Otis Nice Posted February 7, 2019 Report Share Posted February 7, 2019 Great thread. Won't read again because there are too many words. If you stopped anyone in the 1990s and told them to name 5 supercars, I bet no one would say Supra. If you stopped anyone on the street today and told them to name 5 supercars, I would bet a large sum of money no one says Supra. Go to a random car meet and ask car people to name some supercars, I bet no one says Supra. Go to a Supra meet, ask same thing, and I still bet no one says Supra. While I am still betting on stuff, I bet no one used the term "supercar" in their response to seeing the Supra commercial during the Super Bowl. Sure, give me a list of criteria, use some nuanced definitions, and throw in a little bit of wordsmithing and I'll find myself agreeing that a Supra (or whatever other kind of sports car you want) seems to meet the criteria of a "supercar." That same kind of word play and fancy talk leaves me agreeing that somehow a hot dog is a sandwich when I know it isn't. The Supra isn't a supercar. <3 Wisdom prevails. 83.33% of all automotive enthusiasts in the world believe that it's not a supercar. Democracy wins!!!! Don't forget the few that changed their minds after actually listening to reason and thinking about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 If it went unnoticed, then I'm not sure how it can qualify as a supercar. You can't help but notice a supercar... Eh...maybe....The press certainly noticed the car, it was included in almost every comparison they published. Pop culture noticed the car before the fast and the furious because it showed up in video games like the 1994 version Need for Speed where the field was all supercars. The only people who didn't notice were the people who were in the market for a supercar, and I suspect that had more to do with lingering "anti-japanese" sentiment than it did with whether the car was worth the money. Even Dodge had the hemi cars to fall back on as part of it's performance image in selling the viper, but Toyota? they made corollas and once upon a time the 2000GT - which nobody ever saw outside of a james bond movie because they made like 300 of them. In 1994 who would buy a supercar from a company that was famous for making the corolla and bankrupting GM, Ford, and Chrysler? This is a very well-crafted, eloquent argument. I totally agree. However, that's not what we're debating, is it? We're debating whether the Supra is/was a supercar. If the poll was "Can we give the Japanese their due for making cool/fast/awesome/unique cars?" then I think most people would answer "yeah, sure." So, maybe you're trying to sell us something we'd more readily buy if you packaged it differently. Part of giving the japanese their due is recognizing when they started playing in the supercar field, and that happened with the NSX and the Supra. Of course in their first foray they weren't going to get everything right, the Supra had the power and performance but not the sparkle and the NSX had the sparkle and tech but lacked the performance to run at the front of the field. There is another Toyota supercar built in the 1990's that hardly anybody in america has heard about: the Toyota GT-One. Toyota build 2 road cars for sale to meet FIA GT1 class homologation requirements. It's a twin turbo v8 road legal Lemans racing car. This car would not exist without the Supra campaigns in GT classes in sports car racing. One of the biggest complaints about the Japanese of that era is that they "can't build super cars because they are the company that built small, cheap, compact cars that killed the american car industry" but based on the supra and the GT-one, in the 1990's they knew a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 McLaren Honda was literally dominating F1 at the time. I'm not sure where you're getting this notion that "one of the biggest complaints" about the Japanese was that they "couldn't build supercars." Who was complaining? You're gonna need to start producing some actual evidence to back up this assertion that anti-Japanese sentiment factored into people's definition of a supercar in 1994. First of all, it's 2019 and 84% of people in this thread still don't consider it a supercar. Is that lingering anti-Japanese sentiment as well? Secondly, the Supra had been around since 1978. My dad had one. It was a known brand, and nobody had any reason to consider it a supercar because it just wasn't one. The 1992 Supra wasn't "not a supercar" because of anti-Japanese sentiment, it's because it just wasn't. And when the mk4 turbo came out, regardless of the performance, it was still just a Supra. Had Toyota rebranded the car and tweaked the styling maybe the story would have been different, but they didn't and it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 McLaren Honda was literally dominating F1 at the time. I'm not sure where you're getting this notion that "one of the biggest complaints" about the Japanese was that they "couldn't build supercars." Who was complaining? Go back through this thread and you will see more than one person make the argument that Toyota has never made a supercar because they are the brand that makes boring economy cars. How serious those people are I can't say, but it happened more than once so it's not just a one off fluke. I'm not