Toyota Supra (A90)

[Danoff]

Talking about the old Supra compared to it's competition, it was Slower then all of them(even the 3000GT).

I love that these old programs are around online. Someone took the time to do that, and that's awesome.

 

[homeforsummer]

Mid-engine is better from a handling perspective due to math - specifically rotational moment of inertia. It's a better sports car layout, which is why when sports cars get serious, that's what they use. The MR2 is also light and has a small wheelbase (though not TOO small like the miata) and is very "chuckable".

It has more structural rigidity in the roof, it has proper sports car dynamics, and it's light. What it doesn't have is a rag top (at least not until the 3rd gen, which had its own issues). The third gen MR2 was also not very pretty, which didn't help its cause.

Basically, the MR2 lost out on sales for a bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with whether it's a better sports car. You can argue with me if you want about why the miata is a better sports car (I mean, you shouldn't, because it isn't), but don't use sales to back it up.

I've never driven the first two generations of MR2, and I've only had a brief go in the third (against repeatedly driving all four gens of MX-5).

My immediate impression is that the Mk3 MR2 is a better sports car than the equivalent MX-5. The engine feels better, it's more responsive, the chassis is stiffer. I'd love to spend more time in one to figure out for sure, and I'm not sure the steering feels as good as the Mazda (NA or NB, at least), but overall reviews from the era seem to back up my quick impressions on that one.

The first-gen was probably better compared to the first-gen MX-5 too, though their sales never really overlapped so I've never read a direct comparison. The SW20 is a harder one to call, because I can't recall reading any reviews that were particularly glowing, whereas the first couple of gens of MX-5 usually did get good reviews. And it probably took until later examples of the MR2 for it to become the car it should have been at launch. Again, never driven one so can't base this on personal experience, but given reviews seemed to suggest it was less of a sports car than the Mk1, it's less convincing.

So generally, Mk1, possibly better, Mk2, hard to call, Mk3, fairly safe to say it's better (though certainly not perfect).

The one thing I don't quite agree with, mainly because it seems hugely subjective, is that the MX-5's wheelbase is "too small". I know you've mentioned it before but I've never quite understood the rationale. It's presumably not stability, as by definition of the low polar moment of inertia you mentioned, a mid-engined car is typically less stable (easier to turn) than a front-engined one. It's less stable than a longer wheelbase of the same layout, but if we're treating agility as a desirable characteristic in a sports car (again, a mid-engined trait), then it can't also be a negative one, particularly if the end result is ultimately more controllable.

There are obviously sensible limits too all these things - a mid-engined, short-wheelbase Stratos is a bit of a handful, I'm led to believe, and a front-engined, long-wheelbase S-class probably isn't the most agile of things - but all other things being equal, I'm not sure why an MX-5's wheelbase is "too small" - unless you're tall and it's affecting passenger space. But then you've noted above that trunk space isn't a valid sports car trait, so arguably neither should passenger space affect its credentials...

 

[Danoff]

I've never driven the first two generations of MR2, and I've only had a brief go in the third (against repeatedly driving all four gens of MX-5).

My immediate impression is that the Mk3 MR2 is a better sports car than the equivalent MX-5. The engine feels better, it's more responsive, the chassis is stiffer. I'd love to spend more time in one to figure out for sure, and I'm not sure the steering feels as good as the Mazda (NA or NB, at least), but overall reviews from the era seem to back up my quick impressions on that one.

The first-gen was probably better compared to the first-gen MX-5 too, though their sales never really overlapped so I've never read a direct comparison. The SW20 is a harder one to call, because I can't recall reading any reviews that were particularly glowing, whereas the first couple of gens of MX-5 usually did get good reviews. And it probably took until later examples of the MR2 for it to become the car it should have been at launch. Again, never driven one so can't base this on personal experience, but given reviews seemed to suggest it was less of a sports car than the Mk1, it's less convincing.

So generally, Mk1, possibly better, Mk2, hard to call, Mk3, fairly safe to say it's better (though certainly not perfect).

