Talk:Toyota Supra

MKIV Image

Ren0 reverted my image to his previous one, and I changed it. The overhead shot of the white MKIV is a bad angle, in bad light. If you don't like my photo, find a better one but no professional photographer can dispute that my image is aesthetically superior. --DOHC Holiday 01:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

there is no problem with your photograph.. it is just preferred that when an image of a car is to represent that car it should be in stock form. only reason i reverted it. ren0^talk 07:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

and yes i know the white one is not stock either... the only reason i prefer it is it is less obvious. ren0^talk 07:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Rims and seats are not much of a mod, I don't think they detract much from the overall nature of the vehicle. Also, you would be hard pressed to find any MK4 with no mods these days. --DOHC Holiday 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I RE reverted to my image from the replacement by Vanstrapp. He stated that the Targa was "Not Standard" when in fact the vast majority of MKIV's were Targa-equipped. Hardtops are very rare and desirable. --DOHC Holiday 23:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

the image

I feel it is misleading to have the first picture on the page of a highly modified Supra. If I look up a car I want to know what it looks like, not what one specific highly modified version looks like. Anyone else agree? Don't get me wrong, the modified one is great if that sort of thing is your interest, but its not typical of the marque. Also, I am unsure of the copywrite legality of the modified car image. TiHead 15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. By preference, the 'lead' image in a car article should be as close to stock as currently available. If no photos of a stock-condition car are currently available, a modified one might be acceptable until one is found or created.

The photo itself was claimed to be Fair Use under US copyright law. I feel this claim is questionable at best. If we had an article about that specific modified car or about the company or individual(s) that modified it, we might have a claim; but in the Toyota Supra page, where we already have plenty of pictures and it should be fairly simple to just go out with a camera and photograph one, it's very shaky.

The uploader has numerous copyright warning messages on their User talk page, suggesting that they play fast and loose with copyright concerns.

If nobody objects, I will remove this picture soon. If I forget, someone else can do it! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

about the image

i have removed it for various reasons.

1. that is a highly modified toyota supra not in stock form

2. that car should not represent what ALL of the toyota supra's look like. there are four generations and they are noted with images of (near) stock supras already. (that MKIV supra isn't stock...)

thank you. ren0^talk 07:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture of my MKIV Supra when it was completely stock. The one on the page is still aftermarket. You're welcome to use this picture. Braddman 14:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/667710210_920286.jpg

Toyota Supra Logo

I've just uploaded Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, how about using that as the top image instead? κаллэмакс 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i'm fine with that. i'll add it in my next edit. thanks for uploading it. ren0^talk 07:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link to the 1981 Toyota Celica Supra Sales Brochure (PDF) does not work, just so you know. Great article btw.

you're right. there is a typo in the link. i'll fix it in my next update. thank you for your input. be sure to place your comments on the bottom and also please be sure to sign your talk edits with ~~~~. it will place your signature by your comment like this: ren0^talk 07:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

MKII's around the world expansion

If anyone has information in MKII Supras around the world, please don't be afraid to add it. Preferably in the same format as i have started. Come on, we need more countries in there. ren0^talk 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mk IV model

Just uploaded Image:Toyota Supra Mk IV model.jpg, the car is not modified. :) κаллэмакс 20:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to ren0: There's no need to upload smaller pictures to make them fit in the article! Just use the "thumb" tag to make a thumbnail:

[[Image:This is a large picture.jpg|thumb|300px|This is a large picture that has been thumbnailed]]

κаллэмакс 20:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i figured that is as big as the image actually needed to be though. also that image of a "model" car is alright, might have to use it to represent the MKIV for awhile. thanks. ren0^talk 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

my rewrite

well as of late i have ran out of any free time to work on this article and i only got to the MKII section. if anyone out there would like to complete the other sections it would be awesome. i still plan on watching this article to make sure people don't put crazy stupid stuff in here and i also plan on adding stuff, just a lot more slowly than how fast i wrote the MKI and MKII stuff up.

please if you do plan to edit and add tons of info follow my template that i have set up on the other sections. when it gets to the quick info portion, if you are working on that, just send me a talk and i will be glad to help you out with the table work (assuming you aren't too familiar with it).

thank you.

