I would get a used 2.0t Hyundai and spend the money saved making it faster and more capable than the ft86 and still have money for strippers

10/28/2011 2:37:44 PM

Quality post you did there, comparing used against new

And I'd just buy an 8 year old 996 for $25k instead of this.

10/28/2011 2:55:30 PM

till someone hacks the ECU it's worthless i saw one with a gt35r only make 325 whp because the engine goes into limp mode.

10/28/2011 2:56:07 PM

There's only one way to go fast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIGPkNlmfE4&sns=em

10/29/2011 11:25:32 AM

Sweet

10/29/2011 11:41:07 AM

Any news on the Subaru version? Will it be a turbo?

Will the NA Toyota be a Scion, for sure? (I hope not)

10/29/2011 3:14:56 PM

only thing I've found so far is the subaru will NOT be awd

10/29/2011 3:43:04 PM

10/29/2011 3:53:00 PM

for it to have subaru all wheel drive the engine would have to be shoved forward increasing the front overhang...

i'm hoping for a low mount turbo front-mid engine layout.

10/29/2011 5:26:45 PM

the longer thinner tail lights on the concept are way better than the chunky production ones

10/29/2011 5:52:16 PM

.... chevy cruze tail-lights?

10/30/2011 10:18:57 AM

yeah looks like it.

it needs longer tail lights to fill up some of the space at the back and to make the whole car look meaner and leaner. pretty much all sports cars have long thin tail lights (or circles like gtr, veyron, etc). see hyundai genesis. the ones on this car look like economy car tail lights.

10/30/2011 12:01:38 PM

They are kinda BMW Z4-esque... I don't mind them...

I just hope they seriously reconsider their $30k MSRP though...

10/30/2011 2:43:59 PM

$30k?? maybe if it was 300hp

10/30/2011 5:48:08 PM

Last I heard/read:

Quote :

"Geneva show: Toyota shoots for 'low $30k' FT-86"

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/493E57EBA60E772BCA257846007B294E

10/30/2011 7:00:46 PM

That's the price in Australia, in Aussie Dollars.

The subaru will have "less than 300hp"

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/rumors-could-the-subaru-brz-pack-more-power-than-the-toyota-ft-86-83811.html

[Edited on October 30, 2011 at 8:06 PM. Reason : ]

10/30/2011 7:57:15 PM

I still fail to see how a 200hp, 2800+ lb F/R vehicle will be competitive in this market unless the price point is equal to or less than that of the Mazda Miata. As it stands, a used S2000 would be my preference. Squeezing 200hp from a 2.0l boxer four is pretty impressive though. Don't get me wrong, even with 200hp the car can still be fun. For the money, there are alternatives for sure. Hopefully a 250-300hp model will be available for a reasonable $um. I'm counting on Subaru to get it done correctly!

[Edited on October 30, 2011 at 8:26 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2011 8:25:55 PM

"squeezing" 200hp from a 2L motor is impressive? this is 20 fucking 11. we've had engines pushing well over 500hp out of 2L for the better part of 20 years, with or without FI.

10/30/2011 10:07:01 PM

Ahh yeah.... The 2.0 from the S2k does make 237hp, and that's a 10 year old design... I do forget what day and age it is and what is now an "acceptable standard." (ie: 2.5L = ~150hp back in the 80's and 3.5L = ~300hp today). Sometimes I check craigslist and see something from 2005 and think "oh that's not bad!" Then I realize 2005 was 6 years ago. My wife's IS250 makes 200hp and 190ft-lbs and I believe this to be an acceptable output for the displacement. No it's not groundbreaking, but it's in the ballpark... We should expect about 100hp/L now days... Torque is also important to me. I wouldn't want more hp if it sacrificed low end torque... Balance is key.

So, I take back what I said. No, 2.0l engine making 200hp is not exactly impressive. If it has low end torque to back it up, then it might be a bit more acceptable...

I understand we've had engines pushing 500hp out of of a 2L without FI. Please provide an example of a street car that can do this as I cannot think of any.

[Edited on October 30, 2011 at 10:47 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 30, 2011 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 30, 2011 at 10:50 PM. Reason : ..]

10/30/2011 10:43:09 PM

i'm not talking about street cars, i'm talking about race engines that have had more than enough time for their technologies to make their way into street cars. for clarification, i meant forced induction, not fuel injection.


that's a 2L motor designed in 1986. a 4g63 with the exact same design as when it appeared in the 1986 galant vr4 rally car

this 1968 2L engine puts out over 270hp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_33_Stradale

[Edited on October 30, 2011 at 11:05 PM. Reason : 1968!]

