Toyota Supra (A90)

[Beeblebrox237]

Yes, that has been pointed out twice. But, that's pretty much where the Model S' "performance" ends against that car.

This is very true. The Model S drives nicely, but is no trakc car. However, it's a luxurious vehicle with great range and a very modern feel. Hang on, isn't this the Supra thread?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

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.

Which is another thing I was trying to point out, but I should let you do all the talking since I have to say you are doing a better job then me yet again.

 

[McLaren]

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."

For a hybrid, it has achieved that. For a car alone, it's just marketing talk on the website.

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.

I don't think anyone has ignored that. If anything, the target market & price is exactly what HFS & I are giving it much credit for. The fact it can run a 0-60 comparable to that of high performance sedans or coupes (Z06 & 911 4S) without actually being one of those cars & at the same price is something worthy giving it some praise over (even more with the weight it carries to do so).

 

[Kent]

Hang on, isn't this the Supra thread?

Agreed and I keep getting sucked into the discussion for the wrong reasons.

My only concern with the Supra is really the price... If they go too high it simply will not be competitive. At this point, I think it's fair to say the premium hybrid market isn't as solid as some special interest groups would like the average consumer to think. Expecting customers to pay a major premium on performance cars using hybrid tech isn't a good gamble in my opinion.

I don't think anyone has ignored that. If anything, the target market & price is exactly what HFS & I are giving it much credit for regarding that 0-60 time.

I think thats where part of the problem is coming from... In my opinion and in the opinion of others in this thread, when you sell a self-proclaimed premium performance car for 83k, doing 60mph in 4.2 seconds isn't all that impressive.
Sure it's fast but not nearly fast enough to say it's a genuine bang for the buck competitor.
Putting it in perspective... the difference in price of a Tesla S and a CTS V is about the same as a Tesla S and a GTR. CTS V: Way cheaper and just as fast. GTR: More expensive and insanely more capable.

The Tesla sets a good standard for what Toyota should AVOID.
IMO Toyota should focus on performance first and foremost regarding the new Supra.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

For a hybrid, it has achieved that. For a car alone, it's just marketing talk on the website.

So when on group does it, it means something, but when another group does it "nothing to see here folks, move along"

That's almost like the people in denial about GT being a racing game just to win an argument, even though it says "real racing simulator" on the back of the package...

 

[McLaren]

I think thats where part of the problem is coming from... In my opinion and in the opinion of others in this thread, when you sell a self-proclaimed premium performance car for 83k, doing 60mph in 4.2 seconds isn't all that impressive.
Sure it's fast but not nearly fast enough to say it's a genuine bang for the buck competitor.

Again, you're buying into marketing talk. Secondly, a 420hp, 4600lbs. car that can do 0 to 60 in 4 seconds isn't impressive in that feat alone? And where has anyone but LMS brought up the Tesla as a "bang for the buck" car?

So when on group does it, it means something, but when another group does it "nothing to see here folks, move along"

When the finished product of both cars are finally shown, yes. The M3 & CTS-V delivered exactly as their manufacturers advertised them as b/c that's what they were built as. Tesla calling the Model S a car that "sets the standard for premium performance" is just marketing talk because the car doesn't actually do any of that as a car alone. If it said hybrid in there somewhere, they'd be completely right.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Again, you're buying into marketing talk. Secondly, a 420hp, 4600lbs. car that can do 0 to 60 in 4 seconds isn't impressive in that feat alone? And where has anyone but LMS brought up the Tesla as a "bang for the buck" car?

Luminis, as HomeforSummer kept proclaiming. However, I'm glad that you didn't notice it either...

 

[Kent]

Again, you're buying into marketing talk. Secondly, a 420hp, 4600lbs. car that can do 0 to 60 in 4 seconds isn't impressive in that feat alone? And where has anyone but LMS brought up the Tesla as a "bang for the buck" car?

To me this has been about price, not weight and power.
Now to say Im buying into the marketing, that's silly. I didn't make Tesla claim to be the new standard in Premium Performance.
Tesla decided for themselves where they wanted to place the car in the market, just because they don't make the grade doesn't mean we should give them a pass on their claim.

This point actually brings us back to the Supra imho simply because it gives us the question, what is their actual goal?