saying it's a popular opinion now, but it ain't the first time I've heard it. You're gonna need to start producing some actual evidence to back up this assertion that anti-Japanese sentiment factored into people's definition of a supercar in 1994. First of all, it's 2019 and 84% of people in this thread still don't consider it a supercar. Is that lingering anti-Japanese sentiment as well? I don't know what evidence you want, There certainly was evidence of Japanophobia from that time, from the murder of Vincent Chin, to movies like Gung-Ho, Back to the Future II, RoboCop 3, Rising Sun, to backlash over japanese companies buying cultural icons like Rock Center and the empire state building, to late night comics cracking jokes about how various government programs should be taken over by Toyota so they run efficiently. How to prove that that translated into car sales I'm not sure how to do, but I remember the propaganda for "Jap Crap" and "Buy American" at the time, I remember being a kid at a biker rally where they set a stolen japanese sport bike on fire, and I know that these things just don't go away in an instant. this is a pretty good article about american politics and anti-Japanese sentiment as a political tool from 1980 to 1993: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40464347?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Secondly, the Supra had been around since 1978. My dad had one. It was a known brand, and nobody had any reason to consider it a supercar because it just wasn't one. The 1992 Supra wasn't "not a supercar" because of anti-Japanese sentiment, it's because it just wasn't. And when the mk4 turbo came out, regardless of the performance, it was still just a Supra. Had Toyota rebranded the car and tweaked the styling maybe the story would have been different, but they didn't and it's not. Just because an existing brand has a history of being an excellent sports car or a GT car doesn't necessarily mean the same brand can't churn out a supercar based on an existing platform. The corvette has been around since 1953, and Chevrolet built (or endorsed tuners with factory support) several "supercars" in their age based on that platform: the 1957 Fuelie Corvette, the 1967 L88 corvette, the 1969 ZL-1, the Greenwood Turbo GT and Daytona, the Calloway twin turbo aerovette (sledgehammer), and the C4 Zr-1. Because "supercar" is a partially subjective term and one that has evolved radically in the last 60 years, it's questionable whether the c6 and c7 Zr-1s meet those definitions, but they certainly make a good case for it. It's kind of misunderstanding to assume the MK4 Turbo Supra is "just a supra" or rather, just an NA supra they stuck a Turbo on to. I'll give you that they start with a stock body and interior, but even the TT supras get a factory aero kit on top of the stock body work and 17" wheels. Mechanically, they are not the same cars, the engine, trans, dif, electronic system, fuel system, brakes, suspension, etc...are all different and very difficult to replicate on an NA supra. Plenty of people have built up NA supras to be turbo, but I can't think of anybody who has built an accurate TT clone out of an NA car because the only thing they would keep is the bodyshell and the interior to do it. And by the way, who says supercars can't be built on existing chassis or leverage existing tech back in that time period? Ferrari built the 288 GTO on the 308 Chassis and I don't know anybody that doesn't consider it a supercar. Same with the 512TR and the 512M ferrari built at that time which were based off the aging Testarossa. Calloway built his sledgehammer aerovette off a stock C4, and then managed to get GM to let dealers sell them with factory backing. No supercar from that era doesn't rob something from someone's parts bin - even the vector used a GM transmission, Rodek Engine, and styling stolen from the Mercedes Cw311, and Lamborghini? robbed evry parts bin from Chrysler to Austin-Morris and reused the countach's v12 and the LM005's transfer case on the VT models - the chassis and body were probably the only new thing on that car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 Go back through this thread and you will see more than one person make the argument that Toyota has never made a supercar because they are the brand that makes boring economy cars. How serious those people are I can't say, but it happened more than once so it's not just a one off fluke. I'm not saying it's a popular opinion now, but it ain't the first time I've heard it. If I cared more I'd start a thread about whether or not the LFA is a supercar. I don't think people care as much about the company behind a car as you think. How to prove that that translated into car sales I'm not sure how to do What do sales have to do with anything? We're talking about a colloquial definition here. You're saying that people didn't call it a supercar because of anti-Japanese sentiment, not that they didn't buy it because of that. Because, you know, Toyota did produce it and sell thousands of them, so somebody was buying them. They just didn't call them supercars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 Kerry you and your 12 followers can discuss this at length during CC&C. Clay can rope off your own section with a placard. The no fun car debate team. Parked 13 