Talk:Toyota GR Supra

Platform

I'm curious about which platform we should list this under. Many references state that it uses the BMW CLAR platform. CriticallyThinking states that it doesn't. Toyota, of course, doesn't explicitly say it but only says that it is a partnership heavily based on the BMW platform. The majority of references only mention it in passing, so they don't help much. However, https://jalopnik.com/what-we-found-when-we-crawled-under-the-2020-toyota-sup-1831800550 goes into great detail with back-to-back comparisons with the BMW Z4 and BMW 3-series - in some case including part numbers. My take is that within each platform there are always some differences but that many parts can be swapped between the member cars. The Jalopnik article implies that the majority of parts would indeed by swappable between the 2 cars. Also, they are built in the same factory, which is made much simpler and cheaper by using the same platform - or conversely, different platforms would make the cars more expensive in a cost conscious world. Comments?  Stepho  talk  01:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No counterarguments after 3 days, so I have restored the BMW CLAR platform link.  Stepho  talk  22:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There has been nothing to suggest that the Supra isn't build on CLAR, so such a link to the CLAR page is indeed proper. Doctor W117 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources on the article, including by Toyota and BMW themselves, confirms the Supra and Z4 ride on a co-developed sports car platform but ride on a different chassis that Toyota Gazoo Racxing and BMW engineered and coded themselves.

And please stop constantly reverting my edits. Read the cited sources. 142.117.196.70 (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The 2 references you gave were:

1. https://www.supramkv.com/threads/bmw-or-toyota.15227/page-5#post-232730 - this is a forum with user generated content based on their opinions. As per official WP guideline, we do not allow references to user generated data in forums.
2. https://www.autoweek.com/news/future-cars/a1827851/toyota-supra-returning-only-335-hp/ - this is a speculative reference which violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. WP deals in facts, not guesses.

Both of your references are invalid and therefore there is nothing left supporting your changes.

You need to provide references to reliable sources to support your changes. Even facts that you are sure are true must be supported or they will (must) be reverted. See WP:FACT, WP:RS and WP:USERGENERATED.  Stepho  talk  14:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Engine Development with Toyota

I have once again removed the reference to the B58 being jointly developed by Toyota because of their dissatisfaction with the N55. There are absolutely no credible sources to back up this statement, and the citation used for the sentence I removed did not support such an assertion. If anyone can find a credible source that specifically lends credibility to this claim, but until such a source is provided, there is nothing at all to suggest that Toyota had any influence on the design of the B58, and any uncited or improperly cited claims should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor W117 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Speed Academy article (with Tada-san interview) says that Toyota went through the entire engine and tested it thoroughly but doesn't actually say what they changed (if anything). You mentioned that the timing chain moved. But both the BMW version and the Toyota version have the timing chain at the rear - see https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1133836 and https://www.enginelabs.com/news/tearing-down-the-new-2020-supra-b58-inline-six-cylinder-engine/. After half an hour of searching, I can't find sources for anything else different between them.  Stepho  talk  00:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct. That's because there is no actual source for either the claim that the Supra version of the B58 is different, or that Toyota had influence on the design of the B58 at large. Doctor W117 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Far too much detail about the first car sold

It tells us in such detail about a single car--the color of its mirrors, that it's paint isn't a standard color, etc. etc. Who cares? The article doesn't mention what color the actual production car mirrors are or what the actual colors are that one could buy, so why give this one-off so much detail? I vote this paragraph be struck. Just because it's true and cites a source, doesn't make it worthy of inclusion.

As an unrelated matter, it is weird and borderline suspicious that the auction's top bid was... the owner of the auction house? It sounds like he was spending a bit of money to get some publicity, and that the actual auction was a sham. Swiss Frank (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It's common for WP to mention factory specials - so mentioning a unique colour for the first production version is not a problem. Also, the proceeds were donated to charity - another favourite for WP inclusion. Plus it is just a single paragraph in a rather long article.

The auction house CEO put down a lot of money that went to charity - sounds rather virtuous to me. I don't have a problem with him getting a bit of publicity from that.  Stepho  talk  00:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)