[JMurphM2Comp]

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/toyo...mparison-test/

Enjoy!

[chris719]

Edit - nevermind, I can’t read. Cayman is impressive though.

[heavyD^2]

Seems like the performance benefits of the S55 simply don't materialize until you are over 100 mph speeds. I see a lot of comments like this;

Same with the engine, which feels monstrously powerful compared with the other two but isn't any quicker.

There's little doubt the Supra is a bit of an overachiever and great value. I'm a little disappointed that they didn't have Randy Pobst drive all three back to back as in his hands he probably would have got the best track time in the M2.

[CSBM5]

Once again an article that says the M2C isn't any quicker than the cars they're comparing it to yet the data they show has it accelerating significantly faster than the others. For example, it takes a good increase in power/weight ratio to trap 114.7mph vs 110.3 in the 1/4 mile. ET of course is hugely correlated with 60' times (which they don't show) and how good you can hook out of hole; hence it's not a great comparison when you don't have 60' times to evaluate how well the driver did on the launch although the M2C won that contest too.

Similarly, 0-100 in 9.5 seconds is hauling and is significantly faster than the Cayman at 10.3 seconds.

Take any speed interval data from their instrumented tests, and the M2C easily beats the other two cars. If there were side-by-side, the M2C would open up a gap and keep increasing that gap significantly as speeds increase.

[heavyD^2]

I think part of the problem is that plenty of people do not realize that quick and fast have different meanings. Quick means to do something in a short time while fast relates to speed. They are correct saying the M2C is not really any quicker as from a stop all three cars get up to speed (60 mph is the standard) in a short amount of time within 0.2 seconds. It is however faster which you can see with the trap speeds as well as time it takes to get to 100 mph. On the streets I would argue quickness of a car is more noticeable than speed because you simply aren't going to get to high speeds on a typical commute unless you are on a highway or freeway.

[c_w]

The 0 to 60 is so similar as traction is the leveller. I dont follow your quick vs fast argument as it contradicts itself. Quickness is still the term for 0 to 100.

[boostm3]

Supra appears to be severely underrated.. Here's the dyno link, but I'll summarize. Using a generally conservative Mustang dyno, it recorded 332hp and 387 trq TOO THE WHEELS.. Given a 15% drivetrain loss, that equates to 390 hp and 455 ft lbs AT THE CRANK..

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020...pra-dyno-test/

[KevinM]

Every time I read about the Supra, I can't help but be again flabbergasted that a manual transmission is not (currently) being offered.

[kpaso]

Originally Posted by c_w

The 0 to 60 is so similar as traction is the leveller. I dont follow your quick vs fast argument as it contradicts itself. Quickness is still the term for 0 to 100.

Ehh sometimes I look at it like this:

Quick: 10-70mph

Fast: 60-130+mph

There are cars that are plenty quick but lose steam after 70-100mph, but the truly fast cars keep pulling like a freight train well into the triple digits.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by KevinM

Every time I read about the Supra, I can't help but be again flabbergasted that a manual transmission is not (currently) being offered.

Yes, it’s a major mistake on BMW and Toyota’s part. I’d be looking at the M40i or Supra more seriously if they had a manual.

I understand the take rate isn’t good, but if this is really supposed to be a sports car this time it should be an option. If this were a supercar or high torque monster then I think you have a valid excuse. Plus there already exists a 6MT that mates with this engine.

[dcmac]

Originally Posted by chris719

Yes, it’s a major mistake on BMW and Toyota’s part. I’d be looking at the M40i or Supra more seriously if they had a manual.

I understand the take rate isn’t good, but if this is really supposed to be a sports car this time it should be an option. If this were a supercar or high torque monster then I think you have a valid excuse. Plus there already exists a 6MT that mates with this engine.

Aren’t 50% of M2 sales in the USA manual spec? That’s a pretty good take rate!

[chris719]

Originally Posted by dcmac

Aren’t 50% of M2 sales in the USA manual spec? That’s a pretty good take rate!

