Official: Toyota FT-1 Concept / First New Supra Prototype Spotted!

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by ZDan

For me, I do not care where the Supra falls relative to these "common pony cars" in terms of hard numbers like acceleration/skidpad/braking or Lightning Laps or Nurburgring times. Other aspects are more important to me. - It will just be interesting to see. Obviously sometimes a car speaks to you more than pure numbers do, that's why I'm sure 90% of people who own one of these cars are in a twin.

This may be true *for you*. I can only tell you that over years of stepping into and out of many different cars at the track, I personally (speaking only for myself!) enjoy being in much smaller lighterweight cars vs. larger heavier cars. Even if it means slower lap times, or even less lateral g capability. In particular one day at Mont Tremblant I was in and out of a GTR and a Lotus Elise. GTR was *scads* faster and more capable. But it was the Elise I had the most fun in... Made my S2000 feel like a big heavy boat in comparison... It is very subjective! I've had memorable experiences in a lot of cars but standouts are a turbo MR2 and a ride along in an R35 when they were new. After owning so many different vehicles I can respect anything that's fun.

So what? There are things that are more important even to some of us trackhounds!
FWIW the 4-cylinder 1LE is a direct price competitor to the FT86 with Brembos. What does that mean? Personally, despite it being a lot slower, the BRZ PP was by far *the* car for me to buy. Camaro 1LE, while IMO a very cool car in it's own way, is just not for me and emphatically NOT what I want for a DD and track car. The subjective experience *is* very different... I was pointing out that the 1le cars always seem to punch above their pricetag. While it might be on par with the BRZ PP price wise, its performance is on par with other vehicles.

Having been driven around the track in these "brick-like behemoths", all I can say that the experience vs. even an oversized/overweight sports car like the 370Z is *not at all similar*. To ME anyway... After owning a few "brick like behemoths" I can say I'd prefer many to something like a 370Z (which I have never been impressed with.) The 350Z / 370Z / G35 always felt like a newer mustang to me. I can say that I had a Z06 and I liked how the twin was reminiscent of that experience, albeit much less capable.


Still don't agree with the notion that the mere availability of a "lesser" version takes the top-dog model "down a notch". Existence of base-model 911 doesn't reduce or take down the GTxRS models, not as far as I'm concerned anyway... The right comparison would be something like the marquee Porsche cars (Carrerra GT, 918). Something top tier and exclusive. Originally (obviously incorrectly) this car was kind of hyped that it would be an NSX / GTR competitor, its just slowly been making its way down the ladder to where it seems like it will be now less of a premier option.

Any case, I don't want or need for this car to be a Japanese/Austrian/German C7. - Actually that's exactly what I wanted it to be, lol. Something with C7 like performance without a ton of modifications needed. We will see how it stacks out shortly.

It strikes me as exceedingly odd that you make the point that a 4-cylinder version (not a typical "pony car" powerplant!) is what makes the Jr. Supra *more* like a "pony car"! - Why? More options, lower price tags, it makes it more mass marketable vs. being an exclusive flagship car.

But anyway, consider for a moment that it's late 1969, there's a 230hp SOHC 6 Firebird on the market, and also a 150hp SOHC6 240Z. Did anyone cross-shop these cars? Probably. Are they *really* comparable? Not to me they aren't. Surely the Firebird was quicker, but for me, SO WHAT, 240Z all day every day... Most enthusiasts would have sprung for the V8 TA. Especially in the 60's/70's. I see your point on this one though. Both are timeless in a way, but...yeah 240.

This is a minor factor for me. But still, the very idea of lugging all that extra size and weight around and having to buy huge and expensive enormo wheels and tires is a factor. More so for me, it's a philosophical point: All that expense in terms of more power, bigger wheels, bigger tires, bigger brakes, because you started with an enormously oversized "sporty" car. Seems very wrong to me... Not sure I understand the philosophical side of this. What is wrong with starting with a higher performing base? You're just taking advantage of what the factory provides as opposed to building something yourself or not having it at all. Besides, most people can't take full use of what they own anyways. I always read about this debate with bikes too.... like people recommended starting with a 250. I never understood that. I (personally) started with a bigger bike and learned throttle control and braking pretty quickly and then I grew in to what I had. Same thing with cars, really.

Z4 sizes have been seen on Supras being tested: 225/45-18 fronts and 255/40-18 rears.- Not "ginormo" but not the easiest tire sizes to grab either.

I had a better version of this typed out and got logged out, but see above. Overall I just seem to see people not giving respect to many current offerings and saying that lightweight is the only factor. Its easy to add power and hard to remove weight, but some cars can truly be surprising and provide pleasurable driving experiences even if they're not featherweights. As crazy as this is, the BRZ almost feels like my old Z06 in general turn in and seating position and overall feel when driving. It doesn't have the power, grip, or braking capabilities, but the overall sense is similar in a way. All of this is subjective and most of this has been bench racing. Can't wait for the real info to be coming out, been following the Supra like I did the BRZ. Very interested in the car and as enthusiasts speak with their wallets more options become available.

[vh_supra26]

https://www.supramkv.com/threads/lea...a.1463/page-11

[WolfpackS2k]

I can't wait for the reveal....

Just kidding. Because you know they're just going to show us the car. Not tell us it's weight or price. Because they never do...

