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

[Otis Nice]

1994 VR4 info. Interesting to read.

 

Had a 1/4 of 13.5 and did 0-60 in 4.9. Impressive. Does a $20k roof option (thus ridiculously increasing the price) make it a SUPERcar though or is it just a rare SPORTS car? Dunno...to me a roof option to increase the price doesn't matter. YMMV.

[Geeto67]

Does a $20k roof option (thus ridiculously increasing the price) make it a SUPERcar though or is it just a rare SPORTS car? Dunno...to me a roof option to increase the price doesn't matter. YMMV.

 

So the real question being asked here is how much does technology matter to the definition of supercar? Ostensibly a lot - a supercar is all about the bleeding edge of what the automotive industry can do reliably in a performance car. Ferrari and lambo both had spyder variants, as did the 993 911 turbo, but previous generations didn't. The C4 Zr-1 wasn't available as a convertible, neither was the lotus esprit. the viper was only one at this point and a top was a luxury.

 

So.....how does a $20K roof option make it a supercar? exclusivity. here is a spyder that solves the security problem that all convertible supercars of that time suffered from, and it does it in the coolest, most high tech way possible. Maybe it doesn't add to the performance, but it certainly added to the wow factor. This is the car that made retractable roofs seem sexy and high tech again, and mercedes, and bmw, and others copied.

[excell]

I voted Toyota for the lulz, but I actually think it's a supercar. Maybe not a TOP TIER supercar, but it's fast, rare, performant, and has fanboys. That's a supercar.

[zeitgeist57]

The Supra Turbo is just a damn Toyota.

The Corvette Z06 is just a damn Chevy.

The M3/M5 is just a damn BMW.

The AMG GTR is just a damn Benz.

The NSX is just a damn Honda.

 

 

Give credit where credit is due.

 

CR SHOULD BE BETTER.

[CRed05]

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.

 

Well you have to compare it to the cars at the time. I'm going to say that just about any car had better build quality than a pre-Audi owned Lambo. Not sure what build quality was like on Bugatti before VW owned them. I don't think either one had AWD back then...I could be wrong.

 

The 3000gt AWD system:

http://www.stealth316.com/2-awd.htm

[CRed05]

Supra is a car.

Supra sounds like Super.

Therefor it's a Super car.

[Otis Nice]

So.....how does a $20K roof option make it a supercar? exclusivity. here is a spyder that solves the security problem that all convertible supercars of that time suffered from, and it does it in the coolest, most high tech way possible. Maybe it doesn't add to the performance, but it certainly added to the wow factor. This is the car that made retractable roofs seem sexy and high tech again, and mercedes, and bmw, and others copied.

 

That's fair and I think I get where your coming from now. It still, in and of it's self, does not make a supercar though, does it? I mean, rarity is just one facet of a supercar, right? The roof is cool and insanely expensive but if the car doesn't perform like a supercar (again, Lambo, Ferrari, etc.) is it not just a really cool sports car with a really rare option?

 

I voted Toyota for the lulz, but I actually think it's a supercar. Maybe not a TOP TIER supercar, but it's fast, rare, performant, and has fanboys. That's a supercar.

 

You literally just defined a sports car from the links all of us have shared. lol

 

It's def fast but not supercar fast without mods. It's not ALL that rare. In 1994 were we more likely to see a Supra or a Bugatti? More rare than an Accord? For sure. Rare in the scheme of supercars? Not as much. Performant? Yup. Pretty much so for 1994. A slew of vehicles are performant that aren't supercars though. Fanboys? TIL: Civics are supercars.

 

 

Give credit where credit is due.

 

 

I give credit to you that you have a skewed opinoin. :gabe:

 

I give mad credit to Toyota and the Supra, my fav car pre-F&F, for being an amazing sports car. One that I and others could actually obtain. I personally don't know many people who can afford a supercar.

 

Well you have to compare it to the cars at the time. I'm going to say that just about any car had better build quality than a pre-Audi owned Lambo. Not sure what build quality was like on Bugatti before VW owned them. I don't think either one had AWD back then...I could be wrong.

 

The 3000gt AWD system:

http://www.stealth316.com/2-awd.htm

 

Fair enough but even at the time I never saw a Supra on the same page (poster if you will, lol) as Lambo's and Ferrari's. Shrug.jif.

 

Supra is a car.

Supra sounds like Super.

Therefor it's a Super car.

 

/discussion.

 

As I said in the Nupra thread, supEra.

[excell]

 

TIL: Civics are supercars.

 

 

Maybe the Type-R... it has lower build numbers than the turbo Supra... :leghump:

[Geeto67]

 

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.

