Poll: Is a 1994 Toyota a Supercar or is Kerry a fucking moron

[Gergwheel1647545492]

Alright, lets get ALL of CR to weigh in on this and not just the Friday morning chatboxers.

 

Kerry (geeto) claims its a supercar because its rare, fast, and expensive.

 

EVERYONE else says its not a supercar because while it is rare/fast/expensive, its still not on the level of the lambo's or ferrari's of the time.

[Otis Nice]

Road & Track.

 

Road & Track OBSCURE 90's supercars.

 

Car mag

 

AutotraderLOL.

 

Autowise.

 

Even the Brits know.

 

Gear Patrol.

 

404: Poopra Not Found.

 

Are these the definitive and best articles/writers? I dunno. Kerry said I can't use opinions of professionals in the automotive field because at one point he was paid to write for both car and motorcycle mags and I wasn't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Street Dictionary article on the definition of a supercar.

 

To catch CR up with CB, Kerry has argued it is because it's fast, he had a poster of one on his wall when he was a kid, and it's expensive. CB stated simply that the $44k that a 6 speed turbo Supra doesn't equate to the cost of actual supercars like a Bugatti, Lambo, Ferrari, etc, and that posters were made of many non-supercars. We all did agree that it was fast though. Hell, I've always wanted an MKIV just like Howie's.

 

What say you, CR?

[iwashmycar]

Yes, its Toyota's supercar.

 

Many would argue a GT-R is a supercar. Supra was right there with it.

[zeitgeist57]

Understanding the argument you guys were probably having...there is a difference between Supercar and EXOTIC.

 

I would say that The Supra Turbo (and everything else that was in the Top 10% of performance cars for 1994) is a supercar....but it's NOT an exotic like Ferrari's, Lambo's, etc...

 

Supercar = amazing performance in a vehicle designed for it.

Exotic = More rare, more expensive. Performance may be in driving, or in quality/craftsmanship, but it's designed to cost more to be more exclusive.

[Geeto67]

this is a lot of triggered CB butthurt spilling over into CR

 

To be very clear on my position:

 

The MK4 Supra Turbo is a supercar. The naturally aspirated version I don't think qualifies thought it is still a sports car. It's performance and price puts it in league with the Corvette ZR-1, 911 turbo, Lotus Esprit v8, Dodge viper, Acura NSX, and while not in league with price it was close to the diablo and F355 berlinetta in performance (and the Supra Turbo was often compared to those cars when reviewed). At the time that was the top tier of performance cars and all of those were considered supercars in their time. Hypercars of that era like the F40, F50, Jaguar xj220, vector w8, and Mclaren f1 were just starting to pull away from what a supercar was traditionally considered.

 

I realize none of these cars might qualify as supercars now compared to the modern field, even the diablo, but the moniker is earned in the era when the car was new. To that end the car must be a halo car, the pinnacle of performance for the brand at the time, must be competitively fast within the field of other halo cars, expensive beyond normal sports car prices, and rare.

 

I think what makes people resistant to think it is a supercar is that it comes from a non-luxury brand. Even Honda sold the NSX under the acura brand, but being a toyota it doesn't feel "special". I wonder if people would have paid more attention if it was a lexus. Nobody seems to have a problem calling the lexus LFA a supercar and to me and others that feels like the spiritual successor to the supra, but some don't agree. Also for the time, the car was a hard sell on dealer's lots due to lack of marketing and a lot of people ended up with discounted ones or cheap used ones until the advent of youtube and vids of 1000hp monsters roll racing on open highways started to bump prices back up. I don't think either of these arguments diminishes it's supercar status.

 

Pop culture included it in video games like Need or speed and Test Drive 4, Posters of it were sold next to the ones of diablos, vipers, ferraris, 911 turbos, and Zr-1s. Journalists of the time compared it to "other cars" that are naturally considered supercars like the viper and diablo. It was the halo car for toyota at the time and it hung with the supercar pack in performance and technology.

 

The 1990's are the era when the US first started to see japan dip their toe in the supercar for a world market pool. The Acura NSX and Toyota Supra Turbo

Edited January 11, 2019 by Geeto67

[Otis Nice]

Understanding the argument you guys were probably having...there is a difference between Supercar and EXOTIC.

 

I would say that The Supra Turbo (and everything else that was in the Top 10% of performance cars for 1994) is a supercar....but it's NOT an exotic.

 

There's also a difference between a SPORTS car and a SUPER car. Also, the Supra wasn't in the top ten, was it?

[Otis Nice]

this is a lot of triggered CB butthurt spilling over into CR

 

Wow. You OPENED with that.

