Topic: Preview: 2020 Toyota Supra

[OliverD]

The idea that Toyota, with all their resources, couldn't possibly conceivably produce their own engine for this car without it being utterly cost-prohibitive makes me shake my head.  So much I get dizzy.

Was it easier to do it this way?  Absolutely.  Was it the only realistic way to make it happen?  I aint buyin' that one.

And they could easily have dropped versions of that I6 into future versions of other Lexus and Toyota models.

Yup.  Again, I get that it's easier and cheaper this way.  But if you're trying to tell me it would be otherwise fiscally impossible for Toyota - second largest car manufacturer in the world -  to offer a performance rwd sports coupe using their own proprietary chassis and engine, I'm going to ask what kind of magic wand Ford, Chevy, Nissan and Mazda are using.

None of those companies are selling cars that are all that comparable to the Supra, and have engines that are sold in other products.

[OliverD]

For a company that made the LFA...more than once for the same car...I do not think money is the issue whatsoever. However, you make money by saving money, I just do not think a halo type sports car is where you do it. That is the type of vehicle you pull out all the stops for the drivetrain, as that is kinda the whole point of the car. Yes other sports cars use humble or borrowed engines, like Lotus, but Lotuses are great in spite of those engines, not because of them.

Money is definitely the issue, and it's likely because of the LFA that they were reluctant to do this on their own. The LFA was not very successful.

[Jaeger]

The idea that Toyota, with all their resources, couldn't possibly conceivably produce their own engine for this car without it being utterly cost-prohibitive makes me shake my head.  So much I get dizzy.

Was it easier to do it this way?  Absolutely.  Was it the only realistic way to make it happen?  I aint buyin' that one.

And they could easily have dropped versions of that I6 into future versions of other Lexus and Toyota models.

Yup.  Again, I get that it's easier and cheaper this way.  But if you're trying to tell me it would be otherwise fiscally impossible for Toyota - second largest car manufacturer in the world -  to offer a performance rwd sports coupe using their own proprietary chassis and engine, I'm going to ask what kind of magic wand Ford, Chevy, Nissan and Mazda are using.

None of those companies are selling cars that are all that comparable to the Supra, and have engines that are sold in other products.

And nobody passed a law that says that if they produced an engine for the Supra, it could only and forever be exclusively used in the Supra.  And yeah, I guess front engine rwd sport coupes aren't all that comparable to the Supra.    Well, none of them are cynical re-skinned BMWs, so you've got me there.   

[Jaeger]

I just don't understand why they got so hung up on having an inline six. The Skyline transitioned to a V6, the Boxster to a four cylinder, etc. I think the Supra would have been fine with a V8, even a turbo V6. A small amount of hand wringing from some fans boys (who most aren't buying anyway) and it would be just fine.

Too bad they didn't share chassis development costs with Mazda. New RX-7 with a rotary, new Supra with a V8. 

Because the assumption that an I6 is the ONLY engine that could POSSIBLY have served, helps buttress the claim that it would have been too expensive to produce an I6 JUST for this one low volume car.  This is what we call circular reasoning. 

It didn't have to be an I6.  And it didn't have to be used ONLY in the Supra.  Otherwise perfectly sound logic. 

[rrocket]

^^^^Nah...some of us industry types just know what we're talking about....

[Seafoam]

Question for rrocket. Was the inline 6 in IQ's car used in other toyota and lexus products?

[OliverD]

Question for rrocket. Was the inline 6 in IQ's car used in other toyota and lexus products?

Yes, it was used in the GS300, SC300, Supra, and various Toyotas that we didn't get over here.

[OliverD]

The idea that Toyota, with all their resources, couldn't possibly conceivably produce their own engine for this car without it being utterly cost-prohibitive makes me shake my head.  So much I get dizzy.

Was it easier to do it this way?  Absolutely.  Was it the only realistic way to make it happen?  I aint buyin' that one.

And they could easily have dropped versions of that I6 into future versions of other Lexus and Toyota models.

Yup.  Again, I get that it's easier and cheaper this way.  But if you're trying to tell me it would be otherwise fiscally impossible for Toyota - second largest car manufacturer in the world -  to offer a performance rwd sports coupe using their own proprietary chassis and engine, I'm going to ask what kind of magic wand Ford, Chevy, Nissan and Mazda are using.

None of those companies are selling cars that are all that comparable to the Supra, and have engines that are sold in other products.

And nobody passed a law that says that if they produced an engine for the Supra, it could only and forever be exclusively used in the Supra.  And yeah, I guess front engine rwd sport coupes aren't all that comparable to the Supra.    Well, none of them are cynical re-skinned BMWs, so you've got me there.   

I can spell it out for you if you like.

The Miata is a lower cost car that sells in relatively high numbers. It's been sold consistently for 30 years. As a smaller company, the Miata is more important to the Mazda brand than the Supra is to Toyota. Plus it uses an engine that is used in economy cars which certainly helps keep costs down.

