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

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by HKz

As far as the LFA, 6 figure cars should never be compared to cars for mere mortals ^^

Why not?

[HKz]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Why not?

because all the aspects are very different whether the type & age of consumers it was designed for, different project philosophies, etc. @krayzie was using the LFA to illustrate Toyota's willingness to adjust their development path to suggest they could decide to throw in a MT in the Supra down the line but I still have my doubts considering Toyota went all in for the LFA but is concerned about the costs for a sports car that costs nearly only 10% of the former is a little disconcerting..

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by HKz

because all the aspects are very different whether the type & age of consumers it was designed for, different project philosophies, etc. @krayzie was using the LFA to illustrate Toyota's willingness to adjust their development path to suggest they could decide to throw in a MT in the Supra down the line but I still have my doubts considering Toyota went all in for the LFA but is concerned about the costs for a sports car that costs nearly only 10% of the former is a little disconcerting..

Who says they are concerned about costs?
The internet speculators?
Again everybody is getting all worked up when no facts are even released yet.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by HKz

what do you mean what happened to Honda?

Simply put the Honda that I grew up with had low hoodline for great outward visibility as they tilted the engine at an angle to create that, add to that the low driving position with great ergonomics, not to mention double wishbone suspension for that sucked to the ground great handling.

Over the years they have slowly lost most of that to chase the bottom line.

Sometimes I wonder if this guy is still around at Toyota.



Basically this guy at 3:35

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GIuIz1tIa4[/ame]

[Adam_L]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Like it has been said, autos use to be more expensive, so they were an extra add on cost. I’m fine paying extra for a manual if the tables were turned.

True/ real sports cars, have a manual option (NA or FI). That is what a large chunk of enthusiasts desire, a large part of the time. Who's kidding who… here, now?!

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Who says they are concerned about costs?
The internet speculators?
Again everybody is getting all worked up when no facts are even released yet.

So, Toyota is a public company with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and they are not concerned with costs? They are concerned with costs even with the creation of concept vehicles that will never hit the market. If you've ever read all of the Toyota annual report you'll see that shareholders depend on dividends. In addition, the latest report shows that unit sales are down and that trading profits on the yen are the only thing that is holding them up right now. This is not a part of internet speculation -- it is fact. Now if you are saying that sports cars are so special that Toyota doesn't care about their profits, then I'd ask what you are smoking.

Now if you are saying the Supra/86 are loss leaders to sell other models, I'd ask how someone in the market for a sports car would forego that for a Camry. Costs are directly related to pricing and margins and I assure you that Toyota does ROI's for every project that must be approved by management. The lower the volume, the more you must raise the price to recoup development costs, manufacturing inefficiencies, and parts costs. And raising the price usually means lower volume, so it is always a balancing act.

Everything that is said here on topics like this is speculation -- that's part of the fun of putting thoughts out on a forum. There is no source that is 100% believable -- even Tada. Tada is also limited by corporate politics where he cannot really divulge details with certainty. He knows that notwithstanding what he wants, there will be marketing and accounting decisions that will change what is put into the market.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Adam_L

True/ real sports cars, have a manual option (NA or FI). That is what a large chunk of enthusiasts desire, a large part of the time. Who's kidding who… here, now?!

There are an awful lot of BRZ buyers who opt for automatics. In fact, Subaru has stated that manuals for the BRZ were no more than 50% of sales in 2016. (My guess is that as volume declines, that number is probably a little higher). There are very few AT buyers on forums like this because they don't tend to mod their cars as much. If you define an "enthusiast" as someone who mods their cars, then you are right. But you can just enjoy driving a sports car because you get a better feel of the road, you like the handling, and it's fun on the twisties. Are you not a sports car enthusiast if you like those things? Historically, this latter groups were the sports car enthusiasts. Yes, they drove manuals, but that was not the reason they liked sports cars.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by rvoll

So, Toyota is a public company with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and they are not concerned with costs? They are concerned with costs even with the creation of concept vehicles that will never hit the market. If you've ever read all of the Toyota annual report you'll see that shareholders depend on dividends. In addition, the latest report shows that unit sales are down and that trading profits on the yen are the only thing that is holding them up right now. This is not a part of internet speculation -- it is fact. Now if you are saying that sports cars are so special that Toyota doesn't care about their profits, then I'd ask what you are smoking.

Now if you are saying the Supra/86 are loss leaders to sell other models, I'd ask how someone in the market for a sports car would forego that for a Camry. Costs are directly related to pricing and margins and I assure you that Toyota does ROI's for every project that must be approved by management. The lower the volume, the more you must raise the price to recoup development costs, manufacturing inefficiencies, and parts costs. And raising the price usually means lower volume, so it is always a balancing act.

Everything that is said here on topics like this is speculation -- that's part of the fun of putting thoughts out on a forum. There is no source that is 100% believable -- even Tada. Tada is also limited by corporate politics where he cannot really divulge details with certainty. He knows that notwithstanding what he wants, there will be marketing and accounting decisions that will change what is put into the market.

I am NOT having this discussion with you again.
The difference in costs between a MT and AT tranny in a low production niche car is probably about 2% of their annual toilet paper budget.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by rvoll

There are an awful lot of BRZ buyers who opt for automatics. In fact, Subaru has stated that manuals for the BRZ were no more than 50% of sales in 2016. (My guess is that as volume declines, that number is probably a little higher). There are very few AT buyers on forums like this because they don't tend to mod their cars as much. If you define an "enthusiast" as someone who mods their cars, then you are right. But you can just enjoy driving a sports car because you get a better feel of the road, you like the handling, and it's fun on the twisties. Are you not a sports car enthusiast if you like those things? Historically, this latter groups were the sports car enthusiasts. Yes, they drove manuals, but that was not the reason they liked sports cars.

Do you have a reference to back that claim that they sold more autos than manuals?

[JeremyR]

Originally Posted by ermax

Do you have a reference to back that claim that they sold more autos than manuals?

He's just trying to feel better about buying an auto BRZ vs. a manual one.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I am NOT having this discussion with you again.
The difference in costs between a MT and AT tranny in a low production niche car is probably about 2% of their annual toilet paper budget.

I don't know the actual numbers, but I don't believe it is as trivial as you make it seem. In addition to the cost of the parts themselves which are not that great, you have parts inventory, dealer car inventory, lower volumes of both transmissions (which increase unit costs of both). In addition, in a lower volume car, dealers play an important role because it costs them a lot of additional costs to carry both versions in inventory. Then you have the costs of dealer trades, etc. Then you have inventory balancing and selling last year's inventory at highly discounted prices.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by ermax

Do you have a reference to back that claim that they sold more autos than manuals?

http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...115-story.html

"Subaru said stick shift percentages can go as high as 50% on a BRZ, WRX and STI performance car, but as low as 10% on the more sedate Forester, Crosstrek or Impreza."

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

He's just trying to feel better about buying an auto BRZ vs. a manual one.

.... and are you trying to feel better about liking outdated technology????

Tit for tat aside, I do enjoy driving the manual a lot. I really dislike it in traffic, but prefer it on the open road on the twisties. I do not like a manual on long trips on cruise control. So, as a compromise, I use the paddle shifters a lot and that gets me halfway there.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by rvoll

http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...115-story.html



"Subaru said stick shift percentages can go as high as 50% on a BRZ, WRX and STI performance car, but as low as 10% on the more sedate Forester, Crosstrek or Impreza."

Oh okay so all those cars combined. The STI is manual only so that should bring that number way up. The WRX may not sell as well in MT but I suspect the BRZ is over 50%.

Edit: I was mistaken. The STI also has an auto. So maybe those were not combined numbers.