ren0^talk 18:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

2nd most overrated car in the world

Without a doubt, all Supras have 950hp+. The most overrated car of course is the 10,000 hp Nissan Skyline, of which one exists. Nuff said. Keep this Supra page real. CJ DUB 18:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

i have no idea what you are talking about (can't make sense of it) or why this is relevant to the talk page. ren0^talk 23:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

you can talk about whatever you want, POV, etc. My feeling is that too mnay pages on imports are all The "{insert import car make and model here} is by far the greatest car Japan has ever made", or "The luxury of Lexus is unsurpassed". I'm sick of it. Letting you all know you need to keep it real and tone it down. Supra seemed like a good place to start. CJ DUB 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

gotcha, yeah i have done a lot of revision (from the top down to the end of the MKII section). looks like no one else is going to attempt editing the other sections, so i am going to slowly rewrite them and remove bias and POV. i mean i actually own a MKII and i tried to keep it strictly facts in that section, even though i love the MKII's more than any other generation. ren0^talk 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New Supra

Curb weight 3000lbs.? Good luck in doing that. So its gonna be lighter than a Supra and STILL have a 5.0L engine? I'd love to know how they are doing that. Rice-paper maybe? This car will be 3500lbs. minimum as are all supercars. Also, mentioning its somewhat based off a F1 platform is a massive misnomer, considereding the meaning of the word platform in automobiles. If its even close to a race design a la the Carrera GT or F430 its gonna be more expensive than fitty grand. CJ DUB 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry i moved this, i am just obsessive when it comes to formatting. now about the "new supra" section. i have been planning to just remove it completely, pending certain people's opinions. toyota has stated many times there will be no more supra. and until they say otherwise there shouldn't be a category dedicated to it. ren0^talk 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In the name of the Supra

I can open the eyes of the entire Supra enthusiast community in regards to how the Supra has been given additional fictional names, that ultimately do not belong in the grand scheme of things (the history and life of the Supra). The story i have will bring alot of debate, but i believe in it and think it should be added to the Supra Wikipedia. Ill add to this asap. Mr williams

Please make sure that any information you add to the article is verifiable using reliable sources, and not original research. TomTheHand 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Head gasket

Where is an appropriate place to mention the BHG problem on the Mark 3? For better or for worse this is an important part of the car's history. Spazquest 05:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but you're right. It should go in there somewhere. Roguegeek 08:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's more a problem with the 7M-G[T]E engine than the car (as the engine wasn't only available in the MkIII nor was it the only engine available in the Supra). It is discussed in the 7M-GE page but not on the Toyota_M_engine#7M-GE page. If it is added to the MkIII section, it should be mentioned that it was an issue with that particular engine. Upholder 05:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor MKIV Corrections

Amazing work Reo0. Just some minor points though, this is in regard to the JDM model, my knowledge of the export model is very limited.

"However, the turbo model used 4-piston brake calipers on the front and 2-piston calipers for the rear."

In regard to the JDM model this is an over simplification. They were a factory option in the RZ until 95, the RZ-S model had the smaller brakes and the SZ-R (a non turbo model) was factory optioned with larger brakes. Just to confuse matters in the 96 the SZ-R came with the large brakes standard.

"For 1997, the manual transmission is back for the optional engine along with a redesign of the tail lights, front fascia, chromed wheels, and other minor changes such as the radio and steering wheel designs."

Speaking for the JDM Supra the styling changes were introduced in May 96. This including a restyled front bar, head lights, tail lights, 5 guage instrement cluster and steering wheel. Although the wheel style was changed they were not chrome wheels. Also in Sep 97 the 2JZ-GTE VVTI engine was introduced.

"For 1998, the radio and steering wheel were redesigned once again. The naturally aspirated engine was enhanced with VVTI"

In regard to the VVTI, this applies only to the export model, JDM 2JZ-GE was not released with VVTI.

Also, please correct vehicle profile box. Supra has never been a 3-door hatchback. It's a coupe. //andyye

Yeah, I realize that and I have tried to set it to coupe. Almost as soon as I do it get's switched back. So I stopped bothering. ren0^talk 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ALSO CALLED?