The Corvette is an iconic car that's been on the market for ~65 years. It has wide appeal being available with a manual or automatic, coupe or convertible, and in four levels of power. It's also generally more expensive. It shares its engine with the Camaro, and the same basic design is also used for a bunch of trucks.

Ford, basically the same thing as with GM.

The three above are basically the market stalwarts of lower priced sports cars.

The Supra, on the other hand, hasn't been sold here in 20 years. Over the generations its mission hasn't been consistent. It competes in a fickle market that is much smaller than it used to be. This car is a gamble by Toyota. It could be quite successful but maybe it won't be. It's not a halo car for the brand the way the other cars above are.

There's no doubt that Toyota could create an all-new engine for the Supra and it could have other applications. But like I said, it also needs an appropriate platform, which at this point it doesn't have. It's unlikely that such a platform would have any other applications, unless you wanted to build a Lexus variant but that doesn't really seem to jive with the Lexus mission (the LC500 seems like a more appropriate offering). So if they're going to go with a third party platform, it doesn't make any sense to design an engine that works with that platform but possibly doesn't work with your own products.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Simple solution here:  Toyota could have just brought back and reworked the 2J.  It's an engine that was already fully developed, and they probably still have the tooling for it lying around somewhere.  They could have re-jigged the engine for increased emissions standards.  While they're at it, put on compound turbos (or variable vane turbos) in an effort to have low RPM boost as well as high RPM boost. 

[Jaeger]

The idea that Toyota, with all their resources, couldn't possibly conceivably produce their own engine for this car without it being utterly cost-prohibitive makes me shake my head.  So much I get dizzy.

Was it easier to do it this way?  Absolutely.  Was it the only realistic way to make it happen?  I aint buyin' that one.

And they could easily have dropped versions of that I6 into future versions of other Lexus and Toyota models.

Yup.  Again, I get that it's easier and cheaper this way.  But if you're trying to tell me it would be otherwise fiscally impossible for Toyota - second largest car manufacturer in the world -  to offer a performance rwd sports coupe using their own proprietary chassis and engine, I'm going to ask what kind of magic wand Ford, Chevy, Nissan and Mazda are using.

None of those companies are selling cars that are all that comparable to the Supra, and have engines that are sold in other products.

And nobody passed a law that says that if they produced an engine for the Supra, it could only and forever be exclusively used in the Supra.  And yeah, I guess front engine rwd sport coupes aren't all that comparable to the Supra.    Well, none of them are cynical re-skinned BMWs, so you've got me there.   

I can spell it out for you if you like.

The Miata is a lower cost car that sells in relatively high numbers. It's been sold consistently for 30 years. As a smaller company, the Miata is more important to the Mazda brand than the Supra is to Toyota. Plus it uses an engine that is used in economy cars which certainly helps keep costs down.

The Corvette is an iconic car that's been on the market for ~65 years. It has wide appeal being available with a manual or automatic, coupe or convertible, and in four levels of power. It's also generally more expensive. It shares its engine with the Camaro, and the same basic design is also used for a bunch of trucks.

Ford, basically the same thing as with GM.

The three above are basically the market stalwarts of lower priced sports cars.

The Supra, on the other hand, hasn't been sold here in 20 years. Over the generations its mission hasn't been consistent. It competes in a fickle market that is much smaller than it used to be. This car is a gamble by Toyota. It could be quite successful but maybe it won't be. It's not a halo car for the brand the way the other cars above are.

There's no doubt that Toyota could create an all-new engine for the Supra and it could have other applications. But like I said, it also needs an appropriate platform, which at this point it doesn't have. It's unlikely that such a platform would have any other applications, unless you wanted to build a Lexus variant but that doesn't really seem to jive with the Lexus mission (the LC500 seems like a more appropriate offering). So if they're going to go with a third party platform, it doesn't make any sense to design an engine that works with that platform but possibly doesn't work with your own products.

I can spell it out for you if you like.     Of course there are differences between the cars - but they are more alike than they are dissimilar.  They all occupy essentially the same niche - purpose-built fun-to-drive rwd sport coupes.  Sorry Charlie, you efforts to portray them as wholly dissimilar are strained past the breaking point of reason.

[Jaeger]

Simple solution here:  Toyota could have just brought back and reworked the 2J.  It's an engine that was already fully developed, and they probably still have the tooling for it lying around somewhere.  They could have re-jigged the engine for increased emissions standards.  While they're at it, put on compound turbos (or variable vane turbos) in an effort to have low RPM boost as well as high RPM boost.

Toyota could have made any number of existing engines - with or without modification - work in this application.  The idea that they HAD to use an I6 and could ONLY use it in this particular car is the fictional premise upon which rest the claim that they COULDN'T have fiscally managed to do anything other than re-skin a BMW.