The one thing I don't quite agree with, mainly because it seems hugely subjective, is that the MX-5's wheelbase is "too small". I know you've mentioned it before but I've never quite understood the rationale. It's presumably not stability, as by definition of the low polar moment of inertia you mentioned, a mid-engined car is typically less stable (easier to turn) than a front-engined one. It's less stable than a longer wheelbase of the same layout, but if we're treating agility as a desirable characteristic in a sports car (again, a mid-engined trait), then it can't also be a negative one, particularly if the end result is ultimately more controllable.

There are obviously sensible limits too all these things - a mid-engined, short-wheelbase Stratos is a bit of a handful, I'm led to believe, and a front-engined, long-wheelbase S-class probably isn't the most agile of things - but all other things being equal, I'm not sure why an MX-5's wheelbase is "too small" - unless you're tall and it's affecting passenger space. But then you've noted above that trunk space isn't a valid sports car trait, so arguably neither should passenger space affect its credentials...

So I have actually driven all of the cars mentioned above with the exception of the 3rd gen MR2. The Mk2 is a better sports car in my eyes than the Mk1 MR2. I didn't drive them back-to-back, so it's hard for me to say that with the utmost confidence, but my reactions to driving each were very different.

Longer wheelbase cars are less nervous in higher speed turns. Twitchy not being the same thing as nimble. It's for (I should say partly) that reason that a car like the NSX (just drawing from experience here), is more composed at 80 mph when you're pushing it hard on a turn than, say, a second gen MR2. I think that bears out in the marketplace too where we see cars like Ferraris and Lamborghinis go to longer wheelbases meant for stability at higher speeds. The miata slots somewhere below the 2nd gen MR2 when it comes to high speed turning stability.

Don't get me wrong here, the MR2 is not the perfect sports car for all occasions, and in fact I'm sure you could find a tight enough, slow enough course where the miata's wheelbase would give it an edge of the MR2 (not sure it would be enough to overcome having the engine in the wrong place or reduced stiffness). But if I'm on a high speed course, I'm taking something with a longer wheelbase than even an MR2, let alone a miata.

 

[homeforsummer]

Longer wheelbase cars are less nervous in higher speed turns. Twitchy not being the same thing as nimble. It's for that reason that a car like the NSX (just drawing from experience here), is more composed at 80 mph when you're pushing it hard on a turn than, say, a second gen MR2. I think that bears out in the marketplace too where we see cars like Ferraris and Lamborghinis go to longer wheelbases meant for stability at higher speeds. The miata slots somewhere below the 2nd gen MR2 when it comes to high speed turning stability.

Hmm. I think that's over simplifying it a little. A Ferrari or Lamborghini is also proportionally very low, very wide and rides on wider tyres. And mid-engined cars like your MR2 and NSX both have staggered wheel and tyre setups too. And of course, modern ones - the ones that are relatively friendly to drive - also have a boatload of electronics helping them retain their agility without compromising safety. That's a lot of factors that aren't simply related to wheelbase (or at least, help mitigate characteristics inherent to wheelbase).

I've driven MX-5s on track and around some fairly high-speed corners (think Goodwood) and nervous isn't a word that has ever sprung to mind. With later MX-5s in particular (earlier Mk3s, and any Mk4 I've driven) I'd argue any failing they have is through relative lack of progression - wider tyres that let go suddenly when they reach the limit of grip, rather than the narrower ones on earlier cars that break away more progressively when they do eventually let go. Sudden breakaway of course is a trait not unknown in certain mid-engined cars... and not uncommon in reviews of both the SW20 and NSX (which also throw a rearward weight bias into the mix).

It's not universal of course. A long wheelbase can be reassuring. I don't use the word "hate" often but I get pretty close when describing the Jag F-type. Lots of power, short wheelbase, twitchy steering. Deeply unpleasant when the roads are anything but bone dry. Gimme an XJ with the same engine any day. More fun and more stable.

The issue there is whether that extra stability detracts from whether something is a sports car or not. You say that "twitchy" isn't the same thing as "nimble", but I'd say that while they aren't synonymous, they're certainly linked. Shades on the same spectrum, with "unable to turn" at one end and "spins like a top" at the other. Where you draw the line depends on preference - but I'd say there's a fairly blurry mark between the "agility" of a mid-engined car with a wheelbase of x, and the "twitchiness" of a front-engined sports car with a wheelbase of <x (within sensible reason).