THE Toyota Supra is Also called Toyota Supra? Should this be revised? "i thought the also called tag" was used for example Nissan skyline gt-r aka Godzilla

Thanks for the input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDIT TYPER (talk • contribs)

For future reference please sign your posts using ~~~. I assume the "also called" tag is for shortened versions of a name. Thus, "Toyota Supra" is the shortened version of "Toyota Celica Supra" (The original name of the car). Sort of in the same respects of the Chevrolet Camaro Super Sport, some people call them just Camaro SS. ren0^talk 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

compression ratios between naturally aspirated and turbo versions

there should be a section or at least some mention of compression ratio between the years for the mkiv supras. the naturally aspirated 2jzge is 10.1:1 and the turbo 1jzgte is 8.5:1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.136.158.253 (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Supra Page

I think everybody did a very good job building this page. It is very well organized and thought out.

...One thing that I think is needed is a picture of the Celica Supra Symbol. The Dragon.

Otherwise I think it is all good. Especially the MKIII section. Being a MKIII owner I tend to see this generation (and older) left out a lot. I am glad every generation was thuroughly described.

PulsHrd 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 I apologize if I do this wrong, as this is my first edit.  But the dragon is not the emblem of the celica supra.  It's the emblem of the celica.  the mk2 celica supra has the dragon because it's a celica, with the sub model being supra. ~~silverton  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.41.25 (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 

Mark III

As the proud owner of a 1992 Mark III Turbo for the last eight years I would like to add a few comments. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia so please bear with me...

As I understand it the Mark III was based on the Lexus LS300 and was built in the Lexus factory. Platform, suspension, engine & drivetrain are all LS300, I believe.

The turbo version is fitted with a limited slip differential which makes the car tail happy in the wet due to lack of traction control (and attracted heavy criticism from the UK motoring press).

My car suffered from the infamous head gasket problem which destroyed the engine. In spite of it's then age (5 years) and 120,000 miles Toyota contributed 50% of the replacement engine cost, partly due to the German garage making a hames of the repair.

Another common problem with the turbo engine is the pressure blow off valve shattering its plastic sealing ring leading to poor throttle response (the blow off valve diverts pressurised air back around the intake tract on sudden throttle shut off to prevent turbo stall. It has a plastic seal just like a large tap washer. Replacement is very easy).

DesmondW 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside edit: That isn't accurate about the suspension or Lexus. The Supra's suspension( not Celica, pre 86.5) was designed by a Lotus Engineer. Name dropping can be done if you really need it. The Lexus division, was not yet a division. Only an idea for North American marketing. There isn't an LS300 anyway. The LS400 was the Toyota Celsior. The ES250, the first Lexus, was a reskinned V6 Camry. The Supra was built in Toyota city, starting in January of 1986.

And common problems listed, are only common to you. After many years on the line, I saw few "common" problems that surfaced on the internet later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.234.2 (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I understand the policy in WP:NOT; however I personally think all of those links should be there as those are virtually the main sites that have more information on this car. There is no official Toyota Supra site anymore (well there is, but it is in references and it doesn't have much information). With the inclusion of those five sites it gives readers a chance to visit them and find (more advanced) technical information, a place to ask questions, and so on and so forth. On a side note, the list is much much smaller than in the past. So please, leave them there. ren0^talk 07:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would like Discuss Why we should add MKIVtrader.com it is a supra classifieds site

for supras only

thanks

Hi - have tried to add the site mkivsupra.net to the external site links - as I believe it gives much more information on this car as well as providing many useful resources for the Supra owner / buyer that are not published on Wikipedia. Unfortunately it was removed, twice, and then all the other useful external links were removed too! I have had a quick scout around other specific car related wiki pages and many, if not the majority, of them have external links to enthusiast sites....... what is to be done?—Preceding unsigned comment added by TetsuoTheRob (talk • contribs) 13:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some (maybe quite a few) car articles on Wikipedia provide bad examples in this respect. Since mkivsupra.net is a forum and requires registration and payment to view certain things, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. This is specifically addressed in points 7 and 11 of links normally to be avoided. That isn't to say the site is not a useful resource, it's just not considered appropriate for Wikipedia.~ Dusk Knight 04:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding a External link

People are always looking for supras we should talk about adding Mkivtrader.com I'm open to any discussion about this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parkerd (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Appearances in popular media

In response to this note at the top of the section,

Notable appearances only - or one that people can remember in 5 years time

I'd like to point out that the De Lorean DMC-12 (currently a featured article) article has pretty much every media appearance of the car including many which could be considered non-notable. They just have to be integrated properly. ~ Dusk Knight 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to "Appearances in Video Games"?

