[Squidget]

Originally Posted by FTS

It is always about engineering. You engineer solutions around constraints, that is the definition of engineering.

No, within constraints. Engineering around constraints breaches the contract and gets you fired.

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by Squidget

Uhhh... Toyota did no such thing, assuming we talking about a Supra. They used 95% BMW parts. It's lighter because it's a 2 seater and the interior is awful. Caddy's equivalent to the M2 is the CT4-V Blackwing,
You are using the wrong word. BMW's engineering is fine, Toyota partnered with them because Toyota literally lacked the ability to engineer their own sports car from the ground up.

You can romanticize the E46 all you want, but that car cannot be built today. Not only would it be totally illegal, it would be non-competitive on every axis. This has nothing to do with BMW, it's the reality of regulation, crash safety, and consumer expectations.

Toyota didn’t lack the ability, just the desire to lose $millions. They’re actually coming out on top with this arrangement, based on their relative volume v Z4. Speaking of which, the Z4 is the closest thing to the E46 feel today - more people should consider it (if you don’t need a back seat).

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by Bimmerfun82

Toyota didn’t lack the ability, just the desire to lose $millions. They’re actually coming out on top with this arrangement, based on their relative volume v Z4. Speaking of which, the Z4 is the closest thing to the E46 feel today - more people should consider it (if you don’t need a back seat).

I don't have a link, but I recall an interview where they implied that they no longer had ground-up expertise with RWD sports powertrains, in-house. In house they are all transverse mount FWD experts.

Hence why they partnered with BMW on the Supra and Subaru on the FRS/86. The cost to redevelop that expertise would be prohibitive.

The Z4 is great if you want a 2 seat tourer (and don't want a manual). It's a very pleasant ride!

Edit: I checked, the only other RWD Toyotas I can find are trucks or SUVs.

[AlpineBoost]

Originally Posted by Bimmerfun82

Toyota didn’t lack the ability, just the desire to lose $millions. They’re actually coming out on top with this arrangement, based on their relative volume v Z4. Speaking of which, the Z4 is the closest thing to the E46 feel today - more people should consider it (if you don’t need a back seat).

I'd actually prefer another 2-seater as I've owned a couple and have other cars with rear doors and/or seats but I hate the look of a rag top. I get the advantages of it, but it's just not for me. Even hard tops look off to me when a car is offered as both a coupe and convertible and you know how it looks in coupe form.

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by Squidget

I don't have a link, but I recall an interview where they implied that they no longer had ground-up expertise with RWD sports powertrains, in-house. In house they are all transverse mount FWD experts.

Hence why they partnered with BMW on the Supra and Subaru on the FRS/86. The cost to redevelop that expertise would be prohibitive.

The Z4 is great if you want a 2 seat tourer (and don't want a manual). It's a very pleasant ride!

Edit: I checked, the only other RWD Toyotas I can find are trucks or SUVs.

Do they not cross pollinate with Lexus?

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by Bimmerfun82

Do they not cross pollinate with Lexus?

Right, good point. Lexus does make RWD cars, but I think they use the same 10 speed automatic on all of them. Since the IS and LS have been panned as a sports cars, I guess it's terrible for the purpose. And they have no manual transmissions.

TBH, I'm not a fan of Lexus and don't know much about them. They don't build the LFA or any of the niche cars anymore, right?

Since Toyota didn't choose to use a Lexus platform for either the Supra or 86, I'm going to assume it's not suitable for sports cars.

[aaaaah]

Originally Posted by Squidget

I don't have a link, but I recall an interview where they implied that they no longer had ground-up expertise with RWD sports powertrains, in-house. In house they are all transverse mount FWD experts.

Hence why they partnered with BMW on the Supra and Subaru on the FRS/86. The cost to redevelop that expertise would be prohibitive.

The Z4 is great if you want a 2 seat tourer (and don't want a manual). It's a very pleasant ride!

Edit: I checked, the only other RWD Toyotas I can find are trucks or SUVs.

I can't imagine Akio letting the engineers leave who did all of the chassis work for the GSF/LC500. The GSF in particular was widely lauded as being a better driver's car than the M5 of the same era. Toyota (and Lexus) are just a very conservative company overall and investing the money in such a risky product at the time wasn't worth it to them.