I'm not saying MX-5s are the perfect sports car - far from it. But twitchy/nervous aren't adjectives I'd use to describe them, even at higher speeds. I would describe them as nimble however, without the edginess that sometimes characterises mid-engined stuff.

 

[mustafur]

I just don't see why being Mid Engine makes a car more of a sports car though, like sure it's the surprior layout if you want the better track time if all other parts of the car are the same, but the driving characteristics have been changed with subjective feel on the outcome, a Track car and Sports car are not the exact same thing even if they overlap.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car

Going by the wiki Sourced article it is going down the route of lightweight and nimbleness being the primary factor of being a sports car, the MX-5 being very much in that territory.

Edit: Maybe a change of thread is required.

 

[Tornado]

A lone (the only?) performance test where the Supra was slower than the one car in the segment that was a bigger lardass than even the A70 is no more a smoking gun than the one A80Numbah1Fan brought up where the Supra was somehow ripping off 4.6 times to 60. The Supra was the fastest and most powerful in the segment at the time, and that was generally borne out in comparisons. The only one that was consistently at its throat without jumping to cars that cost twice as much was the Corvette.

You mean a better sports car with proper handling?

The MR2 is also light and has a small wheelbase (though not TOO small like the miata) and is very "chuckable".

It took several years of working on it for Toyota to turn the SW20 into a car that didn't chuck itself off roads; so I think Mustafur's point about it being generation specific is pretty apt. I've driven an SW20 Turbo, an early one granted, and nothing about it's handling is what I'd call "proper." Fast, it was definitely fast. The AW30 was much, much better handling even though it wasn't anywhere near as quick and even though I'm sure the actual grip numbers are worse.

 

[Danoff]

Hmm. I think that's over simplifying it a little. A Ferrari or Lamborghini is also proportionally very low, very wide and rides on wider tyres. And mid-engined cars like your MR2 and NSX both have staggered wheel and tyre setups too. And of course, modern ones - the ones that are relatively friendly to drive - also have a boatload of electronics helping them retain their agility without compromising safety. That's a lot of factors that aren't simply related to wheelbase (or at least, help mitigate characteristics inherent to wheelbase).

I've driven MX-5s on track and around some fairly high-speed corners (think Goodwood) and nervous isn't a word that has ever sprung to mind. With later MX-5s in particular (earlier Mk3s, and any Mk4 I've driven) I'd argue any failing they have is through relative lack of progression - wider tyres that let go suddenly when they reach the limit of grip, rather than the narrower ones on earlier cars that break away more progressively when they do eventually let go. Sudden breakaway of course is a trait not unknown in certain mid-engined cars... and not uncommon in reviews of both the SW20 and NSX (which also throw a rearward weight bias into the mix).

It's not universal of course. A long wheelbase can be reassuring. I don't use the word "hate" often but I get pretty close when describing the Jag F-type. Lots of power, short wheelbase, twitchy steering. Deeply unpleasant when the roads are anything but bone dry. Gimme an XJ with the same engine any day. More fun and more stable.

The issue there is whether that extra stability detracts from whether something is a sports car or not. You say that "twitchy" isn't the same thing as "nimble", but I'd say that while they aren't synonymous, they're certainly linked. Shades on the same spectrum, with "unable to turn" at one end and "spins like a top" at the other. Where you draw the line depends on preference - but I'd say there's a fairly blurry mark between the "agility" of a mid-engined car with a wheelbase of x, and the "twitchiness" of a front-engined sports car with a wheelbase of <x (within sensible reason).

I'm not saying MX-5s are the perfect sports car - far from it. But twitchy/nervous aren't adjectives I'd use to describe them, even at higher speeds. I would describe them as nimble however, without the edginess that sometimes characterises mid-engined stuff.

I had edited my previous post to point out that of course the wheelbase is not the only factor.

I think you can tell where these cars feel at home when driving them. The NSX (just taking a longer wheelbase mid-engined car for a moment) feels, all the way around, like it's designed for higher speed turns than either the 1st or 2nd gen MR2s (I haven't driven the 3rd). The MR2s both feel like they're designed for higher speed stuff than the Miata. If I had to rank them in order of where the car felt most "at home" I'd put them in that order. NSX, MR2, Miata in order of decreasing speed. How much of that is down to the wheelbase I'll set aside, although I note that the higher speed the sports car, the longer the wheelbase tends to be. The wheelbase of those three cars also happens to be in that order.

