[W///]

I'm going to throw a joker card out there. I was bored yesterday, so I started checking this car out more, the Toyota FT1.


When the pictures were out, I thought it was a really awkward car, especially the front. But the more I look at it, the more I'm liking it. So I started reading interviews.

Let's say in theory, this car comes out to $60k, like what the designer says he'd think it costs, would anyone consider this? Keep in mind I'll still have my E92 M3 for the traditional NA + 6MT experience.

I mean let's say an M2 with a few options costs $57k, and the Toyota theoretically costs $60k, would anyone take a leap and try that out? I think I'd highly consider it.

[Cavpilot2k]

Originally Posted by W///

I'm going to throw a joker card out there. I was bored yesterday, so I started checking this car out more, the Toyota FT1.


When the pictures were out, I thought it was a really awkward car, especially the front. But the more I look at it, the more I'm liking it. So I started reading interviews.

Let's say in theory, this car comes out to $60k, like what the designer says he'd think it costs, would anyone consider this? Keep in mind I'll still have my E92 M3 for the traditional NA + 6MT experience.

I mean let's say an M2 with a few options costs $57k, and the Toyota theoretically costs $60k, would anyone take a leap and try that out? I think I'd highly consider it.

I would consider it, but $60k is a lot for a Toyota. It had better deliver the goods. Problem is, the M2 will be out 2-3 years before this thing, so for most, the decision will already be made.

Also, looking at the geometry of the rear roofline, I bet it will suffer from the same thing that kept me from seriously considering a 370Z, which is horrendous rearward visibility. I am an experienced urban parallel-parker, but when I tested the Z, I was afraid to back it into its parking space at the dealership. Rearward Visibility is virtually nonexistant, and if you have to parallel regularly, it would be a nightmare. This car looks similar.

[Devon K]

^ By the time this car comes out a backup cam will be mandatory. Whether that will be enough to solve the obviously deficient rearward visibility is an open question - anyone have experience using a camera system to parallel park a car with no rearward sightlines?

[W///]

Originally Posted by Cavpilot2k

I would consider it, but $60k is a lot for a Toyota. It had better deliver the goods. Problem is, the M2 will be out 2-3 years before this thing, so for most, the decision will already be made.

Also, looking at the geometry of the rear roofline, I bet it will suffer from the same thing that kept me from seriously considering a 370Z, which is horrendous rearward visibility. I am an experienced urban parallel-parker, but when I tested the Z, I was afraid to back it into its parking space at the dealership. Rearward Visibility is virtually nonexistant, and if you have to parallel regularly, it would be a nightmare. This car looks similar.

If it really does offer performance worthy of the Supra badge, I think at that price it'll be fine. Especially if it ends up looking special.

Plus you get Toyota reliability (ok ok so they've had a ton of recalls), it'll drive completely different than most of our cars here. Let's put it this way, if the BMW-Toyota joint venture spawns a mini i8 for the price of $60k, I think I'd consider it. I know I've complained so many times about a car having to be able to be serviced by myself, but maybe I'm just become old haha.

Originally Posted by Devon K

^ By the time this car comes out a backup cam will be mandatory. Whether that will be enough to solve the obviously deficient rearward visibility is an open question - anyone have experience using a camera system to parallel park a car with no rearward sightlines?

Yep, driven a few BMW X4 and X6's and they would be absolutely impossible to park without PDC and rear view cameras. With those, and top view cameras, it's absolute cake. Kind of hard to get it wrong really.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by Cavpilot2k

I would consider it, but $60k is a lot for a Toyota. It had better deliver the goods. Problem is, the M2 will be out 2-3 years before this thing, so for most, the decision will already be made.

Also, looking at the geometry of the rear roofline, I bet it will suffer from the same thing that kept me from seriously considering a 370Z, which is horrendous rearward visibility. I am an experienced urban parallel-parker, but when I tested the Z, I was afraid to back it into its parking space at the dealership. Rearward Visibility is virtually nonexistant, and if you have to parallel regularly, it would be a nightmare. This car looks similar.

There you go! So however good the FT-1 might be, it is too much because it is a Toyota. Explains why BMW doesn't build any Z4 M, M3 CSL, M1 etc..., because however good it is, it is not a Porsche. So what counts more is the badge, not so much the car.

Originally Posted by Anodite10

The Golf R may really sway some people from the M2? Maybe for the M235i it makes sense, but the M2?

They're like in totally different leagues.

Q: How do non-enthusiasts (90% - statistic pulled out of the air) define a sports car?
A: By how fast it accelerates.

Q: According to which criterion do non-enthusiasts buy a sports car?
A: According to how practical it is.

Well that is an oxymoron in theory, but not in practice. Golf R400 will be more practical (hatch) and faster (0-100 km/h in 3.8 sec) thanks to AWD, again according to the 90%.

[auf Deutsch]

^I think he was comparing the Golf R, not 400R which I'm sure most of the 10% enthusiast population will approve of.

