Why the new Supra isn't a worthy successor.

5w ago

645

Toyota has been teasing us with news of the new Supra for what, 6 years now? Ever since the collaboration between Toyota and BMW was announced, many a petrolhead thanked the heavens, for at last, there will be a successor to the legendary Supra.

And I am here to tell you why this second generation isn't a worthy successor.

1. Toyota has taken way too long

New car launches are supposed to be exciting, but with the Supra, it just.... isn't

Let me explain:

When a manufacturer is about to launch a new car, they usually create some excitement by teasing us with concept images; maybe a silhouette of the car, or a headlight or something. This works, and tells the car community that something cool or exciting is on the way. Toyota tried the same with the Supra, but took waaaay to long. Car manufacturers usually release concepts a year or two before the launch, the most I remember being 10 with the LFA, but that made up for it by being a bonkers super car from a company that never made one before. Toyota, on the other hand, has loads of experience creating cool cars; the AE86, OG Supra and the MR2 all spring to mind. Why they would need 6 years to create another one is beyond me. Even if they needed that much time, why on earth did they announce a new Supra 6 years in advance? The excitement has just dried up.

The FT-HS, the predecessor to the FT-1, launched all the way back in 2007

2. It is using way to many things from BMW

Now, I am not claiming that BMW's engines or platforms are rubbish or anything like that, 'cause that would be stupid. No, what I am moaning about is that Toyota didn't bother to develop this car on their own.

It's the new Supra for crying out loud! Dropping a BMW engine in it reeks of cost cutting. Toyota is no stranger to making sporty engines, so why didn't they create a new one? The same applies to the chassis. Sure the cost of the car would go up, but that's not the point. The point is, I don't want a Supra badge stuck on a car that Toyota didn't develop entirely on their own. I don't want this car to go down in the history books as another Pontiac GTO.

3.It looks nothing like the original.

Now, I don't claim to be a professional car designer, because I am not one and probably never will be. But really, how hard can it be to make the new car look a bit like the old one? Mazda pulled it off with the Miata, which is damn near identical to the NA apart from the lack of the pop ups. Nearly every other aspect of it is identical, from the silhouette to the weight of the car, which has only increased by around 70 kilograms. The new Supra is supposed to be a bit of nostalgia, not some futuristic looking space ship rocket thing. Just to be clear, I am not saying that the FT-1 concept looks ugly or boring, 'cause it isn't. What I don't like is that it doesn't remind you of the Supra.

Why can't the new Supra look even a teensy bit like this?

So, there you have it. Why I hate the new Supra.

Image Credits: Garage Dreams, Wikipedia, Car and Driver.

Join in

Comments (4)
  • So many things wrong with this article.

    1: Yes it takes a long time to build a car from the ground up. To revive the only recently popular Supra name (because lets be honest, the Supra would have been a forgotten about legend if not for some movie that pushed it into the lime light), means doing it right and not just rushing production on something. Toyota and BMW have a lot riding on this venture so they need to get it right. You do know the 86/BRZ was pushed back too because they weren't pleased with the suspension feel, and since they had a lot ridding on it, they took the time to do it right. And it paid off!

    2: Amount of BMW parts. Again, it's a joint venture. Imagine if the 86 had a Toyota ECU. You'd have to use a standalone or piggy back to tune it since modern Toyota ECU's haven't been cracked for tuning. They are both invested in the car, they both are developing the car. BMW and Toyota both do things right and that's a really good thing. This could be an amazing powerhouse combo and has the right ingredients to being one of the best cars produced in a long time.

    3: The looks. Is that a bad thing? The Supra isn't that beautiful of a car. It's a little to safe, big, and heavy. The interior is a good place for the driver, but on the exterior it's pretty plain. The only real stand out features are the spoiler, "mid engine ducting" (or brake vents in this case), and tail lights. When it comes to looks, the Supra Celica looks way better than the last production Supra. The styling is loosely based of the FT-1. I think realistically we all wanted the FT-1 to be Toyota's first Hyper car. But in reality although it doesn't share much with the Z4/Supra it does share design ques from it. Stubby rear, long nose. Both cars have that look, and the final design of the body shape is a good compromise of both cars key features. But to use your own argument against you, the MK3 supra looks nothing like the MK4.

    1 month ago
    2 Bumps
    • 1. Okay, yes, it does take a long time to develop a car, but why didn't Toyota announce the car a year or so before production? Now it just feels like a forgotten dream; one of those...

      Read more
      1 month ago
      1 Bump
    • Well the whole ft1 launch was to show what Toyota is capable of. Much like the LFA which was reworked multiple times. Toyota used the FT1 to launch the we aren't boring anymore...

      Read more
      1 month ago
      1 Bump

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

5 things you didn’t know about The Grand Tour Game
7 Japanese classics that have a shocking price tag
Honda is wrong - this shouldn't have been the 'new' NSX at all.