How come it was removed all of a sudden. There must be an explanation. The Supra became as a popular vehicle for the Gran Turismo and Need for Speed series. What happened? Professional Gamer 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion about it here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#WP Guideline. The general stance seems to be that most media appearances are not notable enough to mention, and a list of appearances makes it a trivia section. Personally, I don't agree with this, and the trivia sections guideline is too generalized to explicitly support that conclusion.~ Dusk Knight 03:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So thats why they removed this. Professional Gamer 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Assembly

Where in Japan was the Supra assembled?

Pam1855 10:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mark IV was apparently assembled in Motomachi (see the info box). I don't know about previous generations though.~ Dusk Knight 03:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Article size

This article may be too long according to Wikipedia:Article size. The "rule of thumb" says articles larger than 60KB probably should be split into multiple articles. This article is currently 65KB. Some options could be giving each generation a separate article (like Chevrolet Camaro) and "Toyota Supra in motorsports" could easily stand alone as an article. Any thoughts or suggestions on how this should be done or if it is necessary?~ Dusk Knight 03:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I don't think we should split it up by generations at the moment, but we should branch off the motorsports section into its own page. I might do it if I get a chance tonight. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, but could use some clean up. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Body modifications

Do we really need a Body Modifications section for the fourth generation Supra? This is currently unsourced and is not written with a NPOV. It doesn't seem notable for an encyclopedia. swaq 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed this since no one objected in over a week. swaq 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

MKII Gear Ratio

According to the article, all P-Type have a limited slip differential and an 83 has a 4.11 ratio while an 84-86 has a 4.30 ratio for the 5spd. If this is correct, then why does my 83 P-Type 5spd list a 3.73 OPEN carrier in the book and the differential tag? The same applies to my 84 P-Type 5spd which has a 4.11 LSD, not a 4.30 as listed in the article. Maybe the wording should be changed to list as optional instead of standard equipment? Sixthstar (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I just noticed you asked this question when I was perusing the article to see how it has evolved since my revamp oh so long ago. The information on the P-Type having the LSD standard was taken from the United States Sales Brochures. Each one I have from 82-85 lists the LSD as standard on the P-Type and unavailable for the L-Type. If you had a Canadian car it could've been different. The automatics in 83 had 3.72, is it possible yours was an automatic swapped to manual? As for your 84 having a 4.11, I imagine it was vehicle manufactured late in the 83 year that they pushed into becoming an 84 and didn't swap over the differential. I know it's completely anecdotal, but every 84 and above 5 speed I have seen in junk yards and about (probably 30 or so) had the F283 4.30 code on the door tag. ren0^talk 10:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In Japan the A60 Supra had the following diffs (from my website http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/celprod.htm#cel60pr and http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/diff.htm , taken from various brochures and microfiche):

Japanese diff ratios

model (engine)	manual	auto
GA61 (1G-GEU)	3.909	4.300
MA61 (5M-GEU)	3.727	3.909
MA63 (M-TEU)	N/A	4.300

The 'L-type and P-type' section (which no longer mentions diff ratios) is specific to N.America but the rest of the A60 section is meant to be world-wide.

Update the article then... and stop forgetting to include your signature. ren0^talk 07:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Head gasket take 2

I guess I was just lucky with the 5 7M powered cars and no blown headgaskets. The kids that pollute internet message boards have obviously been here also.

Toyota recalled problems just as all manufacturers do. But this car didn't have a problem. Owners did. The 92-95 3VZE engine in 4Runners and pickups for example, was recalled to change head gaskets. But not the Supra. Taking the stock engine and its 5 psi of boost pressure from the turbo and double or tripling the output doesn't mean the head gasket is bad, or the torque is too low. It means you are using it in a way that Toyota did not intend.

