Toyota and Subaru Officially Confirm Second Gen 86! (September 27, 2019)

[why?]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

How “easily”? You have some engineering spec you can share? Why did they use a BMW engine in the Supra if they can just drop any old engine in?
It will be another boxer if not just a tweaked version of the same one.

That of course depends on what they are willing to spend, and if they want to deal with it or not. They used a bmw engine in the Supra because they wanted a straight 6.

If they are already planning on an na 2.4 boxer then they obviously are fine with it. Subaru can get at least 200 hp and 175 lb ft of torque out of that engine.

Originally Posted by Spuds

The Supra has less ground clearance. Also, I imagine it's floor and tunnel are quite dense since those parts are probably shared with a convertible.

Same reason a Tesla has a low CG. Besides, a more useful measurement would be roll torque, but that is more complicated to explain so marketing doesn't talk about it if they even understand it.

exactly. And that is why a boxer is harmful. If they can get a lower cg in the Supra, they can also do it in the 86, and with a i4 that actually has some torque and gives them space to have a better front suspension.

[RayRay88]

Something tells me the boxer motor wasn't just for Cg, but also as a cost effective option, think about it the car is a mish mash of Impreza chassis parts, and no doubt they were already developing a new engine architecture and the Toyota involvement offset the cost significantly. Subaru doesn't do non boxer engines anymore so Toyota would bear most of the costs by creating a bespoke engine for this car. So it stands to reason, unless manufacturing switches to Toyota, the new car will keep the boxer.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by RayRay88

Something tells me the boxer motor wasn't just for Cg, but also as a cost effective option, think about it the car is a mish mash of Impreza chassis parts, and no doubt they were already developing a new engine architecture and the Toyota involvement offset the cost significantly. Subaru doesn't do non boxer engines anymore so Toyota would bear most of the costs by creating a bespoke engine for this car. So it stands to reason, unless manufacturing switches to Toyota, the new car will keep the boxer.

And of course if they switch to a Toyota engine and platform it begs the age old question of "is it still really an 86?" At some point the changes are so great that it becomes the model in name only and all comparisons to the old version become a waste of time.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by why?

exactly. And that is why a boxer is harmful. If they can get a lower cg in the Supra, they can also do it in the 86, and with a i4 that actually has some torque and gives them space to have a better front suspension.

Not really my point... If the Supra does actually have a lower cg, which it doesn't, it's due to compromises in the design vs the 86.

The CG in the Supra my be low, but it is overall heavier because the structure is less efficient. This results in a higher roll torque which must be countered by the suspension to maintain responsiveness. Countering this torque requires heavier components and structure which add yet more weight.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And of course if they switch to a Toyota engine and platform it begs the age old question of "is it still really an 86?" At some point the changes are so great that it becomes the model in name only and all comparisons to the old version become a waste of time.

Agh yes, the automotive equivalent of the "Ship of Theseus".

Of course this could be applied to every vehicle. So, in essence, if they should totally change it, it becomes the nameplate that is still in production but not the particular version of the car.

The oldest nameplate still in production is the Chevy Suburban (first produced in 1933) but I don't think anyone would say its the same vehicle.

Not sure what production car would be considered the "same" as its original iteration, or at least a direct descendant. Probably something like a Morgan that is produced more of tradition than "advancement of the species".

Sorry, my undergrad Philosophy degree is showing....

[ben721364]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Thank you! REAL news.




Doubt they will merge.


LOL so now do people think they will see a concept car in October?
"Tokyo, Japan, September 27, 2019―Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) and Subaru Corporation (Subaru) agreed today on a new business and capital alliance with the aim of further developing and strengthening their long-term partnership."

I think it more likely that Toyota swallow Subaru.

[RayRay88]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And of course if they switch to a Toyota engine and platform it begs the age old question of "is it still really an 86?" At some point the changes are so great that it becomes the model in name only and all comparisons to the old version become a waste of time.

True, if we're really nit picking, the 86 moniker comes from the AE86, and although the spirit might be there, the FRZ86 platform is a far cry from the original hot hatch formula of the original Corolla GTS/Sprinter/Trueno.

It's all semantics really, if Subaru and Toyota agreed to continue their partnership it means its going to be another boxer/Subaru heavy chassis. The simple fact of the matter is that Subaru can't sell a non boxer car in their line up. If they can't sell it then what's in it for them really?

[korhun]

https://www.space-electronics.com/Kn...ter_of_gravity
says:

In the automotive industry, the center of gravity height is an essential parameter. The lower the center of gravity is, the more stability the car or truck has. This explains why SUVs have more rollover issues than cars, because they are higher off the road so their center of gravity is higher. Race cars always have a very low center of gravity. Some racing organizations limit the allowable location of the center of gravity height of race cars to keep a fair competition.

I couldn't find a reference, but I remember (from a documentary I guess) Ferrari invest most of its money on how to lower the center of gravity in their cars. (This info can be totally my mind's fabrication but its importance is obvious.)

"BRZ development movie"s nicely explain why a boxer motor is good for a better center of gravity. They are great, do watch them if you haven't already

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ0sDiL87eE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ0sDiL87eE[/ame]
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdZcX7Hawhk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdZcX7Hawhk[/ame]

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

The General Motors Holden plant closed in 2017 because the cars were unreliable and generally rubbish value for money.

The entire Australia domestic auto industry is gone, not for your above reasons (though that may not help), but instead thanks to your government's insane (and fantastical) energy policies.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Agh yes, the automotive equivalent of the "Ship of Theseus".

Of course this could be applied to every vehicle. So, in essence, if they should totally change it, it becomes the nameplate that is still in production but not the particular version of the car.

The oldest nameplate still in production is the Chevy Suburban (first produced in 1933) but I don't think anyone would say its the same vehicle.

Not sure what production car would be considered the "same" as its original iteration, or at least a direct descendant. Probably something like a Morgan that is produced more of tradition than "advancement of the species".

Sorry, my undergrad Philosophy degree is showing....

I was given a model of the USS Constitution for my birthday and am currently doing my deep dive research prior to building. It was interesting to learn that the "oldest" commissioned ship in the world is only 8 to 10% original parts. Sort of a real life example of the thought experiment.





I get the whole idea of maintaining names on very changed products but it still bothers me sometimes. And sometimes it even outright pisses me off!

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I was given a model of the USS Constitution for my birthday and am currently doing my deep dive research prior to building. It was interesting to learn that the "oldest" commissioned ship in the world is only 8 to 10% original parts. Sort of a real life example of the thought experiment.

This very common with restored aircraft, particularly warbirds. I've seen photos of some that were "restored" from basically a completely rusted and flattened hulk where about the only thing reused was the serial number plate and maybe a few bolts and tubes.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

This very common with restored aircraft, particularly warbirds. I've seen photos of some that were "restored" from basically a completely rusted and flattened hulk where about the only thing reused was the serial number plate and maybe a few bolts and tubes.

Yep.
This


Became

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I get the whole idea of maintaining names on very changed products but it still bothers me sometimes. And sometimes it even outright pisses me off!

Yea not a huge fan of this myself. Another example, how are these even close to the same car?

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Not really my point... If the Supra does actually have a lower cg, which it doesn't, it's due to compromises in the design vs the 86.



The CG in the Supra my be low, but it is overall heavier because the structure is less efficient. This results in a higher roll torque which must be countered by the suspension to maintain responsiveness. Countering this torque requires heavier components and structure which add yet more weight.

Because BMW Toyota would have built the car differently, in a perfect financial world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk