More confirmation from Toyota on next gen 86

[mrg666]

There are two main requests here, after more power of course, eliminate torque dip and a 8000 rpm higher-rev engine. Although people are annoyed by the torque dip so much, they are still not willing to work around that torque dip just by down shifting. Then, higher-rev engine another common request here? Maybe the requests are coming from different groups.

If there will be a next generation twin, I think FA20DIT would be the most technically practical and economically feasible engine upgrade. They could just eliminate D4S, hi-rev, hi-compression and go with plain FA20DIT straight from Subaru.

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

Not a Toybaru, a straight up Toyota.

I firmly believe that if the 86 was fully toyota it would have gone down in history like the MX5.

Lets see what's available in 2 years time?

Disclaimer: Whilst I am harsh with my critique I have enjoyed my experience with my 86.

I also acknowledge the reasoning of why Toyota and Subaru penny pinches thought it would be a good idea the collaborate to build a cheap sports car, it's just that I think it's a cop out.

At least the Zupra doesn't have a boxer.

I love that boxer in my car. It is still running like a champ even at 300hp. I cannot imagine a better engine in my car.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Docdoc

I personally like your out side of the box thinking on increasing low end torque and add some HP. However, a system like that has some huge trade off's. One being it turns it into a bit of a hybrid in the sense that the same motor will need to recoup energy to recharge the batteries during braking or deceleration. Also the motor, motor controller, charging circuits, and mostly batteries all add weight/complexity to what is suppose to be a light/simple vehicle. They will unlikely go with this options as it will significantly raise the price as well. I'm afraid "for now" performance based hybrids are still in high end and super car territory.



Docdoc

I think it's very plausible financially and potentially lightweight.

I remember Tada told Road and Track in late 2012 they can cut up to 100kg out of the chassis without exotic materials. That leaves 220lbs extra for a mild hybrid system.

Honda made the CR-Z on the Fit platform. The 2nd gen fit at it's lightest weighs 2496lbs, the CRZ 2657.
161lbs difference. That buys you 14hp and 58lb-ft of Torque. 20hp and 70lb-ft for the more powerful battery introduced in 2012 (I used 2012 curb weights).

Keep in mind this is with 10 year old battery tech. The current fit hybrid adds even less weight. And the CRZ sold for 23k in today's money.

All in all with batteries getting more powerful and cheaper to produce I think it's very plausible to get an FA20 + flywheel mounted motor powered 86 that weighs more or less the same (perhaps even a bit less) as the current car, but with more weight over the rear end, and crucially for a similar price as the current car. And it meshes well with Subarus E-boxer plans.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

I think it's very plausible financially and potentially lightweight.

I remember Tada told Road and Track in late 2012 they can cut up to 100kg out of the chassis without exotic materials. That leaves 220lbs extra for a mild hybrid system.

Honda made the CR-Z on the Fit platform. The 2nd gen fit at it's lightest weighs 2496lbs, the CRZ 2657.
161lbs difference. That buys you 14hp and 58lb-ft of Torque. 20hp and 70lb-ft for the more powerful battery introduced in 2012 (I used 2012 curb weights).

Keep in mind this is with 10 year old battery tech. The current fit hybrid adds even less weight. And the CRZ sold for 23k in today's money.

All in all with batteries getting more powerful and cheaper to produce I think it's very plausible to get an FA20 + flywheel mounted motor powered 86 that weighs more or less the same (perhaps even a bit less) as the current car, but with more weight over the rear end, and crucially for a similar price as the current car. And it meshes well with Subarus E-boxer plans.

To use lighter materials, even non exotics, you are going to add substantial cost. Nik's thought may be up the right alley but losses points on either weight gain or price. They can keep the price pt and increase the weight or they an maintain the weight and charge more money. You are not going to see both.

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

To use lighter materials, even non exotics, you are going to add substantial cost. Nik's thought may be up the right alley but losses points on either weight gain or price. They can keep the price pt and increase the weight or they an maintain the weight and charge more money. You are not going to see both.

Was literally about to make this point. I suspect the next gen car will be heavier, have more power and be a bit more expensive. In the end, it will be a bit faster than the current car but not overwhelmingly so. People would be trading into the new model, not because it's so much better/faster but just because the existing cars are getting old, more than anything.

I'm beginning to wonder if we will see a 3rd refresh of the existing cars before the next gen cars come out because all signs point to them not being close to ready to reveal the next gen car yet and I don't think they would want more than a year gap of no release for these cars because then they run the risk of ending the venture all-together because once something stops, it's very hard to get going again.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Lynxis

Was literally about to make this point. I suspect the next gen car will be heavier, have more power and be a bit more expensive. In the end, it will be a bit faster than the current car but not overwhelmingly so. People would be trading into the new model, not because it's so much better/faster but just because the existing cars are getting old, more than anything.



I'm beginning to wonder if we will see a 3rd refresh of the existing cars before the next gen cars come out because all signs point to them not being close to ready to reveal the next gen car yet and I don't think they would want more than a year gap of no release for these cars because then they run the risk of ending the venture all-together because once something stops, it's very hard to get going again.