This is why the 8th and 9th generation inline 6, known as 1JZGE and 2JZGE and the turbo variants recieved factory metal gaskets. To accomidate owners that abuse products beyond what the manufacturer intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.234.2 (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Appearances in popular media - UK TV Series

Is it worth adding a subsection - or even a line - mentioning the Red Toyota Supra Mark iii that is among the BBC's stock of older/vintage cars it uses for some shoots? It has already appeared in [Clocking Off], [Only fools and Horses] (the 2002 Christmas special - only part of the wing & door) [Doctors] (in 2004) and [Eastenders]. The same car has just appeared in the background of [BBC_Television_Centre] on the News Channel just now. 132.185.240.120 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Dave

Calendar years vs model years

My recent changes to this article were reverted, leaving the article sub-headings inconsistent (1979-1981 headings vs. 1983-1998 headings, with no 1982 paragraph). Please discuss below so a consensus can be reached:

"Regarding you recent changes to Toyota Supra. North Americans like to use model years but other markets have no idea what model years mean. To readers from other countries, a 1981 Supra means the model that was introduced within the 1981 calendar year. To avoid ambiguity and confusion, we try not to say '1981 Supra' and try to only talk about calendar years (eg 'in 1981 the Supra ...'). All headings are in calendar years. Exceptions are allowed for purely US only vehicles (eg Ford Mustang) but international vehicles are always in terms of calendar years. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  23:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)"

I understand model years are primarily a North American designation, but I disagree with your assertion that other markets have no idea what they mean. Toyota Motor Company actually timed their major updates of the Supra to coincide with the North American Model Year, with production changes typically between July and August of each year. Most international manufacturers have done the same, and many international magazines have also adopted this method of identifying automobiles when reviewing and comparing models.

My primary issue with the current format of the Toyota Supra article is inconsistency. There are headings for 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, etc. but no heading for 1982 because the heading system changes midway. A reasonable person would conclude that there was no Supra manufactured in 1982, but this is wrong. A reasonable person would also conclude that the information under the heading 1981 refers to the 1981 Model Year, rather than the 1982 Model Year which began manufacture in 1981. For complete accuracy, these headings could all be changed to the format of "From 08/1981 to 08/1982, NAM MY 1982", but this level of information is more appropriate within the paragraph than in the heading.

For the purpose of a brief heading which will lead to minimal misunderstanding and allow comparison between different makes of cars available simultaneously, utilizing the North American Model Year as the paragraph heading should be the preferred method for all cars produced for the North American market. The first line of the paragraph should clarify the meaning of the heading by stating actual dates of production. I contend that the majority of those who read English are familiar with this system and will not be confused by its use in an online English-language encyclopedia (while many have been confused by the placement of the Supra produced from 08/1981 to 08/1982 under the heading 1981).SupraLance (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You raise many good points, some of which I agree with.

Yes, the article is inconsistent in its use of calendar years and model years. The US (for brevity, whenever I say US I also mean other countries that explicitly follow the US system, eg Canada, S.America) is still the largest pool of editors and they naturally use the system familiar to them - model years. But many editors come from other countries and they naturally use the system familiar to them - calendar years (eg Australia, Europe, Asia). The inconsistency arises from two conflicting and ambiguous systems being used together. This is a good indicator that model years are not well understood outside of the US. Also, saying '1983 Supra' gives no indication that we are talking in US fashion about a vehicle introduced in 1982 or that we are talking in non-US fashion about a vehicle introduced in 1983. Indeed, the expression 'the 1983 Supra was introduced in 1982' reads like nonsense to non-US readers. WP:AUTOMOBILE has agreed that for vehicles sold outside of the US, calendar years are preferred (matching the majority of countries) and that limited use of the expression 'model year' can be used to appease US editors. Care is taken to avoid 'for 1983' because for US readers this means a model year and for non-US readers it means a calendar year. Whereas, 'in 1983, ...' is taken by everyone as a calendar year. So, the format used by many editors is now 'In 1983 (for the 1982 US model year), ...'.

As for the missing 1982 year, this too is a US vs the rest of the world thing. The US has a habit of updating the appearance of its cars every single year around August. Having updates match the major US car shows is fine but many countries do not do visual updates every year. In Australia (my country) we often keep the same appearance for two or three years. In the 1980s, the UK often went for five or more years on brands like Jaguar. So, a missing year is interpreted as 'no change' rather than as 'no car'. If there truly was no production then it would be explicitly explained. However, to cater for both US and non-US readers, your suggestion to tweak the section title to say '1981, 1982' or 'Aug 1981 - Aug 1983' or similar sounds good to me.