10/30/2011 11:00:35 PM

^Why would you compare a street engine to a race engine? Race engines are routinely torn down...street engines aren't.

Quote :

"only thing I've found so far is the subaru will NOT be awd"

This vehicle is supposed to be a pure driver's car. AWD is more or less the antithesis of that. Also the design will not allow for AWD due to the placement of the engine further back in the chassis.

Quote :

"Any news on the Subaru version? Will it be a turbo? Will the NA Toyota be a Scion, for sure? (I hope not)"

It has been reported over and over that Subaru will NOT have a turbo option. And it is 100% confirmed that the NA Toyota version will be sold as a Scion (which I think is ridiculously retarded, just kill that car division off already).

Toyota just has to be being sneaky about this car's debut and what its stats will be. I don't see how it is possible for this car to be successful if its 25k, has 200hp and weighs 2800lbs.

10/30/2011 11:32:46 PM

^ because a 40 year old race engine ought to be obsolete even by street standards

10/30/2011 11:34:32 PM

Wait a 2 liter gas engine making over 500hp w/out forced induction? Does this engine exist on planet earth?

10/31/2011 12:33:08 AM

2010 Ford Focus 2.0L (160hp/ 145tq)
2012 Mazda3 2.0L (150hp@6,500rpm/135tq @4,500rpm).
2012 Mazda3 2.5L (165hp@6,000rpm/165tq@4,000rpm)

2011 Miata 2.0L (170hp/140tq)

2000 AP1 S2000 2.0L (237hp@8,300rpm/153tq@7,300rpm)
2004 AP2 S2000 2.2L (237hp@7,800rpm/163tq@6,800rpm)

As long as there's a decent low end torque curve, 200 hp from a 2.0L n/a isn't that bad. Just not... aggressive... enough...


[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 1:16 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 1:14:08 AM

my examples clearly seem outlandish, though i havent brought up the 1980s f1 cars pushing 1200+hp out of 1.5L. consider that a carb'd motorcycle, off the dealer floor produced 86hp in 0.6L as early as 1991 - 20 years ago. that's 143hp/L on 20 year old tech. is there something im overlooking that keeps engine power output from scaling with displacement? are emissions laws that detrimental to efficiency? where's ray and dan?

10/31/2011 8:20:06 AM

^^^^It's not just about technology. It's about how much certain materials cost and the driveability of that engine in a daily driven environment, not on the track.

^^^I believe the current F1 engines are 2.4 non-turbo V8s making 700ish hp. Of course they rev to 18,000rpm, way over anything practical for a street application.

^^good list Hiro

^And those F1 engines were stripped down after every race. And a comparison to motorcycle engines is ridiculous. This is getting off topic maybe this discussion should be moved to the "technical ramblings" thread.

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 8:23 AM. Reason : k]

10/31/2011 8:22:01 AM

100 hp/liter from an NA engine, especially in a small car, is pretty good... not many examples of that among production cars today.

BMW 335i makes what 300 hp from a TWIN TURBO 3 liter engine? Yes I know, they make more than that actually, but my point stands. 100 hp/liter was what cars made with twin turbos back in the day (Supra, 300ZX, 3000GT VR4), and now cars are starting to make that without any FI.

That's progress.

10/31/2011 8:37:32 AM

Quote :

"And a comparison to motorcycle engines is ridiculous."

why is it ridiculous? they use the same internal combustion, are made of materials that are obviously cheap enough and durable enough handle low cost mass production AND very high forces and speeds. why are we forced to accept what's commonly or not so commonly available as being sufficient, let alone good? "just because" doesn't cut it. if you can speak to why the comparison is flawed, do so.

10/31/2011 8:41:27 AM

motorcycles engines make more unit power than car engines, even today. they spin to 12000 rpm.

car engines should be compared with car engines, truck with truck, bike with bike, etc.

(different purposes, different priorities for power output and delivery)

10/31/2011 8:51:39 AM

^^motorcycle engines produce very little torque. They don't work in cars.

10/31/2011 9:43:39 AM

Official technical specifications have been leaked.

200ps (197hp) @ 7000rpm
151 lb-ft torque @ 6600rpm
1210kg weight (base version)
1230kg weight (uplevel package)

10/31/2011 11:16:17 AM

I'm going to go ahead and say it- rules, regulations, and speculation have killed any chance of seeing a proper small sports car being ever mass produced again.

