine. I try a BRZ and next month, I order it. Pure handling delight is true ! SLK is more cosy than sporty.