Is the Supra going to try to achieve that same reasonable price with great performance or are they going to step up to a new level?
If the price genuinely does rise up past the 60k mark there will be some seriously critical reviews. Not necessarily bad but critical in the sense of having a close eye to the details. Interior quality, performance, and practicality are all expected at 60k and the competition is very good at balancing those ideals.

I expect the Supra to be priced closer to the 60-80k range than the 30-50k range. I wonder if they will be able to make a baby LFA for 70K.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

When the finished product of both cars are finally shown, yes. The M3 & CTS-V delivered exactly as their manufacturers advertised them as b/c that's what they were built as. Tesla calling the Model S a car that "sets the standard for premium performance" is just marketing talk because the car doesn't actually do any of that as a car alone. If it said hybrid in there somewhere, they'd be completely right.

If that was so then why build it, just like the other manufactures. Why build the performance models when Luxury ones of lesser exist. If the Tesla S isn't geared to perform then why have a 416hp range one that is obviously speed oriented, when the lesser will do just fine and has the options of luxury as the big brother. Once again you suggesting luxury is second hand to performance is a bit asinine since they go hand and hand, they are for people who want to go fast yet have style and luxury while doing it. Those who can afford a sports car like an SLS or Z06/ZR1 but rather not have a difficult super car or don't want a performance coupe (e.g. Camaro SS/ZL1). Same goes for the S and obviously why they are advertising it as such due to the engineering feats and speed it creates.

To me this has been about price, not weight and power.
Now to say Im buying into the marketing, that's silly. I didn't make Tesla claim to be the new standard in Premium Performance.
Tesla decided for themselves where they wanted to place the car in the market, just because they don't make the grade doesn't mean we should give them a pass on their claim.

This point actually brings us back to the Supra imho simply because it gives us the question, what is their actual goal?

Is the Supra going to try to achieve that same reasonable price with great performance or are they going to step up to a new level?
If the price genuinely does rise up past the 60k mark there will be some seriously critical reviews. Not necessarily bad but critical in the sense of having a close eye to the details. Interior quality, performance, and practicality are all expected at 60k and the competition is very good at balancing those ideals.

I expect the Supra to be priced closer to the 60-80k range than the 30-50k range. I wonder if they will be able to make a baby LFA for 70K.

If it's a baby LFA then they are trying to run the new age japanese super car market that has gone away from imports (e.g. GT-R, LF-A (hypercar really), NSX). If that is the case it needs to perform and beat these guys and I already see a difficult time doing so against the Nissan.

 

[RDF97]

Revival of the Supra? If so, YES!
If is looks like the 2007/08 concept? If so, NO!

 

[McLaren]

If that was so then why build it, just like the other manufactures.

Because the marketing talk comes after a car is produced, not during the development....

Why build the performance models when Luxury ones of lesser exist. If the Tesla S isn't geared to perform then why have a 416hp range one that is obviously speed oriented, when the lesser will do just fine and has the options of luxury as the big brother.

It's called having options. Even the Toyota Prius has a button in it called PWR that Toyota says, "Helps create a more spirited driving experience".

I'm not going to knock the Prius for what it is, but let's not BS anyone here; nobody is buying a Prius in hopes of having a spirited drive in it.

Once again you suggesting luxury is second hand to performance is a bit asinine since they go hand and hand, they are for people who want to go fast yet have style and luxury while doing it.

No, they do not. Some cars are geared more towards luxury, some are geared more towards performance. Some cars have 1 & some cars have the other. Cadillac & BMW do not market either car as luxury cars.

The CTS-V & M3 are cars that have luxury because of the models they are built upon, that's why. The cars themselves as whole product however, are performance-oriented first & luxury 2nd. Look at how both cars are marketed; almost all of it is focused upon the power or heritage of motorsports (in BMW's case) because that has always been the purpose of those cars.

Since the beginning of both cars, the ads have always revolved around the same subject; performance, winning, race-bred. These are performance cars first because that's the way they were designed to be. I still don't understand how you haven't understood that yet.

Those who can afford a sports car like an SLS or Z06/ZR1 but rather not have a difficult super car or don't want a performance coupe (e.g. Camaro SS/ZL1).

This makes absolutely no sense with the examples you have given.

Same goes for the S and obviously why they are advertising it as such due to the engineering feats and speed it creates.

Nope. Besides that it is again, marketing talk, HFS had told you before why the 0-60 figure is so low.

its performance is more a side-effect of the way electric motors work, than priority #1.