10/31/2011 12:07:11 PM

^I mostly agree, however the next generation Miata is said to be 2200lbs or so. And it still is a proper sports car.

10/31/2011 1:00:36 PM

maybe if it had a real roof

10/31/2011 1:14:50 PM

^

10/31/2011 6:13:24 PM

Quote :

"rules, regulations, and speculation have killed any chance of seeing a proper small sports car being ever mass produced again."

lotus elise/exige? small, light, bare-necessities-style interior, awesome bucket seats, mid/rear layout, peppy motor (some with a supercharged 2ZZ)... obviously not as cheap as a miata, but it oughtta be mentioned before saying small proper sports cars are killed.

Quote :

"This is getting off topic maybe this discussion should be moved to the "technical ramblings" thread."

but srsly. i'm interested to see if the stripped down FT86 base model will be sold here in the US. it seems a lot closer to what i'd want in a car, aka as few crazy new electronic controls as possible.

11/1/2011 12:02:19 AM

Quote :

"lotus elise/exige? "

not exactly mass produced

11/1/2011 12:11:54 AM

Quote :

"lotus elise/exige? "

More like not produced at all anymore (for the NA market).

11/1/2011 12:42:11 AM

^yeah, and the new model is going to be 300lbs or so heavier

NEW Subaru BRZ STI (concept) pics!






Looks pretty sweet, though it is just a "concept" supposedly. 18" wheels, Brembo brakes and an uprated suspension are apparently what sets it apart? The engine is supposedly untouched, so a quad exhaust for a 200hp 4 cylinder engine seems pretty ricer to me. I'm usually not a fan of big wings but I think that one looks pretty good. Wonder if it's adjustable for downforce?

I might be more inclined to buy the Subaru version if this is the styling...

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 10:49 AM. Reason : added pic]

11/1/2011 10:47:46 AM

Quote :

"I might be more inclined to buy the Subaru version if this is the styling..."

styling aside, i'd already be more inclined to buy the Subaru to avoid being seen with a Scion badge

11/1/2011 12:21:25 PM

looks very RS-8ish from that last angle

I like that styling, though

11/1/2011 12:22:49 PM

^what's an RS-8?

^^yeah if I got the Scion version the first thing I'd do is replace the badging.

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM. Reason : also, lol at a Subaru badge being a source of pride?]

11/1/2011 12:47:14 PM

Apparently Motor Trend has already driven it. "Off the Chart: Subaru Nails it With a Nimble, Intriguing Sports Car"

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1112_2013_subaru_brz_prototype_first_drive/

11/1/2011 3:38:12 PM

^Yeah they drove it back in May (it being a prototype). All the specs they list are hearsay. What is stated above is more factual. Still, mostly good things in the write up!

11/1/2011 3:43:05 PM

Typo

RX-8

11/1/2011 6:36:57 PM

I think i would rather spend my e money on a CRZ.

Yeah i said it.

11/1/2011 7:09:51 PM

^you were always one for outrageous statements.

New Brochure/technical document scans of the Subaru BRZ (translated)!

To summarize:

Key Info:

460mm from ground to the center of the crank/gravity (low CG)
53:47 F/R weight split
0.27 Cd (coefficient of drag)
D-4S DI engine tech (direct injection pairs with secondary EFI)
1,998cc Displacement
200 HP
151.2 ft-lbs torque
7400rpm redline
12.5:1 Compression ratio
86mm x 86mm bore/stroke
Mcpherson front suspension / Double wishbone rear
Rear seats fold (as one unit)
Cup holders can slide / be removed
Can carry 4 tires in rear









I especially like the last image, with the diagram of 4 tires, a tool box and a helmet being shown to all fit in the car

11/3/2011 8:36:47 AM

Direct injector... idles the car and runs it lean for fuel economy savings....


Port injector... so you can modify the car to exceed the capacity of the direct injector without having to pay $texas for a new or modified set of direct injectors...


GG toyobaru.


But why the hell did you leave the engine so far forward... you could move it back another... 12 inches and not have to use shift linkage... just directly row the tranny. (and make it a true Mid-Rear car)



[Edited on November 3, 2011 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .]

11/3/2011 11:12:20 AM

Yeah, I agree the engine location is unfortunate. And also note the 53/47 weight distribution is with 2 front seat occupants.

11/3/2011 11:18:00 AM

^^ a car that's designed for track use is going to be wrenched on, frequently. why would you want it to be a COMPLETE asspain to work on?

11/3/2011 11:54:08 AM