2020 Supra - Anyone else liking it and would replace your S2k for it?
05-22-2019, 08:57 AM
#41
Community Organizer
05-22-2019, 11:07 AM
#42
Thread Starter
Interesting findings. So these guys strapped one down to a Dynojet and put down 4whp more then the advertised crank hp. Trq significantly up as well. They posted a 0-60 time of 3.8 sec as well. Appears the new Supra has been underrated from the factory by a good margin.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/auto...cid=spartanntp
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/auto...cid=spartanntp
427lbft at the wheels @ 1600-2000rpm (and with balanced, scalpel-like handling) sounds like an absolute Monster. I'd be happy to trade my stupid Ap1 for that anyday, lol. Anyone wanna buy my 120k mile GPW Ap1 for $55k, Bring a Trailer perhaps, haha.
05-22-2019, 12:25 PM
#43
How is underrating power and torque a marketing technique? Likely they're just being extremely conservative to prevent people from getting bent out of shape when their expensive car gives them smaller-than-advertised numbers on the dyno. Which is probably why it makes advertised flywheel numbers at the rear wheels.
Those dyno numbers are confirmed by Car and Driver's 1/4-mile trap speed. Running the trusty hp-from-trap-speed formula: (3537 lb) * (113mph/234)^3 = 398 hp at the flywheel, X0.85 = 339hp at the wheels, whaddya know I didn't even plan that...
See above, that's the only thing I can think of. GM underrated the LS1 F-body cars to 305hp when they really made closer to 350hp, but that was likely to ensure they had significantly less than the Corvette...
Personally I never take the manufacturer's word on power, I go by tested 1/4-mile trap speed. It's a very good barometer of usable-power to weight.
Tune some dyno to read high absolute numbers, pick the highest-reading car out of several, and the fanboys will spread it around the webz.
A manufacturer consistently underrating cars only made sense in mid-90s in Japan. What incentives do the Germans have to do it?
Personally I never take the manufacturer's word on power, I go by tested 1/4-mile trap speed. It's a very good barometer of usable-power to weight.
05-22-2019, 04:01 PM
#44
Moderator
This BMW marketing technique is getting old. Tune some dyno to read high absolute numbers, pick the highest-reading car out of several, and the fanboys will spread it around the webz.
A manufacturer consistently underrating cars only made sense in mid-90s in Japan. What incentives do the Germans have to do it? EU car taxes are not based on power, but on displacement.
Dyno is a ****ing tool for comparison on the spot, not for bench racing.
That 0-60 time is not that surprising with decent torque down low and good AT.
A manufacturer consistently underrating cars only made sense in mid-90s in Japan. What incentives do the Germans have to do it? EU car taxes are not based on power, but on displacement.
Dyno is a ****ing tool for comparison on the spot, not for bench racing.
That 0-60 time is not that surprising with decent torque down low and good AT.
05-23-2019, 10:04 AM
#45
How is underrating power and torque a marketing technique? Likely they're just being extremely conservative to prevent people from getting bent out of shape when their expensive car gives them smaller-than-advertised numbers on the dyno. Which is probably why it makes advertised flywheel numbers at the rear wheels.
Those dyno numbers are confirmed by Car and Driver's 1/4-mile trap speed. Running the trusty hp-from-trap-speed formula: (3537 lb) * (113mph/234)^3 = 398 hp at the flywheel, X0.85 = 339hp at the wheels, whaddya know I didn't even plan that...
See above, that's the only thing I can think of. GM underrated the LS1 F-body cars to 305hp when they really made closer to 350hp, but that was likely to ensure they had significantly less than the Corvette...
Personally I never take the manufacturer's word on power, I go by tested 1/4-mile trap speed. It's a very good barometer of usable-power to weight.
Those dyno numbers are confirmed by Car and Driver's 1/4-mile trap speed. Running the trusty hp-from-trap-speed formula: (3537 lb) * (113mph/234)^3 = 398 hp at the flywheel, X0.85 = 339hp at the wheels, whaddya know I didn't even plan that...
See above, that's the only thing I can think of. GM underrated the LS1 F-body cars to 305hp when they really made closer to 350hp, but that was likely to ensure they had significantly less than the Corvette...
Personally I never take the manufacturer's word on power, I go by tested 1/4-mile trap speed. It's a very good barometer of usable-power to weight.
05-23-2019, 10:31 AM
#46
Thread Starter
Really wanna see some direct comparisons of this 2020 Supra against the Cayman S and/or non-S; since it is after all their primary target (though, comparisons against its' sibling 2020 Z4 would be very nice too for reference). But, maybe comparisons against the Cayman generations during or earlier than the Supra's development would be the most fair (2012-2018 or even earlier Caymans).
05-23-2019, 11:15 AM
#47
Not to shift the conversation but Nissan has an opportunity here to update their 370Z and compete in this market for a competitive performing sports car for even less money then the Supra and Cayman of course. 380z and a total facelift/redesign.
05-24-2019, 03:30 AM
#48
FT86 is closest to that, so I got one. I love it, but it needs the rear wheels moved forward about 8"-10" IMO for shorter wheelbase and better weight distribution, which would better deal with mods for more power.,. Not to mention it'd look cooler...
05-24-2019, 05:32 AM
#49
my only complaint with modern cars is the weight due to crash ratings. Compared to cars ways back around 2000lbs the S2k is fat. Haha!
05-24-2019, 05:34 AM
#50
They sure could. TT and SC a v6. The latest 350z looked fat but was actually decent, if you can get past the interior.