Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Auto News' started by RocZX, Dec 13, 2011.
Ugh, it looks ugly! I miss the old rear lights...
Tornado got my point with the tech/not tech comment. The 86 is as good as makes no difference the only car in its sector. That's what makes it special. If a new Supra came out with no USP beyond being a new version of a two decade old car, it'd be a missed opportunity.
As for performance, I never said it was "best bang for buck". But it's entirely not bad, particularly given its segment - you have to pay what, $20k extra for an M5 to go *possibly* faster?
Completely disagree its just a "trendy brand" either - hard to deny its anything but the most usable EV on sale.
Not that any of what we're discussing is relevant to my point of course - my point was that low-down power is something electric motors do better than any internal combustion engine, so they're an interesting way of boosting performance in a sports coupe.
I think a proper performance hybrid sports car badged as a Supra would be really cool. I'd love a manual, but I'd understand if they didn't put one it. The GT86 is for crazies like me. As it is, Toyota is great at hybrids, and as the Lexus GS450h demonstrates, can make a fun, performance-orientd hybrid car. Plus, as HFS said, low end torque in a hybrid would be terrific, and it would be more fuel efficient than a petrol sports car under normal driving (hopefully).
For a luxury sedan, that's still pretty good. The only cars I could think of that beat it for the cost are the M3 Sedan & CTS-V. And for comparison to actual 2-seat sports cars, a Z06 does 0-60 in the high 3's, & a 911 Carrera 4S does it in 4.1 with the PDK.
Sounds like a solid car if performance was something you really wanted out of the Model S unlike the CTS-V or M3 where performance is prime objective.
Imagine it like this. They take a slightly punched out version of the 3.5 they have for FR cars. Let's say it produces Genesis Coupe numbers to start. 350/300 for the base or SZR or whatever model at 3300 pounds or so.
Then we have the RZ model, and it has that same engine with a performance-focused hybrid drivetrain added. It has 400/400, and weighs a couple hundred pounds more as a result, but is faster, has instant throttle response down low, gets much better mileage than most everything else it competes with and has the benefit of a lot of the weight being able to be packaged wherever they wanted it. Sure, it would be pretty expensive, but the Mark IV Supra Turbo was more expensive than the base Corvette for all of its life anyway, so it's not unheard of if they were to market it properly. They just need to keep a CVT out of it.
Or you could get a CTS-V and be faster for much less then 80k @ Homeforthesummer
Well for one I didn't say it wasn't bad and wasn't taking anything from it, so let's not get it mixed. Just saying for the price range and what's out there you have options. There is more then performance to the CTS-V and M3 let's not spin that either.
I find it highly likely that potential new Supra customers will also want a Spec version for easier tuning and a faster car.
400/400 sounds good for an RZ model but i think they will want to bump it up to at least 450/450 so it can better compete with cars such as the NSX and the 4.2 R8 while uppercutting 911 S models. This will also give it more of an edge against the GTR.
If they go with an inline six hybrid they wont have this issue.
@LMSCorvetteGT2- The problem with the CTS-V is that it's tiny inside. There's more room in a Honda Fit. The Tesla is big inside.
Same here. Since the 2000s, Toyota's lineup was boring, except for the Tacoma X-Runner, Tundras, Lexus' IS250/300 and the Scion cars, the rest was lame.
But since the GT86/FR-S, TS030 Hybrid LMP, the LFA and Lexus F Series of cars, they are coming back with a bang to rival with their competitors in all forms and start new roads (I'm looking at you GT86.) And I'm glad that BMW are backing them up with their technology and innovation as well for the Supra.
Now it's Honda's time to take notice what Toyota is doing and get back out there with the NSX and please Honda, bring back the Integra, S2000 as a S3000/4000 AP3 and the Type R series (Integra, CR-Z, NSX, Accord, S3000(?), not just the Civic) again!
This. Toyota can play two ways by having a base hybrid I6 or V6 NA (aka 4JZ-GE) for the $$$$ plus good MPGs. And for the hardcore drivers and tuners with the cash, a hybrid I6 or V6 twin turbo (aka 4JZ-GTE) to chose from.
We have to remember the Supra's rivals (GTR, NSX, Vette, Viper, R8, 911s etc...) The Supra can't fall behind in the pack and needs to show that the car can compete with its rivals on many terms on performance, reliability, handling, innovation from the TS030's technology, price wise and a cunning edge over the enemies.
