7-days *no Reserve* '11 Avalon Ltd Navi Leather Roof Xenon Carfax Warranty on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Toyota renews Supra trademark, we renew frothing at the mouth

Enthusiasts have been begging for a new Supra practically since Toyota stopped selling its fourth generation in the US way back in 1998. We've been hearing rumors about a successor for years, but the Toyota FT-1 Concept from the 2014 Detroit Auto Show is the first tangible sign from the automaker that a new generation may be on the table. To temp us even more, the Japanese company reportedly filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office last week to renew its 2010 trademark for the name "Supra."
Granted, these kinds of trademark updates aren't uncommon, as automakers don't want to lose their rights to nameplates (even if they have no immediate plans to use them). However, Toyota briefly abandoned its rights to the Supra name entirely. According to The Motor Report, the original trademark was continually renewed until 2006, but the Japanese automaker let it lapse in the US until applying for it again in 2010.
The FT-1 Concept in Detroit was created at Toyota's Calty Design Research center in California and carries cues from the 2000GT, Celica and Supra in an ultra-curvy body. Officials did not disclose anything about its powertrain. Toyota is also co-developing a future sports car platform with BMW that will underpin models from both companies, but few other details are konwn, and it isn't yet clear that the joint venture has anything to do with a future Supra. Hope springs eternal.

A new Toyota MR2? We want to believe

In the wake of a busy Geneva auto show, the rumor mill is churning, and the latest grist involves one of the most beloved Toyota sports cars of all time. EVO reports that Tetsuya Tada, the chief of the Scion FR-S/Toyota 86 project and a hard-liner about sportscar priorities (light and nimble, but with modest horsepower), wants a third vehicle for Toyota's nascent sporty lineup. Currently, we know there's a Supra-like vehicle in the works, being co-developed with BMW, and the 86 is sticking around. Tada said he'd like a third sportscar to compliment the two we know about, and that he wants it soon. A quick bit of history: Toyota's classic sporty lineup had three components. The most visible was the Supra, whose power and prestige grew as the car evolved from a cushy personal tourer to a high-horsepower, high-technology icon. The Celica was its Clark Kent, more mild mannered but also more accessible and affordable. The third was the MR2, a mid-engined go-kart that lasted for three distinct generations. Each had its charms, and all have their fans. When Tada says that he wants three sportscars in the lineup, we already know about the Supra successor, and the 86 is already filling the Celica's role, so the blank is easy to fill. It doesn't sound like Tada spoke the word "MR2" to EVO, or hinted that the car would be mid-engined, but Tada doesn't seem to say anything without purpose. Whatever the layout, this third car – if it comes to fruition – will probably play a role similar to the MR2 in relation to its stablemates. To translate: it'll likely be even lighter and more nimble, and probably less powerful, than the 86. The closest real-world analogue to the pure MR2 ideal is the Honda S660, a mid-engined Kei roadster that's on sale in Japan right now. It's light, small, and powered by a 0.66-liter inline-three. Toyota could decide to directly compete with the S660, borrow an engine from its small-car specialist subsidiary Daihatsu, and produce a mid-engined MR2. Another possibility, even simpler from Toyota's perspective, would be to adapt the existing Daihatsu Copen roadster. Sure, it's front-engine and front-wheel drive, but it's a small, light roadster. And even better, it sells abroad with a larger 1.3-liter engine. Restyle it slightly, perhaps to resemble the S-FR concept of a couple years ago, and it's an off-the-shelf solution. The S-FR itself is a third possibility.

The ugly economics of green vehicles

It's fair to say that most consumers would prefer a green vehicle, one that has a lower impact on the environment and goes easy on costly fuel (in all senses of the term). The problem is that most people can't – or won't – pay the price premium or put up with the compromises today's green cars demand. We're not all "cashed-up greenies." In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. The truth is that most Americans can't afford a new car, green or not. In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. According to a recent Federal Reserve study, the median income for American families was $46,700 in 2013, a five-percent decline from $49,000 in 2010. While $32,000 for a car may not sound like a lot to some, it's about $630 a month financing for 48 months, assuming the buyer can come up with a $6,400 down payment. And that doesn't include gas, insurance, taxes, maintenance and all the rest. It's no wonder that a recent study showed that the average family could afford a new car in only one of 25 major US cities. AutoTrader conducted a recent survey of 1,900 millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) about their new and used car buying habits. Isabelle Helms, AutoTrader's vice president of research, said millennials are "big on small" vehicles, which tend to be more affordable. Millennials also yearn for alternative-powered vehicles, but "they generally can't afford them." When it comes to the actual behavior of consumers, the operative word is "affordable," not "green." In 2012, US new car sales rose to 14.5 million. But according to Manheim Research, at 40.5 million units, used car sales were almost three times as great. While the days of the smoke-belching beater are mostly gone, it's a safe bet that the used cars are far less green in terms of gas mileage, emissions, new technology, etc., than new ones. Who Pays the Freight? Green cars, particularly alternative-fuel green cars, cost more than their conventional gas-powered siblings. A previous article discussed how escalating costs and limited utility drove me away from leasing a hydrogen fuel cell-powered Hyundai Tucson, which at $50,000, was nearly twice the cost of the equivalent gas-powered version. In Hyundai's defense, it's fair to ask who should pay the costs of developing and implementing new technology vehicles and the infrastructure to support them.