Putting dates in the section titles is fine (as mentioned above). Putting both dates AND model years is overly verbose. In fact, I'd be tempted to demote those yearly titles and replace them with simple prose. As mentioned above, it's mostly the US that thinks every single year must have a visual update. Most other countries are content to have a major section for each generation and within that a list to say what features where updated during that generation. That makes the feature change more important than the year. Most non-US articles take this approach.

Your suggestion that any vehicle sold in the US should use model years in the titles has a number of problems. First of all, a non-US reader has to figure out if there is anything to figure out. He may simply see 1983 and simply assume (possibly wrongly) that it matches his own thinking (note we avoid this problem with US readers by sprinkling months in many places to make it obvious that we use calendar years). If our non-US reader knows there is a possibly conflict, he then has to figure out if the vehicle is sold in the US or not. He could read the article in detail but this is further effort required by him when he is probably not interested in what happened in the US. Then he has to figure out if the title now means US style model years or calendar years. This also assumes that he knows how US model years work at all. This is putting a lot of burden on somebody who is probably interested in what happened in his own country, not what happened in the US. Effectively you are promoting the US to be a first class citizen of the world and demoting the rest of the world to be second class citizens. Of course, my suggestions can be taken as the exact reverse (promoting non-US, demoting US) but it really does come down to choosing:

• using US style model years to suit a single market while confusing most other markets
• using calendars years that suits most markets but annoys a single market (but which nonetheless can be understood once the difference is realised).

So, we are agreed that the article should be consistent and that it requires a good clean-up but differ in which system should be chosen.  Stepho  talk  04:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mark nomenclature

I know car guys wet themselves over calling everything "mark" or "mk," but does Toyota actually use this terminology themselves? If not, the article should not use it. I do not believe it to be the standard terminology among the general public - at least in English (VW being German gets a pass). The article would read much better and be more approachable to the general public if it simply used English words, e.g., "third generation" than mk abbreviations with Roman numerals, no normal person likes having to carefully check how many Is are at the end of MKII or MKIII. 70.39.231.187 (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, Toyota do not use 'Mark' on any of their cars (except the Corona Mark II which was actually sold over a number of generations with that name). When new, they were always called by their model name (eg Celica XX, Celica Supra or Supra) or by their model code (eg MA61). Occasionally, Toyota uses generation numbers (eg 2nd generation for MA61) in its historical material. However, fan sites extensively use Mark I/II/II/IV for the MA4#/6#/7#/8#. In fact, this is so common on fan sites that it would be confusing to new readers if we removed mark numbers - eg fan site talks about the Mark II but a new reader comes here and can't find anything about a Mark II. My preference would be to not have "Mark" or "generation" in any of the section titles (because they are not official names) but to mention it in the first paragraph of each generation.  Stepho  talk  22:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

...And while this is an older topic, many readers in North America associate the term "Mark" with Lincoln products, to include the Lincoln MKS, the older personal luxury cars called the Lincoln Continental Mark III and so on. Many automobile articles at Wikipedia do seem to have a North American and European bias, which is one reason why I try to introduce the Asian perspective on things. Toyota still uses the "Mark" terminology in Japan on the Toyota Mark X, but again only in Japan, and yet most people associate the term "Mark" to Lincoln. (Regushee (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC))

Only a problem if we said 'Mark' in a different article that was about not about a specific Toyota or Ford product. If we say 'Mark' in a Lincoln article then it may safely be assume we are talking about the Lincoln Mark. In a Toyota article, then it it may safely be assumed that we are talking about the Mark I/II/III/... of the current vehicle.  Stepho  talk  21:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the only "fans" that use the "Mark" term are the Australians and Europeans. (Regushee (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC))

I hope your not trying to say that American common usage outweighs the combined usage of Europe and Australia. Americans tend to use model years for everything but even so, they occasionally use Mark/Mk/MK and expect it to be understood (eg http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/12/curbside-classic-1984-toyota-celica-supra-mk-ii/ ). I can also find the occasional Japanese website that also use Mark/generation (eg http://www.carsensor.net/usedcar/bTO/s166/ ) but in general the Japanese use model codes like MA61.