 

that's the old myth. A ferrarui must be good quality because it was expensive, but really a ferrari was expensive because the cost of engineering was expensive, and they hand built cars which was the most expensive way possible. Some stuff is really high quality, you won't find a lot of lambos with vinyl interiors, but some stuff is just average off the shelf parts too.

 

the awd in the 1993 diablot VT was pillaged from their truck program. It sent 25% power to the front wheels. It was not a complicated system at all, mitsubishi, audi, subarus, etc all had system that worked better and were more advanced, but the VT system made an overpowered car more "managible" and thuse made the lambo guys look like geniuses for stuffing their truck tech in a car.

 

 

here is a fun thing to think about. the company that had the best active suspension at the time? GM. too bad they didn't put it in a single production car. And that kind of illustrates something here: Chevy has the money to invest in far out tech, but they can't put it in a car because they know people won't pay $100K in 1990 for a corvette. Lambo and Ferrari don't have the same engineering money but if it works it goes into the car and the price is the price because lambos and ferrari's are supposed to be expensive.

 

http://www.superchevy.com/features/0901gmhtp-1990-chevy-corvette-zr1-prototype/

 

. I don't think either one had AWD back then...I could be wrong.

 

The 3000gt AWD system:

http://www.stealth316.com/2-awd.htm

 

lambo introduced AWD on the diablo VT in 1993.

 

That's fair and I think I get where your coming from now. It still, in and of it's self, does not make a supercar though, does it? I mean, rarity is just one facet of a supercar, right? The roof is cool and insanely expensive but if the car doesn't perform like a supercar (again, Lambo, Ferrari, etc.) is it not just a really cool sports car with a really rare option?

 

well you are right, a regular 3000GT with an expensive roof isn't a supercar because it isn't performing like one. It had to be on the VR4 which had the performance to run with the pack. Maybe not at the head of the pack, but it wasn't getting left on the porch either. It's about the total package of things, and some things have more weight than others (pun intended).

[Otis Nice]

Maybe the Type-R... it has lower build numbers than the turbo Supra... :leghump:

 

So that bumps the Supra further down the list of "super"cars.

 

 

well you are right, a regular 3000GT with an expensive roof isn't a supercar because it isn't performing like one. It had to be on the VR4 which had the performance to run with the pack. Maybe not at the head of the pack, but it wasn't getting left on the porch either. It's about the total package of things, and some things have more weight than others (pun intended).

 

So it's a supercar because it was fast enough to at least be on the same track then?

[Aaron]

Only replying because Greg is a good bro and he asked for all to reply.

 

Supras suck and so does Geetoad.

[Otis Nice]

Only replying because Greg is a good bro and he asked for all to reply.

 

Supras suck and so does Geetoad.

 

:lolguy:

[Orion]

TIL: Otis feels much more inclined to defend his position than Kerry. So weird.

 

Incidentally, my quote was intended more to highlight that the definition of "Supercar" in that article was subjective, at best. I don’t believe the Supra qualifies, but I also think that the qualification (as shown by this thread), are open to interpretation.

[Otis Nice]

TIL: Otis feels much more inclined to defend his position than Kerry. So weird.

 

I'm not defending so much as trying to figure out what "car guys" qualify as a "supercar" especially when that opinion varies from the cultural norm.

 

Incidentally, my quote was intended more to highlight that the definition of "Supercar" in that article was subjective, at best. I don’t believe the Supra qualifies, but I also think that the qualification (as shown by this thread), are open to interpretation.

 

Fair enough. I'm just going by the definition as it's laid out in front of me. In my opinion my opinion doesn't matter if it doesn't match a definition.

[ShowHBK]

Are we really going to say that the same company that currently produces The prius is also making a supercar?...

 

You wanna know the difference between Toyota and the big boys?

 

Ferrari, Lamborghini, Mclaren, and Koenigsegg all are names associated with high performance, quality, and luxury. Toyota... is associated with your tree hugging friend Josh who occasionally smokes pot and lectures you about the harmful waste you left in your trash can instead of placing it in the GREEN BIN for mother earth... **Fart Noise**

 

The answer is no... the same company that has a reputation for making small fuel efficient cars for Bill and Sarah to drive to their 9-5, is NOT in the same category as the big boys.

 

If only they had a luxury brand?... oh wait... 2020 Lexus Supra. FTFY

[Geeto67]

The answer is no... the same company that has a reputation for making small fuel efficient cars for Bill and Sarah to drive to their 9-5, is NOT in the same category as the big boys.