[Red Beard]

It is a supercar in a non-traditional sense. One of the best universal platforms to do just about anything with. That makes it "super" in my book :thumbup: :dumb:

[Otis Nice]

SPORTS car defined. Supra found.

 

SUPER (and hyper) car defined. Supra not found.

 

Shrug.jif

 

I'm only taking a stance based on factual evidence I can find. My opinion is that there are others that are more knowledgeable than I am and they have a pretty good idea of what a super car is. I submit my vote based on those facts given to me.

[STEVE-O]

The Supra is not by today’s standard not even close , potential to make great numbers and stats yes but when it was a stock car not even close .. just like the nsx or it’s older time

[iwashmycar]

I supposed when you think of the 1994 definition of it, it was.

 

But today you'd almost have to call the Corvette a super car by those standards.

[zeitgeist57]

Fact is, the "Supercar" nomenclature was more appropriate in 1988-1996 when most cars were coming out of the performance Dark Ages of the 70s/80s....

 

Nowadays, the Tesla P90D could thump pretty much everything on the street...the Camry V6 makes over 300hp....those are not super cars.

 

[Otis Nice]

Fact is, the "Supercar" nomenclature was more appropriate in 1988-1996 when most cars were coming out of the performance Dark Ages of the 70s/80s....

 

Nowadays, the Tesla P90D could thump pretty much everything on the street...the Camry V6 makes over 300hp....those are not super cars.

 

They also don't meet the criteria.

 

During the late 20th century, the term supercar was used to describe "a very expensive, fast or powerful car with a centrally located engine",[1] and stated in more general terms: "it must be very fast, with sporting handling to match", "it should be sleek and eye-catching" and its price should be "one in a rarefied atmosphere of its own".[24]

 

My good buddy DJ put ^ this ^ in chatbox followed by:

 

The only thing the Supra isn't is priced "in a rarefied atmosphere of its own".

 

So if 3/3 of the qualifiers are not met then the vehicle is not, by definition, a supercar, correct? Maybe I'm wrong. I thought we had definitions for a reason. If we're leaving it up to opinion then we're all wrong to someone...on everything.

[Geeto67]

Is the 1990's NSX a supercar by 1990's standards? is the Nissan R34 GT-R? If those qualify, the why not the toyota supra turbo?

[Trouble Maker]

I'm thinking we should have a poll about how many people read any of Kerry's post.

[Rally Pat]

I selected yes based on Google-ing a definition of supercar, because I consider the Supra a high performance GT car, and the definition I read included that.

[Otis Nice]

I selected yes based on Google-ing a definition of supercar, because I consider the Supra a high performance GT car, and the definition I read included that.

 

That's fair. Thank you for provided the reason.

[Otis Nice]

Another article that Kerry and I both shared for different reasons ironically enough.

 

Is the term misused? Yeah, probably. The Toyota Supra is certainly a super car, but it isn't exactly a supercar.

[CRed05]

Voted yes.

 

90s Japanese supercars included Supra, GTR, 300zx, 3000gt, RX7, NSX

 

Edit:

https://www.autobytel.com/sports-cars/car-buying-guides/japanese-supercars-past-present-and-future-131142/

[Otis Nice]

Voted yes.

 

90s Japanese supercars included Supra, GTR, 300zx, 3000gt, RX7, NSX

 

Edit:

https://www.autobytel.com/sports-cars/car-buying-guides/japanese-supercars-past-present-and-future-131142/

 

The 3000gt is a supercar? I mean, there's others on that list that certainly aren't supercars but...lolwut?

[DKilbourne]

It had super potential, that's for damn sure. I'm not sure that I would put it, or the 300zx, 3000gt, rx7, or the nsx in the supercar category. Each of the listed cars are unique and have varying levels of mod potential. It seems that the Supra had some good parts to hold a decent amount of abuse though. At the end of the day, I dont really care what people call it. Were they amazing machines with over built stock parts? Yes. Were or are they worthy of the supercar moniker? I'd say that's subjective.

[CRed05]

The 3000gt is a supercar? I mean, there's others on that list that certainly aren't supercars but...lolwut?

 

It was arguably the most supercar-like than all of them. Same power as the Supra, AWD, 4WS, Active Aero, Active Exhaust, Active suspension. Shit you're only seeing in supercars more recently.

 

The 3000GT's problem was that it wasn't in Fast n Furious.

[Geeto67]

The 3000gt is a supercar? I mean, there's others on that list that certainly aren't supercars but...lolwut?

