Toyota, This Should've Been Your Supra...

"shpuker" (shpuker) 01/15/2019 at 00:20 • Filed to: Supra, a90 supra, Gt 86, Toyota, toyota supra, Turbo, BMW, S55, Subaru, FA20, FA24

8

23

You had it Toyota... You were one or two logical decisions away from having the Supra everyone wanted. You had the chassis & a fairly modular platform, all you needed were the details.

Disclaimer: I daily drive an FRS... So ya know, take this with a grain of salt.

Let me start by clarifying what I’m getting at; the general premise here is that from an engineering & market entrance perspective Toyota had all of the ingredients necessary to build the Supra prior to signing onto the project with BMW. Thus Toyota theoretically could’ve shaved years (& likely a few million dollars) off development time, built off of an established models audience, & given everyone the one thing we’ve been asking for in the GT86 for years, more power.

In order to do this I’ll focus on establishing three primary premises...

Toyota had a viable chassis to develop further with the 086A chassis

Toyota’s hypothetical utilization of this preexisting platform to build the Supra has historical precedent

Toyota could have utilized in-house engine development programs or external programs (i.e. BMW or Subaru) within the 086A chassis

Note: Hereafter this hypothetical vehicle will be referred to as the A86 Supra

Viability of the 086A Chassis

The simplest comparison to lead with is purely dimensional, so let’s go ahead and get that out of the way first...

Format...
[GT86 | A80 Supra | A90 Supra]

Wheelbase...
[2,570 | 2,550 | 2,470] mm

Track Width (Average)...
[1,529 | 1,523 |1,609] mm

Height...
[1,285 | 1,275 | 1,295] mm

Curb Weight...
[1,298 | 1,510 | 1,520] kg

Using the above to prematurely jump to conclusions we can see the 086A chassis easily qualifies as a candidate for the Supra moniker while providing some weight to play with.

Looking next at the power potential of an A86 Supra chassis let’s turn to an example of a turbo 086A build...

The most important take away from that video (as it pertains to my argument) is that I really want a turbo ki... I mean that the 086A chassis can handle the A90 Supra’s advertised power (335 HP) easily.

Historical Precedent

From 1978 to 1986 the Toyota Supra was not built on a standalone platform, it was largely the same as the Celica. While this isn’t everyone’s first image of the Supra’s heyday, this period certainly planted the seed of the car’s future allure. More importantly for the engineering team looking to justify the program, using an existing platform as a basis helps to reduce costs dramatically, especially nowadays with platform development costs well into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

While pairing up with BMW certainly helped Toyota to reduce development costs associated with the A90 Supra, the A86 Supra would’ve already inherited a similar cost reduction from the Toyota-Subaru development project. Thus the A86 Supra would likely have avoided incurring any of the primary development costs (It’s important here to note that I said primary, AKA it would still have costs associated with chassis modification & re-homologation).

Utilize Existing Engine Programs

Now here is where I’ll make a few more brash assumptions, so prepare your internet skepticism now.

The base model A90 Supra is arriving with 196 HP which ignoring the weight increase, places it inline with the GT86. If we consider the weight increase however it actually places it down market from the GT86... This is mindblowing for a number of reasons, most glaringly that the GT86 will undoubtedly cannibalize sales of the base model Supra.

Moving up to the more interesting trims however, first the mid-level trim coming in at 255 HP. The Subaru WRX runs the FA20F at 268 HP in the USDM market... Honestly I don’t understand why this engine wasn’t brought into the platform in general, but for this target market it fits perfectly.

Finally the one everyone cares about, the REAL Supra. The hotboi’s wet dream, the car suited to get everyone hot and bothered, the top-trim turbo Supra... I’ll throw out two practical options here, one utilizing BMW’s S55, the other a hypothetical hot FA24F.