 

wow, motor racism and motor elitism in one post. bravo.

 

By this logic Honda NEVER built a supercar? the 1990's NSX was never a supercar in the 1990's because they also make small fuel efficient cars for bill and sarah to drive to their 9-5. oh, and they made the fucking insight which was a prius before prius was a prius.

 

And I suppose Ford never built a supercar either, all those 60's GT40s and the ford GT doesn't count because ford made focuses and escorts, and falcons at the same time.

[Otis Nice]

Are we really going to say that the same company that currently produces The prius is also making a supercar?...

 

You wanna know the difference between Toyota and the big boys?

 

Ferrari, Lamborghini, Mclaren, and Koenigsegg all are names associated with high performance, quality, and luxury. Toyota... is associated with your tree hugging friend Josh who occasionally smokes pot and lectures you about the harmful waste you left in your trash can instead of placing it in the GREEN BIN for mother earth... **Fart Noise**

 

The answer is no... the same company that has a reputation for making small fuel efficient cars for Bill and Sarah to drive to their 9-5, is NOT in the same category as the big boys.

 

If only they had a luxury brand?... oh wait... 2020 Lexus Supra. FTFY

 

 

On mobile now which sucks but this is hilarious.

 

Drive a Supra or VR4 to The Ram or somewhere downtown. Car guys MIGHT take notice. Drive a Lambo and EVERYONE takes notice.

[Robochan]

Naw

[ShowHBK]

wow, motor racism and motor elitism in one post. bravo.

 

By this logic Honda NEVER built a supercar? the 1990's NSX was never a supercar in the 1990's because they also make small fuel efficient cars for bill and sarah to drive to their 9-5. oh, and they made the fucking insight which was a prius before prius was a prius.

 

And I suppose Ford never built a supercar either, all those 60's GT40s and the ford GT doesn't count because ford made focuses and escorts, and falcons at the same time.

 

I'll give a serious response then...

 

The Supra is a very nice "looking" car. I love the design of it and by bringing it back, I honestly feel like we could see a new era of great Japanese sports cars come stateside and honestly... I CAN'T WAIT!

 

Now, as for classification. We know little about the details of the 2020 Supra, but based off it's past competitors it should fight with the 370z, Mazda RX-9, and other sports cars in 2020. I hope this is a wakeup call to other Japanese automakers to redesign some of their cars... Looking at you Nissan, with your terrible 370z interior.

 

I'm sorry... but with past competitors such as the 370z, RX-7, *incert honda car here*, and other sports cars. I find it VERY hard to classify a car as a Supercar after only seeing pictures of it. Lets wait to hear more information in the upcoming months/weeks and admire the car for what it is NOW, in the moment... which is... Beautiful! <3

[o0n8]

Lots going on in this thread but it's nice to see an actual car discussion on CR.

 

With that said, the Supra is a great sports car but not a Supercar. TO me the Supra of then is comparable to the ZL1 Camaro. It's bad ass. It can hold it's own on a track and costs less than a Ferrari or Lambo etc. but performance isn't the only thing that makes a supercar. How's the interior? Sound System? Does it give you a sense of something bespoke? No. The I wouldn't call it a Supercar. It's a high performance factory machine.

 

The only two cars I would consider in the Supercar discussion from Toyota are the:

 

2000GT

 

or the LFA

[-Alex-]

I feel like this thread is less about the Supra being a supercar and more about proving Kerry “wrong”, buuuuuuuut I’ve never considered the Supra a supercar. It fits the definition of a Grand Touring car much better.

 

“A grand tourer (Italian: gran turismo) (GT) is a performance and luxury automobile capable of high speed and long-distance driving.[1] The most common format is a front-engine, rear-wheel-drive two-door coupé with either a two-seat or a 2+2 arrangement.” - Wiki

[Geeto67]

I'll give a serious response then...

 

The Supra is a very nice "looking" car. I love the design of it and by bringing it back, I honestly feel like we could see a new era of great Japanese sports cars come stateside and honestly... I CAN'T WAIT!

 

Now, as for classification. We know little about the details of the 2020 Supra, but based off it's past competitors it should fight with the 370z, Mazda RX-9, and other sports cars in 2020. I hope this is a wakeup call to other Japanese automakers to redesign some of their cars... Looking at you Nissan, with your terrible 370z interior.

 

I'm sorry... but with past competitors such as the 370z, RX-7, *incert honda car here*, and other sports cars. I find it VERY hard to classify a car as a Supercar after only seeing pictures of it. Lets wait to hear more information in the upcoming months/weeks and admire the car for what it is NOW, in the moment... which is... Beautiful! <3

 

You didn't read any part of this thread did you? You know how I know? Because the original question was "is the 1990's MK4 Supra Turbo considered a supercar by 1990's metrics?"