wide, only 4, 7, or 8 speed automatics erywhere, nothing larger than a 4.0L in a Jeep under any of the hoods. The vehicle equivalents' to ketchup stained sweatpants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 If I cared more I'd start a thread about whether or not the LFA is a supercar. I don't think people care as much about the company behind a car as you think. Not now, but back then it mattered. In this thread I have head the LFA been called both a supercar and not a supercar, as well as the spiritual successor of the MK4 supra. Someone even made the case in this thread that had the MK4 supra been badged a lexus back then it might have made the difference. What do sales have to do with anything? We're talking about a colloquial definition here. You're saying that people didn't call it a supercar because of anti-Japanese sentiment, not that they didn't buy it because of that. Because, you know, Toyota did produce it and sell thousands of them, so somebody was buying them. They just didn't call them supercars. one recurring theme in this thread is that supercars have to be rare. and TT supras are rare. there are years where they struggled to make 100 units of the car. Part of that argument is the reason for the TT Supra being rare is that US sales were sluggish - it's an excuse as for why the TT Supra doesn't really meet the rarity qualifier. In fact, if you look at it some of the reasons people have for the supra is because it doesn't meet an objective criteria even though on paper it does. "It's not really rare, because people just didn't buy them", "It's not really fast because it only has X hp", "Just because it makes 0-60 the same as a lambo doesn't mean it's a supercar because it's not just one metric that makes it a supercar". To ask whether the TT Mk4 Supra is a supercar is basically to ask, what is the actual subjective criteria that makes it a supercar? Objectively the car meets all the measurable criteria for the era: - sub 5 second 0-60 time - 13 second or quicker 1/4 mile time - rare or low production - over 170mph top speed - over 300 net hp - technologically advanced - apex or halo car of that mfg - Expensive to the point where it sits above the standard sports car range - Visually distinct. - Pop culture recognition - recognition by automotive journalists and comparison with other supercars in their publication. So what are the subjective criteria? "Because I said so" doesn't cut it - what makes people ok with a viper, a Zr1, a 911 Turbo, or even a 512TR making the cut but a supra doesn't make the cut? I'm genuinely curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 Kerry you and your 12 followers can discuss this at length during CC&C. Clay can rope off your own section with a placard. The no fun car debate team. Parked 13 wide, only 4, 7, or 8 speed automatics erywhere, nothing larger than a 4.0L in a Jeep under any of the hoods. The vehicle equivalents' to ketchup stained sweatpants. Nobody is paying you to be here Millz. This is an interesting conversation about cars, and there is a lot to be learned about how your fellow gearheads think about cars from it. I think even you could benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 It came out the same year as the McLaren F1. $815,000, 600+hp, mid-engined center-seat exotic. That was a proper supercar. You just can't say that a Supra was "technologically advanced" enough, or "apex" enough, or "expensive" enough, or "visually distinct" enough to put it in the same category as the McLaren F1. It just wasn't enough of anything to earn that title. The McLaren is one of the few cars that you'd get broad consensus on even calling a supercar in 1993. Personally I wouldn't call the ZR1 or a 911 Turbo a supercar, and as you can see from this thread even my emphatic inclusion of the NSX in that club isn't universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 viper, a Zr1, a 911 Turbo, or even a 512TR making the cut but a supra doesn't make the cut? I'm genuinely curious. 404 super cars not found Nobody is paying you to be here Millz on the contrary... :gabe: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 It came out the same year as the McLaren F1. $815,000, 600+hp, mid-engined center-seat exotic. That was a proper supercar. You just can't say that a Supra was "technologically advanced" enough, or "apex" enough, or "expensive" enough, or "visually distinct" enough to put it in the same category as the McLaren F1. It just wasn't enough of anything to earn that title. The McLaren is one of the few cars that you'd get broad consensus on even calling a supercar in 1993. Personally I wouldn't call the ZR1 or a 911 Turbo a supercar, and as you can see from this thread even my emphatic inclusion of the NSX in that club isn't universal. Well nearly every category exists on some kind of a spectrum and there are going to be extremes to that spectrum at either end, until a new category is invented to cover that. A Miata and a 348 ferrari are both sports cars, and yet that's all you can say about how similar they are since they represent different ends of the spectrum. Why doesn't a similar range apply for supercars? The 1990's are a fascinating time because with cars like the Jaguar xj220, Bugatti EB110, and the McLaren F1, we started to see cars that took the far end of the term supercar to