The Miata feels like a great car. The MR2 just feels more nimble, and more stable, simultaneously, and based on my limited experience I chalk that up to being mid-engined and having a longer wheelbase. I have driven the Mk2 MR2 with both a staggered and square tire setup, and it didn't feel like the tire setup changed the character nearly to the degree that hopping in a miata does.

It took several years of working on it for Toyota to turn the SW20 into a car that didn't chuck itself off roads; so I think Mustafur's point about it being generation specific is pretty apt. I've driven an SW20 Turbo, an early one granted, and nothing about it's handling is what I'd call "proper." The AW30 was much, much better handling even though it wasn't anywhere near as fast and even though I'm sure the numbers are worse.

I think that the turbo is not a great comparison with the miata, unless you stick a turbo on said miata.

 

[homeforsummer]

How much of that is down to the wheelbase I'll set aside, although I note that the higher speed the sports car, the longer the wheelbase tends to be.

To play devil's advocate, the higher speed the sports car, the larger the engine tends to be and the requirement for a longer wheelbase so said engine will actually fit

 

[Danoff]

To play devil's advocate, the higher speed the sports car, the larger the engine tends to be and the requirement for a longer wheelbase so said engine will actually fit

I will say that I've had this discussion with other car enthusiasts who have somewhat independently come to the same conclusion about what would appear to be wheelbase. I had a long conversation with a track and amateur racing enthusiast friend who has owned a first-gen miata, many MR2s, lots of E36 variants, and an E36 ///M Coupe. When it came down to racing and tracking each of those cars, his car of choice was not the miata, MR2, or the clownshoe, but rather the E36 (M and non-M) for stability and forgiveness in the turns.

I like the liveliness of the MR2 better on the street than the E36, but I think for high speeds at the track I'd go E36 over the MR2 for better stability and fewer changes of pants.

So as you say, it does kinda depend on what you want to do with each one. I find the MR2 to be the better all-around sports car for the road, and dislike convertibles, so I like to throw jabs at the miata every chance I get. It might partly be because of how slavish the car enthusiast world seems to be toward that car. I think that's mostly down to its availability and all-around greatness as a car. It has earned its reputation, but I like going counter-culture on it.

Edit:

Having driven his M-Coupe, I agree with him. It's a riot, but also a little unnerving. It's also probably the best road-going sports car of this group.

 

[05XR8]

So, possibly, the Supra(shorter wheelbase than 86) will be that much more lively, yet more stable(due to a wider track), than the 86.

 

[Danoff]

So, possibly, the Supra(shorter wheelbase than 86) will be that much more lively, yet more stable(due to a wider track), than the 86.

I didn't know it had a shorter wheelbase than the 86. That's interesting. The big outstanding question in my mind between those would be weight. It looks like the 86 is 600 lbs lighter.

 

[05XR8]

I didn't know it had a shorter wheelbase than the 86. That's interesting. The big outstanding question in my mind between those would be weight. It looks like the 86 is 600 lbs lighter.

Oh, no doubt. Also, right off the showroom floor, I suspect the Supra won't have Prius graded rubber. May be another factor the Supra will handle better.

Definitely a comparison between the two is in order. SZ, SZ-R, RZ vs 86.

 

[Danoff]

Definitely a comparison between the two is in order.

...and between the Supra and the Z4.

So much fun to be had. I could never get angry with Toyota for bringing us another toy car to talk about and compare, and maybe even drive one day. What would we do with ourselves without all of these wonderful cars to debate and discuss?

 

[homeforsummer]

I like the liveliness of the MR2 better on the street than the E36, but I think for high speeds at the track I'd go E36 over the MR2 for better stability and fewer changes of pants.

I'll concede that if I was going to say, the Nurburgring, and my aim was going as quickly as possible, then I'd probably also go for the E36. But if the opportunity presented itself in isolation to drive an MX-5 on [circuit name] I'd probably not think "ooh wait, that'll be a bit sketchy". And on the road, MX-5 every time.

It might partly be because of how slavish the car enthusiast world seems to be toward that car.