 

Things we have already established: the previous gens were not super cars. The MK4 that is naturally aspirated was not a supercar. The new one based off a z4 chassis is not a super car.

 

The 1990's supra TURBO cost almost or as much as a c4 zr1, 911 turbo, viper, nix, etc... And it delivered performance on par with all of those plus the Diablo and the F355. Yet people are reluctant to call it a super car. Some because it's just a base supra with a turbo so it isn't "special enough" (even though some years they made fewer supra turbos than diablos and F355s), some because they don't think of the Japanese as being capable of making super cars (even though the Japanese have been in motor racing since the 60's), And some because it didn't come from a luxury brand (even though a Toyota century is the largest status symbol in Japan).

 

So what's your opinion on the original question?

[CRed05]

It fits the definition of a Grand Touring car much better.

 

“A grand tourer (Italian: gran turismo) (GT) is a performance and luxury automobile capable of high speed and long-distance driving.[1] The most common format is a front-engine, rear-wheel-drive two-door coupé with either a two-seat or a 2+2 arrangement.” - Wiki

 

This is the best argument so far as to why it's not a supercar. As discussed already, it's competition, the 3000GT, or as it was called elsewhere GTO (Gran Turismo Omologato), had it right there in the name.

 

Does a supercar need to be mid-engined?

 

Dodge Viper I would consider a supercar of it's time too. That car was on little boys bedroom walls just as much as any Lambo (somewhere in there is a Catholic priest joke). It was front engine. I'm sure there are other non-mid engined supercars.

 

If you look at the wikipedia page for Supercar it says "A supercar (also referred to as an exotic) is a luxury, high-performance sports car or grand tourer"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar

 

So even though a good argument, I don't think it holds.

 

(yeah i know wiki isn't exactly a gold standard).

 

I don't know how people can say because Toyota makes a Prius, it can't be a supercar. Well, then I guess neither are lambos cause they make SUVs and tractors. R8 can't be a supercar cause Audi makes many economy cars. McLaren, not a supercar cause they made a bicycle...you get my point.

[ShowHBK]

You didn't read any part of this thread did you? You know how I know? Because the original question was "is the 1990's MK4 Supra Turbo considered a supercar by 1990's metrics?"

 

Things we have already established: the previous gens were not super cars. The MK4 that is naturally aspirated was not a supercar. The new one based off a z4 chassis is not a super car.

 

The 1990's supra TURBO cost almost or as much as a c4 zr1, 911 turbo, viper, nix, etc... And it delivered performance on par with all of those plus the Diablo and the F355. Yet people are reluctant to call it a super car. Some because it's just a base supra with a turbo so it isn't "special enough" (even though some years they made fewer supra turbos than diablos and F355s), some because they don't think of the Japanese as being capable of making super cars (even though the Japanese have been in motor racing since the 60's), And some because it didn't come from a luxury brand (even though a Toyota century is the largest status symbol in Japan).

 

So what's your opinion on the original question?

 

No.. the 1990's MK4 Supra Turbo is not a Supercar because of the same reasons I said.

Edited January 12, 2019 by ShowHBK

[ShowHBK]

I don't know how people can say because Toyota makes a Prius, it can't be a supercar. Well, then I guess neither are lambos cause they make SUVs and tractors. R8 can't be a supercar cause Audi makes many economy cars. McLaren, not a supercar cause they made a bicycle...you get my point.

 

No... just no... Call it a Lexus then. Auto Manufacturers have solved this same problem before I was born. Customers and the public assign an image or viewpoint on a subject based on that it calls to mind. Things come to mind when you think of Toyota are... Prius, Fuel saving, blue collar, 9-5, and Uncle Dave. These are just a small piece of things that I think about when I say the word "Toy-oh-tah"

 

This does not apply to the listed above manufacturers because that's the "current" or "1990s" look that any of these companies were going for. Lambo was known in the 90s for two things, #1 making sexy looking cars that every teenage boy put on their wall next to a bikini girl and #2 They were still unable to make money. Audi was making sports sedans, and Mclaren was designing what would become the world's fastest car... The F1... Toyota was known for making economy cars for your buddy ted who took only 1 semester of college, but STILL feels overqualified for his telephone tech support job.

 

It's the badge alone that is holding the 1990 Supra back, and for that reason... it's a "cool" car for sure... but no Supercar. :-(