Official: Toyota FT-1 Concept / First New Supra Prototype Spotted!

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

I value an inherently harmonically balanced and refined engine optimized for smooth and reliable power deliver without the weight, complexity and drag of using balance shafts or larger counterweights.

I think the original fathers of the Supra, GTR and most BMWs value performance over accountants and eco freaks pushing V6s. I don't think anyone expects the Supra to be a go-kart, they expect massive reliable power, lots of speed , lots of aero efficiency and downforce, and tons of sheer mechanical grip. And a cockpit built around the driver.

People want this car to be tunable or factory competitive with the ZR1, ACR Viper, GTR, 911. Not the Elise, Miata, or even 86.

Nissan is the only factory supercar using a V6. Largely because it was cost effective for them.

Btw, those two extra cylinders (not 3) hanging off the back are at the least critical point of the polar moment being more centered to the car which is more than offset by the rear mounted transmission. I'll take the smooth turbine like revs of an I6 anyday over a V6. If they do that they need only make the block as robust or more robust than the 2JZ and everyone will cry for joy!

Plus longer cars have more capability to maintain high speed aerodynamic stability over shorter cars. Look at Le Mans cars and GT cars like the NSX, Corvette, Viper, and Aston. Those are cars built for high speed endurance races.

We're car guys and we want what we want, not what environmentalists want (for once).

theres a lot in this post that i dont agree with and thats quite alright but this part has nothing to do with how long or heavy the motor is.

[NemesisPrime909]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

News about the FT1 definitely makes it sound like a GTR rival even though it was said it would not be. It was really hard thinking of the Supra not being a GTR rival.

If they could manage a stout TT I-6 with that Ferrari FF derived AWD, that would be superb. A V6 would be just too easy and common.

well i believe Tada already said it will be FR-layout, as that's more fun


as for engines, we still have no idea though the general consensus is that it will be 6-cylinder, whether or not it's I or V has yet to be determined.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by fatoni

theres a lot in this post that i dont agree with and thats quite alright but this part has nothing to do with how long or heavy the motor is.

No, how long the motor is has to do with how long the car is.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

No, how long the motor is has to do with how long the car is.

no it doesnt. i mean a long motor forces you to have a longer car but a short motor doesnt mean you cant have a longer car so i dont see how its a relevant point of information

[NemesisPrime909]

Originally Posted by fatoni

no it doesnt. i mean a long motor forces you to have a longer car but a short motor doesnt mean you cant have a longer car so i dont see how its a relevant point of information

Like every rectangle is a square, but every square isn't a rectangle.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by NemesisPrime909

Like every rectangle is a square, but every square isn't a rectangle.

so close haha

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by fatoni

no it doesnt. i mean a long motor forces you to have a longer car but a short motor doesnt mean you cant have a longer car so i dont see how its a relevant point of information

It's a relevant counterpoint to you. I thought your whole point was you wanted a V6 for a shorter car with better handling. Or did you change your mind?

That's a uniquely odd hypothetical. Got any real examples of production cars with long hoods and short blocks?

Since we are in the BS hypothetical game, I guess nothing says Toyota wont fit a turbine or a diesel under the hood of the FT1. Anyone else care to join in this stupid game and ruin the thread?

[Levi]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

I want to see proof or evidence of your claim because it goes against everything factual.

Explanation of some engine physics:

http://www.examiner.com/article/inli...ntages-of-both

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...7093446AAweJJo

There's a quote out there somewhere years ago from the BMW CEO that they would never put a V6 in a BMW as the idea is abhorrent to them.

I6s are cheaper based on parts cost, but V6s are cheaper in another sense because one unit can be used across the entire model range (including FWD and FWD based AWD systems) so the sheer volume and simplicity of making one engine for all your cars reduces overall costs due to economies of scale and simplifies the number of production lines. V6s simply offer more packaging and power flexibility and compliance with emissions and pedestrian safety regulations.

The argument you are making is that some companies offer a I4 so using an I6 as a base allows companies to produce modularly based I4s and I3s saving development costs. But this was the same argument for producing V6s too, they were modular designs cut down from V12s and V8s. You just slash off how many cylinders you don't want. If a company wanting to produce cheap I3s means they go back to making I6s, I'm all for it. There are real performance advantages to doing so.

Btw, those BMW I-6s have a lot of magnesium alloy running through them. Not cheap...

There are advantages and disadvantage for both V6 and I6 engine. But the main reason for BMW to choose I6 is for costs reaons. The good thing is that unlike turbocharged engines and M SUV or other aspects, I6 does not go into conflict with BMW's heritage.

Then about V6 engines in FWD cars I cannot think of a single car, excpet the Toyota and Honda which are yet using old NA V6 engines. When the FI I4 engines will be out, there will not be any FWD-based car with V6.

BMW's modular engine plan was showed in a investors presentation in 2013. Mercedes also took over this strategy, and has gone even more far by building using the main components for the V8 engine too, but I have not found the official statement to show you. There is a possibility Toyota would do the same to keep its place as world leader. VAG already does that, and long time ago, especially for the engines V6-V8-V10, which a all from the same familly.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by Levi

Then about V6 engines in FWD cars I cannot think of a single car, excpet the Toyota and Honda which are yet using old NA V6 engines.

When the FI I4 engines will be out, there will not be any FWD-based car with V6.

You forgot Nissan, perhaps the biggest V6 dependent. Altima, Maxima, etc. There's also Hyundai, and various GM FWD V6s from the past (Buick, Cadillac), VW also had the VR6 in FWD.

These companies have used FI turbos in the past many years ago and ditched them. There is no set 'future' just history which is cyclical.

[NemesisPrime909]

Originally Posted by fatoni

so close haha

no need to laugh, we all make mistakes

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by fatoni

I just assume that the people on this forum value handling and the extra two or three cylinders hanging off the front of the car isn't worth the minimal benefits an i6 has to offer

Supras got better F:R weight distribution (and room for double wishbones up front) with a long iron block L6 than the twins did with their short aluminium H4 in roughly the same wheelbase...

[Hachiroku]

The FT-1 has just aired on Jay Leno's Garage. Check out the video and share your comments at sister site FT1CLUB

http://www.ft1club.com/forums/showth...ay-Leno-Garage



Looks beautiful under his garage lights.

[Hachiroku]

Check it out and share your comments at sister site FT1CLUB

http://www.ft1club.com/forums/showth...ay-Leno-Garage

Looks beautiful under his garage lights.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Supras got better F:R weight distribution (and room for double wishbones up front) with a long iron block L6 than the twins did with their short aluminium H4 in roughly the same wheelbase...

im also not a fan of the h4 in this application as it sits remarkable far forward in the engine bay. its not a big deal as i feel execution can far outweigh theoretical potential