The funny thing is personally (not that on-topic but we'll be back to the new Supra soon enough) I was never really an "MX-5 guy" even as recently as half way through ownership of the one I've just sold. The first one I bought ten-odd years ago was one of umpteen cars on a shortlist and just kinda "happened". If I had more money I'd probably have an AE86 instead (though not, curiously, an E30/E36). The main thing for me was small/light/nimble/rear-drive, where an MX-5 has become pretty much the default choice for the money.

But more recently, I "get" it. I think they look great as standard and even better with some choice alterations (NAs specifically, but can appreciate the other generations), I enjoy that the fanbase is pretty much global and massively diverse (similar to 911s, but with less money and... possibly less ego), and a well set-up one really does drive very nicely indeed. They're imperfect, but then perfection is... I dunno, a Golf GTI, and I get pretty bored of those pretty quickly.

So on this note...

I could never get angry with Toyota for bringing us another toy car to talk about and compare, and maybe even drive one day.

...bring it on! I like interesting cars, I like cars that are fun, and I couldn't care either way who built what, provided the end product is great. If we get to have a chat about it, all the better.

 

[Danoff]

I'll concede that if I was going to say, the Nurburgring, and my aim was going as quickly as possible, then I'd probably also go for the E36. But if the opportunity presented itself in isolation to drive an MX-5 on [circuit name] I'd probably not think "ooh wait, that'll be a bit sketchy". And on the road, MX-5 every time.

On track, what if your goal wasn't to get around as fast as possible but to just have the best time. Which do you pick? E36 or MX5?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

To weigh in on the discussion....

Wheelbase is part of the whole stability equation for sure. Other factors that I think contribute as much or more:

-Suspension Geometry

For instance, many strut type front suspension setups will have dynamic camber which means that grip levels will probably be changing as the suspension gets loaded up...causing potential instability.
Ever seen an old car with a swing-axle rear suspension pitched into a corner? It's terrifying....

-Suspension tuning

Spring weights, alignment, anti-roll bar setup, & dampers play a huge role in stability​

-TIRES

Obvious, but yeah. My Boxster had a noticeable change in steady-state feeling of stability just by putting on a new set of tires. The treadwear rating wasn't even much different.​

-Aerodynamics

Audi had to put a small spoiler on the back of the first gen Audi TT because they were extremely unstable at higher speed. And that's a FWD, very front heavy & relatively long wheelbase car.​

-Mass/Weight

A heavier car will be less inclined to change direction, simple momentum.​

-Center of Gravity

The higher the mass is located, the more it will tug at the role center, and the more instable a given car will feel.​

I'll say that my Boxster feels far more 'planted' than an MX-5 of any generation despite being mid-engined. Some of that undoubtedly has to do with the longer wheelbase. But I think also it's lower cG, wider track, better damping, wider tires, and generally more mass contributes as well. GT86 feels somewhere in between the two.

All of that is to say you could probably get a Mercedes S Class LWB to feel unstable if you put it on skinny tires with some crazy toe settings and put a sail on it.

 

[homeforsummer]

On track, what if your goal wasn't to get around as fast as possible but to just have the best time. Which do you pick? E36 or MX5?

Probably still the Mazda. Lighter, nimbler, more responsive, and greater sensation of speed being smaller and less insulated. But probably the BMW on a bigger, wider, faster track, less for reasons of stability and more because bigger, faster tracks can make even quick road cars feel quite slow.

Or you could flip it around again, and ask whether I'd prefer to drive in a Spec Miata race at a big fast track or a Spec E36 series... and it'd be the Mazda again, because nothing shortens a long straight like having half a dozen cars on the same bit of asphalt

Audi had to put a small spoiler on the back of the first gen Audi TT because they were extremely unstable at higher speed. And that's a FWD, very front heavy & relatively long wheelbase car.

All-wheel drive And only some of that was aero - Audi also made significant suspension changes. Interestingly, the magazine I write for did some before and after testing on the TT back in the day and found basically no instability up to more than 100mph - so I suspect those early TT accidents were pretty much at the TT's V-max where maybe the aero and suspension made more of a difference.

 

[Danoff]

Probably still the Mazda. Lighter, nimbler, more responsive, and greater sensation of speed being smaller and less insulated. But probably the BMW on a bigger, wider, faster track, less for reasons of stability and more because bigger, faster tracks can make even quick road cars feel quite slow.