A Toyota Supra RZ MkV JZA90's Hybrid Inline 6 or V6 Twin Turbo would strike fear around the competition with 450-480hp and 450-500 ft.lbs of torque STOCK and STILL get impressive city/highway MPG! The technology they gained from the TS030 would be put into gear. If Toyota is opening new doors like this with performance and hybrid tech combined, just think of the possibilities they can do and no losing one thing for the other.
I didn't say that, either. I said that's still pretty good, though your post didn't really hint at what you're saying now & seemed more like the car posted an average figure for the price.
Please, let's not even attempt make any sort of hint that either of those cars aren't built as performance cars first & luxury cars second, so 0-60s, QTR miles, & lap times were a big priority for those cars' engineers (how many times did Cadillac show off the CTS-V in Germany? Is the gas mileage not typically the biggest "con" against the car?).
That a hybrid luxury car that didn't have performance somewhere in the engineers' must-have list & still produced a 0-60 equal to that of both performance sedans & a 911S that had the PDK and AWD drivetrain equipped is what's still pretty amazing. The fact it does that at $83K really isn't even the highlight of that; it's that it can do that at 4,600lbs.
I could see that working, for sure.
Let's start at the beginning:
CTS-V or not, my point pretty much still stands. Yeah, there's the odd sedan or sports car which is marginally quicker for a little less money, but then there's plenty more stuff slower for the same money/quicker for a lot more money out there.
Put it this way, anyone who can look at a 4,647-lb luxury sedan (with a seven-seat option...) doing 4.2 to 60 for $80k without using a drop of gas and think "meh" must have their measuring stick set pretty high.
I'd also say it'd be fairly shortsighted not to see the potential for a hybrid system in something like the Supra as far as performance goes. I'm guessing the Supra won't weigh 2.1 tonnes, and it'll probably have more than the Model S Performance's 416 bhp peak output too.
Oh, that's the other thing I suppose, and backing up my low-down power comments - the Model S can get within a few tenths of that CTS-V despite being about 140 horsepower down.
Just to clarify this, the reason I'm kind of calling the Tesle's performance overated is because, mainly before it was actually out, most people who were into EVs that I've spoken to where claiming it would outright dominate similar cars with combustion engines. Which (in my opinion) isn't the case.
But, I've got to admit, I'm reconsidering my position towards a hybrid Supra. Lots of good arguments to make you think twice about it, I guess
I've actually been in the sedan version and it's not that small. Maybe you're thinking about the coupe.
The reason GM took it to germany was to show it could perform, with Sedans that are popular around the world from that region that are and have been geared toward Performance and Luxury for years prior. They wanted to compete in the market and sell in the same way they do with top end corvettes to the super car world. Hence it being a bargain luxury performance sedan. All the cars in this class have luxury and power it isn't one over the other you get both for the price, that's the idea.
Now when we look at the Tesla you quoted, I'd say you're wrong. There are two road going version of the Tesla 85kwh car and one I'd say is solely luxury (like a regular CTS) and the other is the sport model that is obviously set up to be quicker yet eco friendly and that is the one that is 420hp ~. The other normal one is less power and has a much worse and obvious 0-60 time of 6.9. I find it troubling you'd suggest that it wasn't geared toward performance at all. I'd lump it in with the others and say it is performance and luxury driven.
Also my post didn't need to hint at anything since I was replying in a general way to another user. I don't hate nor like the Tesla.
If you go back and read you'll see that I am a proponent for this Supra and also tried to convince Luminis...so just in case that was somewhat guided at me, let me just stop you there.
Then you might like to clarify what you're saying in these quotes, since you now seem to be contradicting yourself:
The point I'm refuting isn't that a hybrid Supra wouldn't be fun - if you're saying that, then I agree with you.
What I'm saying in this particular part of the conversation is that the Tesla does represent pretty good performance/$ for the type of car - something you seem to disagree with, otherwise you'd not have brought up the CTS-V or said "compared to other electrics or hybrids I think Tesla is just a trendy brand that a-list celebs name throw".
So either you disagree, or you've not worded your posts particularly clearly. Incidentally, in your reply to McLaren above you've added a second to the 60 kWh S's 0-60 time - it's 5.9. But then, that one is $60k, rather than $80k. And has a shorter range, so Tesla can't load it with too much performance.
And for the record, it's homeforsummer (no "the"), and has remained so for 16,923 posts and about five and a half years
Like I said if you go back you can read for yourself, I haven't contradicted myself at all.
I didn't say it wasn't, if you recall I thought you said it was the "best bang for your buck". Then I proceeded to show factual info that it is not in fact. Which you followed up by informing me you never did say it was the best bang for buck. Not sure how we've come to this... Also I don't see how it is some black and white option to you. The point I was making yet again is there is better options out there how is that bashing or saying it is horrible?
