Just pointing out how the similar situation of the FRS development resulted in a car with a lot of positive press while the supra is resulting in a lack luster response. I’m suggesting that including a manual is part of the difference, and that omitting it from the supra might be an indication that it wasnt built as a…

This is BS. CA and the 17 CARB states ARE the bulk of the US market. Porsche puts cats on cars for regions that don’t require it so they only have to make one version of each motor.

I think I’d probably go for a Bullitt over a GT350, I’m a sucker for that retro vibe and I rarely make it to a track.

Eh, everything was pretty much crap back then. Big whoop.

Dude, get your facts straight. The 2.3L was an SOHC engine, and the turbo 2.3s I’ve driven are buttery smooth. (I actually prefer the 5.0's power delivery, even though the actual HP outputs are similar). Oh, and stock SVOs can be found putting 180-200hp down at the rear wheels.

Exactly. I wanted a Supra my whole life. Its really a BMW? Okay. I can deal with that. Its only an auto??!?

Not quite the same, but similar, was the Ford effort in the late 80s to replace the Mustang with a modern sports coupe. That Mustang would have had an independent rear suspension, a modern turbocharged engine, and would have been far nicer to drive than the existing Fairmont-derived model.

While the C8 is likely the better vehicle for almost everyone in this market, not everyone wants a Corvette.

So this whole crowd already knows what this car should be, compared to what it is. Dumping the manual and farming everything out to BMW sure makes business sense, but gearheads aren’t swayed by Toyota’s business sense. And gearheads are the only ones who would’ve bought this car anyway. The normies will get a C8 or a…

It needs a manual.  

We effectively have that today. If you meet california’s standards, you meet the federal standards.

I mean, in theory, sure, but in reality, would the margins ever possibly make up for the back end costs?

There is another option. You see, the standard is based on averages within categories. So the manufacturers can simply release more hybrids/electric cars in the stricter markets, and their average emissions would improve. Thus they can keep all their production lines the same for both markets and simply have an extra…

They’ve already decided that it’s worth it to just meet the CARB standards.

More important than a watered down single 50 stat standard that serves the ego of one man, is a strict standard that makes a *significant* difference. You want a single 50 state standard, then make sure everyone adopts California’s.

It’s not a problem.

They’ve had to build vehicles that comply with CARB or Federal standards before. It’s not ideal, but it’s not like they’re making special vehicles for Wyoming, Nebraska, etc. The two markets still represent a lot of vehicles.

Or they just build the most efficient car possible, sell that everywhere, and save themselves a lot of money and bad PR.

So meet California’s standards and sell them everywhere. It’s not like West Virginia is going to mandate you emit more nitrous oxide.

They’re limited to two standards already. Congress set this limit, under the Clean Air Act, to reflect the fact that California set emissions standards before the feds. Then they limited this to require any states wishing to adopt standards stronger than the federal standards to adopt California’s.