The Model S is not a blend of performance & luxury, it just a hybrid luxury car with a very quick 0-60 because of the electric motors. If Tesla really had any desire to engineer some worthwhile performance into the car beyond just cranking up the power to charge more money for, it wouldn't fall so flat on its face after 60mph.

But, the reason it does that is probably the same reason it's so quick to 60; the electric motors don't produce any high end torque beyond that speed.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

McLaren, you claim that the Model S falls flat on its face after 60. However, it does the quarter mile in 12.4 seconds at 112.5 mph. That's the same as an Alfa Roemo 8C, or an Aston Martin DBS. It's faster than an Aston Martin V12 Vantage, Audi R8 4.2, Cadillac CTS-V, BMW M3, Jaguar XFR, and Jaguar XJL Supercharged. That's an impressive list of cars, and the Tesla can, in a straight line, run with them. That, to me, makes the Model S performance very good value.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Edit: Directed at Mclaren

Of course they would be marketed that way, they are the speedier versions of their respective models. How else would you market them?

That said, I don't really agree that they are performance first and luxury second. If they were, they would be more like RS models of the Porsche 911. Stripped out and lightened up. The only one that comes close to your idea, in my opinion, is the original CLK Black. The CTS-V has seats that are 'Heated ventilated, and adjustable 14 ways' Among many other very luxury-oriented standard features.

If it were truly sport first, luxury second, they would be lightweight racing seats. But that would be stupid in a luxury sedan.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Because the marketing talk comes after a car is produced, not during the development....

It's called having options. Even the Toyota Prius has a button in it called PWR that Toyota says, "Helps create a more spirited driving experience".

Yeah and my nissan has a sport button that frees up the accelerator more so than usual when I stomp on it. I know how it works, thanks for a recap.

I'm not going to knock the Prius for what it is, but let's not BS anyone here; nobody is buying a Prius in hopes of having a spirited drive in it.

Yeah and the prius isn't marketing it's self in the image of a former Kers Toyota F1 car so it become apparent what the game is for it..being eco friendly and doing things a plain gas engine vehicle cant. As Kent pointed out very simple and clear why is one allowed to pass, but the other isn't.

No, they do not. Some cars are geared more towards luxury, some are geared more towards performance. Some cars have 1 & some cars have the other. Cadillac & BMW do not market either car as luxury cars.

Since the beginning of both cars, the ads have always revolved around the same subject; performance, winning, race-bred.

Once again (since you do it), Cadillac are not solely based on that. The V models are always performance driven but also sold as luxury to compete with well established brands. Since you are the marketing guru all of a sudden, it should be apparent that this is why they go and test the car where their main competition is (Audi, Mercedes, and BMW). They want to be taken seriously like them but do it at a bargain like the Vette does for the supercar realm.

Gee I wonder what that means, surely a tuxedo wouldn't suggest luxury, I'm guessing all you'll see is the jet pack portion. I guess you're right they don't try to highlight performance and luxury. I'm just a crazy loon.

Sarcasm aside, as I said there are more than the ads you've shown and just picking those to cushion your argument doesn't make it the full truth. If the numbers weren't highlighted then why would anyone want to buy it over a normal CTS or a BMW 335 compared to an M3 or any other lesser 3 series.

The BMW builds an entire series with the M car being the pinnacle of it, thus meshing the luxury and performance at the highest peak. BMW is known for luxury already and thus the M cars have to be separated and sold as a road racing version of such luxury.

The Model S is not a blend of performance & luxury, it just a hybrid luxury car with a very quick 0-60 because of the electric motors. If Tesla really had any desire to engineer some worthwhile performance into the car beyond just cranking up the power to charge more money for, it wouldn't fall so flat on its face after 60mph.

But, the reason it does that is probably the same reason it's so quick to 60; the electric motors don't produce any high end torque beyond that speed.

Once again, it as if you make the group sound like they just found such ability in the car at the end of a rainbow. "Oh wow look it can do this...what a surprise for us!"

Yeah try again. And yes the understanding of electric engines is known by us we don't need you to hold our hand.

Edit: Directed at Mclaren

Of course they would be marketed that way, they are the speedier versions of their respective models. How else would you market them?

That said, I don't really agree that they are performance first and luxury second. If they were, they would be more like RS models of the Porsche 911. Stripped out and lightened up. The only one that comes close to your idea, in my opinion, is the original CLK Black. The CTS-V has seats that are 'Heated ventilated, and adjustable 14 ways' Among many other very luxury-oriented standard features.
If it were truly sport first, luxury second, they would be lightweight racing seats. But that would be stupid in a luxury sedan.

