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

[CRed05]

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. :-(

 

Sorry, but none of this has anything to do with why a car is a supercar or not. Brand perception is a thing, which is why Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans got rebranded, but has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Prius wasn't even a thought back in the 90s. Toyota already had a history of making capable sports cars at this point. Like I said, Lambos made the jump from tractors to supercars.

 

I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul

[Turbs3000]

For those that are over 50, what did you think of these cars when they first came out?

 

Personally I think the car world gets pretty boring if we say the only cars that are supercars over the past 30 years are Lamborghini Ferrari bugatti and Porsche. I'd like to believe it's the few hand fulls of cars each year that in their time separated themselves from the pack.

 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[ShowHBK]

Sorry, but none of this has anything to do with why a car is a supercar or not. Brand perception is a thing, which is why Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans got rebranded, but has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Prius wasn't even a thought back in the 90s. Toyota already had a history of making capable sports cars at this point. Like I said, Lambos made the jump from tractors to supercars.

 

I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul

 

I'm not going to type a God damn essay to fully explain things. Meet me sometime at cars and coffee and we can chat things over. I know I will when I see Karry next time.

 

I'm not expanding on the idea here on CR, but my stance is simple. It's not a Supercar, because it never was a Supercar. It also has the wrong badge, culture, and following behind it to be a "Supercar"

[oh8sti]

Yes, its Toyota's supercar.

 

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

 

correction - The LFA is the only supercar the company has made.

 

GTR/Supra are sports cars. nothing super about them

[Geeto67]

It also has the wrong badge, culture, and following behind it to be a "Supercar"

 

Does it have the wrong culture though? At the time it was on posters (just like lambos, ferraris, etc) and trapper keeper folders, it was in video games, and the kids who read car magazines and talked about super cars talked about the supra. Car magazines often included it in the comparisons of super cars and when they reviewed it they compared it to other super cars. So what more culture do you need?

 

At the time the car didn't sell because people didn't value Japanese cars like they did American and Italian cars. The ZR-1 also had this problem: why spend Porsche 911 turbo money on something that looks like a corvette or a NA supra. But it doesn't mean those cars weren't every bit super cars.

 

This idea that you are the wrong brand to build a super car is bullshit. It means ford cannot ever build a super car. Nor Chevrolet. Nor Nissan (sorry GTR). I don't accept that - ferrari's biggest racing rival in the 60's was ford. Or did you just mean the Japanese can never build a supercar?

[Smokey]

I voted no because I always remember during that time period qualifying the Supra, FD, NSX, 3kgt as “Japanese supercars” as if they weren’t meant to compete with the F40 & 959 of that era which in my mind were the true supercars. That was also before the terms of hypercar, etc were being used so “supercars” were the top dogs.

 

The Supra was meant to be a GT car similar to a 550 Maranello which I don’t think anyone was calling a supercar. FD Was meant to be a sports car that’s light and nimble which would compete with a 911 or Vette of the era. Neither were trying to be the king of all production cars like a supercar would.

 

Also, the FD was the best car of that era despite what bloated Supra values would tell you. Any other opinion is wrong.

[Doc1647545523]

The different definitions of "supercar" referenced in this thread just didn't jive with my idea of the word. My definition is more emotional, relative, and self-centered:

 

A supercar is, when it is new and unmodified, both:

 

a: a car I can't afford

b: a car which is faster than any car I own

 

That said, I guess I'm going to disagree with nearly everybody, but that's okay.

[Robochan]

I voted no because I always remember during that time period qualifying the Supra, FD, NSX, 3kgt as “Japanese supercars” as if they weren’t meant to compete with the F40 & 959 of that era which in my mind were the true supercars. That was also before the terms of hypercar, etc were being used so “supercars” were the top dogs.

 

The Supra was meant to be a GT car similar to a 550 Maranello which I don’t think anyone was calling a supercar. FD Was meant to be a sports car that’s light and nimble which would compete with a 911 or Vette of the era. Neither were trying to be the king of all production cars like a supercar would.