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The wheelbase dimensions are things that can be felt when cornering, right? But it is the body dimensions and cabin dimensions I was referring to. Wheelbase is negligible between the two.

The length of the MKIV vs 86 is 10''. I sold my 96' hardtop Supra in 2007, so it has been 11 years, but from memory, the hood was not only longer, but was taller. The 86's hood also slants down, which really makes it feel smaller from the driver's perspective. The MKIV was wider by an inch, but I wish I had seat to seat or door panel to door panel comparisons because the 86 feels like the cabin is smaller. The MKIV has the same or slightly shorter height, but inside, I recall the seats were taller, probably to allow enough vision over the hood. The 86 has adjustable height (mine is at the lowest setting). The driver sits slightly further forward in the 86, and the visibility over the front fenders is better than the MKIV. I don't recall if the rear felt more spacious, and the rear seats were further back and larger because the car was a hatch, but I feel like it felt bigger--bigger in the height and width of the rear hunches. Again, it has been a long time.

Of course the thing that felt the most different was the weight. It was 600lbs heavier than the 86. The weight and suspension made it feel really planted on the road like rock solid, even at 120-140 mph+, but it was still lumbering and soft in the corners compared to the 86. My first supra was a targa 93' and the chassis flex was horrible with the top off, so bad that I rarely took off the targa if I was even considering driving aggressively on turns--only if I was doing a gentle cruise. That's why I bought a hardtop later, but that flex added to the sense of weight. The MKIV probably had better sound deadening and thicker components making for a sense that I was in a larger, stronger structure, even if the 86 shares similar dimensions.



My feelings are the new Supra will feel both smaller and bigger than the 86, but definitely smaller than the MKIV. It appears to be five inches shorter than the MKIV. It may be lighter, but obviously heavier than the 86. It will likely feel much smaller in cabin size being a two seater. The fact that the 2JZ was an inline six and the B58 is a slant six hopefully means the hoodline will be lower, yet BMW usually adds a whole bunch more stuff on top of the engine, including an air-water intercooler.

EDIT: Dimensions play a large roll in size perception, obviously, but the weight is the bigger thing for me. Just adding my 65+lb Harrop supercharger to the BRZ feels cumbersome at times and changes the driving dynamics. Adding a passenger does even more. The MKIV is equivalent in weight to me loading up three, two-hundred-pound passengers. Even if the dimensions are similar to the 86, that weight is significantly noticeable.

Do you really feel that the targa top has any structural integrity? Like, you are telling us that the forces string enough to bend 3500 lbs of steel are mitigated by 4lbs of plastic?

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I can't wait for the reveal....

Just kidding. Because you know they're just going to show us the car. Not tell us it's weight or price. Because they never do...

maybe not pricing, but it sounds like the weight and power will be release according to this Toyota FB post.

https://www.supramkv.com/threads/toy...ra-model.1487/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by fatoni

Do you really feel that the targa top has any structural integrity? Like, you are telling us that the forces string enough to bend 3500 lbs of steel are mitigated by 4lbs of plastic?

Oh for sure! The targa was aluminum (it felt light, yet could be steel), but it was much better having it attached than having it not attached. There was significant chassis flex when corning or going over uneven surfaces with the top off versus the top on. Unlike the soft-top on a Miata or other convertible, targas tend to provide more structural support when "up".


https://thesuprablog.wordpress.com/2...arga-top-flex/

[vh_supra26]

https://www.supramkv.com/threads/a90...-4.1435/page-4

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Oh for sure! The targa was aluminum (it felt light, yet could be steel), but it was much better having it attached than having it not attached. There was significant chassis flex when corning or going over uneven surfaces with the top off versus the top on. Unlike the soft-top on a Miata or other convertible, targas tend to provide more structural support when "up".


https://thesuprablog.wordpress.com/2...arga-top-flex/

Even if it's aluminum I doubt it's structural in any observable capacity. I don't doubt the flex though. Just that the top being on helps.

[bcj]

The targa sections fill the open area and keep the front and back parts from moving as far relative to each other as they would without.

That 1/8" sheeting on the back of the bookshelf isn't very strong by itself.
It'd fall over without it though.

[gymratter]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7b97_-W6X4[/ame]

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by fatoni

Even if it's aluminum I doubt it's structural in any observable capacity. I don't doubt the flex though. Just that the top being on helps.

It does help. I had the targa for four years before I sold it and bought a hardtop. The hardtop is of course lighter because there was less reinforcement needed; it felt stiffer, but not a huge difference than when the targa was on, but the targa on versus off was night and day difference.

If these stabilize the chassis then the targa definitely would.


https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28367

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It does help. I had the targa for four years before I sold it and bought a hardtop. The hardtop is of course lighter because there was less reinforcement needed; it felt stiffer, but not a huge difference than when the targa was on, but the targa on versus off was night and day difference.

If these stabilize the chassis then the targa definitely would.


https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28367

i guess i just dont believe it but thats okay. we can have our opinions

[86MLR]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i guess i just dont believe it but thats okay. we can have our opinions

You have a miata, do you have a hard top or soft top, the bolt on hard top improves chassis rigidity by, ummm, alot.

It's the same with most of the older monocoque targas or convertibles.

[vh_supra26]

https://www.supramkv.com/threads/liv...utosalon.1492/

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRWWW_Iyhx4[/ame]