Now that they have had success with the GR Yaris and Corolla, I would expect them to continue that trend into the future. Hell, to me, the perfect low cost sports car would be a GR86 with the GR Corolla engine in it. I can't imagine a better driving experience dollar for dollar.

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by Squidget

Right, good point. Lexus does make RWD cars, but I think they use the same 10 speed automatic on all of them. Since the IS and LS have been panned as a sports cars, I guess it's terrible for the purpose. And they have no manual transmissions.

TBH, I'm not a fan of Lexus and don't know much about them. They don't build the LFA or any of the niche cars anymore, right?

Since Toyota didn't choose to use a Lexus platform for either the Supra or 86, I'm going to assume it's not suitable for sports cars.

For sure the platform had to be built ground up, but that doesn’t mean they had to use the B58. But it’s a no brainer, the engine is great. The LFA was a loss maker for Lexus, no longer made - I think it was produced for a very short period of time. The SG guys have a great video on it. Lexus certainly aren’t know for anything like the Supra which originally was Toyota of course. It’s funny though that the Lotus Emira uses a Toyota V6. There’s so much cross pollination partnerships now in the auto industry. Think of Aston using Mercedes transmissions and engines. Also, to your question the IS 500f has an 8 speed transmission unlike the LC500 10-speed.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by aaaaah

Now that they have had success with the GR Yaris and Corolla, I would expect them to continue that trend into the future. Hell, to me, the perfect low cost sports car would be a GR86 with the GR Corolla engine in it. I can't imagine a better driving experience dollar for dollar.

That would be sweet, but I wonder if you can replace a flat-4 with an inline 3. Very different form factors, and you'd lose that low center of gravity benefit of the flat-4.

But no doubt, Toyota builds some great hot hatches.

[Ravenseal]

If I could get a Z4 with a manual, I would jump on it over the M2. Obviously, BMW hates me. Chassis aside, the quality of the Supra is subpar.

[JustinHEMI]

Originally Posted by Bimmerfun82

Toyota didn’t lack the ability, just the desire to lose $millions. They’re actually coming out on top with this arrangement, based on their relative volume v Z4. Speaking of which, the Z4 is the closest thing to the E46 feel today - more people should consider it (if you don’t need a back seat).

I'd be all over another Z4MC.

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by JustinHEMI

I'd be all over another Z4MC.

Yes. It’s strange bmw isn’t moving in that direction, but the architecture may not lend itself to that setup.

[Karmic Man]

How the A90 Supra was born

(https://www.goauto.com.au/news/toyot...-04/79871.html)

TOYOTA Motor Corporation (TMC) would have likely never been able to make the A90 Supra if it was not for BMW Group, according to the sportscar’s chief product specialist, Tetsuya Tada.

Speaking to journalists this week at the A90 Supra national media launch in Phillip Island, Victoria, Mr Tada recounted the story of how the reborn coupe came to be, with it ultimately sharing its underpinnings with BMW’s G29 Z4 roadster.

The core development of the A90 Supra started way back in May 2012, at which time Mr Tada was in the midst of a two-week stint in Barcelona, Spain, for the local media launch of another sportscar he was the chief product specialist for, the 86 coupe.

During the middle of that fortnight, TMC headquarters called Mr Tada with instructions to quietly go to Munich, Germany, and visit BMW Group’s own headquarters for a top-secret meeting regarding whether or not the two companies could do core development on a project together in the future.

TMC executives did not actually tell Mr Tada what kind of model he should be pushing for, be it sportscar or not, so he started to ponder what the purpose of that exercise was, which led him to thinking that maybe the time was right for the A90 Supra to come to fruition.

This thought was prompted by the fact that the 86 had just been released, but customers and dealers the world over were asking, ‘When is the next Supra coming out? How long do I have to wait?’

Mr Tada therefore saw that demand was very strong for the A90 Supra, and given that an inline six-cylinder engine is in the DNA of the famous nameplate and BMW Group was the only manufacturer making such a high-performance unit at the time, the penny dropped.

A lot of amicable discussions between the two parties then took place, with Mr Tada reporting back to TMC that core development was possible, with him then appointed as chief product specialist for the project that was still yet to be determined.

“A very simple, thoughtful response led me to a winding difficult road,” he said.

