follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook.
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Xero Limit
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Scion FR-S Forum | Subaru BRZ Forum | Toyota 86 GT 86 Forum | AS1 Forum - FT86CLUB > Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 > Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum

Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum The place to start for the Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 | GT86


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-04-2019, 01:58 PM   #169
EAGLE5
Dismember
 
EAGLE5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Drives: 2013 Red Scion FR-S
Location: Castro Valley
Posts: 5,081
Thanks: 1,956
Thanked 3,507 Times in 1,931 Posts
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Garage
Beefing up components adds weight and expense while lowering efficiency and stock power. You either go big or go home. The Supra TT, bless its heart, was stout but overpriced. It sold so well, they killed the model for 17 years.
EAGLE5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 02:06 PM   #170
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, Ca
Posts: 2,383
Thanks: 1,487
Thanked 1,067 Times in 717 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by weederr33 View Post
I have been a supporter of leaving the power the same but beefing up the internals and transmission. It would really help since the owner can then do what they like. I know beefing the transmission would add weight but that could be compensated in other ways I'm sure.


I would take an extra <50lbs from the T56 Magnum for 700ftlbs of torque capability, which would be low and central in the car. For an extra 25lbs, I would take a transmission that would be between that rating and the rating of our transmission, which is probably less than half of that transmission.
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 02:13 PM   #171
Clutch Dog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Drives: 2017 BRZ PP , 2005 Saab 97X
Location: CA
Posts: 934
Thanks: 673
Thanked 647 Times in 361 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
I would take an extra <50lbs from the T56 Magnum for 700ftlbs of torque capability, which would be low and central in the car. For an extra 25lbs, I would take a transmission that would be between that rating and the rating of our transmission, which is probably less than half of that transmission.
Our current trans is 250 ft lbs rated. which is pretty stout really.

anything between the T56 would be a standard non magnum which i think is 450 ft lbs. or a CD009



the next upgrade would be the AC6 which aisin also makes and thats rated for 450 Ft lbs and uses 90% of already tech'd Aisin products

https://www.aisin-aw.co.jp/en/produc...lineup/mt.html
Clutch Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Clutch Dog For This Useful Post:
Irace86.2.0 (10-04-2019)
Old 10-04-2019, 02:24 PM   #172
Tcoat
He who smelt it...
 
Tcoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Drives: 14 FRS Hot Lava
Location: London, Ont
Posts: 57,305
Thanks: 50,858
Thanked 80,736 Times in 36,343 Posts
Mentioned: 2093 Post(s)
Tagged: 49 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimon7777 View Post
Beefing up components adds weight and expense while lowering efficiency and stock power. You either go big or go home. The Supra TT, bless its heart, was stout but overpriced. It sold so well, they killed the model for 17 years.
It is also something that maybe 5% of the new car buyers would have any interest in at all. Our perception of the average buyer is skewed by the number of modders on this forum. The reality is that the vast majority will never see anything beyond 20HP over stock levels. Hell, even on this forum the guys pushing 300hp or more are a tiny minority. To build a stock engine in an economy sports car to cater to such a small segment of the buyers would be financial suicide.
__________________
Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar, because Racecar.
Tcoat is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tcoat For This Useful Post:
Dadhawk (10-04-2019), WolfpackS2k (10-09-2019)
Old 10-04-2019, 02:35 PM   #173
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, Ca
Posts: 2,383
Thanks: 1,487
Thanked 1,067 Times in 717 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimon7777 View Post
Beefing up components adds weight and expense while lowering efficiency and stock power. You either go big or go home. The Supra TT, bless its heart, was stout but overpriced. It sold so well, they killed the model for 17 years.


They increased the structural support a little for My17+, which did little to price, and it required engine recastings. I don't know, but since you mentioned the Supra, was the BMW N55 with an open deck and weaker aluminum much cheaper to produce than the B58 with a closed block and more modern metallurgy and coatings?


My thoughts are they could either take the FA24 and spend the money to design a D4S system that integrates with that engine and what not, which will require new engine molds, wiring harness, tuning, etc, or they could not change a thing on the current engine, except have stronger rods and pistons, and perhaps lighter, yet stronger components. Even if it required more exotic materials, the cost could be cheaper than the other option.
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 02:41 PM   #174
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, Ca
Posts: 2,383
Thanks: 1,487
Thanked 1,067 Times in 717 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch Dog View Post
Our current trans is 250 ft lbs rated. which is pretty stout really.

anything between the T56 would be a standard non magnum which i think is 450 ft lbs. or a CD009



the next upgrade would be the AC6 which aisin also makes and thats rated for 450 Ft lbs and uses 90% of already tech'd Aisin products

https://www.aisin-aw.co.jp/en/produc...lineup/mt.html


Ooooo, re-read. You missed something.
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 02:45 PM   #175
Tcoat
He who smelt it...
 
Tcoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Drives: 14 FRS Hot Lava
Location: London, Ont
Posts: 57,305
Thanks: 50,858
Thanked 80,736 Times in 36,343 Posts
Mentioned: 2093 Post(s)
Tagged: 49 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
They increased the structural support a little for My17+, which did little to price, and it required engine recastings. I don't know, but since you mentioned the Supra, was the BMW N55 with an open deck and weaker aluminum much cheaper to produce than the B58 with a closed block and more modern metallurgy and coatings?


My thoughts are they could either take the FA24 and spend the money to design a D4S system that integrates with that engine and what not, which will require new engine molds, wiring harness, tuning, etc, or they could not change a thing on the current engine, except have stronger rods and pistons, and perhaps lighter, yet stronger components. Even if it required more exotic materials, the cost could be cheaper than the other option.
But as I said before this would only benefit a small minority. It would not sell more cars for them.
__________________
Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar, because Racecar.
Tcoat is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tcoat For This Useful Post:
Dadhawk (10-04-2019), TunaNoCrust (10-04-2019)
Old 10-04-2019, 02:45 PM   #176
EAGLE5
Dismember
 
EAGLE5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Drives: 2013 Red Scion FR-S
Location: Castro Valley
Posts: 5,081
Thanks: 1,956
Thanked 3,507 Times in 1,931 Posts
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
They increased the structural support a little for My17+, which did little to price, and it required engine recastings. I don't know, but since you mentioned the Supra, was the BMW N55 with an open deck and weaker aluminum much cheaper to produce than the B58 with a closed block and more modern metallurgy and coatings?


My thoughts are they could either take the FA24 and spend the money to design a D4S system that integrates with that engine and what not, which will require new engine molds, wiring harness, tuning, etc, or they could not change a thing on the current engine, except have stronger rods and pistons, and perhaps lighter, yet stronger components. Even if it required more exotic materials, the cost could be cheaper than the other option.
@Tcoat actually works in the supplier industry. I think he had his say.

Take an M3. Replace the turbos with the 340i turbos. Make it NA but keep all the other parts upgraded. Think it's going to go for a 340i price? No.
It'll save like $500. Think people would prefer that over the actual upgraded M3? Sure, like 50 people in the world would go for that variant, since they were going to upgrade the turbos anyway.
EAGLE5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 03:17 PM   #177
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, Ca
Posts: 2,383
Thanks: 1,487
Thanked 1,067 Times in 717 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcoat View Post
It is also something that maybe 5% of the new car buyers would have any interest in at all. Our perception of the average buyer is skewed by the number of modders on this forum. The reality is that the vast majority will never see anything beyond 20HP over stock levels. Hell, even on this forum the guys pushing 300hp or more are a tiny minority. To build a stock engine in an economy sports car to cater to such a small segment of the buyers would be financial suicide.


This is totally logical. I get the bean counters argument against supply and demand.


The question is what could they do?


1. Do nothing. This is unlikely.


2. Turbocharge the FA20. This is less likely because it would likely require beefier components and add significant weight in all drivetrain components. Even though they are redesigning the chassis, the same limitations could exist with packaging a low, rear-set engine with a turbocharger system.


3. Swap to the FA24. This is likely because the motor will probably be more powerful and slightly stronger, but the motor might be heavier and have a lower redline. A transmission upgrade will likely be required. With a slightly lower redline and a 94mm bore, is it a GT86 any longer? If they drop the rear seats and move the engine and driver seat back then I could see this working to avoid more weight disruption.


4. Improve reliability on the current engine/drivetrain, while also making the car a better platform for power/tuners.


While I see your point against the last possibility, for the same argument, would the other options appeal to the masses any better if they really don't care about more power, especially on this platform, right? You say most don't have much modifications in power. That would suggest most don't care about more power.


I could imagine buyers appreciating more reliability, whether that is for daily driving, driving the stock car on the track, or whether they want reliable power upgrades; it works for everyone. It is all in how they market those improvements.
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Irace86.2.0 For This Useful Post:
Tcoat (10-04-2019)
Old 10-04-2019, 03:33 PM   #178
Dadhawk
1st86 Driver!
 
Dadhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Drives: "Olivia" my Firestorm 6AT FR-S
Location: Powder Springs, GA
Posts: 12,854
Thanks: 22,916
Thanked 12,674 Times in 6,217 Posts
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
You say most don't have much modifications in power. That would suggest most don't care about more power.
I don't think the two necessarily follow. 99% of car buyers (a statistical fact that I just made up) buy their power at the dealership. More power there could sell more cars, as there are car buyers who passed on the car because it was "only" 200HP and no upgrade options were available.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
I could imagine buyers appreciating more reliability, whether that is for daily driving, driving the stock car on the track, or whether they want reliable power upgrades; it works for everyone. It is all in how they market those improvements.
But how do you prove a car is more reliable at this level until the variant has been on the market for 5 years or more? A new version is not going to be intrinsically more reliable just because you change it. That isn't going to sell cars upfront.
__________________

Visit my Owner's Journal where I wax philosophic on all things FR-S
Post your 86 or see others in front of a(n) (in)famous landmark.
What fits in your 86? Show us the "Junk In Your Trunk".
Dadhawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 03:34 PM   #179
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, Ca
Posts: 2,383
Thanks: 1,487
Thanked 1,067 Times in 717 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimon7777 View Post
@Tcoat actually works in the supplier industry. I think he had his say.