However, I think you have brought up an important point - we should be more in line with other Toyota articles and use section titles like "A40 (1981–1986)" or "First generation (A40; 1981–1986)" instead of the more regional "Mark II (A60; 1981–1986)". But because of the pervasiveness of the mark numbers, the text should mention their mark number prominently in the first paragraph of each generation. Note: I'm generally against using "generation" in section titles because some vehicles (but not the Supra) were introduced in different years and therefore the first generation in one country can be entirely different to the first generation in another country.  Stepho  talk  23:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As a note, not all Europeans use "Marks" - only Britons (and the Irish, I suppose). The rest of Europe usually only use "Mark" when referring to British products. On the other hand, Indian editors would probably also use it. In any case, it's not used by Toyota and I think that the section titles should have just the chassis code and years in the main market. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

User:Regushee has proposed that Toyota Celica XX be merged into Toyota Supra.  Stepho  talk  02:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. I think. I'm getting a bit bored with merging everything.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - they are the same vehicle with some differences to suit local markets. Differences are:Japanese 2.0 L engines (M and 1G engines in N/A and turbo versions); the 'XX badge'; some trim. These types of differences were also used on other cars of the time such as the Corona and Corolla. And here is a reference to back up the claim that they are the same vehicle: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=wy8pl1rtlWgC&pg=PA79  Stepho  talk  02:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support — merging these two articles seems appropriate given the lack of differences. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Correction to "JZA70 and GA70" Section

Just reading the section titled "JZA70 and GA70" and noticed a statement that implies the 2.5GT Twin Turbo R is the only model to have front brake ducts in the front lip. I Quote "A special version of the 1JZ-GTE equipped JZA70, the 2.5 Twin Turbo R, had a Torsen differential, Bilstein suspension, larger diameter sway bars, Recaro seats, Momo wheel and gear knob and matching interior trim. The front lip included front brake ducts."

This isn't correct as there are many JZA70's with this specific feature. I have many pictures to back up this claim but am unsure if they would suffice? (wiki noob here)

Please advise...

--Towawi (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As I read it, it says the 2.5GT Twin Turbo R has brake ducts in the front lip but does not say this is an exclusive feature of this vehicle. Therefore it says nothing about whether other A70 Supras have this feature.  Stepho  talk  22:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The entire page is wrong.

In terms of history. Toyota Motor Sales is an American Company whose parent company is Toyota Motor co out of Japan. They have made things up for American markets. Go here to see vehicle history. http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/vehicle_lineage/family_tree/index.html.

Go to Supra. The model starts in 1986, and there are only 2 of them. And neither is "mark 1" and up. - signed 2602:306:3ae4:ad20:90ca:54c3:8bb7:286f

From the same website: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/vehicle_lineage/car/id60010185/

The website you linked to is based on the Japanese market. In Japan the 6 cylinder Celica was known as the Celica XX. The same vehicle was sold as the Celica Supra in non-Asian markets. Production started in April 1978 as the MA45 (2 litre M engine, Japan only) and the MA46 (2.6 litre 4M engine, worldwide).

The article already says the "Mark" names are something made up by American enthusiasts. We use it only because it is so well known by enthusiasts but we also note that it is unofficial.  Stepho  talk  22:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

FT-1...?

I've found a couple of sites that says that the FT-1 concept was scrapped due to a BMW-Toyota partnership for the Supra.

http://www.motoring.com.au/more-details-of-toyota-supra-successor-emerge-52647/ https://artofgears.com/2015/07/22/2017-toyota-supra-may-have-470-hp-ditching-ft-1-concept-exterior/

It maybe just rumours right now that the FT-1 design will not be used but, there is still uncertainty on whether or not the FT-1 is really the proposed design for the Supra. Grigrass (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

See the problem of reporting rumours as facts? When the FT-1 was first shown everyone said "OMG! OMG! The FT-1 is new Supra! OMG! OMG!" Now, after a few years, we get some different rumours (from an undisclosed "Toyota insider") and we start saying "OMG! OMG! the FT-1 is NOT the new Supra! OMG! OMG!". Better to report the simple facts and leave the speculation to the magazines (which do it mostly to draw in customers).  Stepho  talk 

So many [citation needed]!