S55 A86 Supra
First of all, the engine would certainly fit. 2JZ swaps into the 086A chassis are !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , and don’t require too much massaging. Weight distribution wise some work would be ideal but not insurmountable to maintain the 53/47 split (FA20 is 171 kg while the S55 is 205 kg, this equates to ~54/46). All in you’re looking at a 335 HP Supra and minimal weight increase (likely even with the FA20F). Where this engine does step out in front is in its aftermarket potential, with some examples supposedly !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! & stock internals)

FA24DIT A86 Supra
This one requires a bit of speculation that 1) the FA24 would even be emissions certifiable in the US, and 2) that the FA24 block is capable of seeing an equal HP/L figure as the top trim FA20DIT. If it is you’d have a 2.4L boxer putting down 355 HP, likely with the potential to see north of 600 HP in highly tuned trim (again, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ).

A86 Toyota Supra

Given everything a bove, here’s where I would’ve gone with the A86 Supra...

Chassis...

Base...
This would simply BE the GT86. No changes made.

Mid...
No major changes, primary change would be a smaller offset (from +48 to +38) & larger tire size (from 215 to 245) resulting in a track width increase (1,529 mm to ~1,565 mm).
Should be possible with little/no change to quarter panel tooling

High...
Again primarily only changes to each corner, this time aligning with the spec released for the A90. Offset decrease to +22 & tire sizes [255/275], thus giving a track of [1565/1590] mm.
Would obviously require new quarter panels at a minimum

Performance

Base...
Engine: Normal FA20, 201 HP & 156 LB*FT
0-60: 6.2 sec

Mid...
Engine: Normal WRX FA20F, 268 HP & 258 LB*FT
0-60: ~5.0 sec
Assuming curb weight of ~1,320 kg

High...
Engine: FA24DIT, ~355 HP & 350 LB*FT
0-60: ~4.2 sec (Manual), ~4.0 sec (DCT)
Assuming a curb weight of ~1,430 kg

What are your thoughts Oppo? Am I completely losing my mind or did Toyota really pull a poor move with the Supra development.

LongbowMkII > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 00:24

1

I just made this comment on another post, but shoehorning in the 2GR into the 86 chassis would’ve made for a fine Supra. 

Spanfeller is a twat > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 00:31

3

Here’s my take,

I really like the 86, but I’m glad Toyota took the time to fit the Supra into a bespoke chasis (yes it’s bespoke cus BMW doesn’t have a coupe).

The 86 and the Supra are on different price ranges and performance ranges. We bitch about the whole BMW ordeal, but in reality, how much would we have bitched if they just plopped a Subaru engine on the 86 and slapped the badge?

Very bitchy, is my opinion... Not even getting into the reliability problems of such a high-strung S ubaru engine vs a detuned straight six!

Also on the manual thing... I really don’t think very many customers care, the A90 is made to battle Porsches, not Mitsubishis or Nissans.... maybe that’s wrong in our minds, but in the end it’s the cold truth just like autos being quicker than manuals...

Maybe one day they’ll fit a manual and call it a special edition, like the GT4 Cayman.

TL;DR: If I could buy the A90 Supra, I’d get one yesterday.

shpuker > LongbowMkII 01/15/2019 at 00:33

0

That’d certainly work, even a low boost 2GR would be making a ton of power.

AestheticsInMotion > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 00:33

1

All t hat plus a redesigned interior and a deal with a major manufacturer for some halo model forged wheels.

Yep, I'm sure with you 

Spanfeller is a twat > LongbowMkII 01/15/2019 at 00:34

0

Toyota engines are heavier than their BMW counterparts... or so I argued on facebook some months ago. I’m too lazy to look up the data. 

shpuker > LongbowMkII 01/15/2019 at 00:36

0

Looks like it’s been done: http://www.turbofast.com.au/GT86.html

Only issue I see is weight, that pushes the ratio to 5 7/43

LongbowMkII > Spanfeller is a twat 01/15/2019 at 00:38

0

I have a hard time believing a n/a V6 is heavier than a twin turbo I6

LongbowMkII > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 00:40

0

Well you’d probably have a heavier duty rear diff,  axles, bracing etc. 