[OliverD]

I can spell it out for you if you like.     Of course there are differences between the cars - but they are more alike than they are dissimilar.  They all occupy essentially the same niche - purpose-built fun-to-drive rwd sport coupes.  Sorry Charlie, you efforts to portray them as wholly dissimilar are strained past the breaking point of reason.

I'm not saying the cars themselves are fundamentally different. I'm saying that the circumstances around them and how they fit into the market are.

[Jaeger]

I can spell it out for you if you like.     Of course there are differences between the cars - but they are more alike than they are dissimilar.  They all occupy essentially the same niche - purpose-built fun-to-drive rwd sport coupes.  Sorry Charlie, you efforts to portray them as wholly dissimilar are strained past the breaking point of reason.

I'm not saying the cars themselves are fundamentally different. I'm saying that the circumstances around them and how they fit into the market are.

And I'm saying that producing a Supra in house did not fall completely outside the fiscal realm of possibility for Toyota.  Lots of other manufacturers with less resources manage to produce an in-house rwd sports coupe.  Toyota could manage, too.  And do so within the bounds of at least likely profitability.

[OliverD]

I can spell it out for you if you like.     Of course there are differences between the cars - but they are more alike than they are dissimilar.  They all occupy essentially the same niche - purpose-built fun-to-drive rwd sport coupes.  Sorry Charlie, you efforts to portray them as wholly dissimilar are strained past the breaking point of reason.

I'm not saying the cars themselves are fundamentally different. I'm saying that the circumstances around them and how they fit into the market are.

And I'm saying that producing a Supra in house did not fall completely outside the fiscal realm of possibility for Toyota.  Lots of other manufacturers with less resources manage to produce an in-house rwd sports coupe.  Toyota could manage, too.  And do so within the bounds of at least likely profitability.

So why didn't they?

[Jaeger]

I can spell it out for you if you like.     Of course there are differences between the cars - but they are more alike than they are dissimilar.  They all occupy essentially the same niche - purpose-built fun-to-drive rwd sport coupes.  Sorry Charlie, you efforts to portray them as wholly dissimilar are strained past the breaking point of reason.

I'm not saying the cars themselves are fundamentally different. I'm saying that the circumstances around them and how they fit into the market are.

And I'm saying that producing a Supra in house did not fall completely outside the fiscal realm of possibility for Toyota.  Lots of other manufacturers with less resources manage to produce an in-house rwd sports coupe.  Toyota could manage, too.  And do so within the bounds of at least likely profitability.

So why didn't they?

Lazy.  Cheap.  Scared.  Multiple possibilities and combinations of reasons.  I wasn't at the table when that decision was made.  Neither were you.  Neither was Ron.  None of us know.  But to me, by far the least plausible was "We have carefully considered the possibility of producing a rwd sports coupe of our own, but it's just totally fiscally impossible to do so."  More likely it was a cheap and easy way to try to make a buck off the Supra name while injecting zero Supra (i.e. Toyota) content below the surface.  And nobody is disputing that they like to make money.

[OliverD]

I suspect that the truth is likely somewhere in between those two extremes.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Does Toyota not have a modular engine program? I can't remember offhand.

Modular designs make it much cheaper to have inline 4, 5, 6, and/or V6, V8 etc

This Supra is okay I guess. It's not the one I was hoping they'd produce though, something more akin to the third gen before they went ridiculously upmarket.

[OliverD]

Does Toyota not have a modular engine program? I can't remember offhand.

Modular designs make it much cheaper to have inline 4, 5, 6, and/or V6, V8 etc

This Supra is okay I guess. It's not the one I was hoping they'd produce though, something more akin to the third gen before they went ridiculously upmarket.

I think they were forced upmarket due to the value of the Yen. That's what basically killed all the Japanese sports cars in North America in the mid '90s.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Does Toyota not have a modular engine program? I can't remember offhand.

Modular designs make it much cheaper to have inline 4, 5, 6, and/or V6, V8 etc

This Supra is okay I guess. It's not the one I was hoping they'd produce though, something more akin to the third gen before they went ridiculously upmarket.

They sure do, at least with V8's.  The 4.6 V8, 5.0 V8, and 5.7 V8 are all part of the UR family.  They share blocks, keeping a similar cylinder bore (94mm).  The only thing that changes (simplistically) at the bottom end is the crankshaft.  The 4.6 has a stroke of 83mm, the 5.0 has a stroke of 89.5mm, and the 5.7 has a stroke of 102mm.

Different families of that engine will use various different heads, camshafts, intake and fuel injection technologies. 

I would say the V8's are very much modular.

[dirtyjeffer]

Simple solution here:  Toyota could have just brought back and reworked the 2J.  It's an engine that was already fully developed, and they probably still have the tooling for it lying around somewhere.  They could have re-jigged the engine for increased emissions standards.  While they're at it, put on compound turbos (or variable vane turbos) in an effort to have low RPM boost as well as high RPM boost.

that's what i always wondered...that engine is already legendary, and likely wouldn't take much to use today.