The negotiations over what type of model should be produced together then started, but after many meetings, a conclusion could not be reached.

Mr Tada later suggested that TMC and BMW Group take a look at the key sportscars produced by each other, ultimately agreeing to meet at one of the latter’s proving grounds, where an i8 prototype and the 86 and Lexus LFA production models were available to drive.

From Mr Tada’s perspective, the way in which BMW Group staff were driving the 86 and LFA suggested that they had never sampled any of TMC’s products before. Conversely, the Japanese company buys every single one of its Bavarian partner’s models to test when they are released.

This was BMW Group’s first experience with core development, with Mr Tada concerned at the time that it did not understand the significance of such a project.

His concern was manifested when BMW Group said it had no suggestions for the project and that it was up to TMC to decide what it would be, confident that it would build whatever was requested.

At this point, it had been one year since core development started and a concrete project had still yet to be locked in, with TMC headquarters questioning why progress had been so slow.

Keen to avoiding staying in hot water with his superiors, Mr Tada went back to his original idea and suggested the A90 Supra had to happen, as TMC’s model line-up needed a halo sportscar.

However, Herbert Diess, who is currently Volkswagen Group’s chairman of the board of management but was BMW Group’s member of the board of management for development at the time, did not share Mr Tada’s enthusiasm.

Mr Diess understood Mr Tada’s passion for pure sportscars, but the business cases for such models were hard to establish, with a long-term future required to be financially viable.

Several case studies ensued but an agreement could not be reached, squashing the chances of a new sportscar, be it the A90 Supra or not.

Mr Diess then suggested instead of trying to make a profit, increasing brand value could be the goal of the project. And with the plug-in hybrid i8 sportscar then nearing public release, he suggested that the two parties could work an i9 that would harness TMC’s electrification expertise.

By his own admission, Mr Tada was “a spoilt little child” and did not want to embark on such a project as he instead desired a pure sportscar, making him partly responsible for the protracted core development.

In a twist of fate, Mr Diess soon left BMW Group in 2014 to later join Volkswagen Group, with his successor, Klaus Froehlich, quickly advancing the core development following his appointment that December.

Like Mr Tada, Mr Froehlich was more passionate than practical in his approach, which led him to agreeing to partner with TMC on a pure sportscar.

So, the negotiations then moved onto what kind of sportscar should the two parties develop, with Mr Tada keen to make his vision for the A90 Supra come to life.

The most logical pairing was the A90 Supra and G29 Z4, but the former had to be a coupe to follow in the tyre tracks of its A80 predecessor, while the latter had to be a convertible like its E89 forebear. It did not matter, though, as TMC and BMW Group were now determined to make it work.

Porsche provided the benchmark for the project, with its Cayman coupe and Boxter convertible seen as logical rivals for the A90 Supra and G29 Z4 respectively.

However, the former pair used a mid-ship layout, while the latter pair were always going to be FR (front engine with rear-wheel-drive) to stay true to their respective lineages.

Mr Tada then had doubts as to whether or not the A90 Supra and G29 Z4 could genuinely compete with the Cayman and Boxter with a different layout.

More case studies ensued before it was decided that TMC and BMW Group’s existing platforms were not going to be able to meet the performance requirements, so new architecture had to be developed to do so.

Fresh underpinnings (short wheelbase, wide tracks) were then decided upon, but TMC executives were doubtful that Mr Tada would be able to pull off the project, particularly in regard to high-speed stability.

To quell any doubts, a prototype of the dimensions was made, as per TMC tradition, using a Nissan that was cut into pieces and welded back together in keeping with the plans. It was later shipped to Japan, where key executives drove it and subsequently gave their approval.

Mr Tada then went back to BMW Group and came to an agreement on the shared platform, including engines and suspension, at which point the core development was split into two, with the Japanese team working on the A90 Supra, while the German outfit took charge of the G29 Z4.

Different design studios were responsible for penning the two sportscars, while their driving characteristics were decided by separate ‘master drivers’, with TMC appointing Dutch racecar driver Herwig Daenens, who was its first foreign ‘master driver’.

Over the next three to four years, Mr Daenens was charged with leading the tuning of the A90 Supra’s engine, transmission, steering and suspension, which was specifically included in TMC’s contract with BMW Group.