Um the circumstance are slightly different their, he argued that the Cadillac is just going solely for performance and Tesla just happen to have a fast electric luxury sedan. He makes it sound (to me) as if they didn't engineer that and instead lucked into at the finish, if only it was that easy.
In other words are you trying to garner something, as if I'm disrespecting you? It's an online name for one and secondly a typo, I was running off of memory and that is what I thought it was. Not sure if serious or sarcastic, either way it isn't funny but luckily that is subjective. Thanks for a break down of your forum track record, is super impressive dude
I did read it. I quoted you and replied directly.
"Contradicted" probably wasn't the right term for me to use, but I still wasn't quite sure what you were getting at.
For someone suggesting I go back and read your posts, you maybe ought to do the same with mine. Nowhere have I said it was "best bang for your buck" - Luminis used the term first, and my very first reply to him involved me saying ""I never said it was "best bang for buck"".
But it certainly isn't bad at that price, either, unless I'm missing something. As I said initially. And then quoted in my own post later on.
Regardless of all that, we've drifted back away from my original point to Luminis, which is that he thought the Tesla's performance was over-hyped for the price. I disagreed, and gave my reasons why.
Since he's now clarified what he meant - and nothing I've said is any less correct because of it - I think that's all been cleared up.
Which I didn't. As above. So showing me "factual info" doesn't change the nature of my point.
I didn't say it was, and have never accused you of saying such a thing (but on the plus side, I've now enough straw men for a nice thatched cottage).
Nor have I even implied it - I've simply (well, I thought simply, but I clearly underestimated this discussion) pointed out that it's far from being bad performance for the money. The existence of one or two cars which offer better bang for buck doesn't make the Tesla's performance/VFM any less relevant. No more so than the existence of a cheap, fun used Miata makes a slightly less cheap, fun BRZ/FRS any less relevant.
I think you've read into it more than McLaren was actually saying. The Model S was designed as a luxury sedan that doesn't use any fuel. Performance is simply one of its facets (pretty much any luxury sedan is pretty quick these days), rather than its raison d'être. In fact, as the bald numbers show (i.e, it's less powerful than most sport sedans of a similar price), its performance is more a side-effect of the way electric motors work, than priority #1.
I was simply trying to point it out in a good-natured way (hence the smiley), but I'm beginning to realise that you're over-thinking things anyway so your confusion doesn't surprise me.
That said, for someone who has now on a few occasions asked me to re-read his posts, I'd expect to be given the same courtesy and addressed correctly.
I'm thinking of the wagon, actually. Tiny, tiny back seat, and not that much room up front.
Never been in the wagon, I'll have to take your word
Did you even read what I fully said or just jump the gun. I read your portions just fine... In other words I know you didn't I even acknowledge in my post that you informed me otherwise in another post. Also the reply wasn't to him and as far as I can see I was the one that said it..
Once again no one is saying it's bad can you stop with the broken record posting? All that was said is that for less you can be just as fast or faster. Just to let you know just because a person doesn't think it's as great as you find it, doesn't mean by any stretch that they have distaste for the item you are in favor of.
Which I informed quite clearly that I wasn't taking anything from the fact that it is good performance and said that. The only difference is I would opt for the others or just buy the less powerful Tesla if I didn't want performance.
Which is a bit more understandable I suppose, but either way I still find it difficult to see how it is just a side effect and not geared that way while still being quite luxurious.
I guess I'm not good natured. But I did say you might be being sarcastic (joking to me) because I took note of the smiley emoticon, don't see it as confusion. You seem to see my responses as a personal grudge to one up you or something. I've read the post multiple times before posting back to you and others. I'm not over-thinking anything, I don't see how somewhat disagreeing with you two equates to a simplistic rebuttal of "you're over-thinking it" .
You used those specific words, yes. Luminis said as much in non-colloquial terms a few posts before you:
"High-performer for the price" = "Bang for buck". The discussion started with him, and ideally should have ended there without the needless complication you've brought to it.
Get it out of your head that "bad" = "terrible/wrong/awful/crummy/etc".
"Not bad" is the term I used. It means "okay/pretty good/decent/etc". I used it solely in relation to the "bang for buck" terminology and nothing else. Nobody is saying you said the car was awful. Nobody is saying you don't like it. I am literally just saying that for the price, the Tesla's performance is pretty good. That's all.
You, to the best of my understanding, disagreed with that:
Is that, or is that not, you disagreeing that the Model S offers good bang for buck? Because if it isn't, then you've failed to make yourself clear and I think we've got to the root of the problem here.
