Toyota GR Supra First Drive Review: Worthy of the Name

This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:

This article was published by Kyle Patrick (@SlipZtrEm) on July 12th, 2019 in the Car Reviews category.

 

The Supra's styling adaptation from the forward-thinking design of the FT-1 (designed by Calty in California) is sadly horrendous and discernible buyers will be repelled by the fundamentally unresolved overall proportions. The front facia is barely attractive enough, but the rear is a total disaster. Look at the vertical mass and how the supra loses all that lateral drama in the hips of the FT-1.

Sure there were package limitations, I get it, but to slap on the styling elements without considering the overall proportions and how it alters the persona of the car is just not good enough to justify a purchase a over very competitive rivals.

Toyota had a great opportunity here to do something iconic--leveraging the provocative FT-1, instead they have just given birth to the modern version of the Pontiac Aztek.

 

No, this is the modern version of the Aztek.


As for the Supra, whatever. Not really the type of car I’d ever be interested in. The Lexus RC, on the other hand, is everything the Supra always was, a big, heavy, 2+2 GT that screams “Japan” in every possible way, from its styling to its mechanicals. The only thing missing is the straight six. Of course, the RC also easily could’ve been a new Soarer.

Don’t get the uproar about the Supra’s styling, it’s just a generic sporty car (the lack of manual transmission and the lack of JDMness are its two killer flaws for its target audience). I felt the same way about the Nissan Juke, everyone was always in uproar about it but they just blend into traffic.

 

In before opinions from people who haven't even driven the car in real life... oh wait I'm too late.

 

Toyota had the FT-1 concept in their hands, what is the reason for creating an uglier version for the masses? Not surprising to see other manufacturers continuing the Aztek debacle, but at Toyota? With their talented Calty studio?

What is the point of having a dedicated R&D studio in California if the production crew does not know how to translate those designs into production vehicles--that don't blend into traffic?

 

Literally every concept that’s been translated to a production vehicle can be accused of this. They have to adhere to regulations and production realities that concepts don’t.

See also the last Subaru WRX, which had the forums alight for the same reasons. So did the Toyota 86 to a lesser extent. Anything that has a strong enthusiast following is going to leave a lot of people disappointed when it doesn’t look just like the concept car.

 

God, what is it about this car that attracts people?

Exactly! There is, in fact, a notable discussion about this very topic in the A90 thread:

Because...the FT-1 was a concept? Something that isn't exactly indicative of the final production model?

I'd seriously recommened reading this post - it's not directly related to the A90, but I think does a good job at explaining to the 'why doesn't the A90 look like the FT-1?!?' crowd why it wasn't ever going to look like that:

Calling the A90 the modern day equivalent of the goddamn Pontiac Aztek in terms of concept design to production design truly is one of the most asinine things I have seen written with regards to the A90 - and believe me, I've seen a lot in the last 6-7 months especially.

 

Looks like a cheaper less supercar more sports car version... makes sense to me.

 

A coworker of mine owns one. Looks nice, but your just paying for the name. You can put a ls3 525 in a miata for alot cheaper and eat the supra and gtr put together. I have 16k$ or alittle more in my 90 miata with ls3 525 t56 6 speed and cadillac V rear end. And thats installing it a more correct way for it to look like a normal miata. Some people have done it in well under 10k with used powertrains. There is nothing like the trust of an ls3 miata. With 3 second or less 0-60 on a perfect day and wide rear tires

 

You can do lots of things to lots of cars to make them more faster than another car. So? I'm not really sure what this was supposed to add.

 

Heck, even the Aztek was compromised from the original concept, which people supposedly liked

 

Whats it supposed to add? Why pay 60k for a Toyota name on a BMW when you can do the same on your own better for way less

 

The fact of the matter is that all cars change design, from pen and paper, to initial concept shown at auto shows, and then to final production. To beat Toyota over the head with the fact that the A90 doesn't look like the FT-1, when doing so would have priced out a vast, vast majority of the people clamoring for the Supra to come back (Much like the new NSX and the R35 GT-R) is just silly. It's frustrating too, because so much of the criticisms that have dogged the A90 really since the hype started to build up last year has been couched in so much hyperbole, and now that the car is coming to market and blowing those criticisms out of the water, people are just doubling down on them and making it such a challenge to actually discuss the vehicle.

Some buyers don't exactly want to spend as much, if not more, on a 10 or even 20 year old car, with wildly varying gremlins to take into account, just to tune it up and have it grenade or break down because it's running more power then it's good for.

 

Why buy any car when there probably is a way to get another car faster for cheaper?

 

Tons of reasons. I bet you can even think of them.

