What Inspired The First Cressida

[Corolla Test Pilot]

For his opinions I think it is time Jason had a little accident...

For me, the 2000GT is representative of much that is groovy about cars.

I love it. I want it.

However, the ridgey Z car also floats my boat: a ZG or a 432 (or is it 423?) would suit me nicely.

Yeah, a lot of the Goertz cars do it for me.

[ancullen]

I have to agree with Jason. The fixed lights look weird because they sit so low, and the grille is weird as a result. The 240Z is a FAR better design, but the BMW 507 will always be my favourite Goertz-designed car.

[rollacdmd]

The toyota 2000GT came out like came out 4 years before the first 240z was made by nissan

i was reading that nissan copied the design of the 2000GT and make improvements and they

certainly did the nissan 240z is still well designed to look as good as most sports cars!

[Jason]

lol @ rolla test pilot

[skiddz]

Well...not really. The Celica and Supra were based off it (Supra more so). The closest a Cressida coupe came to it is still a long way off compared to the other two.

 

actually the supra was based off the celica, the supra was a higher spec "race bred" type car.

 

the starting point of the celica was actually the EX-1 concept car, the ta22(or ra20) was released in 1970, a facelift in 9/72 i think where the rear filling drop tank was dropped (no pun intended) for a boot mounted tank with the filler in the C pillar.

 

then in 73 the SV1 concept car was un veiled and led to the limited production of the RA25, unlike the other liftback celicas this was based on the ta22(RA20) chassis, so the short nose ta22 and ra25 front end was interchangeable

 

then in 8/74 they gave the guards more flare and a very gay square lip, 75 had a major facelift and a slightly different chassis with a longer engine bay and the addition of a "powerbulge" different interior and the 18R engine

 

then after 77 went to the ra40 and downhill from that. '82 is when the supra split from the celica. thats also when toyota discovered the flying door wedge shape:P

Edited November 5, 2006 by skiddz

[ancullen]

actually the supra was based off the celica, the supra was a higher spec "race bred" type car.

 

You can't seriously say the Supra is a "race bred" car. It's a GT (Gran Turismo), or touring car. At no point has the Supra ever been a proper road racer, as it is too big a car. The Supra, and the Celica Supra, have always just been a big two-door cruiser. The JZA80 just happens to accelerate really quickly as well, but proper sports cars are more inclined to better handling.

[irokin]

If you look at all the Supras from MkI to MkIV....long nose, fastback liftback and most importantly inline 6s. In fact the first three Marks had M series engines (MkII and III had other options as well). Most Celicas share similar body styles but they've never had inline 6s (as far as I'm aware) so I feel the Supra is based off it more so than the Celica.

[skiddz]

You can't seriously say the Supra is a "race bred" car. It's a GT (Gran Turismo), or touring car. At no point has the Supra ever been a proper road racer, as it is too big a car. The Supra, and the Celica Supra, have always just been a big two-door cruiser. The JZA80 just happens to accelerate really quickly as well, but proper sports cars are more inclined to better handling.

 

hence the inverted commas, it was marketed at a higher spec, more powerful car, it had irs before the celicas did, stronger transmission and a larger engine.

 

a majority of celicas never had anything other than T or R series engines (both I4's) in them (exepting the sa63 and v.rare aa63) but, the supra is based off the celica chassis (hence the A in the supra coding(MA61, GA70)) IMHO the early celicas namely the 22-28 show much similar lines than any supra model

[ancullen]

I agree with irokin. I feel that with the Supra, Toyota was trying to make a more successful 2000GT. The original didn't sell very well due to a ridiculously high asking price and relative lack of power (compared with similarly priced cars like the E-Type). The Supra and Celica Supra were FAR more affordable, and initially had reasonable grunt, and by the time of the JZA80, had heaps of grunt.

[Hiro Protagonist]

actually the supra was based off the celica, the supra was a higher spec "race bred" type car.

 

the starting point of the celica was actually the EX-1 concept car, the ta22(or ra20) was released in 1970, a facelift in 9/72 i think where the rear filling drop tank was dropped (no pun intended) for a boot mounted tank with the filler in the C pillar.

 

then in 73 the SV1 concept car was un veiled and led to the limited production of the RA25, unlike the other liftback celicas this was based on the ta22(RA20) chassis, so the short nose ta22 and ra25 front end was interchangeable

 

then in 8/74 they gave the guards more flare and a very gay square lip, 75 had a major facelift and a slightly different chassis with a longer engine bay and the addition of a "powerbulge" different interior and the 18R engine

 

then after 77 went to the ra40 and downhill from that. '82 is when the supra split from the celica. thats also when toyota discovered the flying door wedge shape:P

 

1986 you mean. The MarkII had very strong links to the RA60 Celica, just had an extended/redesigned nose and enough room for a 5M. The Supra didn't really split from the Celica, moreso the Celica split from the Supra in 1986 when the ST162 came out.....Supra didn't change in design philosophy at all, but the Celica did, which is why the Supra kept the A-series chassis designation and the Celica took over the (now FWD) T-series Corona chassis

[ancullen]

Very good point there about the Celica changing, not the Supra. And if Toyota had any common sense they'd bring back the Celica but as a RWD sports car again. None of this FWD crap.