[Bemo]

Originally Posted by Devon K

^ By the time this car comes out a backup cam will be mandatory. Whether that will be enough to solve the obviously deficient rearward visibility is an open question - anyone have experience using a camera system to parallel park a car with no rearward sightlines?

All day long, driving our GT. It's 100 times easier than parallel parking the 328!

[Cavpilot2k]

But the Golf R400 will still be a Golf, which means it will be ugly.
Also, it won' be available in the States.
I have mad respect for the GTI, The R, and the whole line's capabilities and driving characteristics.
BUT...
The whole Golf line suffers from chronic ugliness.

[moldcad]

Originally Posted by Cavpilot2k

But the Golf R400 will still be a Golf, which means it will be ugly.
Also, it won' be available in the States.
I have mad respect for the GTI, The R, and the whole line's capabilities and driving characteristics.
BUT...
The whole Golf line suffers from chronic ugliness.

Not just because I own the R, but I beg to disagree - the R is not ugly "in person" (in fact, it's more aggressive-looking than the 2). Not to mention the R400, with its widened stance and wheel arches...

And as to how the R drives: I personally think much better than the M235i. Of course, don't know about the M2 yet.

[Cavpilot2k]

Originally Posted by moldcad

Not just because I own the R, but I beg to disagree - the R is not ugly "in person" (in fact, it's more aggressive-looking than the 2). Not to mention the R400, with its widened stance and wheel arches...

And as to how the R drives: I personally think much better than the M235i. Of course, don't know about the M2 yet.

I will grant that I have not seen the R in person. The last R I saw in person was the R32, which looked like a GTI to me and, therefore, visually unappealing.

[m3bs]

If looks were a priority for me I never would have purchased a 135i.

M2 and MkVII Golf R are on the short list to replace my GTI. I don't think the R400 will ever make it here.

[Cope]

Originally Posted by Cavpilot2k

I would consider it, but $60k is a lot for a Toyota. It had better deliver the goods. Problem is, the M2 will be out 2-3 years before this thing, so for most, the decision will already be made.

60k is a lot for a Toyota? A new land cruiser has a base price of 80k.

We could really use a new sub 70k Japanese sports car to come and monster the competition like the 2009 R35 GTR.

[blefevre]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

Massaged N55 - aka, no real upside over the one in the 235
No effort at weight savings
Lack of expanded color choices
Lack of "manic" personality - it should improve on where the 1M left off

This explains my position perfectly. If it ends up being too much of a "market gap" between the M235 and M3 it won't appeal to me. I missed out on the 1M and I will have an opportunity to own a M2 so here's to hoping it's worth it!

[Cavpilot2k]

Originally Posted by Cope

60k is a lot for a Toyota? A new land cruiser has a base price of 80k.

Apples and oranges. The sheetmetal alone in the ridiculously large Land Crusher is worth $50k.

And the Land Crusher is still grossly overpriced (as well as being grossly oversized).

[blefevre]

I just noticed all the Golf R talk so I figured I would add some fuel to the fire.

I am a MK6 R owner. I test drove the M235 and thought "meh". Faster, yes, but didn't really feel much different in steering and city driving from my R. All my BMWs have been older ones so I guess I don't get excited about the fancy tech things in new cars.

It took a lot to get me from BMWs to the R I currently have. My next decision is pretty easy. M2 or MK7 R. If the M2 isn't well executed I will save the money and get the new R.

[dsh135]

The whole Golf line suffers from chronic ugliness.

Well, that's just a matter of opinion. I generally prefer the look of a coupe or sedan over a hatch but the GTI in particular has always had a solid "built like a brick sh*thouse" look to it that I think is pretty cool. The 400R looks really mean.

[amdmaxx]

C7....
M2 Weight...
High Price, and high option prices

Originally Posted by dsh135

Other than price, what (if anything) would keep you from purchasing an M2 once the specs are known for certain?

For me, no MT option would be a non-starter. An "uncrackable" ECU would also be a deal killer, although that is unlikely (though not unimaginable given BMW's recent efforts). No LSD (doubtful) would certainly get me thinking, as would a curb weight above 3400lbs.

[Bmuum2]

On the list at local dealer. Cant wait to order the manual over the DCT!!!

[W///]

Originally Posted by Bmuum2

On the list at local dealer. Cant wait to order the manual over the DCT!!!

I see you are coming from an E36 M3 too. Are you going to sell the E36 or keep it? The E36 will be my downpayment for the M2 if I go through with it. I should start looking into myself on the list though...

[sgrinavi]

Originally Posted by sgrinavi

If its bloated, over priced and under powered its probably not going to happen.

Also if I run into a really sweet deal on a 991S or 997.2S I'd skip the M2.

[amdmaxx]

GT350..

[Cavpilot2k]

Originally Posted by amdmaxx

GT350..

This.
Seeing the gallery on this and the likely specs, I will actually cross-shop it.
I know it's bigger than the 2, and I think it is more direct competition for the M4 in looks, size, and likely performance, but damn, it is gorgeous, and the only mustang I have ever seriously considered besides the Boss 302.

The M2 will almost certainly win out, but if there's a 15K price difference, the GT350 could edge out the M2.