I'd be all for a second refresh that introduces mild hybridization to pass emissions and offsets some of the weight by going plastic fenders/trunk. If they do another refresh as opposed to a full redesign, that saves NRE costs that can be spent on drivetrain upgrades. Also I am willing to bet beer money on that they can remove 50kg from the existing car without touching panel materials. They did not fully optimize the structure and body, there are always shortcuts made on the design/engineering side, 99% of the time because of schedule pressure. Those shortcuts usually involve throwing weight at a structure to avoid doing more analysis of problem areas.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

I'd be all for a second refresh that introduces mild hybridization to pass emissions and offsets some of the weight by going plastic fenders/trunk. If they do another refresh as opposed to a full redesign, that saves NRE costs that can be spent on drivetrain upgrades. Also I am willing to bet beer money on that they can remove 50kg from the existing car without touching panel materials. They did not fully optimize the structure and body, there are always shortcuts made on the design/engineering side, 99% of the time because of schedule pressure. Those shortcuts usually involve throwing weight at a structure to avoid doing more analysis of problem areas.

The last update added weight. They can only go so far with weight reduction and meet costs. They were not in a rush and didn't skip engineering to meet deadlines. They made it as light as they could while meeting costs.
This is the interior of a car where he has shed 400 pounds. You really think they can shed 200 while meeting the crash requirements and basic customer expectations? All the plastic fenders in the world are not going to shed that much.
Actually as soon as the batteries for a hybrid get into the mix they are going to have to beef of the crash standards not reduce them.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

They were not in a rush and didn't skip engineering to meet deadlines.

Where is the sarcasm tag here? I've never been at a company or project where 2 years of work didn't have to get done in 18 months. I need to switch to automotive if that's not the case there!

Granted, my work is in aerospace, but we regularly leave 10-15% extra weight on the table because schedule pressure or scope change doesn't allow for enough testing or analysis. Throwing material at it is easy and fast, but it costs a lot of weight. I'm sure there are low stress areas in the body and chassis that were thickened up because there was a stress concentration in a corner or near a boundary condition and they didn't have 2 weeks to finesse the geometry and re-analyze 6-7 iterations. Instead they thickened the panel half a mm and moved on.

[Ultramaroon]

cheap
light
strong


Pick two.

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Where is the sarcasm tag here? I've never been at a company or project where 2 years of work didn't have to get done in 18 months. I need to switch to automotive if that's not the case there!

Granted, my work is in aerospace, but we regularly leave 10-15% extra weight on the table because schedule pressure or scope change doesn't allow for enough testing or analysis. Throwing material at it is easy and fast, but it costs a lot of weight. I'm sure there are low stress areas in the body and chassis that were thickened up because there was a stress concentration in a corner or near a boundary condition and they didn't have 2 weeks to finesse the geometry and re-analyze 6-7 iterations. Instead thickened the panel half a mm and moved on.

I don't doubt that is the case, even Tada san said he was pretty sure he could drop 150lbs from the existing car but time/cost constraints meant it couldn't be done in time. Unfortunately, once something is in production, making major changes to the manufacturing line that would facilitate such weight loss is an expensive venture so I wouldn't expect them to be capable of doing so in a model refresh but possibly with the next generation platform, although I expect the other technology they will have to employ to meet stricter emissions and crash standards by then will increase weight at least as much.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Where is the sarcasm tag here? I've never been at a company or project where 2 years of work didn't have to get done in 18 months. I need to switch to automotive if that's not the case there!

Granted, my work is in aerospace, but we regularly leave 10-15% extra weight on the table because schedule pressure or scope change doesn't allow for enough testing or analysis. Throwing material at it is easy and fast, but it costs a lot of weight. I'm sure there are low stress areas in the body and chassis that were thickened up because there was a stress concentration in a corner or near a boundary condition and they didn't have 2 weeks to finesse the geometry and re-analyze 6-7 iterations. Instead thickened the panel half a mm and moved on.

Originally Posted by Lynxis

I don't doubt that is the case, even Tada san said he was pretty sure he could drop 150lbs from the existing car but time/cost constraints meant it couldn't be done in time. Unfortunately, once something is in production, making major changes to the manufacturing line that would facilitate such weight loss is an expensive venture so I wouldn't expect them to be capable of doing so in a model refresh but possibly with the next generation platform, although I expect the other technology they will have to employ to meet stricter emissions and crash standards by then will increase weight at least as much.

They did not leave a bunch of things on the table because they had to finish that Friday. Is there always room for tweaks? Sure but cars are not designed on a "Ummm close enough" basis.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

They did not leave a bunch of things on the table because they had to finish that Friday. Is there always room for tweaks? Sure but cars are not designed on a "Ummm close enough" basis.

But they changed the engine wiring harness after the first year. And the valve stem length. And the window switches (smaller indexing). And the tail light gaskets. And the radio. And the kneepads. And that's just the stuff I can remember off the top of my head.

Don't forget the TSBs like the ECU calibration to not fry the DI seals.

They absolutely leave stuff on the table because it needs to be done Monday before OOB. That's why revisions are a thing in engineering. If it meets requirements it releases on the deadline.

I do agree that it's likely that a second gen will gain weight, but it might not. Guess I'm still optimistic about the possibilities. With this being an emotional car I expect the team to try harder that on let's say, the next Camry. But they again at enthusiasts we tend to skew things in favor of what we want to see.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Sure but cars are not designed on a "Ummm close enough" basis.

I know what you mean but especially in the context of this argument, feel it's important to point out that "close enough" is literally what engineering is.

close enough = requirements met

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

I know what you mean but especially in the context of this argument, feel it's important to point out that "close enough" is literally what engineering is.

close enough = requirements met

Exactly. And weight requirements are the first ones to loosen up when schedule pressure rises.