Exactly they'd be full on super cars, not 2 ton bricks on wheels with monster power.

McLaren, you claim that the Model S falls flat on its face after 60. However, it does the quarter mile in 12.4 seconds at 112.5 mph. That's the same as an Alfa Roemo 8C, or an Aston Martin DBS. It's faster than an Aston Martin V12 Vantage, Audi R8 4.2, Cadillac CTS-V, BMW M3, Jaguar XFR, and Jaguar XJL Supercharged. That's an impressive list of cars, and the Tesla can, in a straight line, run with them. That, to me, makes the Model S performance very good value.

That's not what he is saying, he is saying it isn't a performance car at all. It is a pure luxury car that just happens to be fast, due to some engineering luck. At least that is the way me and another member have perceived it and brought it up and McLaren hasn't said otherwise yet...

However, I must say with that comment alone I see the Tesla S as a better bang for buck than these other two "insightful" others were able to do.

 

[dice1998]

So.

Toyota Supras huh?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

So.

Toyota Supras huh?

Yeah, aren't they awesome? But we can't talk about them here, this is the Tesla Model S thread.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yeah, aren't they awesome? But we can't talk about them here, this is the Tesla Model S thread.

I love me some Supra

Maybe we can get a hood scoop on the new one

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I always hated that hood scoop. Was it even functional? I know it wasn't even a standard feature.

 

[Aquarelle]

I always hated that hood scoop. Was it even functional? I know it wasn't even a standard feature.

It directly funnelled air onto the engine with the intention of reducing the temperature in the bay. Whether or not you'd call that "Functional" is up to you but it did serve a purpose and didn't simply lead to firewall.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Of course it has to be a hypebrid

EDIT: referrring to old posts because I thought I'd been directed to the most recent page. Is that still happening?

 

[AudiMan2011]

New Hybrid-R concept won't showcase a new Supra.

Click here for disappointment.

I guess we'll just have to continue speculating.

 

[BKGlover]

Dissapointment? I find that to be good news. Something that already exist getting a speed boost, hybrid or not, and as far as I know (about a foot in front of my face for reference) the Supra isn't a hybrid. Good start.

Then again I could be talking out my butt.

 

[McLaren]

McLaren, you claim that the Model S falls flat on its face after 60. However, it does the quarter mile in 12.4 seconds at 112.5 mph. That's the same as an Alfa Roemo 8C, or an Aston Martin DBS. It's faster than an Aston Martin V12 Vantage, Audi R8 4.2, Cadillac CTS-V, BMW M3, Jaguar XFR, and Jaguar XJL Supercharged. That's an impressive list of cars, and the Tesla can, in a straight line, run with them. That, to me, makes the Model S performance very good value.

Is this the same time done in a test against a Dodge Viper where the Tesla won & the Viper looked like it couldn't even run 13's?

Forgive me if I fail to really give the test any credit when the SRT-10 Viper is beyond capable of a 12.4 qtr mile. As for the list you provided, that's not correct.

The 8C can run it at 12.4 @ 116.4mph. That's not the same as a 112.5mph. That's quicker.
The DBS can run it at 12.4 @ 117.4mph. That's not the same as a 112.5mph, either. That's even quicker.
The V12 Vantage runs a 12.5 @ 117mph. Take notice of the trap speed against the Tesla. The V12 Vantage is really the faster car in this comparison.
I'll give you the R8.
The Tesla against the CTS-V isn't anywhere close; even though magazines have found it at 12.3 @ 116mph (still faster than what you said), they have also published articles of the car below 12 seconds.
As for the M3 with 414Hp , it runs a 12.4@114mph. Where is that slower than a 112.5mph as well?

I'll give you the 2 Jaguars even though it should be abundantly clear as to why they're slower; Jaguar added more horsepower, upped the price, & called it a day. They might as well remain luxury cars with a supercharger added on.

The trap speeds tell the story, though. If we went as far as to look at 0-100 times, the Tesla rings in at 9.5. Everyone else on the list is faster & start to reel in the Tesla at 70-80mph (perhaps besides the R8; I didn't check it), which explains the higher trap speeds.

Edit: Directed at Mclaren

Of course they would be marketed that way, they are the speedier versions of their respective models. How else would you market them?