Spanfeller is a twat > LongbowMkII 01/15/2019 at 00:40

0

Not very reliable numbers, but I guess that the question is worth asking, specially since an uprated 2GR would probably have to go turbo to keep up with the BMW unit in emissions and " efficiency”

shpuker > Spanfeller is a twat 01/15/2019 at 00:44

0

Just to be clear, my gripe isn’t price- point, performance, or the fact that they teamed up with BMW. My point is they spent a ton of money developing a car that will be at best (speculative ) on par with what they could’ve built using a platform they already had, and using supplier/OEM relationships they already had.

shpuker > LongbowMkII 01/15/2019 at 00:48

0

True, you could always offset some of that weight added as well by doing little things like relocating the battery to the trunk as well.

Spanfeller is a twat > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 00:54

0

they spent a ton of money developing a car that will be at best (speculative) on par with what they could’ve built using a platform they already had

Oof, that’s a big claim...

The 86 and the A90 are very different cars, for one, the A90 is wider, longer, taller, and a lot heavier than the 86.

Also, maybe the base model A90 has a bit less power than the 86, but come on... the torque on the A90 4cyl engine is insane, and promises a linear power-band that the 86 would only dream of in an OEM state. This of course ignoring the big, three liter elephant in the room!

shpuker > Spanfeller is a twat 01/15/2019 at 01:12

0

You did read the rest of the post right?... Given the track width adjustments proposed the A86 Supra would have a track width just 19 mm narrower & 100 mm longer  than the A90 as well as come in at just 10 mm shorter in height... Weight would come up to within 90 kg and assuming a number of tech add-ons that’d possibly be even smaller in top trim...

And again, my point wasn’t to shit all over the engine lineup in the car, or say it’s going to be terrible because of X or Y. My point here is that developing into a new platform was wholly unnecessary and an equal end product could’ve been generated using the existing 086A chassis.

I feel like it’s worth noting as well that had this been done it would likely have been on some 086B chassis, or a second gen/refreshed version of the GT86 which then could’ve adjusted itself to accept a new engine lineup identical to that of the actual A90.

Spanfeller is a twat > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 01:25

1

I am not saying you are shitting on the car at all. I’m just saying that given how different the cars are meant to be, both in power, size, and price point, it’s logical for Toyota to aim for a new chasis rather than adapting an existing one.

I also understand your point about how some few mods could make a competent Supra out of the 86, but I’d wager that t hey did it this way for a reason... Either sharing platform with BMW saved enough costs to justify , or shifting the cabin backwards helped them combat uneven weight distribution curtesy of the 3.0. 

Spanfeller is a twat > LongbowMkII 01/15/2019 at 01:44

0

I think the B58 is lighter than the N55 but I couldn’t confirm. I’d just like to add that these numbers might not be very reliable.

Even being nice to the 2GR and ass uming the N55 weight is dry, 34kg is quite a lot of difference before adding a requisite turbocharger in order to keep up with the power from the I6. Worst case scenario I bet a 355hp, reliable 2GR would be 60-65 kg heavier than the B58. Best case, they weigh around the same, but then that sort of defeats the cost-saving ideals of this post! 

Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 03:32

4

Good and well thought through argument. But counterpoint:

1) most actual new-car buyers of this won’t be looking for a hardcore sportscar. They may want the image but they’d shy away from the reality. The original Supras were all closer to GTs than to track weapons - it was only after they got old enough to start getting modded in large quantities that they developed their current rep. The new one will be no different. Turning an 86 into a GT is a different - and harder - proposition than turning it into a faster 86.

2) “Tuners can do it” isn’t a great argument for the viability of upgrading the 86’s power in a big way. OEMs need to allow for durability, reliability, warrantee, manufacturability, and multi-jurisdiction legislative compliance. In that context a bigger engine means bigger drivetrain, brakes, and rubber, which means beefier suspension, which means chassis upgrades. You’ll want to allow for bigger wheel wells while you’re at it - you’ll want more suspension travel to make the ride more civilized, as well as needing to fit the bigger wheels. Plus upgrade the cooling and stick a bigger fuel tank somewhere. All of which means changing the other structure to meet crash requirements. Now add in cosmetic changes to make it”not an 86”, upgraded electrics for some new features, and a new interior to justify the price point and give space for more sound deadening (fractions of an inch matter in this context) and you’ve made changes to pretty much every part. From a development cost point of view “made changes” is pretty much the same as “all new”, especially if you have to keep the original tooling to serve the original vehicle. I’ve been involved in a few of these “grandpas axe” upgrade projects - you inevitably wind up spending as much as if you’d started from a clean sheet and get none of the freedom of design benefits. Shared platforms only work if you design them with that intent from the start, and they inevitably compromise the low end product to meet the needs of the high end one. That would have killed the 86, which relies on being Really.Fucking.Good. at the few things it’s good at.