[Des]

If they made a RWD celica id look into buying one concidering the looks and performance.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I highly doubt Toyota would make a RWD Celica again. These days, FWD is becoming the preference for anything smaller than a Falcon and doesn't come out of Germany. Space issues and weight-saving are the main reasons. Being RWD doesn't automatically mean it's going to handle better, and FWDs aren't all nose-pushing understeer barges....look at a DC2 or ST162, they could carve up the corners with ease.

 

The only way Toyota is going to make a RWD Celica is to combine it with the Supra again, but this'll mean making it bigger. The size of a Celica has fluctuated over the years, but I doubt it'll do so again, as it's firmly entrenched in its FWD philosophy at the moment

 

TA22-RA28 = small

RA40 = medium

RA60 = medium

ST162 = small

ST182 = small-medium

ST202 = medium

ZZT222 = small

 

So according to the trend, it should be due for a size increase, but making it the same kind of size as a Supra again and keeping it FWD will totally blow the design philosophy, which as always been about small-ish affordable stylish (ignore the RA40 and RA60) zippy coupes and liftbacks. If it increases in size too much and stays FWD, it'll most likely turn into a barge.

 

And considering the Supra will probably have a V6 or V8, I doubt Toyota could get away with a 4-cylinder version. It was only after the Supra and Celica split that the Supra got REAL power.

[ancullen]

You're right about FWD not necessarily meaning bad handling. But lets face it - for a car to be considered a proper sports car, not a hairdresser's car, it has to be RWD.

 

If I were in charge of Toyota model planning, I'd bring back the Sprinter as a RWD sports hatch/fastback with a 1.6L basic engine and a 1.8 or a 2.0 for the top-of-the-line. I'd also use that same platform to build a small economical van so as to make plenty of money off the investment. Then I'd bring back the Celica as a RWD car, using a 2.0L for the basic model, and a 2.4 or 2.5 for a more sporting model. There'd also be a Celica GT (or something like that) using a 3.0L V6 or 3.5L V6 from Lexus. My version of the Celica would obviously be a bigger car, but the small car gap would be filled by the Sprinter. Then using the same platform as the Celica, I'd have the Supra. It could have a 3.5L V6 for the basic model (as Toyota are supposedly planning), and then use the new 5.0L V8 for the full blown top-of-the-line model.

 

Transmissions could be shared between the four cylinder models, and the six and eight cylinder cars could also share transmissions, obviously stronger than the four cylinder cars' transmissions. Ideally the sixes and eights would use a rear mounted transmission to create a better weight balance, and I think this sort of transmission is available from the current Lexus IS250 & IS350.

 

I think this would be fairly economically viable, as many parts could be shared between models. If anyone from Toyota's reading this, you can use my ideas provided you give me a job in product planning paying $100,000+ per year and with a company car of my choice, with the option to update/change cars every 12 months. :jamie:

[Hiro Protagonist]

You're right about FWD not necessarily meaning bad handling. But lets face it - for a car to be considered a proper sports car, not a hairdresser's car, it has to be RWD.

 

If I were in charge of Toyota model planning, I'd bring back the Sprinter as a RWD sports hatch/fastback with a 1.6L basic engine and a 1.8 or a 2.0 for the top-of-the-line. I'd also use that same platform to build a small economical van so as to make plenty of money off the investment. Then I'd bring back the Celica as a RWD car, using a 2.0L for the basic model, and a 2.4 or 2.5 for a more sporting model. There'd also be a Celica GT (or something like that) using a 3.0L V6 or 3.5L V6 from Lexus. My version of the Celica would obviously be a bigger car, but the small car gap would be filled by the Sprinter. Then using the same platform as the Celica, I'd have the Supra. It could have a 3.5L V6 for the basic model (as Toyota are supposedly planning), and then use the new 5.0L V8 for the full blown top-of-the-line model.

 

Transmissions could be shared between the four cylinder models, and the six and eight cylinder cars could also share transmissions, obviously stronger than the four cylinder cars' transmissions. Ideally the sixes and eights would use a rear mounted transmission to create a better weight balance, and I think this sort of transmission is available from the current Lexus IS250 & IS350.

 

I think this would be fairly economically viable, as many parts could be shared between models. If anyone from Toyota's reading this, you can use my ideas provided you give me a job in product planning paying $100,000+ per year and with a company car of my choice, with the option to update/change cars every 12 months. ;)

 

I think Toyota Australia really do not value the Lexus models as much as ToJa do. In Japan, basically every Lexus model has had a Toyota variant (eg Celsior = LS, Soarer = SC, Windom = ES) but Aus only got the Lexii. If it could be made cheap enough, I reckon the best base for a Commodore/Falcon competitor would come from the GS chassis. Medium-large sedan, RWD, brilliant engines (and a V8 option), excellent handling, spacious, high quality etc etc. They just need to cut out the computer-controlled crap like the stability system, replace leather and wood with cloth and plastic/vinyl, and they'd have a winner. Now THATS an Aurion that I'd want to drive, even if it looked exactly the same as the current one.

 

Or Hell, just bring back the Cressida. The Cressida name has so much history and reputation in Australia (and good reputation too, once you take away the granny/lawnbowls image). I bet the Avalon would have sold better if it had the Cressida name, even if it stayed FWD.