That's exactly my point. They are the high performance versions; you pay for said performance in power, brakes, handling, lighter materials, etc. All the luxury has already been carried over from the base cars. The extra $24,000 over the CTS Sport isn't buying you some perfect blend of more luxury & performance as LMS seems to believe; the majority of that $24K buys a supercharger, bigger brakes, beefier suspension, & a chassis developed on a race track. I see the performance I get for another $24,000, so where's that extra luxury over the CTS Sport that shows the CTS-V isn't performance-oriented as LMS believes?

That said, I don't really agree that they are performance first and luxury second. If they were, they would be more like RS models of the Porsche 911. Stripped out and lightened up. The only one that comes close to your idea, in my opinion, is the original CLK Black. The CTS-V has seats that are 'Heated ventilated, and adjustable 14 ways' Among many other very luxury-oriented standard features.

It's not that black & white. Performance first does not automatically mean a manufacturer goes to such extreme lengths.

Actually, no it doesn't standard. What it does have standard are heated, 10-way adjustable seats right out of the very car it's built upon; the CTS Sport.

What you cited are the Recaros, which leads to this:

If it were truly sport first, luxury second, they would be lightweight racing seats. But that would be stupid in a luxury sedan.

What exactly does Recaro make again? Racing seats, correct? The Recaros in the car are there to add additional support which according to many owners, makes them must-haves over the standard seats.

Yeah and my nissan has a sport button that frees up the accelerator more so than usual when I stomp on it. I know how it works, thanks for a recap.

Right over your head.

Yeah and the prius isn't marketing it's self in the image of a former Kers Toyota F1 car so it become apparent what the game is for it..being eco friendly and doing things a plain gas engine vehicle cant. As Kent pointed out very simple and clear why is one allowed to pass, but the other isn't.

Again, woosh.

Once again (since you do it), Cadillac are not solely based on that. The V models are always performance driven but also sold as luxury to compete with well established brands.

Thank you for just throwing out what you said beforehand. They are performance driven, i.e., performance is the priority.

Since you are the marketing guru all of a sudden, it should be apparent that this is why they go and test the car where their main competition is (Audi, Mercedes, and BMW). They want to be taken seriously like them but do it at a bargain like the Vette does for the supercar realm.

And where exactly in Germany was it taken to compete against Audi, Mercedes, & BMW again?

Hey Eunos, what kind of seats are those in that car when they were talking about breaking the lap record for a sedan? They don't look like luxury seats to me.

Gee I wonder what that means, surely a tuxedo wouldn't suggest luxury, I'm guessing all you'll see is the jet pack portion. I guess you're right they don't try to highlight performance and luxury. I'm just a crazy loon.

Read the rest of that print & tell me what it focuses mainly on?

I'll give you some cliffs; massive stopping power of 6-piston Brembos. High performance chassis developed on race tracks. 0-60 in 3.9 seconds (hey, wait a minute, that sounds like that might be marketing talk since its slower than a Model S, remember?), 556-hp CTS-V with a Nurburgring time of 7:59.22

Let's get the record straight as well. I'm not saying the car isn't a luxury car, because the car it's built upon & retains features from is. However, what the car is oriented to (& you just agreed to this above with "performance-driven") is high performance. These are performance cars first because they are built to be. Cadillac's entire ad campaign around the CTS-V focuses on telling the buyer 1 thing; it's a god damn fast car. Luxury is only a result of the CTS Sport it comes from. You expect all that to remain there. Cadillac doesn't have the balls to sell a $65K sedan built on a CTS without including all the bells & whistles; only Porsche & Ferrari get away with charging you more for less.

Sarcasm aside, as I said there are more than the ads you've shown and just picking those to cushion your argument doesn't make it the full truth. If the numbers weren't highlighted then why would anyone want to buy it over a normal CTS or a BMW 335 compared to an M3 or any other lesser 3 series.

I haven't cherry picked anything. Hell the ad you chose only supported my point. Look at all the TV ads for the car.




Not one of those ads focuses anything at all at the luxury aspects of the car. Every single mentions lap times, 0-60, fastest production sedan.

The numbers are highlighted because that's what the point of CTS-V is; to hit those number. Cadillac did not build the V to showcase the power of their luxury interiors because there's almost nothing new in the V's luxury that isn't already showcased in the CTS Sport.