 

Also, the FD was the best car of that era despite what bloated Supra values would tell you. Any other opinion is wrong.

 

Yea

[Patterson]

TL;DR

 

Supra is not a Supercar. Its great, and does many great things. But not a supercar

[ShowHBK]

I have compiled a new list of supercars for the world to acknowledge. I have changed my vote to yes, because the insanity must NOT end here!

 

All hail the newly appointed Supercars!

1. Toyota Supra
   
2. Mazda RX-7
   
3. Acura Integra Type R
   
4. Toyota MR2
   
5. Subaru Impreza 22B
   
6. GMC Syclone
   
7. Nissan 300ZX
   
8. Mk IV Toyota Supra
   
9. Ford Mustang GT (Foxbody)
   
10. Mazda MX-5 Miata
    
11. Mclaren 10 Speed Bike
    
12. Ford Focus (Titanium Sport)
    
13. Honda Civic Coupe
    
14. Little Tikes cozy coupe GT edition
    

 

I personally feel like the MX-5 could be the best bet here on a budget at your next track day, but who am I to judge? Gonna hang with the big boyz in the fast group! Should be seeing more GMC Syclones crushing lap times on track day next weekend. Might even bust out the Diablo from storage just to compete with the Integra bros as they blow vape smoke in my face.

[Mojoe]

I voted no because I always remember during that time period qualifying the Supra, FD, NSX, 3kgt as “Japanese supercars” as if they weren’t meant to compete with the F40 & 959 of that era which in my mind were the true supercars. That was also before the terms of hypercar, etc were being used so “supercars” were the top dogs.

 

The Supra was meant to be a GT car similar to a 550 Maranello which I don’t think anyone was calling a supercar. FD Was meant to be a sports car that’s light and nimble which would compete with a 911 or Vette of the era. Neither were trying to be the king of all production cars like a supercar would.

 

Also, the FD was the best car of that era despite what bloated Supra values would tell you. Any other opinion is wrong.

 

Thanks for saving me from writing this. You said it much better.

 

 

 

 

Am I the only one that sees this topic to be the gender war of the car world?

 

Once modified to 1000HP, the Supra can identify as a Super car?

 

Unmodified Supra's haven't chosen if they are a super car or not yet, but like the attention like if they were modified. Yet, they don't want to got through all the trouble of being modified.

[Aaron]

Thanks for saving me from writing this. You said it much better.

 

 

 

 

Am I the only one that sees this topic to be the gender war of the car world?

 

Once modified to 1000HP, the Supra can identify as a Super car?

 

Unmodified Supra's haven't chosen if they are a super car or not yet, but like the attention like if they were modified. Yet, they don't want to got through all the trouble of being modified.

 

The most important question is still unanswered though. How do we know what pronoun to use?

[DKilbourne]

Thanks for saving me from writing this. You said it much better.

 

 

 

 

Am I the only one that sees this topic to be the gender war of the car world?

 

Once modified to 1000HP, the Supra can identify as a Super car?

 

Unmodified Supra's haven't chosen if they are a super car or not yet, but like the attention like if they were modified. Yet, they don't want to got through all the trouble of being modified.

 

This is basically what I was getting at. The car isnt a super car. Stock performance was solid, but not over the top. The reason people put it on that pedestal is that they can be modded to make a ton of power. That takes it out of the discussion. It isnt what it can do when modified, it's what it did stock.

[Otis Nice]

GTR/Supra are sports cars. nothing super about them

 

That's a bingo.

 

Does it have the wrong culture though? At the time it was on posters (just like lambos, ferraris, etc) and trapper keeper folders, it was in video games, and the kids who read car magazines and talked about super cars talked about the supra. Car magazines often included it in the comparisons of super cars and when they reviewed it they compared it to other super cars. So what more culture do you need?

 

Yes, it was compared to supercars in that it was an affordable alternative for folks that couldn't afford a supercar.