3. Upgrading the 86 would need Subaru’s collaboration - probably practically, almost certainly contractually. Subaru have no scope in their lineup for a Supra equivalent - they don’t have the rep in that niche or the iconic brandname to give one a kickstart (unless you count the SVX), and in the current market it’s not a niche you’d fight to break into from a standing start. So an 86 based option may have been flat out not possible for Toyota  

#another86owner

shpuker > Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen 01/15/2019 at 05:03

0

1) In general I certainly agree and in all likelihood a DCT would’ve needed developing to get shoved into this hypothetical A86 in order to satisfy the actual market. Chassis wise I still think the 086A chassis (or a derivative of it) could sort a GT style vehicle (i.e. it’s relatively long wheelbase)

2) This is definitely the biggest issue IMO with this concept. Differentiating the A86 would become quite the cat & mouse development cycle and you’d either have to allow costs to soar or dramatically restrict the design freedom. I do think utilizing a Gen 2/1.5 cycle “ 086B” platform update would’ve helped in this, but certainly easier said than done.

3) Here’s where I think things could’ve actually benefited Subaru a lot. Consider the case where Subaru takes the mid-market varient or even develops an eAWD SVX as it’s new range topping varient, this gives them their market share without cannibalizing the Supras (in theory).

Developing a high output FA24 for the Supra would’ve also given Subaru some  cost offsetting for it's next gen STI engine development as an added bonus

Arrivederci > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 09:27

0

As a previous owner of a BRZ, the interior of the 86 is so far off of what’s needed to compete with the Supra’s peer group, it would need completely redone. Additionally, I think Toyota really wanted another I6 TT Supra.

What I’d like to see Toyota do (and I’m sure they won’t) is this:

Toyota 86 (as it is now)
Celica (Supra with 255hp turbo four)
Supra (Supra with 355hp turbo 6)

I doubt they’d call the downmarket Supra a Celica, though.

and 100 more > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 10:18

0

My only argument is that the base Supra (BMW) motor has more grunt than the relatively wheezy FA20. HP is a factor, but not to people who know what they’re looking for, and the S-motor has more torques to play with.

What I’m afraid of is seeing the Toyobaru languish in the shadow of the old hero, honestly. People have been screaming about adding more power to the platform, an argument which Toyota has repeatedly pissed on, and with the New Hottness Supra so close in price, market, and capability, I actually worry that the 86 is going to wither. Unless they have some other plan for it (convert to EV only? Prius spins off into it’s own brand of electric-only vehicles, takes the 86 platform, and calls it the Prius EV86?)

shpuker > and 100 more 01/15/2019 at 11:01

1

Honestly I’m more concerned for the base Supra sales than I am the 86 twins, especially if the existing rumors of the FA24 making its way into the next iteration of the car in 2021 are legit. Honestly everything except the top-trim variant of the Supra would be put at risk if that’s the case as an FA24 equipped 086A with say the full STI treatment (& without the halo-GT car treatment) would likely come in at around the $35k-$ 38k range and make around 300 HP & weight shy of 3,000 lbs.

VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 20:17

0

Well, based on what I’ve seen, they wanted to keep a I6 in there. 2JZ seems to fit without too much hassle , but I have no idea if the BMW B58 would fit.

So, uh, maybe? 

wafflesnfalafel > shpuker 01/15/2019 at 21:26

0

BMW must have given Toyota a better deal... follow the money

Maxima Speed > shpuker 06/08/2019 at 08:58

0

Counter-point. This with a gigantic rear wing.