 

You guys are daft, but in a good and naive way.

Of course concept cars have enormous freedom of expression, but once the stage has been set in terms of a design direction--the production model has a dutiful responsibility to translate the concept into a design for the masses (this is how the math to scaleability is engineered). Why else does one do a concept car and who doesn't understand this context in terms of feasibility when discussing product development?

As far as adhering to regulations, are you seriously suggesting concept designers and engineers have no knowledge of what needs to happen on the factory floor and they just design away, blue-sky concepts without constraints down the road? LMAO, understand the roles that R&D studios like Calty fulfill and how they integrate into the total product development cycle before commenting on why production cars are different than concept cars.

An example of a good concept to production translation is the BMW i8. There are many, many examples out there that are acknowledged by the industry, it's not rocket science here fellas and Toyota blew an incredible opportunity to bring excitement to their brand with the hideous new Supra.

 

No, we seem to be cognizant of the fact that unless it's specific circumstances (And even then!) that most cars change from pen and paper to eventual production, and that what is shown off to the masses at car shows might not be the same two years down the road, or whatever.

Yes, because a $100,000+ hybrid halo car is definitely the right comparison for the A90 Supra, a vehicle which will be within the $50,000/60,000 price range and already has a massive (Maybe even overinflated) sense of hype and legacy to live up.

They sure seem to be bringing excitement to their brand already with the GT86 and now the A90. Granted, the GT86 is up there and age and the party trick of a light weight, 200 HP sports car is starting to wear off...but it certainly beats getting complaints that the brand as a whole is just appliances and washing machines with no soul like Toyota was getting for a good chunk of the 2000's and early 2010's.

 

You think concept cars are just for show? Better understand the internal math that drives OEMs to continually bring out new designs before stating rudimentary thoughts that designs change from pen/paper to production codes. You are out of your league about what role concept design studios fulfill in the broader business.

If I bring you a good example of concept to production within the Supra's price target, will you finally say IT CAN BE DONE? Do you understand the investment angle involved in every concept vehicle silver arrows? LMAO

 

Most are, yes. If they are, then the manufacturer would say outright that 'this is showing off a future model' or whatever.

I'd seriously recommend that you read the posts that I quoted from the A90 thread when this exact same argument (Which, aside from you trying to add in that it's a failure of the Calty studio, is the exact same as the 'wull why doesn't the A90 look like the FT-1?!' arguments) came around, because really, that's what your posts are boiling down to.

 

Heh...

 

Showing the back of the A80 Supra against the much more sculpted A90 rear is rather odd. It was hardly the epitome of style in period.

 

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

And not even a stock A80 at that. One with a big ass wing, and surely with aftermarket body parts on it too. So it isn't even a fair comparison if we're going to be doing the A80 > FT-1 > A90 comparison.

 

Didn't Toyota specifically say that the FT-1 would not be the new Supra back when it (the FT-1) was first unveiled? I remember something to the effect of "Its not a Supra, but a design study for future Toyotas". If that is the case, why are we still on "but its not the FT-1 tho"?

 

You really do not understand the industry Silver Arrows if you believe most concept cars are for show. Anyone in the industry knows how important and pivotal future-looking concepts are to their respective brands' ability to sustain market success.

Because you are so naive, I'm going to supply 3 references for you to examine and hopefully be open enough to evaluate without bias.



https://www.bmwgroupdesignworks.com/

https://www.rca.ac.uk/schools/school-of-design/intelligent-mobility/

 

Yes, that's what was communicated from corporate, but then they copied and pasted all the FT-1 design elements into a hideous shape like juvenile designers.

I would have preferred that Toyota interpret the FT-1 design and adapt it to the Supra's production package...producing a special, unique design that differs from the FT-1, but is inspired by the FT-1 design and perhaps establish Toyota's overarching design language.

Instead, Toyota said the FT-1 will not be the new Supra, then made it look very similar but with all sorts of proportion issues. This is bad design, plain and simple. Sales will not be kind to the new Supra, competition is too fierce in this category.

 

Supaboost, is that you?

 

I have been wrong from time to time, it is a surprise to know that pre-orders are strong, but we will have to see if the Supra can sustain market share given the competition in its category...my take from experience is that the Supra will struggle to hit its stretch goals.

But back to the design, your linked MT article even states in the opening paragraph how important the translation from concept to production is--absolutely critical. And this is where the Supra fails IMO. The volumes and proportions on the FT-1 are difficult to manufacture and the tooling necessary to pull it off should have been limiting factors that steered the stakeholders to conceive a cohesive design that works with the Supra's package.

If you cannot keep the integrity of the design intact, then you are risking what may look like a frankenstein like the Aztek.