The BMW builds an entire series with the M car being the pinnacle of it, thus meshing the luxury and performance at the highest peak. BMW is known for luxury already and thus the M cars have to be separated and sold as a road racing version of such luxury.

You are again talking as if I said they removed the luxury. I know the cars have luxury in them. But in a world of what they are more driven by (the phrase you used above), it is performance. A M3 is performance first, luxury second. The whole development cycle all the way to advertisements focus on performance over anything else because that's why they build them in the first place. I agree they are luxury-performance cars, but with the performance being the drive behind their existence, not the luxury; BMW doesn't sell the M brand by telling people about the creature comforts. That's what the base cars are for & what people expect a M3 to retain automatically whilst what they really want to see new is the performance.

What my original argument was is that Tesla isn't a luxury performance car like the M3 or CTS-V. Where is the performance of the Tesla outside the 0-60? The QTR mile times are achieved greatly in part to said 0-60, not because Tesla engineered the car to actually have a QTR mile time like a M3, and the performance certainly doesn't reveal itself in top speed or on a track where both V8s walk away with such little effort.

Once again, it as if you make the group sound like they just found such ability in the car at the end of a rainbow. "Oh wow look it can do this...what a surprise for us!"

Nope. Try again.

Yeah try again. And yes the understanding of electric engines is known by us we don't need you to hold our hand.

Considering the things you have tried to argue against me & HFS, or that you conceded to Kent needing to do your talking, maybe you do need your hand held.

Exactly they'd be full on super cars, not 2 ton bricks on wheels with monster power.

The world of performance cars isn't that black & white.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Is this the same time done in a test against a Dodge Viper where the Tesla won & the Viper looked like it couldn't even run 13's?

Forgive me if I fail to really give the test any credit when the SRT-10 Viper is beyond capable of a 12.4 qtr mile. As for the list you provided, that's not correct.

The 8C can run it at 12.4 @ 116.4mph. That's not the same as a 112.5mph. That's quicker.
The DBS can run it at 12.4 @ 117.4mph. That's not the same as a 112.5mph, either. That's even quicker.
The V12 Vantage runs a 12.5 @ 117mph. Take notice of the trap speed against the Tesla. The V12 Vantage is really the faster car in this comparison.
I'll give you the R8.
The Tesla against the CTS-V isn't anywhere close; even though magazines have found it at 12.3 @ 116mph (still faster than what you said), they have also published articles of the car below 12 seconds.
As for the M3 with 414Hp , it runs a 12.4@114mph. Where is that slower than a 112.5mph as well?

I'll give you the 2 Jaguars even though it should be abundantly clear as to why they're slower; Jaguar added more horsepower, upped the price, & called it a day. They might as well remain luxury cars with a supercharger added on.

The trap speeds tell the story, though. If we went as far as to look at 0-100 times, the Tesla rings in at 9.5. Everyone else on the list is faster & start to reel in the Tesla at 70-80mph (perhaps besides the R8; I didn't check it), which explains the higher trap speeds.

I got all my data, save for the Tesla's 1/4 mile time, from Road and Track's data panel archives, and the Tesla I got from Motor Tend's COTY article. I don't know what you're referring to with the Viper comparison. If you look at my sources, you will see that in terms of time, everything I said is true. Yes, the trap speeds are higher, but where are you going to take a Tesla up to 112 mph anyway?

The point is that the Tesla Model S is a very fast car, and can run with more expensive, more powerful, and more exotic machinery in a striaght line. Around corners it doesn't come close, but in the end it's still a big luxury saloon.

If you look at this data panel, you'll find that the Tesla is faster than all four luxury saloons there. Save for the Equus, it's about the same price, too. In fact, the only car that even comes close is the Jaguar, and it's still slower both in time and trap speed. The rest are over a second behind in the quarter mile, and the Tesla is still pulling away.

The Tesla is a fast car, I don't see how you can deny it. It's very fast for its class, and fast even by sports car standards. In terms of straight line speed and practicality, it's quite a bargain. 5+2 seating, two boots, and it gets to 60 faster than a Cadillac CTS-V, which has 140 more horsepower. I'd call it a real performance car, as well as a luxurious saloon.

I'm not sure why you seem determined to put the Model S down, it's a testament to American engineering and shows that when they put their minds to it they can still make a car that is, to borrow a phrase, the standard of the world.

