Wow the return of a legend!!!

[Melbosa]

Man I had heard rumours that they were bring this back, and thank's to Cova's forums (DC5AB Club) it seems it might be true:







OOOOooooooooo...... Excuse me while I go use the facilities....

[Mr. Analog]

Only one song can express my feelings...

[Shayne]

Impressive, i hope to see better pictures as right now it looks a little fat on the topside.  In my mind the S2000 is the perfect car, ive drooled over it many of nights.

[Thorin]

with the additional power came extra loads that the convertible couldn't stand, so the company was forced to create a fixed-roof version of the car

So the convertible will be the poser version.



And what?  They can't use the same engineering as Porsche or Ferrari or Koenigsegg or Spyker to make a convertible that can withstand hundreds of pounds-feet of torque?



Nonetheless, it's nice to see yet another potent sports car being created.  With a V8 powerplant they *should* have some decent performance, especially if they put in twin turbos in the top-of-the-line model as they did in the late 80s and early 90s.

[Lazybones]

with the additional power came extra loads that the convertible couldn't stand, so the company was forced to create a fixed-roof version of the car

And what?  They can't use the same engineering as Porsche or Ferrari or Koenigsegg or Spyker to make a convertible that can withstand hundreds of pounds-feet of torque?

My guess is that to do that they would need to use expensive materials that would push the car out of the price range of their target market.

[Thorin]

with the additional power came extra loads that the convertible couldn't stand, so the company was forced to create a fixed-roof version of the car

And what?  They can't use the same engineering as Porsche or Ferrari or Koenigsegg or Spyker to make a convertible that can withstand hundreds of pounds-feet of torque?

My guess is that to do that they would need to use expensive materials that would push the car out of the price range of their target market.

Okay, lets try different examples: Mustang GT convertible, Camaro SS convertible, Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 Spyder, Corvette Z06 covertible, Dodge Viper?  Granted, the last two are more than the $50,000 (I assume US) that the article says the Supra is targeted for, but the Corvette has a completely fibreglass body and the Viper has a huge V10 motor; the Supra will have neither according to the article.  And both the Corvette and the Viper cost extra simply because people are willing to pay extra - Chevrolet and Dodge make a solid swack of money every time they sell one of those cars.

[Melbosa]

with the additional power came extra loads that the convertible couldn't stand, so the company was forced to create a fixed-roof version of the car

And what?  They can't use the same engineering as Porsche or Ferrari or Koenigsegg or Spyker to make a convertible that can withstand hundreds of pounds-feet of torque?

My guess is that to do that they would need to use expensive materials that would push the car out of the price range of their target market.

Okay, lets try different examples: Mustang GT convertible, Camaro SS convertible, Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 Spyder, Corvette Z06 covertible, Dodge Viper?  Granted, the last two are more than the $50,000 (I assume US) that the article says the Supra is targeted for, but the Corvette has a completely fibreglass body and the Viper has a huge V10 motor; the Supra will have neither according to the article.  And both the Corvette and the Viper cost extra simply because people are willing to pay extra - Chevrolet and Dodge make a solid swack of money every time they sell one of those cars.

Well the Corvette chasis is patented, and is significantly more expensive for other manufacturers to purchase than it is for Chev to make it - so I don't think Toyota could copy the design.  The Viper convertables are rare, more so the targa/t-top versions are more common, and if you've ever road in a convertable Viper, you know pushing it as high as the coupes or targa/t-top does cause some instability when cornering.



I've owned a coupe Supra, and road in a Targa Supra.  I found the coupe to be a definate advantage at high speads, as the targa body flexed to much on cornering.  Either rate, I wouldn't suspect Toyota considers a convertable to be a performance vehicle, more a touring vehicle, so I believe it will be targetted at a difference audience (basing this on Toyota's previous convertable designs).  What I will be im pressed with is if Toyota can keep the excellent milage and cornering ability of the previous models with the new power output this model is going to have.  Nothing like my '82 Strait 6 Dual over head cams supra that could match mustangs, talons,  camaros 10-15 years younger off the line, around corners (usually outclassing the others with its independant rear suspension), or at top end etc while stil maintaining 25-35 miles to the galon (depending obviously on how hard you ran it).