as far as it could possibly go. I wouldn't put the NSX in the same category as those cars, nor almost any 1990's ferrari or Lamborghini - many of the metrics are just too wide a gulf to cover. Those cars, and the subsequent challengers to their title spawned the term "hyper car" - cars that sit above the normal realm of supercars and now include the veyron, the 1: one, and the weird Pagani that I can't spell. that's part of what makes this conversation so interesting: we are talking about a time and place where we started to see things in cars that had never been seen before. A car wasn't a supercar just because it was the biggest billy badass amount of HP you could stuff in the lightest chassis, it was super because it did something truly amazing and was special. why is the TT supra not special enough? nobody here thinks it's ordinary, but what isn't it "enough" of to be supercar special? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 why is the TT supra not special enough? nobody here thinks it's ordinary, but what isn't it "enough" of to be supercar special? Lingering anti-Japanese sentiments! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 Lingering anti-Japanese sentiments! You joke, but I kinda feel this is the case. One that is further bolstered by people being reluctant to call it a supercar, but ok with it being a "Japanese supercar" where Japanese represents some form or inferior version. "Its not a real supercar, it's a Japanese supercar - it's the best they could do at the time". yeah except the best they could was pretty fucking great. I will add here that I think the 2nd hand market and the image of the car after it went out of production do color people's opinion of it being a supercar. For a while they were cheap in the used market (why?) and a supercar isn't supposed to be cheap (nevermind that you can buy 1st gen vipers for less than a new camry). It also became associated with import tuner culture (because those seemed to be the majority of people who appreciated it for what it was - a supercar they could afford), and supercars aren't supposed to be the toys of youth culture. We make a lot of fun of that "more than you can afford pal, ferrari" scene in Fast and Furious, but I think it is probably one of the most on the nose cultural statements about 1990's car culture that was made on film: A ferrari is just presumed to be a supercar because it's a ferrari and it's a status of the rich - nevermind that it's an F355 cabrolet hunk o shit that can be bought for less than a 1st gen viper and has a reputation for both engine failure and catching fire - and the Supra is the car of the people because that dude that looks like a vaguely Italian cue ball and the other dude that looks like a surfer but way hotter than any real life surfer are the heroes and the everyman in that film. the buster drove one, therefore it can never be a supercar. Image is everything!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 Well how did it compare to European supercars of the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 Well how did it compare to European supercars of the time? If you mean supercar like the diablo: delivered on performance and technology. Biggest gap was on price (you could buy two for what a ferrari or lambo cost), pretty equal on most other metrics. Largest subjective gap is probably curb appeal, but's a matter of taste and whether giant shopping cart like wings do it for you or are tacky. there isn't much of a case to be made for the diablo being a supercar and the supra not based just on price differential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 Pop culture noticed the car before the fast and the furious because it showed up in video games like the 1994 version Need for Speed where the field was all supercars. Ummm, that version of Need for Speed also included: - a Ford pickup truck - Ford Probe - Pontiac Sunbird - VW Jetta - VW Corrado - Jeep Wrangler - Subaru Leone - a tractor I guess it turns out I went to high school with a bunch of supercar owners, since Groveport Madison's parking lot was littered with Probes, Sunbirds, Jettas, and likely at least one tractor... Please stop using inclusion in Need for Speed as a criterion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 Ummm, that version of Need for Speed also included: - a Ford pickup truck - Ford Probe - Pontiac Sunbird - VW Jetta - VW Corrado - Jeep Wrangler - Subaru Leone - a tractor I guess it turns out I went to high school with a bunch of supercar owners, since Groveport Madison's parking lot was littered with Probes, Sunbirds, Jettas, and likely at least one tractor... Please stop using inclusion in Need for Speed as a criterion. None of the cars listed above were drive-able as part of the regular game (there were a few fan made patches that laid those cars over the in game cars). They were selected as the boring traffic to further enhance the supercar experience against the backdrop. You are a smart guy, you know context it important. If you want to make a case of NFS not being a good yardstick you should have brought up the Rx7. The two other Japanese cars in the game are the Rx7 and the NSX. NSX is a strong case for a supercar, Rx7 is generally considered a sports car and not a supercar, and then there is the supra turbo right in the middle of the