Take an M3. Replace the turbos with the 340i turbos. Make it NA but keep all the other parts upgraded. Think it's going to go for a 340i price? No.
It'll save like $500. Think people would prefer that over the actual upgraded M3? Sure, like 50 people in the world would go for that variant, since they were going to upgrade the turbos anyway.


I see it similar to the Supra... 335hp/365tq quoted on the motor, yet it put that or more down to the wheels. That doesn't seem like the best advertising if quoted, stock power is what matters most to buyers. Current bolt-ons put the power at over 600whp, which does nothing for anyone planning to leave it stock, so again, why do so much to overbuild the motor if the average buyer is going to keep the car stock or minimally modify the car? Obviously this is good news for those hoping to modify the car and/or for those wanting good reliability. Yes, the Supra has a legacy to maintain, but this doesn't really fit much with the bean counters.


Similarly, they could bump the power up 20hp/tq, but would that change much for the current shoppers or sway anyone from the higher horsepower community if most 86 owners aren't going for much more power anyways?
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 04:06 PM   #180
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, Ca
Posts: 2,383
Thanks: 1,487
Thanked 1,067 Times in 717 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dadhawk View Post
I don't think the two necessarily follow. 99% of car buyers (a statistical fact that I just made up) buy their power at the dealership. More power there could sell more cars, as there are car buyers who passed on the car because it was "only" 200HP and no upgrade options were available.

But how do you prove a car is more reliable at this level until the variant has been on the market for 5 years or more? A new version is not going to be intrinsically more reliable just because you change it. That isn't going to sell cars upfront.


I don't know about that. Did the extra 5hp in the MY17+ models sway more people to buy manual transmissions instead of automatics? Would another 5hp sway anyone to consider the 86 platform over something else? This motor is close to being tapped for NA power.


Adding a turbo means adding structural integrity, as a necessity for reliability, so adding a turbo would get what I am asking, plus more cost/weight, which is harder to sell for an entry level sports car.


A FA24 will likely not rev as high, so power will be down from that, but there is more torque overall, so power will be up overall. For consideration, the K20A2 made 200hp and 143tq at 11.0:1 compression. The K24A2 made 197hp and 171tq at 10.5:1, so I could see the FA24 being similar, with a decent bump in torque, but less of a bump in horsepower, proportionally. Would 15-20hp and 25tq be enough to persuade more to buy a 86? I don't know. Personally, I would rather see more reliability and potential.


The marketing at the dealership is where that comes in. They won't be winning any oooo's and ahhhhh's by advertising/boasting about a 225hp 86. I doubt any power bumps will be a central part of the advertising. They will focus on the feel and emotion the 86 invokes, sticking to their bread and butter. Many more cars offer more power, sometimes even for cheaper.
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 04:09 PM   #181
Irace86.2.0
Senior Member
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, Ca
Posts: 2,383
Thanks: 1,487
Thanked 1,067 Times in 717 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch Dog View Post
Our current trans is 250 ft lbs rated. which is pretty stout really.

anything between the T56 would be a standard non magnum which i think is 450 ft lbs. or a CD009



the next upgrade would be the AC6 which aisin also makes and thats rated for 450 Ft lbs and uses 90% of already tech'd Aisin products

https://www.aisin-aw.co.jp/en/produc...lineup/mt.html


Did you figure it out?
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 04:26 PM   #182
Clutch Dog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Drives: 2017 BRZ PP , 2005 Saab 97X
Location: CA
Posts: 934
Thanks: 673
Thanked 647 Times in 361 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
Did you figure it out?
Im not sure what Im missing


T56 Magnum 700 ft lbs
T56 standard viper 550 ft lbs
CD009 cant find official numbners but its commonly known 500 "whp" with sloppy shifting can bend em up
AC6 450 ft lbs
AZ6 250 ft lbs (the one we use) though people are suggesting its more like 300 ft lbs
Clutch Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BRZ/FR-S Second Generation? JGalp Subaru BRZ General Forum 17 02-06-2015 02:32 PM
Do you think there will be a second generation FRS? NikostC Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum 23 05-25-2012 08:18 PM
Next generation Wrx info sparrowhawk Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions 10 03-25-2012 10:33 AM
first generation model Audi Subaru BRZ General Forum 7 01-06-2012 11:58 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.