[Thorin]

Nothing like my '82 Strait 6 Dual over head cams supra that could match mustangs, talons, camaros 10-15 years younger off the line, around corners (usually outclassing the others with its independant rear suspension), or at top end etc while stil maintaining 25-35 miles to the galon (depending obviously on how hard you ran it).

2.3 liter 4 cylinder Mustang LX?  2.8 liter 6 cylinder Camaro?  2.0 liter 4 cylinder non-turbo non-all-wheel-drive Talon ES?  Sure, the 2.8 liter 6 cylinder Supra could hold its own against them.  5.0 liter V8 Mustang GT Cobra?  5.7 liter V8 Camaro?  These can take a 2.8 liter I6 Supra off the line easy, and have enough power to reach higher top speed as well.  2.0 liter I4 turbo all-wheel-drive Talon TSi?  These can handle more Gs in tight turns than a Supra rear-wheel-drive.  If you managed to beat these cars consistently, it probably had to do with drivers' ability (or lack thereof).



But, for testing the off-the-line performance you took it out to the drag strip several times, and for testing the cornering ability you used the car in several time trial slot races, and for testing top end you took it to a large oval track where you could really get it up to speed?  And the cars it matched did that, too?  If not, perhaps the other drivers didn't top their cars out against yours (whether because they didn't want to, or more likely because they were scared to crash).



I'd be impressed if you managed to beat me in your car, and then swapped cars with me, and you beat me in my car while I was using yours.  Now that would show some excellent skill.

[Thorin]

the Corvette chasis is patented, and is significantly more expensive for other manufacturers to purchase than it is for Chev to make it - so I don't think Toyota could copy the design

Every vehicle design is patented.  The Corvette's chassis is made from steel, but the *body* is made of fibreglass.  Any other car manufacturer could make a fibreglass car body without infringing patent so long as it doesn't look the same as the Corvette.  The reason other companies don't pick up on fibreglass is not because of patent rights but because of the expense of fixing a fibreglass body if the car ever crashes.  There have been no other manufacturers willing to pass such a big cost-risk to their consumers, mostly because they worry about bad press concerning repair costs.  As opposed to, say, the sailboat manufacturers, who are more than willing to pass along the cost-risk of fibreglass to their consumers.

[Thorin]

Every vehicle design is patented

I should correct that; every vehicle design is copyrighted, not patented.  Some manufacturers may pursue patenting their design.  However, my lunchtime search of the US Patents and Trademark Office website didn't yield any patents related specifically to using fibreglass for car bodies.  And even then, there's enough prior art in areas such as boats to show that making the skin of a vessel (boat or car) out of a certain material is not a patentable idea.

[Ustauk]

Well, all I know is that Melbosa's former Mark II Supra had a lot of get up and go to it, and it looked good, espcially compared to the other cars of its time.  The new one is really nice to look at too.  But I'm sure I'd probably end up killing myself trying to drive something as powerful as the new Supra  or one of its compeitors, even if I coud afford it, so I'll stick to my little old 105 horsepower 1985 Celica GT  

[Melbosa]

Nothing like my '82 Strait 6 Dual over head cams supra that could match mustangs, talons, camaros 10-15 years younger off the line, around corners (usually outclassing the others with its independant rear suspension), or at top end etc while stil maintaining 25-35 miles to the galon (depending obviously on how hard you ran it).

2.3 liter 4 cylinder Mustang LX?  2.8 liter 6 cylinder Camaro?  2.0 liter 4 cylinder non-turbo non-all-wheel-drive Talon ES?  Sure, the 2.8 liter 6 cylinder Supra could hold its own against them.  5.0 liter V8 Mustang GT Cobra?  5.7 liter V8 Camaro?  These can take a 2.8 liter I6 Supra off the line easy, and have enough power to reach higher top speed as well.  2.0 liter I4 turbo all-wheel-drive Talon TSi?  These can handle more Gs in tight turns than a Supra rear-wheel-drive.  If you managed to beat these cars consistently, it probably had to do with drivers' ability (or lack thereof).



