Toyota must have realized that their cars were pretty boring, so the Japanese company is set to release a few hybrid sports cars. There will be two coming with names that should sound pretty familiar to car lovers. The first will be the MR2 and the second will be the fabulous Supra.

The MR2 should be here around 2013 and it will feature a hybrid 1.5-liter petrol engine. The car was originally going to get a V6 hybrid, but after the strong sales of the Honda CR-Z, Toyota has decided a four pot was the better option.

The Supra was thought to be dead, but the strong sales of hybrid cars have brought it back again. The new Supra will be powered by a V6 hybrid motor, similar to the FT-HS concept on which the car is based. Of course this is not exactly a new piece of news considering we caught wind of this vision back in 2008, but now it seems that the vision has progressed to a full blown project in the new Supra.

Hit the jump for the full story including what may be interesting competition for the MR2 and Supra.

These models come in the wake of the FT-86 delay, which is now scheduled for 2013 as well.

Toyota’s hybrid sports cars will face some serious competition, as Honda, Nissan, and Mitsubishi are planning hybrid sports cars of their own.

Nissan’s sports hybrid will use the Leaf for key mechanical and design elements. The car will also use a few cues from the Landglider, but it probably won’t be able to lean into corners. The car is due to launch in 2014.

Mitsubishi is working on a two-door sports version of the i-MiEV, which is due to launch in 2012. The company is also planning a hybrid version of the Evo.

The only Japanese company that hasn’t joined the pack is Mazda. The new MX-5 is set to launch in 2012, but it will most likely get a four-cylinder motor or the new SkyG engine.

Source: Autocar

What do you think?
Show Comments


  (745) posted on 08.30.2010

Hope this is a lesson to learn from each car manufacturers. Don’t hurry to release a model without testing it properly.

  (216) posted on 08.1.2010

Hyundai is really on a roll. Toyota and Honda must be really worried. Except for the badge Hyundai are more or less in the same category as the former.

  (80) posted on 07.2.2010

Well, i have a lot of hills to climb. So, power to weight ratio is just as important as handling, but so is torque to weight ratio. Sure, the right transmission would make up for the torque with a high reving engine, but a little extra torque is always wellcomed.

Uncia  (868) posted on 07.2.2010

The IS-F V8 in its current state would make a great engine for a base model Supra, but if it is to be the world’s fastest track car as it once was, it needs an engine that’s up to the task. A stripped-down version with the 1LR-GUE would be needed to reclaim the title the Supra once held.

Uncia  (80) posted on 07.2.2010

No matter what, i guess the car would be in a priceleague, where the extra cost for your standart convinient features would be a very small fraction of the total price. Installing a handmade racing engine and saving on on powerstearing, that arguebly could be called a safetyfeature doesn’t make sense from an econimical point of view. After all, we are talking about a ROADgoing track car.

Uncia  (868) posted on 07.2.2010

The problem with offering power features is that it dramatically increases the price of the car, and most true enthusiasts don’t need them. Offering them as optional equipment would be fine, but comfort and convenience features needn’t be standard for a serious track car.

Uncia  (80) posted on 07.2.2010

Well, i like your idea. Especially with manual transmission, that i miss in a lot of new cars today. I would however prefer some degree of comfort and ofcourse top safety is a must. Powerstearing and powerwindows and remote central locking are standart in all cars today. I don’t want to go back to armwrestling with the steeringwheel when parking, or turning in tight spots. I could do without the AC, since we rarely need it here.

Uncia  (868) posted on 07.2.2010

Were Toyota to use the FT-86 as a base for a new Supra as I suggested, the car would be lighter than the LFA. The FT-86 concept car, with all airbags, power features and interior pieces installed, weighs only 2262 lbs, and once the power features and rear seats are removed and the LFA engine/Supra transmission/chassis re-enforcements added in, you’d have a curb weight of below 3000 lbs. The 2UR-GSE is a high performance engine, but it is not a racing engine like the 1LR-GUE and 2JZ-GTE, and if the Supra is to be a track-focused car as was the MKIV, it needs a track-focused engine. A turbo version of the 2UR-GSE would be ideal for a third-generation SC500, being that the SC would be a performance coupe but not a race car, but it is too big, too heavy and too road-oriented for use in a Supra.

Uncia  (80) posted on 07.1.2010

Well, there are aftermarket turbochargers for the 2UR-GSE. Could be interesting to know how much they cost. Don’t get me wrong. I think the V10 is an amazing engine, from a technical and a hp/litre point of view, given that it is NA. However, if you look at it from a hp/(litre*rpm) point of view, a twinturbo would have the advantage. As would a larger displacement engine. The 1LR-GUE was contructed specifically for the LFA, aiming for as light a car as possible, but that ligthness also necessitated special, very expensive material. Materials, that we wont see in any affordable GT. Hypothetically such a car would be heavier and would argueble benifit from a torquier engine. If the 1LR-GUE was used, it would most certainly benifit from a supercharger, which would rise the poweroutput to some degree, but more importantly would increes the torque considereble.

Uncia  (868) posted on 07.1.2010

After the twin-turbos’ development costs were factored in, the V10 would be cheaper. And while turbochargers were the MKIV Supra’s trademark, the naturally aspirated V10 would be even better, especially if mated to the Supra’s 6spd manual.

