gymratter

and we're at a tie again, thanks



anyways, im surprised that so many voted for the NSX. i recall not too long ago yall were complaining it was dated, ugly (bird beak), and expensive (more than GTR as confirmed by Honda).

UDel

All those concepts are significantly different from the production cars which is what I was getting at, NSX is supposed to be very close to production where the other 2 are going to change significantly for production. The LFA is a very low volume 375K car, the Toyota is supposed to be around 60K and sell in much bigger numbers which means they won't be able to have as much room and money to spend on engineering it to have those kind of curves, details, proportions. I don't see it being that low, with that kind of detailing in the front/rear, or have that kind of low roofline with such small windows when it goes into production.

cino

iTrader: (1)

To be honest, if Toyota like playing safe like they did with Supra Mk4, they are going to fail like they did back in 90s. Go big or stick to making bland cars. If they can't make anything as exotic as Corvette C7 for the price, they don't even try. I'm also tired with all sleek concepts that look nothing like its production counterpart. LF-A concept is one of the best looking Lexus designs, and LFA looks like "a generic supercar"- Jay Leno.

Vh_Supra26

iTrader: (1)

I guess our definition of significantly different isn't the same. Will changes be made? Yes, almost always. Headlights, tail lights, door handles, interior, bumpers, and ect may change. But the overall shape should carried over like with their past concept to production cars. None of them look exactly the same, but in my opinion, for the most part they stayed pretty true to the concept. MKIV Supra had a lot of curves (for its time) and pretty small windows so I'm not sure where you are going with this one.

I don't see what the LFA really has to do with this, but its known fact that what Toyota learn with it will make its way down to the rest of the the line up. LFA was also hand built, and used tons of carbon fiber. FT-1 on the other hand will most likely use steel and aluminum.

Vh_Supra26

iTrader: (1)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagreed with you on this one. The styling of the MKIV was well a head of its time and is truly timeless.

GS3Tek

iTrader: (8)

That summed it up nicely for me too

Vh_Supra26

iTrader: (1)

To each their own.

I just can't wait until FT-1 is released

UDel

I don't agree they played it safe with the Mark4 in styling or performance, it had great head turning style, a great interior, and very good performance, it was quicker then a Corvette when it came out and had a ton of tuning potential that was much easier to access then a NA car. The 300ZX tt made 300hp and the RX-7 only made 255hp, the Supra had them beat with 320hp and was quicker then them. Some thought the big hoop spoiler was too much, I loved it. The NA version was not very impressive but what killed the Supra was its high price and coming out when the SUV craze was starting and exploded in popularity where buyers unfortunately lost interest in most mid to higher priced sports cars.

gymratter

wow...

X2, not to mention the MK4 stayed on the market longer than the 300ZX and RX7. yup, in the 90s sports car (especially Japaneses) in general were a dying breed due to SUVs and the rising yen. not just the MK4 as stated by cino.

cino

iTrader: (1)

It was a good looking car, but I wouldn't say it's ahead of its time. There were many cars in the same era that looked better. Supra Mk4 and R34 are on par in design. NSX is the only one that is truly timeless of the 3.

cino

iTrader: (1)

Playing devil's advocate sucks, I know.

Vh_Supra26

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagreed with you again.

What cars do you think it looks better than? IMO the MKIV look better than the C4, C5, 300ZX, 3000GT, and R33, but thats just me. Feel free to disagreed. When I am driving mines around town I get asked questions all the time. People think its a brand new one car. They are shock when I tell them its a 21 year old car from 1993.

The R34 came out years after the MKIV Supra debut. NSX is subjectable, but ok lets say it is a better looking car. Back in 93 there was a price differences of nearly $30k ($49k today) between the two. Point is, for that price difference you get a more exotic look.

cino

iTrader: (1)

Corvette was not competitive until C5, so yeah the C4 that was in production for 12 years was slower than Supra Mk4.

Exactly. Price was what kill most Japanese sportcars back in the day, and if they are going to make a base Mk5 at 60k with a mere 350+hp, they are going to kill it again. Like I've always said, reliability gap between Japanese and American "sportcars" is so close that they can't use it as an excuse to charge higher price. If they want to charge that much, they should look at their spec in GT6 as a reference. 90% of buyer could careless about insane tuning potential. Not many many go that far to double their cars' horsepower.

cino

iTrader: (1)

Well, I guess design is a really subjective topic.

Vh_Supra26

iTrader: (1)

Of course, people will always have different taste.



On a different note I feel that we are getting off topic. Currently we are talking about the Nissan 2020, Toyota FT-1, and Acura NSX concepts. Seeing which design and styling people prefer.

We have a MKIV thread for those that would like to talk about the old model.