But, for testing the off-the-line performance you took it out to the drag strip several times, and for testing the cornering ability you used the car in several time trial slot races, and for testing top end you took it to a large oval track where you could really get it up to speed?  And the cars it matched did that, too?  If not, perhaps the other drivers didn't top their cars out against yours (whether because they didn't want to, or more likely because they were scared to crash).



I'd be impressed if you managed to beat me in your car, and then swapped cars with me, and you beat me in my car while I was using yours.  Now that would show some excellent skill.

Easy there sports fan, please take no offense to my statements or shot me down cause of my comments .  They are true enough, whether it was the drivers I was against, or the models of cars, or that the cars I tested myself against weren't in perfect mechanical order.



And no I never tested my car, nor my skills on tracks.  I just making an observation based on my own experiences.  I can't tell you what my Supra maxed out at top speed, as the spedo only went to 140 and I had it barried for a long time at that speed - was chasing a Lambergini {sp? - to lazy to look it up } through Saskatchewan (whether he realized I was or not).  Just remember the feeling at about 180km/h when the spoiler really took affect on the car, and was like I was driving on rails.  I would argue a bit with you on the cornering, not so much on the Gs  the driver feels, but on the shift in wait at high speeds, which the independant suspension on all wheels allowed for all wheels to stay on the ground at high speed turns - which was great for street racing here in edmonton when going against those Talons - again could be the drivers.



So by no means am I saying I am an excellent speed racer, driver or otherwise... I know I've pulled some crazy stuff in that Supra, and was thoroughly impressed with its performance as from A-Z.  That is it was well rounded, in that I could do the full circuit decently enough, all at once - off line, tight/high speed turns, top end performance - and still get excellent gas milage out of the thing.  This is what impressed me.  I'm sure I'd lose to a properly driven Mustang Cobra, or Camaro, etc, but man I wouldn't want their gas bills at the end of the day .

[Mr. Analog]

Yeah, well, I am an excellent Speed Racer (and yes, Trixie is a demon in the sack)







Youwillneverdefeatme. NotwhileIdrivetheunbeatable Mach 0.00005!

Hah!Hah!Hah!

[Thorin]

Yeah, sorry, I did sorta go off there, eh?  Guess I've just read too many posts on other forums lately about how this-driver-and-his-Hyundai-Accent-beat-a-brand-new-Charger-so-the-Charger-must-be-crap...



I'll certainly agree with you that the Supra was a decent package.  A bit heavy for the power it produced, but the I6 had a nice even torque band and the car had a decent front-rear weight balance.  If I were to jump into Solo II racing, I'd probably be looking at an early 80s Celica, Supra, or Volvo to race.  They appear to be the easier cars to handle without costing a huge chunk of money.  Yes, I said Volvo.  You'd be amazed how well they drive.



And that Lamborghini might've been a lookalike kit car built on a Fiero.  There are both Lamborghini Countach and Ferrari Testarossa kits that start with a Fiero.  And they're nowhere near as fast as the cars they're made to resemble

[Melbosa]

And that Lamborghini might've been a lookalike kit car built on a Fiero.  There are both Lamborghini Countach and Ferrari Testarossa kits that start with a Fiero.  And they're nowhere near as fast as the cars they're made to resemble

Your right, but I know how wide and long a Fiero is, with those kits.  This was a real one (there are about 17 last time I checked in Canada).  I figure he was doing about 240-260 Km/h at 1:30AM when he passed me on the Yellowhead.  I know we were booking it, cause we made it from Lloyd to the Mani boarder in 6.25 hours (including a stop in York for gas).  That is usually a 8-10 hour drive.  I just stayed about a click and a half behind him and paced 'em.  Then by coincidence I stoped at the same Petro as him in York for gas .  He was surprised to see me, seeing as though he blew by me like I was standing still just out side of Lloyd.