 

I voted no because I always remember during that time period qualifying the Supra, FD, NSX, 3kgt as “Japanese supercars” as if they weren’t meant to compete with the F40 & 959 of that era which in my mind were the true supercars. That was also before the terms of hypercar, etc were being used so “supercars” were the top dogs.

 

The Supra was meant to be a GT car similar to a 550 Maranello which I don’t think anyone was calling a supercar. FD Was meant to be a sports car that’s light and nimble which would compete with a 911 or Vette of the era. Neither were trying to be the king of all production cars like a supercar would.

 

Also, the FD was the best car of that era despite what bloated Supra values would tell you. Any other opinion is wrong.

 

The different definitions of "supercar" referenced in this thread just didn't jive with my idea of the word. My definition is more emotional, relative, and self-centered:

 

A supercar is, when it is new and unmodified, both:

 

a: a car I can't afford

b: a car which is faster than any car I own

 

That said, I guess I'm going to disagree with nearly everybody, but that's okay.

 

TL;DR

 

Supra is not a Supercar. Its great, and does many great things. But not a supercar

 

More bingos.

 

This is basically what I was getting at. The car isnt a super car. Stock performance was solid, but not over the top. The reason people put it on that pedestal is that they can be modded to make a ton of power. That takes it out of the discussion. It isnt what it can do when modified, it's what it did stock.

 

I would say not only stock performance/capabilities but price tag, stigma, etc.

 

I had a business meeting at The RAM in Dublin last summer. I pulled up and immediately noticed a Lambo sitting out front. So did everyone else. Folks were taking pics of it, talking about it at the bar, etc.

 

Pull up in a new Supra and get out with a popped collar and some $40 budget sunglasses and everyone is gonna know what the deal is with the douche driving the BRZ.

 

Car guys did and will take note of a 6 speed turboed Supra. EVERYONE takes note of a supercar.

[Miller]

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

every car you listed in comparison falls in the "sports car" or "exotic" category. By no means were they super cars.

[zeitgeist57]

I will stick with my vote of “Supercar” only in the context of what it was back in 1994 relative to the competition. I DO agree with what’s been said; consider my mind changed.

 

So, would a top-tier Corvette ZR-1 be considered a Supercar? I wouldn’t consider it exotic, but it’s definitely top-10% globally in terms of performance, though still based on a car that you can get for $55k.

[ShowHBK]

every car you listed in comparison falls in the "sports car" or "exotic" category. By no means were they super cars.

 

I for one feel like I embrace the new definition of "supercar". I mean, the list was very compelling. With the new system anything that's got two doors is a supercar... who knew it was so easy?

 

Almost everyone on CR drives a supercar now... feelsgoodman!

[Geeesammy]

They were super cars for their time, but not supercars.

 

The tech behind them and others was before it’s time. Sequential turbos, active aero, timeless design and a lot of other little things that were neat.

 

Far from a super car, realistically speaking they are heavy pigs that just have a fanboi base beyond what they should. Modding potential really isn’t as great as many seem to believe. You’re pretty limited on what can be done without dumping thousands into an aftermarket standalone ecu. For the 90’s they were great and even into the 2000’s too. Now? Nope. You can go buy a 335i for 1/6 the price and spend $1500 and run circles around the Supra.

Edited January 13, 2019 by Geeesammy

[Otis Nice]

I will stick with my vote of “Supercar” only in the context of what it was back in 1994 relative to the competition. I DO agree with what’s been said; consider my mind changed.

 

Open and honest. I respect that.

 

Even in 1994 I didn't and still wouldn't put a Supra and a Lambo, Ferrari, etc. in the same category.

 

So, would a top-tier Corvette ZR-1 be considered a Supercar? I wouldn’t consider it exotic, but it’s definitely top-10% globally in terms of performance, though still based on a car that you can get for $55k.

 

Nope. Top tier sports car...like the Supra.

 

I for one feel like I embrace the new definition of "supercar". I mean, the list was very compelling. With the new system anything that's got two doors is a supercar... who knew it was so easy?

