Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cars in General' started by GTPNewsWire, Jul 12, 2019.
Aaaaand now he's baiting.
I think everyone understands the various levels of hurdles that exist during the concept to production translation and the MT article begins to give insights on how they try to overcome challenges and stay faithful to the design language set by the concept.
What's strange and incoherent--a journalist like Homeforsummer, stating that the FT-1 concept was conceived after the production was designed, for the purpose of PR.
No, just stating a fact...and what may I ask, are you doing?
I mean, his very first post could be considered baiting.
So sensitive guys, it's just a mediocre car with bad design...
Shouldn't that be applied to you? Having a hissyfit and comparing a car to the Pontiac Aztek of all things? Telling off and being condescending to an automotive journo, an admin and writer of the review, and practically everyone else who points out how your arguments are really just the same ones that have been repeated ad nauseum in the A90 thread, just couched in a different cloak?
You can think the car looks ugly or whatever, I and others certainly don't think that's a crime. Beauty is subjective. But to basically say that a vehicle is, in your words, 'the birth of the modern Pontiac Aztek' is absolutely asinine and mind boggling. Especially when you consider that your arguments, as much as you try and stomp up and down that they are somehow different, with you trying to blame the Calty studio, is literally just the same 'why doesn't the A90 look like the FT-1 again?!' arguments heard about the car time and time again.
We've explained to you why it wasn't the case. Instead, you've acted like a condescending dick for most of this thread. I'm certainly done with this.
Dunning Kruger effect
Yes, beauty is subjective. Try to comprehend what that means when you disagree with people who don't like the Supra's design.
You don't have to like my tone, my aesthetic preferences, my personal values, but what you have to do is stand by what you have freely communicated. And when a automotive journalist states that the FT-1 was conceived after the production design of the Supra was completed, you raise a flag for all to see.
Keep coming at me personally all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the above statement was made by a professional journalist who has sat down with industry leaders and promotes himself as an expert.
Perhaps, I'm aware of this pitfall.
And you imarobot? Are you mirroring? Lurking? Trolling?
Three pages of trolling from someone who doesn't like the car for apparently personal reasons. We've got a discussion thread on the GR Supra, and we've had one since before it was even called the GR Supra or, for that matter, A90. Or even Supra.
This thread is a discussion thread on our review of the car.
My biggest issue is that this car is a lot smaller than previous Supras. If it were the size of the mk3 and 4 I wouldn’t dislike it so much. It’s like having a Miata the size of a M4. It just doesn’t look right. The size of the FT-1 would’ve been perfect.
The swoopy concept was what got the entire ball rolling to begin with; it wasn't conceived with a production car already in mind beforehand because the main designer himself wasn't even sure if Akio would like it or if they would want big changes made before Detroit's debut. Akio only then greenlit the entire project when the concept was presented to him in flesh and video game form.
So, outside of the Supra discussion, to satisfy my curiosity, what's the business case for cars such as the Hommage series from BMW?
I can't believe all the fascism in this thread.
It was also considered pretty blobby (even for the time period) and try-hard when it was new; and if it hadn't been a comprehensively better performer than the 300ZX that they truly loved I suspect most American journalists of the time wouldn't have given it the time of day just like they didn't with the A70.
I'm amazed that it does 0-60 in 3.8 seconds and has a 1/4 time of 12 seconds flat..
That's 991s times.
Too bad this car will be marked up like crazy.
The MK4 Supra only became legendary after the tuners got hold of it. The 2JZ was a strong base and capable of handling big power with the right add ons.
Somehow people are expecting the new Supra to be 1000hp straight out of the showroom when the MK4 was never like that either.
Give the new Supra 3-5+years and I’m sure you’ll see some big HP examples (especially as they come out of warranty), just like the MK4.
I like the styling, it’s interesting and can’t be mistaken for any other car. I would have preferred it to be a bit bigger rather than 86/BRZ sized. Maybe we could look at it like the high performance version of the 86/BRZ that everyone has been wanting since they launched.
I noted when reading it that you didn't actually score it on aesthetics, so I guess it's fair enough for discussion of the aesthetics to be off-topic for this thread. It is perhaps appropriate, though, to ask why aesthetics were left out of the review when they are surely a hugely important element in choosing between cars of this type?
Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Objective scoring of aesthetics is essentially impossible.
I thought you might say that, but while there is a subjective element, there is generally much agreement on such matters. For example, if we look at music, where it's much more possible for people to vote with their wallet, there is plenty of agreement on which songs are better than others. Plenty of disagreement, too, but enough agreement that we can't deny that some songs are simply much more appealing to a large number of people than others.
None of which is relevant to an objective review.
We may make comments in a review about cars that look particularly good - or... "challenging" - either as a whole or from certain angles, but it's not something that we can objectively score, so we don't.
Curses. It's a bad habit of mine to say "emm kay [number]" for nearly any car, something I just haven't shaken since childhood. Turns out it seeps into my writing too.
Music is a pretty bad example, really. Sales don't necessarily reflect "quality": didn't the Glee cast outscore the Beatles on the Billboard charts?
Yes, there are somewhat subjective topics that get values assigned to them in reviews like music. Or even our own video game reviews, technically. But when we came up with our site-wide review system we intentionally left out the design side of the car reviews, because it's pretty much entirely subjective.
I did talk about the looks briefly, but in the context of our reviews it's less important than other aspects of the car. I do maintain that it's a much better-looking thing in person, and especially on the move. It's easy to pick apart online image details, but it has surprising presence in the metal. It'll be interesting to see how that evolves once the car is more of a common sight on streets. It looks utterly unlike anything else on the market though, and tellingly, nearly every single friend and family member who isn't a car-loving nerd has told me how much they'd like to experience the "pretty" car I drove recently...
It's such a strange phenomenon that cars look different in person than photos. Might be worthy of a thread itself actually... cars that look much better in person.
Chalk up any Ferrari in the last 10-15 years. The 599, FF, and probably the new F8 and SP90 will look much better in the flesh when you can appreciate the design details.
I don't doubt it (though I don't think I've seen any of those in person). We have a few modern lambos around here and they always strike me as looking worse in person. So that's its own phenomenon as well.
It might make for a good article, but it'd be an absolute hog to illustrate it
They could have called it anything, but it is not a Supra.
They should've stuck to FT-1
So then, what is a Supra to you?
Because if the other times that this point has been made is any indication (and I have a nagging suspicion that I am probably correct) then chances are, you believe that the Supra is just the A80. To that, you do realize that there were other generations of Supra and that those were pretty fluid, correct?
Not to steer off-topic again, but just a quick note to say that @dabz343 and I have cleared things up, and along with dabz' explanations and the info @McLaren posted I can see I was wide of the mark on the FT-1/Supra.
I reserve the right to think the Supra's styling still isn't that bad though, and that I was never too fussed on the look of the FT-1 in the first place
On the car itself (and the review), I agree with pretty much everything Kyle says. The only thing I'd personally add is that while it's a very good car, it just doesn't really thrill me. Driven it a few times now, on road and track in Spain and on the road in the UK, and it's curiously passionless... it just sort of gets on with being a good car without any part of the experience feeling special.
Fifty yards in an Alpine A110 and I'm scoping out banks to heist. Five hundred miles in a Supra and I'd not shed a tear if I never drove one again.