 

I think the VR4 retractable roof variant does qualify. It was the first retractable hardtop in the US market since 1959, it was a $20K additional cost over the top shelf 3000GT VR4 for a whopping $69,500 in 1995 dollars (making it more expensive than a viper, the supra turbo, and the ZR-1), and it was technically really advanced. The only place where I would say it's dodgy is performance - it was slower than the 911 turbo, supra turbo, zr-1, etc....pretty much the whole field. Not by much, but a noticeable amount.

 

Prior to the sypder the VR4 had active aero and other stuff that is the stuff of supercars.

 

Mitsu considered it an NSX competitor, but I don't know if honda felt that way.

 

Oddly I lean away fromt he the 300zx twin turbo beong considered a supercar, but only because nissan was building a faster, AWD, tech advanced halo car in the GTR at the same time, they just weren't importing it to America.

 

I wonder how much of this has to do with luxury marque bias? You almost have to make a case for the top of the line ferrari not to be considered a supercar some years (F355 anyone?), but chevrolet comes out with a 4 cam 32 valve v8 that makes 400hp and can run WFO for 24 hours straight at 175 mph in an era when the regular corvette struggled to break 300hp, and it's not a supercar. Lotus stuffs a twin turbo v-8 into an aging platform and no question it is a supercar, but mitsubishi builds a twin turbo v6, 4ws, awd, retractable roof tech tour de force and it's not a supercar because it's common (even when some years they only imported 84 units).

 

Some of this bleeds into motor racism too. We expect the Italians to make supercars, it's like what they do. But the Japanese? they make shitbox econo cars that college students drive, how could they make a supercar? What do they know about supercars?

Edited January 11, 2019 by Geeto67

[CRed05]

The VR4 and Supra were heavy bois, VR4 spyder was an even heavier boi.

[Otis Nice]

It had super potential, that's for damn sure. I'm not sure that I would put it, or the 300zx, 3000gt, rx7, or the nsx in the supercar category. Each of the listed cars are unique and have varying levels of mod potential. It seems that the Supra had some good parts to hold a decent amount of abuse though. At the end of the day, I dont really care what people call it. Were they amazing machines with over built stock parts? Yes. Were or are they worthy of the supercar moniker? I'd say that's subjective.

 

This all makes sense.

 

A supercar doesn't "have potential". They don't NEED modified to be considered great. The MKIV was and is a stellar platform and it's been proven what it can do time and again when built but it IS built to get there. If that's the standard than JP's Colt's and what not are super cars because they too (obviously) have potential.

 

It was arguably the most supercar-like than all of them.

 

Supercar-like != supercar though, right?

 

 

That's fair but it's also not a 6 figure car like a Lambo, Bugatti, Ferrari, etc. It's not built to that standard and those components are not the same in each, right? I'll be honest I've never studied EXACTLY what susp and tech and such the 3000GT had but AWD and active suspension in a Mitsubishi HAS to be diff than AWD and active suspension in a Lambo.

 

 

I don't think the fact that a Supra was makes it a supercar nor would it help a 3000GT be a supercar. If THAT'S a qualifier what about the Maxima? Jetta? S2000? That makes the definition VERY broad.

 

I think the VR4 retractable roof variant does qualify. It was the first retractable hardtop in the US market since 1959, it was a $20K additional cost over the top shelf 3000GT VR4 for a whopping $69,500 in 1995 dollars (making it more expensive than a viper, the supra turbo, and the ZR-1), and it was technically really advanced. The only place where I would say it's dodgy is performance - it was slower than the 911 turbo, supra turbo, zr-1, etc....pretty much the whole field. Not by much, but a noticeable amount.

 

Prior to the sypder the VR4 had active aero and other stuff that is the stuff of supercars.

 

Mitsu considered it an NSX competitor, but I don't know if honda felt that way.

 

So because it's rare it's a supercar? If the performance is failing it's still a supercar?

 

Not arguing, it's just real hard to understand what y'all define "supercar" as when things like a 3000GT and similar come into play. I cannot in my right mind consider it on par with a Lambo or Ferrari which are (arguably) the 2 most well known supercars in gen pop and they're not even always the most "super" or "hyper".

 

To me the Supra's, RX7's, etc. are GREAT sports cars and DEF have potential to go FAR beyond factory specs but to place them in a category with elite vehicles is a tough pill to swallow.

 

If thinking that a 3000GT or Supra aren't equivalent to a Bugatti, Lambo, or Ferrari, makes me wrong I'll own that one any day and say I'm wrong...but it doesn't make sense to me.

 

I think my fav thing I've discovered through all of this is that there is a difference between SUPERcar and SPORTScar...and that line gets blurred based solely on opinions I guess.