Is this many really necessary? The 5M and 7m engines are direct descendants of the 2000GT's power plant. There needs to be no citation from my perspective. There's a tag on the fact that all supra's have inline 6 engines. The whole Supra gimmick comes from being a Celica with an inline 6. That's Supra. Someone went crazy with the [citation needed] tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.18.99 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for removing them. Somebody obviously got a bit power crazed in the past when they added them.  Stepho  talk  07:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the remaining ones. They looked awful! OSX (talk • contributions) 12:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

J90

The J90 N.America version is expected to sell for US$49,990 (entry model), US$53,990 (premium model) or US$55,250 (Launch Edition) acording to https://www.motor1.com/news/300919/2020-toyota-supra-pricing-us/ . Or US$50,920 (entry model), US$54,920 (premium model) or US$56,180 (Launch Edition) according to https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020-toyota-supra-priced-starting-at-50920/ . Don't you just love how the magazines agree with their facts copied from Toyota. Both references are in the article.  Stepho  talk  20:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I found the source of the problem. There is a US$930 destination charge that some sources count and some don't. See https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a12635049/2019-toyota-supra-what-we-know/  Stepho  talk  04:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not a price guide so please keep all the BS related to pricing off this article. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You're replied to an obsolete discussion. Just saying. 182.30.133.131 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Does it say it's obsolete? It would be better if you mind your business and improve your English as you're on the English Wiki. U¹ _quattro TALK 00:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

BMW manufactured the new Supra

The current Supra is manufactured by BMW. This can be confirmed by the data plate and VIN of all new Supras, which say “manufactured by Bavarian Motor Werke” and have a BMW “Z” in the vin certification and no Toyota “T” to be found. The info box and opening line needs to correctly state that this car is not manufactured by Toyota presently and is instead a BMW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4201:BBE3:343D:3795:E5DA:3798 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that state that? Not just that it has that VIN or was made in that plant, making conclusions from those factors is not permitted (WP:SYNTH) so we would need a cite that says BMW is the manufacturer not Toyota, this should be from a respected publication and if you can find it, more than one. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Right here. Read it and weep. That data plate is the official vehicle certification. It is not manufactured by Toyota. https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/01/2020-toyota-supra-vs-its-competition/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4400:144D:C412:5181:CABF:12DA (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Similar ideas have been expressed before for cars sold under multiple brands or names. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_16#The_Pontiac_Vibe_debacle for some ideas. For me, the manufacturer name that appears on the vehicle's license papers (which normally follows the name on the badge) is what should be used here, regardless of which company's factory it was assembled in.  Stepho  talk  10:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Supra has appeared in numerous notable appearances

I just thought you'd like to know. --129.106.31.181 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

GR Supra

The fifth generation Supra is marketed as the GR Supra in the United States and Canada, and just simply Supra everywhere else in the world. Just thought I should put that out there. I find it bizarre that it is not mentioned in the section. Eightsixofakina (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem. It was a bit of a reaction to previous attempts to make it only known as the GR Supra, no matter what market. Your change is good.  Stepho  talk  04:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to clear that up before someone quickly undid my revision. Eightsixofakina (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just learned that the Supra is also called GR Supra in the UK, not just USA and Canada. I've added it in. Eightsixofakina (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A80 bias

The affection towards the A80 in this article is very strong which goes against the WP: NPOV policy. This is an informative article, it wasn't created to please the fans of the A80 and the like. The constant tries to get the image of the A80 in the main infobox highlights this bias. U¹ _quattro TALK 01:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Split

I have just noticed the Toyota Supra (J29/DB) article. It is practically identical to the J29/DB section of the Toyota Supra article. I suspect it was copied from an earlier version. It is patently stupid to maintain practically identical copies in parallel. So I'm asking the community if they prefer to keep all the Supra information in this one large article (with the J29/DB being changed into a redirect to here) or to split the large article into separate, generational articles with simple summaries left here? My preference is to split it.  Stepho  talk  21:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be split. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Took me a little longer than it should have but I finally removed most of the J29 info and left just the infobox, a short summary, a link to the real article at Toyota Supra (J29/DB) and a small number of images. That should make maintenance much easier.  Stepho  talk  11:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Went bold and removed the infobox from the main article to avoid repeating the same information in multiple articles, I hope that's OK. Andra Febrian (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Stepho  talk  22:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

1983 speedometer versus 1984

From my research the 1983 Toyota Celica supra, early 83 speedometer was the 85 later 83 model year it was switched to the 130 mph speedometer. KingCoolRobert (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about world-wide markets or just a specific market? Are you using calendar years (as used by most of the world) or model years (as used by the US and its captive markets) ? The article is written in terms of calendar years.  Stepho  talk  22:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)