two. the point of bringing up NFS is that it is a cultural reference point. They don't put ordinary cars in video games as playable cars with the word speed in the title - even ordinary sports cars. I am trying to make the case that the car was "special" enough because there are pop culture references to it, and appearing in one of the best driving games pre grand turisimo counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Nice Posted February 8, 2019 Report Share Posted February 8, 2019 If I cared more I'd start a thread about whether or not the LFA is a supercar. I don't think people care as much about the company behind a car as you think. Bingo... What do sales have to do with anything? We're talking about a colloquial definition here. You're saying that people didn't call it a supercar because of anti-Japanese sentiment, not that they didn't buy it because of that. Because, you know, Toyota did produce it and sell thousands of them, so somebody was buying them. They just didn't call them supercars. ...was hie name-o. Kerry you and your 12 followers can discuss this at length during CC&C. Clay can rope off your own section with a placard. The no fun car debate team. Parked 13 wide, only 4, 7, or 8 speed automatics erywhere, nothing larger than a 4.0L in a Jeep under any of the hoods. The vehicle equivalents' to ketchup stained sweatpants. ...are they supercars? Ummm, that version of Need for Speed also included: - a Ford pickup truck - Ford Probe - Pontiac Sunbird - VW Jetta - VW Corrado - Jeep Wrangler - Subaru Leone - a tractor I guess it turns out I went to high school with a bunch of supercar owners, since Groveport Madison's parking lot was littered with Probes, Sunbirds, Jettas, and likely at least one tractor... Please stop using inclusion in Need for Speed as a criterion. :lolguy: NSX is a strong case for a supercar, Rx7 is generally considered a sports car and not a supercar, and then there is the supra turbo right in the middle of the two. Supra is more equivalent to the RX7 and neither are Supercars. You meantioned that you could buy 2 Poopra's for the price of one Lambo or Ferrari. That's crazy. It's almost like 2 are supercars and warranted the price and the other is a sports car that didn't. Mind asplode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted February 9, 2019 Report Share Posted February 9, 2019 None of the cars listed above were drive-able as part of the regular game (there were a few fan made patches that laid those cars over the in game cars). They were selected as the boring traffic to further enhance the supercar experience against the backdrop. You are a smart guy, you know context it important. If you want to make a case of NFS not being a good yardstick you should have brought up the Rx7. The two other Japanese cars in the game are the Rx7 and the NSX. NSX is a strong case for a supercar, Rx7 is generally considered a sports car and not a supercar, and then there is the supra turbo right in the middle of the two. the point of bringing up NFS is that it is a cultural reference point. They don't put ordinary cars in video games as playable cars with the word speed in the title - even ordinary sports cars. I am trying to make the case that the car was "special" enough because there are pop culture references to it, and appearing in one of the best driving games pre grand turisimo counts. Sorry, I just Googled it and found those things listed as vehicles in the 1994 Need for Speed - I didn't know you couldn't drive them and they were just traffic vehicles. However, I do know that other Need for Speed games had drivable vehicles that most people would say clearly aren't supercars (like an Eclipse), so my case that inclusion in Need for Speed shouldn't be used as a criterion stands. Though, I get the point you're making. It's a sound argument. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I just know I'm right. Like obscenity, I'll know a supercar when I see one. I don't think people see the Supra and see a supercar. Serious question, how many articles referenced the Supra being a "supercar" back in the 1990s? If you can show me headlines reading, "Toyota's Supercar" or "The Supra Puts 'Sup' in Supercar!" or something to that effect then maybe I start buying your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Nice Posted February 9, 2019 Report Share Posted February 9, 2019 Serious question, how many articles referenced the Supra being a "supercar" back in the 1990s? If you can show me headlines reading, "Toyota's Supercar" or "The Supra Puts 'Sup' in Supercar!" or something to that effect then maybe I start buying your argument. Here's an article I used in CB the day this all came about. Ironically enough, Kerry also used this an hour or more later to plead his case after telling me my articles were garbage and then had to admit he didn't even read anything I linked...well, he never actually admitted he didn't read them although I called him on it several times. Oops. Shrug.jif The Toyota Supra is certainly a super car, but it isn't exactly a supercar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillbot Posted February 10, 2019 Report Share Posted February 10, 2019 Way too many words here. And for that reason, I’m out!!! /Marc Cuban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShowHBK Posted February 10, 