Which I haven't disagreed with at any point.
Again: Not once have I implied you don't like the car. I was just saying that your CTS-V argument is moot, since it in no way devalues my original assertion. Mentioning a car with even better bang for buck doesn't mean the original car doesn't also offer bang for buck. How many different ways do I have to say this?
No, I see them as a mass of confusing and ill-thought-out responses to an incredibly simple, clear discussion between Luminis and myself.
How so I directly addressed you, you didn't necessarily specify who you were taking to, and when you used a term "best bang for your buck" two post after I said it, most people would think it was directed at them. I don't see how I complicated anything when I was also engaging you with conversation. Are you suggesting you never saw me?
That wasn't what I was implying at all. What I thought you were getting at is, something about me at some point saying it wasn't anything but decent in other words I thought you were implying that I thought the car was bad. Which I don't, I just prefer something else due to price and performance, but I still think the Tesla from a technical point of view is a good car.
I was waiting for you to bring that back in the fray, didn't disappoint. In reality for the class it competes in I was merely trying to suggest that while it is good, it's in a performance range that is seen by others across the board. So you see other cars less or more in price do around the same 0-60, and thus if it were 3.5 or something I'd say that would be a stellar time and a anomaly and perhaps something to rave about. I just wasn't as thrilled about it as you cause it's something I would hope it could do, with what is known about electric engines.
How so, I have no issue with the car
I never said you did...or at least I don't recall saying this
I also said I wasn't "taking anything away" or in other words devaluing what the car can do when I said I prefer the CTS-V. In the electric or hybrid class I'd agree it is a best bargain but when you expand to all cars in the luxury sedan class that is where I say it's good but not the best. That was all.
Once again I already told you why it was easy to see how you could have been talking to me, and still do. Why not just quote the user directly, this would have easily told me you're talking solely to him.
Can we leave the CTS-V and Tesla Model S out of it and get back to discussing the next Supra please?
Glad to see this has dissolved into an epeen contest closing members out of discussing their hopes for the next gen Supra.
That said, 83k for a 4.2 0-60 isn't bad but it's not good.
It seems to me that performance in that range should be expected at that cost.
All I was trying to say, Kent you are clearly better with words than I seem to be this weekend.
As I said before if this Toyota is as good as said to be...I want it.
The CTS-V & M3 are performance cars first & foremost; that is exactly what Cadillac & BMW market them as, cars ready to be raced. The luxury of the interiors is an afterthought because the cars they are built upon already have that covered. No magazine has thrown those 2 against each other & not spent 90% of the article raving about the performance of the 2 machines.
The figures you quoted are wrong. The base car has 60kw & a 0-60 of 5.4 seconds. The other is the one with 85kw & a 4.2 0-60.
It's not a performance car though, in the same realm as the M3 & CTS-V. It has a 0-60 of a similar time, but the Model S can not achieve anything beyond that 0-60 time against the 2 because it's not built to. That's why I agreed with Homeforsummer that a 4,600lb. luxury hybrid car hitting 0-60 in that time for $83K is really good. That's why I brought up the other 4 cars; to have a 0-60 of 4.2 for that price range, you'd be limited to cars that are built specifically for the purpose of doing so where as the Tesla isn't. It's just a nice little bonus that you could race light to light against a M3 & not be left behind, but that's it.
It is not a luxury performance sedan like the Caddy or the BMW. All you have to do is look at the performance figures to see who is more luxury oriented (Tesla) & who is more performance oriented (Caddy & BMW). There isn't a case of getting luxury & performance at 50/50 as you'd like to think above.
In a straight line, the Model S is as fast as the CTS-V. Road and Track tested the CTS-V and clocked it to 60 at 4.2 seconds. When Motor Trend tested the Model S, they got it to 60 in 4 seconds flat.
Yes, that has been pointed out twice. But, that's pretty much where the Model S' "performance" ends against that car.
I hate to get any more involved but this is getting ridiculous with all the personal definitions and interpretations of company goals.
Go to the Tesla S website. http://www.teslamotors.com/models
The very first thing they say on the site when viewing the Model S is "Introducing a car so advanced it sets a new standard for premium performance."
Simply acknowledging that the Tesla can't run a track like the m3 or cts v doesn't mean we should ignore it's price and target market.
With that in mind...
I bet the upcoming supra will eclipse the tesla s.
Between Toyota Hybrid tech and BMW sports know how, I expect the Supra will be sub-70k and on par with the M3/CTS-V at the track.
That's a lofty goal but with collaboration between companies like BMW and Toyota I'd say just about anything is possible.