Originally Posted by littlehulkster
And what exactly then is this magical "sophistication" edyvw has been nattering on about? How is it defined beyond the car was made by Germans, and is therefore sophisticated?
I'm guessing he might be talking about interior fit and finish and generally well-put-togetherness of higher end German offerings?
My M5 was a beautifully assembled car. It had its faults, but thought put into how it was assembled around the driver wasn't one of them.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Toyota didn't traditionally make turbocharged engines, either. Right up until they did. I fail to understand how you could call a company that rejects new technology for nebulous reasons of "tradition" sophisticated, unless of course your definition of "sophistication" is purely based on the nationality of the engineers.
Toyota didn't traditionally make performance engines period. BMW has a long history of producing naturally aspirated performance-geared engines and continued long after Toyota stopped making the Supra. Turbo's weren't new technology then, either. BMW produced a turbocharged variant of their aircraft radial in the early 1940's, which made 1,785HP. Their CHOICE of high revving naturally aspirated engines for their road cars was just that, and had nothing to do with the brand's lack of familiarity with forced induction.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
They were both niche cars, and I'd argue that the entire point of the S2000 was that it wasn't sophisticated. It was an intentional throwback, much like the Miata.
The primary claim to fame of the S2000 was its naturally aspirated power density. The fact that it "only" made 220HP wasn't the point, it was the 9,000RPM rev range and power from the displacement given without boost.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Right, so beyond the two cars being competitors, the two are somehow not competitors.
They weren't competitors. I have no doubt in my mind that BMW, catering to a 7-series driver who might have wanted something more sporty, was in any way remotely interested in what Toyota was doing with the Supra when considering its design.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
If you must get totally anal about specs, the 3000GT is closer to the 8 series in dimensions and features, but the performance comparison between the two is, if anything, even more lopsided. The fact is the 8 series was simply mediocre and hideously overpriced, something edyvw would have me believe was impossible. We don't have to focus on just it vs the Japanese, either, the 840 was scarcely faster than a Thunderbird Supercoupe, a car I'm sure edyvw thinks was assembled in a cave using dinosaur bones.
As with every BMW series, there is a range of performance options. The 8-series never saw an M-car based on it, thus, despite its V12 offering (which saw duty in the McLaren F1, as already noted) it was not a "performance" car in that sense. And yes, the 8-series was expensive, as was the 7-series, and the higher-tier 5-series offerings.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
You are aware that there were cheaper 8 series BMWs, right? You know, the V8 ones that actually sold.
The 840i started at $73,140. That's still insanely expensive; a far cry from "cheap". Cheaper than the 850ci isn't much of a benchmark here.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
I just excluded them from competition because it would have frankly been entirely unfair to the BMW. The 840s weren't even in the same league of performance or sophistication.
What's your definition of "sophistication" in this context? It was likely a very well equipped car internally, for the time period and reasonably sophisticated in that respect. It had a reasonably decent performance engine under the hood as far as naturally aspirated offerings went.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Also, I don't think you realize just how much the Japanese GT cars of that era cost. The Supra turbos eclipsed $50,000 dollars. It's a big reason why they eventually died.
Yet that's still $23,000 cheaper than the base 840i, proving my point.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The Japanese proved they could make a car that was every bit the equal to anything else in the world, but they lacked the cachet to sell them for prices every bit the equal of everyone else in the world. The numbers could be made to work when the yen was artificially deflated, but once it was more realistic, Toyota could not get Porsche or BMW money even for a car that was better than anything Porsche or BMW offered.
They still stuffer from being unable to fetch that kind of coin. There is a prestige associated with the German marques that the Japanese have, despite their best efforts, been unable to replicate. But that doesn't make the German cars bad cars. It may make them overpriced however.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Right, so people who wanted a worse car for more money. Not a surprise they didn't sell.
The 750i didn't sell any better. These are not high volume products. Have you driven an 8xx? Do you know how it drives; what the fit and finish was like, that kind of stuff, which is generally the metric used for cars at this price point. Or are you basing it solely on the fact that Toyota's turbocharged offering that weighed 1,000lbs less was faster? Because that's a massively overly-simplified way of trying to make a comparison.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
No, the Supra was catering to people who wanted a world class performance car and didn't care what the badge said.
So, like the Ford GT then? Or the GT40 back in the 1960's? Or like the NSX, or the E39 BMW M5? At various points there have been cars that have aspired to fill that role, depending on how it's defined. The E39 M5 was the fastest sedan on the planet for quite a stint, capable of 190Mph. It was a beautiful car.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Yes, and the Supra turbo was still both faster and cheaper than the M3 of that vintage. The numbers are a little closer, but the supposedly "unsophisticated" Toyota still wins. I compared it to the 8 series largely because the 8 series was the top of the line BMW
Why do you assume the 8-series was the top of the line BMW? Because it's the highest number in the series? That's a gross oversimplification. The M5 was, for the longest time, their highest tier
performance offering. The E34 doesn't align perfectly with the timeframe we are discussing, but the E34 M5 was fitted with the S38B38 from 1992 onward, which lines up reasonably well. This engine was a 3.8L I6 producing 335HP. This car would be around $58K, so more expensive than the Supra, but not a whole heck of a lot. At around 3,700lbs, it was lighter than the 8-series, but still heavier than the Supra. It also was a 4-door sedan that would comfortably seat 4 adults.
Basically, if it doesn't have an M prefix badge and an S prefix engine in it, it's not a performance car in the BMW lineup. Hence M3, M5 and now M2 and M6. For the SUV's the M trails, so X6M, X5M..etc. Now, there was the 850Csi which was fitted with the 375HP S70B56, but there was no M8, which is why the 850Csi ended up existing, and produced in ridiculously low volume. At only 40HP more than the S38, while it wore the S prefix, this isn't an M-car.
The 7-series is also more expensive than the 5-series, but again, there's no M7. So the M5 still holds in that scenario as the top performance offering from the company until we get into an era that the M6 exists, which is basically a coupe with the same powertrain.
If there had been an M8, it's likely it would have ended up with a more performance geared engine like the S70/2, which ended up in the McLaren F1 and as I noted before, made 618HP. The engine was plenty capable.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Well, it was mostly edyvw until you jumped in to defend him.
I didn't jump in to defend him. I jumped in because you were making claims that I felt were ridiculous broad-brushes and generally devoid of facts or logic, like comparing a twin-turbo engine to a naturally aspirated one on the basis of specific output.
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Also, I don't think that the Japanese are inherently any smarter or better than anyone else, but rather the point I've been making is that they are perfectly capable of designing and building things as good as anything else in the world. I'd have thought that would just be accepted as a given by now, but some people still assume anything touched by the hand of a German is inherently superior, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Well, your comments certainly didn't seem to convey that mindset. It's quite possible to draw reasonable parallels in engineering and development without using racially-charged labels or slamming an entire culture because some folks feel fancy driving a car with the star or roundel on the hood.
Some folks on here speak of Toyota equally snobbishly, just from a different direction.
You don't need to slam BMW to praise Toyota. I'm certainly not slamming Toyota while I bring up positive aspects of BMW's cars and history here, nor am I using potentially offensive labels that might betray any claims of neutrality that I might be making
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
BMW, meanwhile, making a more niche car, can't even beat out Suzuki.
Also, Toyota has made plenty of exciting cars, even in the past two decades, but they get ignored by car snobs because of brand cachet. You just need to look more towards Lexus for that end of things.
I believe BMW is comfortable with their position in the market at this point. Regarding Lexus, you are quite right, they have had numerous products that have flown under the radar that are well equipped and quite impressive.