“We share a lot with BMW, but the software is totally separate,” Mr Tada said.

He was concerned that BMW Group might press him to tune the A90 Supra in a certain way, but to his surprise, it said nothing of the like.

Just a few months prior to the G29 Z4’s release, Mr Tada was invited to test one of its final prototypes. As far as sportscars were concerned, he thought it was great and a genuine alternative to the Boxster for customers.

Predictably, people often ask Mr Tada if he thinks the A90 Supra is better than the G29 Z4, but he thinks that question does not make sense as their buyer types are considerably different when it comes to body style.

Mr Tada therefore believes that neither the A90 Supra nor the G29 Z4 face cannibalisation from one another, which improves the relationship between TMC and BMW Group in the sportscar segment that he admits is quite small and requires collaboration to succeed in.

Interestingly, Mr Tada noted that communication between TMC and BMW Group in the early years of their core development was done using English, which is a second language for both parties.

This proved to be a barrier to progress due to misunderstandings and cultural differences until one member of Mr Tada’s team who was Japanese but born in Germany and fluent in both languages was reposted to his former home as a moderator between TMC and BMW Group, at which point communication became much smoother.

“BMW’s team responded to my difficult requests and led to this exciting completion of two cars,” he said. “I would actually like to express my appreciation to the BMW team for this opportunity.”

While the A90 Supra almost did not get off the ground, Mr Tada’s passion to create it was driven by personal reasons that gives its development a much deeper meaning.

In 1997, he moved to TMC’s Z (product planning) division after being poached by Isao Tsuzuki, who would not only become Mr Tada’s mentor, but was the chief product specialist for the A80 Supra that was in production at the time.

Due to the timing of his move, Mr Tada assumed that he would be part of the team that would create the A90 Supra, but the project never saw the light of day as TMC stopped developing sportscars around that time due to their low profit margins.

After approaching Mr Tsuzuki to ask what his role was, Mr Tada found out that he would instead be working on small cars, which did not sit well with him. His negative reaction was not appreciated by his mentor, who scolded him.

“I was making minivans for 10 years,” Mr Tada said. “I felt like I don’t want to go to work today. It’s so boring. How long do I have to persevere?

“Akio Toyoda (eventually) became (TMC) president and said, ‘Let’s make some passionate cars’, and the 86 project started and I was in charge of it. And now I’m in charge of Supra.

“Tsuzuki-san always said, ‘I would like to see the day a new Supra is released’, but unfortunately he passed away five years ago due to an accident.

“I really want him to see it – that’s the only regret that I have.

“Tsuzuki-san actually never really praised me when he was alive, but I’m sure that when he sees this, he will be happy.”

With more experience under his belt, Mr Tada now understands that the passion for developing a small car or a Supra has to be the same, or else the end product will never be as exciting as it should be.

[npirnia]

This video also lays out the story of the Supra's development in relation to BMW (it is a BMW engineered product that is built by BMW with Toyota styling and Toyota engineering feedback concerning tuning such as steering feel, etc):

It is a really good watch - both interesting and entertaining.

-Nick

[Karmic Man]

Originally Posted by npirnia

This video also lays out the story of the Supra's development in relation to BMW (it is a BMW engineered product that is built by BMW with Toyota styling and Toyota engineering feedback concerning tuning such as steering feel, etc):

It is a really good watch - both interesting and entertaining.

-Nick

It’s a good video but most people got it wrong by thinking it’s a BMW engineered car. The engineering was a joint collaboration from Toyota and BMW and it was Toyota that defined and pushed for the platform’s dynamic requirements. Hence a new architecture was required and BMW also agreed

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by Karmic Man

Hence a new architecture was required and BMW also agreed

The Supra uses the BMW CLAR architecture with all the same dynamic component pickup points that are common to all current ICE RWD based BMWs, Toyota adopted the platform as opposed to any joint development of the core architecture.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by aerobod

The Supra uses the BMW CLAR architecture with all the same dynamic component pickup points that are common to all current ICE RWD based BMWs, Toyota adopted the platform as opposed to any joint development of the core architecture.