It is in the US. Lower in ROW. I think the M2 is an outlier though, and you could only get a 50% take rate if you had a Z4M. A number of standard Z4 customers were from the Merc SLC crowd that buys it for the looks.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by dcmac

Aren’t 50% of M2 sales in the USA manual spec? That’s a pretty good take rate!

Yes it is surprisingly high but as said it's a bit of an outlier as other regions of the world like Europe have considerably lower manual take rates. I'm pretty confident there will be a manual version as well as a higher performance version as this current car probably represents the most economic way to launch the car with basically one version and once they get some sales under their belt they can roll out different variations. If you had to launch one version the automatic makes sense as even if you are looking at maybe a 50/50 split in the US the rest of the world prefers automatic so they can probably sell more cars total with the automatic version.

[TemjinX2]

Originally Posted by chris719

Yes, it’s a major mistake on BMW and Toyota’s part. I’d be looking at the M40i or Supra more seriously if they had a manual.

I understand the take rate isn’t good, but if this is really supposed to be a sports car this time it should be an option. If this were a supercar or high torque monster then I think you have a valid excuse. Plus there already exists a 6MT that mates with this engine.

They have to pay to recertify the manual for NTHSA crash standards...thats a few mil excluding the price of the cars.

BMW/Toyota is probably waiting to see how well initial sales on the auto does before they make the investment into selling a manual. Obviously BMW already has a manual for the b58. Its hard to make a business case when you have such a low car volume to amortize the costs compared to a 3 or 2 series.

[Moflow]

Originally Posted by chris719

Yes, it’s a major mistake on BMW and Toyota’s part. I’d be looking at the M40i or Supra more seriously if they had a manual.

I understand the take rate isn’t good, but if this is really supposed to be a sports car this time it should be an option. If this were a supercar or high torque monster then I think you have a valid excuse. Plus there already exists a 6MT that mates with this engine.

I basically waited what feels like my whole life for the new Supra only to order an M2 comp because it didn't have a manual. Both my parents drove Toyotas growing up, my first car was a Celica, i was something of a toyota fan at one point in my life.

Oh well. Guess it doesn't make economic sense for them.

[gandapanda]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

... I'm pretty confident there will be a manual version as well as a higher performance version as this current car probably represents the most economic way to launch the car with basically one version and once they get some sales under their belt they can roll out different variations...

Makes sense, I also hope the manual becomes available. Toyota did the same thing with the (Lexus) IS300, in NA.

S

[TemjinX2]

just means you have to hold onto all those manual M cars lol.

[Gomeler]

I'm guessing it is a price issue, but if the M2C mixed in some aluminum to drop weight I think it would better distinguish itself in this space. A 10% drop in weight would be fantastic. A shame I cannot convince myself that the 718 sounds good, it is a very compelling car otherwise.

[ClothSeats]

The Supra is a Z4 coupe.. and I loved the previous two Z coupes. They lose the back seat but give a stiffer unibody, lower weight, and shorter (more responsive) wheelbase.

Too bad no manual and fake vents. I might even convince myself to live with the fake vents if there was a manual.

[bobert]

Originally Posted by Gomeler

A shame I cannot convince myself that the 718 sounds good, it is a very compelling car otherwise.

Problem solved: 2020 Porsche 718 Cayman GT4 and 718 Spyder arrive with 4.0-liter flat-six engines

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by bobert

Problem solved: 2020 Porsche 718 Cayman GT4 and 718 Spyder arrive with 4.0-liter flat-six engines

It’s funny but I think the smaller 2.0 sounds a bit better than the 2.5, but I like how they sound overall. Plus, in order to really hear the sweet sounds of the old Cayman, you have to keep the engine in the upper RPMs. Otherwise, it doesn’t really sound like much. When you’re just driving normally, the flat six is a lot less sexy sounding.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by bobert

Problem solved: 2020 Porsche 718 Cayman GT4 and 718 Spyder arrive with 4.0-liter flat-six engines

That's great news and all but a totally different price range as you will be able to purchase two Supras for the price of those cars.