2019 Report Share Posted February 10, 2019 I don't think people care as much about the company behind a car as you think. um... Honda NSX anyone? volkswagen phaeton v12? YES!!!! THE....COMPANY......NAME....MATTERS....100% Why can't people understand this? Toyota is a company that is well known for making cars that will last longer then you or your parents, NOT for making "supercars". Why is this hard to understand? NAME BRAND MATTERS!!! Apparently pictures don't work, so i'll come right back to my point from the get-go. Manufacturers created luxury brand names for this very reason, because their average customers would not buy them if they had their house brand name. Why does Honda not sell their Acura vehicles under the Honda name in the USA? Because no one wants to buy a luxury Honda... Slap a new name on it...and BAM!!! People buy it... even though it's a Honda at heart. Hold on... Quick google search... "Lexus Supra" 2020 Lexus RC F DONE!!! CLOSE THE THREAD PLEASE!!! I've taken care of everything once and for all. The Modern day supercar version of the Supra is the "Lexus RC F". So, there you have it folks, if you want the Supra to FINALLY be a supercar, then hang a picture of the Lexus RC F on your wall and call it a day. As for the 1994 Supra, it was never a Supercar... but it will ALWAYS be a "super car"... Notice the space in there... I could add a comma if that helps to break of the structure... but I think we are good here. Now, I need to go to the hospital and get treated for Malaria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 10, 2019 Report Share Posted February 10, 2019 um... Honda NSX anyone? volkswagen phaeton v12? YES!!!! THE....COMPANY......NAME....MATTERS....100% We're talking company, not brand. Unless you think Kerry's notion of "anti-Japanese sentiment" applies to Toyota but not Lexus somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted February 10, 2019 Report Share Posted February 10, 2019 um... Honda NSX anyone? volkswagen phaeton v12? YES!!!! THE....COMPANY......NAME....MATTERS....100% Why can't people understand this? Toyota is a company that is well known for making cars that will last longer then you or your parents, NOT for making "supercars". Why is this hard to understand? NAME BRAND MATTERS!!! Apparently pictures don't work, so i'll come right back to my point from the get-go. Manufacturers created luxury brand names for this very reason, because their average customers would not buy them if they had their house brand name. Why does Honda not sell their Acura vehicles under the Honda name in the USA? Because no one wants to buy a luxury Honda... Slap a new name on it...and BAM!!! People buy it... even though it's a Honda at heart. Hold on... Quick google search... "Lexus Supra" 2020 Lexus RC F DONE!!! CLOSE THE THREAD PLEASE!!! I've taken care of everything once and for all. The Modern day supercar version of the Supra is the "Lexus RC F". So, there you have it folks, if you want the Supra to FINALLY be a supercar, then hang a picture of the Lexus RC F on your wall and call it a day. As for the 1994 Supra, it was never a Supercar... but it will ALWAYS be a "super car"... Notice the space in there... I could add a comma if that helps to break of the structure... but I think we are good here. Now, I need to go to the hospital and get treated for Malaria Couple of points: - Acura doesn't exist in Japan, only in the US, so the Honda NSX is how the rest of the world knew the car. - by the logic of this argument the Ford GT40 and both generations of the ford GT are not supercars because ford is the brand known for the falcon, escort, and model T. Not exactly a supercar pedigree. - what about startups with no pedigree? History is littered with them, some successful, like Shelby, some not, like vector, but before their car is introduced they are literally known for nothing. So they can't build supercars? Mike your argument is deeply flawed and also a great illustration of exactly what I am talking about - you are going out of your way to make excuses as to why Toyota can't make a supercar when plenty of other examples of pedestrian car companies making supercars exist, because they are the stereotype Japanese car company. Part of the problem here is also that you are an infant and don't remember when Toyota was the dominant force in off road and rally car racing, and a relevant in lemans and formula 1. Sure now we laugh at how TRD sounds like turd and that they run in NASCAR but once upon a time those red/orange/yellow racing stripes were the stuff of competitors nightmares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShowHBK Posted February 11, 2019 Report Share Posted February 11, 2019 Part of the problem here is also that you are an infant and don't remember when Toyota was the dominant force in off road and rally car racing, and a relevant in lemans and formula 1. U Fucking Wut m8!?! Honestly... I typed 7 paragraphs back to you explaining why your statement and followup argument pissed me off and you're missing my point. 100% full But honestly... Fuck it You are entitled to believe what you want... I'll just go be an infant someplace else and let the dumb ass adults talk in the Kitchen. Come find me at Cars & Coffee to continue this discussion, but until then i'm out.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.