Yep, CLAR was already baked (it appeared in the G11 in 2015). Toyota tweaked the suspension for the feel they wanted (i.e. snap oversteer wooooo). They reached into ZF's parts catalog to make some changes to the shift linkages, and IIRC they chose slightly different gearing ratios.

But for all practical purposes in this thread (i.e. weight vs. performance), they didn't change anything significant. In other words, it IS BMW engineering.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by mtoosexy

I am in a similar boat OG, M2C or G87... this video honestly reconfirms my wants/uses in a car. I dont want to go fast, i just want to have fun this isn't my track car. F87 or M2C AND a GT4 will soon be in my garage.

I have to ask, if you can afford a GT4, why the hell are you even cross-shopping a G87? I really like the G87, but I can't pretend it's in the same class...

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Squidget

I have to ask, if you can afford a GT4, why the hell are you even cross-shopping a G87? I really like the G87, but I can't pretend it's in the same class...

I have a similar curiosity. If one can park a play-toy GT4 in his/her garage, I can’t see the purpose of adding a G87 to the mix.

[ASAP]

I think here is where reviews like this go a little awry... this review is extremely track focused. We need to be honest with each other and accept that for 95% of people that is a borderline irrelevant metric.

I owned an F87C and thought that car was all over the place on the street... it was bouncy, twitchy and went sideways on every turn (stock PSS tires). If the G87 fixes all of that, then to me it's already a win as a street car. i can drive it more confidently and faster on the street without worries... i don't want my car to feel like its' about to take off after going on a simple highway onramp. I am sure the G87 dampening is better and fixes a large amount of that. I an 99% sure this is why BMW made these adjustments... they could have made the car far twitchier at the expense of actual handling.

The SUPRA is a tiny car that won't work for many people... by default on its weight and 2 seat size, it should be a better track car.

[tracer bullet]

Originally Posted by Ravenseal

If I could get a Z4 with a manual, I would jump on it over the M2.

I hit the Z4 forum daily to check for updates on it getting a manual. So far it seems like no one thinks it makes sense, but a few members with accurate insider knowledge still say it will happen.

I was hoping the new M2 could replace my aging 135i, after 11 years I'm ready for another car. I don't think it's for me though, it is sort of going the wrong direction. That's fine, it's my opinion and goals, I'm NOT dissing the car, clearly it's a high performer.

An M2C is interesting but at practically the same cost as the G87 it's ridiculous to consider if I didn't already own one. Supra is - I can't get past the looks. So I'm holding out to see if the Z4 will come with a manual. We know it won't outperform the G87 and it still has EPS tuned towards luxury over feedback. But it might get the nod if it ever ends up existing. And as a bonus the wife thinks they look nice and seems to actually understand me wanting one (she's a "cars get you from point A to point B, I don't understand why you think they are fun" kind of person.

On topic though, it's interesting to read the posts in this thread. Everyone focuses on what they want to hear. If you like the G87, you heard why it's great. If you dislike it, you heard why it's bad. As an outsider to it of sorts it seems plain as day to me what everyone's saying. 2 different people can take away 2 very different opinions.

[zero21]

Originally Posted by tracer bullet

I hit the Z4 forum daily to check for updates on it getting a manual. So far it seems like no one thinks it makes sense, but a few members with accurate insider knowledge still say it will happen.

I was hoping the new M2 could replace my aging 135i, after 11 years I'm ready for another car. I don't think it's for me though, it is sort of going the wrong direction. That's fine, it's my opinion and goals, I'm NOT dissing the car, clearly it's a high performer.

An M2C is interesting but at practically the same cost as the G87 it's ridiculous to consider if I didn't already own one. Supra is - I can't get past the looks. So I'm holding out to see if the Z4 will come with a manual. We know it won't outperform the G87 and it still has EPS tuned towards luxury over feedback. But it might get the nod if it ever ends up existing. And as a bonus the wife thinks they look nice and seems to actually understand me wanting one (she's a "cars get you from point A to point B, I don't understand why you think they are fun" kind of person.

On topic though, it's interesting to read the posts in this thread. Everyone focuses on what they want to hear. If you like the G87, you heard why it's great. If you dislike it, you heard why it's bad. As an outsider to it of sorts it seems plain as day to me what everyone's saying. 2 different people can take away 2 very different opinions.

Didn't BMW BLOG drive a Z4 with a manual?