The E36 325i/328i are right at about the same speed as the MX-5/MR2 (NA) respectively. For me, I'd take the E36 (eg: 325i) over the MX-5 at just about every real track.

 

[RocZX]

Supra Performance Line Concept TRD
http://www.trdparts.jp/supra/performanceline.html

Parts -
Front Spoiler

• 
• 

A front spoiler that follows the standard design and adopts a 3-piece structure.

By enlarging the left and right fin sizes, the
downforce is increased to reduce the lift-up at high speed running.


　
Side Skirt

• 
• 

Side skirt refined shape.

By designing the lower surface to be enclosed with carbon, it
produces a low center of gravity form while enhancing the rectification effect on the side of the vehicle.


　
Door Garnish

• 
• 

Door garnish to replace from standard decoration.

By replacing it, the carbon constructs a curved surface and fins that attract the eye.
The running wind of the side of the vehicle is rectified to suppress the occurrence of turbulence and flow to the rear end without disturbance.


　
Rear Spats

• 
• 

Rear spats add on to standard parts.

Refine the shape and size of the rear end fins and
smoothly guide the running wind to the rear of the rear bumper to improve the rear stability.


　
Trunk Spoiler

• 
• 

A trunk spoiler that balances the aerodynamic balance before and after the vehicle.

By installing a large number of powerful aerodynamic parts
, adjust the front-rear aerodynamic balance of the front tendency excessive tendency.

By shaping it to extend to the rear without jumping up, it brings out an
extended form and a flat ride drive feel.


　
19 inch Forged aluminum Wheel

• 
• 

Forged 19 inch aluminum wheels adopting large cone cube shape.

By adopting TRD analysis and forging manufacturing method,
delicate mesh spoke design and robust rigidity are compatible. Not to

mention improve steering response and straight running stability,
take care not to damage high-quality feeling by eliminating unpleasant squeaking noises etc. at the time of braking.

By shortening the distance between the spoke end and the hub as much as possible,
we further emphasize the proportion in which FR-like intonation was effective.

 

[kikie]

I like the wheels but that is about it.

 

[LongbowX]

Carbon door garnish....why....

 

[FT-1]

I kinda expected a massive wing from the teaser...

 

[05XR8]

I kinda expected a massive wing from the teaser...

Maybe Gazoo will "handle" that.

There's no doubt going to be massive rear wings from the aftermarket,

 

[ProjectWHaT]

 

[kikie]

I still can't get over the fact that this new Supra looks like a miniature/squeezed version of the gorgeous FT-1 concept. Visually this car is such a letdown.

Maybe I'll change my mind when I see one IRL.

 

[Supaboost]

Supra Performance Line Concept TRD
http://www.trdparts.jp/supra/performanceline.html

Well they actually improved the ugly looks, but the r8 wannabe door fake vent cover thing is too much. Should have made a hood with actual functional vents.

No performance parts is another let down, guess m sport have nothing ready for toyota to rebadge.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Well they actually improved the ugly looks, but the r8 wannabe door fake vent cover thing is too much. Should have made a hood with actual functional vents.

No performance parts is another let down, guess m sport have nothing ready for toyota to rebadge.

Not sure if this post tastes bitter as a lemon or salty as the sea...

.. maybe both.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Love seeing the word garnish used to refer to a car part.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Love seeing the word garnish used to refer to a car part.

Came here to post that.

I remember an article complaining about how much of the carbon-fiber you see on modern cars is actually just silly interior trimmings, and this is only the next step. If anything, it just draws attention to one of the worst parts of the exterior design, like a big black and gray bandaid.

Looking forward to finally seeing it in the metal in a few days. I get the feeling it's going to do better in person, in much the same way the first R8 did.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Came here to post that.

I remember an article complaining about how much of the carbon-fiber you see on modern cars is actually just silly interior trimmings, and this is only the next step. If anything, it just draws attention to one of the worst parts of the exterior design, like a big black and gray bandaid.

Looking forward to finally seeing it in the metal in a few days. I get the feeling it's going to do better in person, in much the same way the first R8 did.

I can't lie, covering up the fake door vent is an improvement....but it shouldn't have been there in the first place.