 

Almost everyone on CR drives a supercar now... feelsgoodman!

 

EllIIot is a supercar. 2 doors FTW!

[Otis Nice]

They were super cars for their time, but not supercars.

 

The tech behind them and other was before it’s time. Sequential turbos, active aero, timeless design and a lot of other little things that were neat.

 

Far from a super car, realistically speaking they are heavy pigs that just have a fanboi base behind what they should. Modding potential really isn’t as great as many seem to believe. You’re pretty limited on what can be done without dumping thousands into an aftermarket standalone ecu. For the 90’s they were great and even into the 2000’s too. Now? Nope. You can go buy a 335i for 1/6 the price and spend $1500 and run circles around the Supra.

 

Yup. This.

[ShowHBK]

They were super cars for their time, but not supercars.

 

It's crazy how a single space can make all the difference. it's a "super" car, but not a supercar.

 

All kidding around aside, I really agree with this.

[CRed05]

This just happened to pop up on my recommended videos.

 

 

Most would like what Clarkson has to say

[Mensan]

I think people place far too much value in the opinions of others.

[Miller]

I for one feel like I embrace the new definition of "supercar". I mean, the list was very compelling. With the new system anything that's got two doors is a supercar... who knew it was so easy?

 

Almost everyone on CR drives a supercar now... feelsgoodman!

 

A "supercar" is a noun to me, not an adjective. It's not something you define and decide to later change or "downgrade" because performance standards have risen so high. The MKIV was and still is just a sports car. If Toyota had dropped the MKIV in 1980 - at the same MSRP it was tagged in the 90's - it would have a supercar title. But in 1993 there were Bugatti EB110s, Jaguar XJ220s, Lamborghini Diablos, Ferrari F50s, McLaren F1s...some of the most influential vehicles of all time.

 

Tell me with a straight face that if you and a buddy see a Diablo cruise out to CC&C and park next to a MKIV Supra, you would say "hey, grab the camera I want a picture of these two supercars next to each other!" *fart noises*

 

What if said imaginary Diablo were parked next to a new Aventador. How would that go? "hey, grab the camera I want a picture of these two supercars next to each other!"

Any normal person that overhears you: "ughhh. Excuse you, the Diablo hasn't been a supercar since the mid 90's, by today's performance standards it's a "sports car" at best. ACTUALLY, another little known fact, a new BRZ holds higher lateral g..." *punched in the face/kicked in the sack/sweet whispers of unconscious farts*

 

I saw Kerry try to defend himself with hypercar somewhere too. I didn't hear that term used until recently to describe cars like the P1, Spyder and LaFerrari. I certainly never heard it in the 90s or 25 years to follow.

[greg1647545532]

I will stick with my vote of “Supercar” only in the context of what it was back in 1994 relative to the competition. I DO agree with what’s been said; consider my mind changed.

 

Someone asked upthread what people 50+ thought of Supras when they came out, we're not that old but when I was a kid mk2 and mk3 Supras were just kind of around, they were mullet turds that competed with IROCs, Fox bodies and every Indian immigrant driving around in a rusty 280Z.

 

The mk4 was a better car, yes, but only in Turbo form and then it was still only "fast" until the LS1 Camaro came out in 98. I'd say nobody really cared about them until F&F and people started making 1000hp 2JZs all the time, but in 1994 it was an overpriced Toyota and sales suffered for it.

 

The NSX might not have been much faster but it at least looked the part, all aluminum mid-engine, crazy price tag. I don't think you can point to one aspect and say that's what makes a supercar, I think it's just "I know it when I see it."

 

So, would a top-tier Corvette ZR-1 be considered a Supercar? I wouldn’t consider it exotic, but it’s definitely top-10% globally in terms of performance, though still based on a car that you can get for $55k.

 

I think the industry term is "supercar performance for real world prices" or something. People are hesitant to call a Corvette a supercar when they build so many of them, although at this point it's got so much damn tech in it there's really nothing separating a Z06 from something like a 458 except prestige.