This is what Motor Trend thought of it:

"It drives like a sports car, eager and agile and instantly responsive. But it's also as smoothly effortless as a Rolls-Royce, can carry almost as much stuff as a Chevy Equinox, and is more efficient than a Toyota Prius."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear...year_tesla_model_s/viewall.html#ixzz2bo8XVms3

 

[McLaren]

I got all my data, save for the Tesla's 1/4 mile time, from Road and Track's data panel archives, and the Tesla I got from Motor Tend's COTY article. I don't know what you're referring to with the Viper comparison. If you look at my sources, you will see that in terms of time, everything I said is true. Yes, the trap speeds are higher, but where are you going to take a Tesla up to 112 mph anyway?

In what world is 112.5mph faster than than 116, 117, or 114mph again? Running the same time doesn't make them equal in speed if the other cars can run higher top speeds in the same time frame.

Where you can take a Tesla to 112mph (besides a drag strip apparently) is irrelevant. It is not the faster the car as you said.

The point is that the Tesla Model S is a very fast car, and can run with more expensive, more powerful, and more exotic machinery in a striaght line. Around corners it doesn't come close, but in the end it's still a big luxury saloon.

I haven't argued against this at all.

If you look at this data panel, you'll find that the Tesla is faster than all four luxury saloons there. Save for the Equus, it's about the same price, too. In fact, the only car that even comes close is the Jaguar, and it's still slower both in time and trap speed. The rest are over a second behind in the quarter mile, and the Tesla is still pulling away.

I haven't argued this, either. But, as HFS said earlier, the time it can achieve to 60 is a product of electric engines, something none of those cars have.

The Tesla is a fast car, I don't see how you can deny it. It's very fast for its class, and fast even by sports car standards. In terms of straight line speed and practicality, it's quite a bargain. 5+2 seating, two boots, and it gets to 60 faster than a Cadillac CTS-V, which has 140 more horsepower.

I didn't deny it at all. In fact, I praised the damn car for it originally because LMS said that's nothing special for the price.

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.

Considering these are 4 cars built for everything the Tesla isn't, I thought it was pretty special because it is seriously fast to beat such cars to 60mph.

I'm not sure why you seem determined to put the Model S down, it's a testament to American engineering and shows that when they put their minds to it they can still make a car that is, to borrow a phrase, the standard of the world.

Read above.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I haven't argued against this at all.

I haven't argued this, either. But, as HFS said earlier, the time it can achieve to 60 is a product of electric engines, something none of those cars have.

I didn't deny it at all. In fact, I praised the damn car for it originally because LMS said that's nothing special for the price.

Considering these are 4 cars built for everything the Tesla isn't, I thought it was pretty special because it is seriously fast to beat such cars to 60mph.


Read above.

So why are we arguing, again?

The Model S, is, to me, a sporty luxury car that is very, very fast. It's a beautiful piece of engineering as well.

 

[GranTurismo916]

Anyone coming in here without looking at the thread title would have thought this was a Model S thread. But I do love the Model S, it's a great car.

When was the Supra confirmed for production? Just wondering. 👍

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Has anyone considered BMW's take on it?

If I were BMW, I'd simply refuse making the Supra faster than the M5 GC. I'd make it good enough to put my name on, without allowing it to be better than the actual line-up I offer.


But, since it's Toyota, I honestly believe Toyota's going to over-style it.

The LF-A, and the GT86, in my opinion, have both been over-styled and look too "overdressed."


So, I have low expectations for this Supra. It's not the 80s nor the 90s anymore.

 

[homeforsummer]

New Hybrid-R concept won't showcase a new Supra.

Click here for disappointment.

I guess we'll just have to continue speculating.

Dissapointment? I find that to be good news. Something that already exist getting a speed boost, hybrid or not, and as far as I know (about a foot in front of my face for reference) the Supra isn't a hybrid. Good start.

I'm with BK on this. Well, apart from the non-hybrid Supra, which I still think would be technologically a disappointment.

The concept not be a Supra, but a hybrid hot hatchback could still be cool. It's the sort of image boost hybrids need.

 

[Clark]

Until they get these 'sporty' Hybrids on sale at reasonable prices they don't interest me. Take the CR-Z for example, starts from around £20K for example in the UK. That price seems like a joke to me, you can get cars that drive better, look better, are more economic or all three for the same or even less than that.

I just think this 'Supra' could fall flat on it's face if it ends up being something stupid like 911 Turbo/GT3 money.