Uncia  (80) posted on 07.1.2010

Heavier yes, but not sure that you are right about the cost. An existing V8, like the 2UR-GSE would be less expensive to build than the 1LR-GUE in the LFA. The only extra cost would be the twinturbo setup. And brute force from the twinturbos were the trademark of the Supra MK4, not high revs.

Uncia  (868) posted on 07.1.2010

The V10 was tuned to 620 bhp for the race version that Toyota used to win back-to-back class victories at the Nurburgring 24 hours. That is the engine that should be used, not a V8, as all of Toyota’s existing V8 engines are both less powerful and heavier, and engineering twin-turbochargers for it would add to the development costs. The powertrain I suggested would consist entirely of existing parts.

Uncia  (80) posted on 07.1.2010

What 620 bhp V10? The Nurnbergring edition only pushes the power to 570. Are you planing to add a supercharger? That would easily push the power past 600 hp as well as give it extra torque.
Personally i really like the idea of a twinturbo V8, with lots of torque and hp, all within the limit of 7000 rpm.

Uncia  (868) posted on 06.30.2010

I just had an idea as to how Toyota could cost-efficiently release a Supra without competing with the LFA:

Toyota should take a super-stiffened widebody FT-86, modify the front end to facilitate the shoehorning-in of the 620 bhp V10 from the racing LFA mated to the 6spd Getrag manual from the MKIV Supra, give it a hard, Nurburgring-tuned racing suspension, throw a huge wing on the back and call it a Supra. They should also remove the rear seats and eliminate such frills as automatic climate control, power windows/door locks, power-folding mirrors, leather seats, ect. While these are no doubt nice amenities, they only add weight and cost, and let’s face it: a lack of heated power seats isn’t going to be a deal-breaker for anyone buying supercar.

Also, I think that Toyota should re-gear the 6spd Getrag transmission and sacrifice the LFA’s sophisticated automatic and 202 mph top speed for a more involving conventional manual and a quicker 0-60 time, because while paddle-shift automatics may be the newest craze, when push comes to shove nothing beats a good old fashioned manual in a performance car, and while increased acceleration would be useful in track situations, on no track is any owner ever going to push the LFA to its 202 mph top speed. A Supra with 0-60 acceleration in the mid-2 second range and a 155 mph top speed would be much better-suited for track duty.

Marketing the Supra as a street-legal race car and the LFA as an ultra GT car would prevent self-competition as well as help Toyota to balance the millions that went into the development of the LFA V10. Seeing as the majority of the parts that this new Supra would require for production have already been engineered, development costs would be low, and so long as Toyota doesn’t gussy-it up with luxury features, I bet they could sell this Supra for under $100k, which if you adjust for inflation is cheaper than the MKIV Supra was when equipped with the full line of TRD upgrades.

Uncia  (80) posted on 06.30.2010

I wonder why the chose a V10. Was it the link to F1? Why not a V12? Might be heavier and require more space, but has better natural balance.

Uncia  (868) posted on 06.29.2010

I agree that Toyota should have continued the Supra into the LFA, and I was hoping that they would sell the LFA under the Supra name. But we can’t have both at once, and the LFA is the one we got.

Uncia  (80) posted on 06.28.2010

Fact it, the previous management at TMC has a lot to answer for. They had one main objective and that was to beat GM in volumes. In doing so, they eased back on quality and dropped cars like the Celica and Supra in order to focus on mainstream models like the Corolla and Camry. Nissan stayed in the sportcar game, while Toyota dropped out. That is why they today have to start from square one. What they should have done was to upgrade the Supra back in 2002. Not only would the Supra name still be alive, but they would have saved a lot of developement costs and time on the LF-A, which then may have been called Supra today.

Uncia  (434) posted on 06.28.2010

Didn’t the FT-HS become the FT-86 already? Redo the looks of the LF-A to be rounder and smoother looking and drop in the IS-F motor would be an awesome Supra replacement. They can use the IS platform and save a ton of cash. The hybrid version can run the system currently on the GS-400H. Don’t need to wait til 2013, unless they want to use next gen IS backbones(which will be even better)

Uncia  (868) posted on 06.28.2010

@SF695, the modification capability of the Supra was indeed one of its selling points, but even in stock form it held the Nurburgring record for nearly a decade, and a revived model would have to do that again. I agree that the spirit of the cars is what’s important in regards to the Celica and MR2, but the Supra was such an incredible vehicle that if redone the new model would need to be perfect in every way, as was its predecessor. As I said, if Toyota were to release a new MKV Supra, its toughest competition would be the achievements of the MKIV, and as such I don’t see Toyota releasing it, because in comparison to the MKIV if there is a single record the new MKV Supra doesn’t hold, it would be a failure.

Uncia  (80) posted on 06.28.2010

They may be a million miles from where Toyota is, but you can’t tell where the want to be. Akio Toyoda being a petrolhead is a good think in my opinion. The previous management was all about volumes and profit, even sacrificing some of the legendary quality that has been Toyota’s trademark. Beating GM of the top had first priority. Wrong priority in my opinion. I hope now, that in the future we will see of that quality return, as well as more interesting cars, regardless if they are called Toyota or Lexus or they are called Supra, Celica, 2000GT or something else. It’s the spirit of those cars i’m looking for. The Lexus LFA and IS-F are a step in the right direction. Now, let’s see some more of that. Doesn’t have to be all that hitech. Doesn’t have to have 8 gears. A manual 6 speed transmission will serve me just fine.

Car Finder: