Am I the only one who thinks a swapped 86 is no longer an 86?

[Leonardo]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Sorry my Philosophy degree is going to show....

Basically what we are arguing here is the Paradox of Theseus's Ship.

If you have a wooden ship and replace it at one part at a time, at what point is it no longer the same ship? Or, alternatively, if you take the ship apart and reassemble it, it would be the same ship, but what if you take it apart and build two new ships, is one of them still the original ship?

90 second Video Explanation:

This same argument happens with car, warbird and other restorations. At what point is it really the same machine?

I've seen warbirds that have been "rebuilt" for crushed heaps of parts found at the bottom of the ocean or in a glacier, but because it has the original data plate and a few "original" parts it is considered a restored aircraft when in reality its a new plane that used a few old parts and a lot on new ones.

Not sure there really is a true single answer to this.

Exactly! Is it really still the London bridge that is in lake Havana? Or is it like Prince, (RIP) "The bridge formally known as the London bridge", now the lake Havana bridge.

Because I would laugh if someone told me their car was formally known as a FR-S!

[Xxyion]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

I get you, but he's pretty much saying his new parts could outlive him, so they could be more efficient than what we consider normal and healthy. If they are, there is at least the potential (needing to be scientifically proven) that he's capable of more than a pound-for-pound person born with healthy parts.

Kind of like someone taking OEM parts and engineering them to be a bit better. Doesn't change fit or form, but does change (improve) function.

To bring that back to the heart of the thread (no pun intended, promise) that'd be a way to improve the car without making it no longer what it was.

Yes exactly. My point was that i needed these parts to come BACK to what any normal person could do. in that sense i can outperform anyone else who hasnt gone through the surgery who suffers from the same medical condition. In that sense you have completely upgraded me. If you put these same parts in a normal already functioning human being...would it make them better? Well the veins would make them more resilient...but i'm no scientist.

But then again you could take apart the original argument and always keep going deeper. Like swapping our flat 4 for let's say a S2K Engine, it's kinda the same as what they did for me. Both are engines with 4 cylinders. But then you could say oh but one now has a Vtech or that the configuration is different. Basically you could argue this point for infinity.

[Overdrive]

Right. As has been said by Tcoat and others, there's really no right answer to any of this, just a lot of opinions/ideals/biases.

You're pretty much on your way to becoming the $6million Man. Cue the sound effect!

[ST185RC]

Does the 2JZGTE in a sedan make the supra any less of a supra? Does the FA20 platform in a wrx make it an 86?

Manufacturers have been mixing and matching chassis and engine platforms long before the 86.

So I ask, who the f cares except for those who ponder existentialism of certain cars.

Not arguing for or against engine swaps but people seem to think the frs/brz/gt86 is some sort of diamond snowflake that shouldn't be tampered with and would be damaging the nature of the car to do so. All the while the whole point of the car was to be a cheap platform and make it what you want.

You know what would be true sacrilage is slamming the damn car, messing with the engineered suspension geometry. 53/47 is far from balanced. Hell the 86 is far from being the most balanced. It's simply PREDICTABLE at limits.

Kinda sick of the whole engine swap kills a car point. Here, talk to this guy:

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by ST185RC

....53/47 is far from balanced.

I'm gonna have to disagree with that. A Boxster is distributed the exact opposite way (47/53), and is quite balanced. 50/50 isn't all there is to it. Even if a car is horribly one-sided with its weight, engineering around that can still make for a vehicle that handles well.

Not picking a fight, just my feelings on that particular statement.

[ST185RC]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

I'm gonna have to disagree with that. A Boxster is distributed the exact opposite way (47/53), and is quite balanced. 50/50 isn't all there is to it. Even if a car is horribly one-sided with its weight, engineering around that can still make for a vehicle that handles well.

Not picking a fight, just my feelings on that particular statement.

Weight bias is one thing, but again, like in another post for the comparison between the 2017 brz with the versions prior (this is coming from CSG Mike and I'm pretty sure his experience trumps your opinion and mine) the 2013-2016s are far from being the best tuned suspension settings for this chassis. You take my one statement out of context of everything else I posted.

I find it sacrilege that people slam these things and disturb the slightly off balance from the factory or cut springs or something else stupid. I'm not saying that this car is completely imbalanced but I simply put it out there that people take the factory car and put it up on some pedestal that it can't get any better and that an engine swap would completely throw off the car's "perfect handling characteristics".

Simply put, this car is not as balanced as it should or is made out to be. Let's take the Integra Type R. I've owned and tracked it, it's got somewhere like a 60/40 weight distribution, does this thing suck for balance? Hell, no. It's probably one of the greatest handling coupes (with a hatch) I've ever driven in my life from the factory.

People who throw an engine slightly heavier (like 150 lbs or something) and moves the center of gravity like 10mm can simply be compensated for suspension tuning. I gather that anyone going to those lengths to swap out an engine would probably throw in some adjustable coilovers if they have the common sense.

My opinion is that the thought that swapping in an engine will completely kill a car's inherent handling characteristics is just ignorance. You ever see a guy who's like 250lbs talking about balance?

Not fighting words here, but again, this car is something that was meant to be a platform for people to build on and at the end of the day, Toyota and subaru sold you something they can't care less what you do with it other than their due diligence standard to the industry (eg, keep you safe and offer you a product at a reasonable value). This ain't a ferrari.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by ST185RC

You take my one statement out of context of everything else I posted.

While I did (intentionally) take it out of context, as I have with this one, it wasn't to just ignore everything else you said. I saw nothing wrong with any of that, so no need to bring any of it up or have it in the quoted text and have people thinking I was going in on the entire writeup. Just felt like talking to that one point. As you pointed out when you brought up the Integra (and pretty much saying what I was, too) no car needs to be at 50/50 to be awesome.

Originally Posted by ST185RC

I find it sacrilege that people slam these things and disturb the slightly off balance from the factory or cut springs or something else stupid. I'm not saying that this car is completely imbalanced but I simply put it out there that people take the factory car and put it up on some pedestal that it can't get any better and that an engine swap would completely throw off the car's "perfect handling characteristics".

Agreed. Though I am not one to say it's perfect and changing anything will ruin it (though slamming and stanceing it for looks certainly does), I do find it to be pretty well balanced and enjoyable to me. I don't need it to be a track beast because said beast is usually not going to be very livable on a daily basis commuting to and from work, driving around the local potholed downtown, etc. I think as is it's a very good setup that's domesticated when it needs to be, and can be fun when it needs to be. Perfect? Certainly not, but also not terrible or soooo in need of this-or-that. Those needs are entirely subjective depending on what the owner plans to do. Sit pretty at car shows? Sure, slam it and don't care about fun driving. Destroy everyone else at the track? Sure, throw on a turbo and some coilovers and hope you haven't overpowered the chassis so you can still get around the track and catch everybody. Is the car ruined? No, just different and hopefully what the end user was hoping to get out of their Dr. Frankenstein antics.

Originally Posted by ST185RC

My opinion is that the thought that swapping in an engine will completely kill a car's inherent handling characteristics is just ignorance.

To a point, true. Everything does have its limits, and one does reach a point where, depending on what you're throwing in there, you will indeed change its characteristics. Not so much "kill" as have to consider what else needs to be adjusted to compensate for the fact that you stuffed an LS1 where there was once a 1/3 size low-CG engine...which if I read everything else you said before correctly, is your point. Most folks who are going to do a significant swap aren't just going to toss in an engine and do nothing else. If someone does do that and can't figure out why it doesn't do the same things it did before, well you can't fix the loose nut behind the steering wheel.

Originally Posted by ST185RC

Not fighting words here, but again, this car is something that was meant to be a platform for people to build on and at the end of the day, Toyota and subaru sold you something they can't care less what you do with it....

Once again, agreed. They had to give us something under the hood from the factory so it wasn't just a rolling chassis for sale, but I'm sure they enjoy seeing all the different things everyone does with the car, whether they use any original parts of it or not. It's everyone else in the end-user and non-owner departments who seem to get heartburn about how much of the car's original self is still there.

Do I enjoy seeing an LS in the back of a 911 or crammed into an RX-7? Not particularly, but it ain't my car and money, so it is what it is. No sense in me losing any hair or sleep over it. Sure, unmolested examples of some cars are becoming fewer, but it's not like there's only a handful of them left on the planet. I've seen an STi motor swapped into the back of a Boxster, and the amount of fabrication and engineering involved to make such a thing exist, run, and be pretty insane at the track is beyond impressive to me, so at a minimum I appreciate it on that basis. I think Tuerck's 4586 is awesome, and while it's not going to be a scalpel on the track, that's not what it was envisioned to be, and we know there's not much of anything left of the Toyota than its shell. The thing was just done to say, "I had this idea, and here it is!"......and to effortlessly destroy pairs of tires all day.

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by ST185RC

Not arguing for or against engine swaps but people seem to think the frs/brz/gt86 is some sort of diamond snowflake that shouldn't be tampered with and would be damaging the nature of the car to do so. All the while the whole point of the car was to be a cheap platform and make it what you want.

The Miata community is like this too, which is hilarious because the supercharged ones and the K-swapped ones are so much better it isn't even funny.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Not so much "kill" as have to consider what else needs to be adjusted to compensate for the fact that you stuffed an LS1 where there was once a 1/3 size low-CG engine...

This reads like a statement from someone who has never seen an LS1 or an FA20 outside of a car.

[Allch Chcar]

It's the same argument with race cars versus stock cars. Some people are purists about the engine, chassis, and even the steel on the exterior. But spiritually they're the same exact name built or modified for different purposes. Some people are content to leave a vehicle as is. While some prefer to customize their vehicle to their purposes. Given that there are so many different cars that are all mass produced, vanilla flavored motivations, you tend to see more people customize cosmetics these days. Because if you wanted a Mustang you can buy one. If you want a Mustang powered Miata, you have to build it. The Z4 is a faster Miata.

The only thing that bothers me a bit is the "X in everything." A chassis needs to be built around an engine. Not the other way around. Throwing a three rotor Wankel or LSJuan in a Miata takes quite a bit of planning and consideration. Not that it's any less fun to do something that doesn't make any logical sense.

[guybo]

There's a few other things to consider as well. Weight balance is one thing, but weight distribution is another. The more weight that is spread out is bad for handling. Ideally you want the weight to close to the centerline and towards the middle for good handling.

You may be able to maintain a decent balance of weight by shoving an LS motor in a smaller car, but the weight will be higher and spread out more and then you have to upgrade things like the brakes, diff and tranny which also further unbalances the distribution of weight.

But then you have a car that is faster in a different way, so you go away from a good handling car and more towards a higher power car.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Not so much "kill" as have to consider what else needs to be adjusted to compensate for the fact that you stuffed an LS1 where there was once a 1/3 size low-CG engine...

Cam-in-block LS v8 is fairly compact.
FA20 is not 1/3 the *size* of an LS engine. It is 1/3 the displacement though...
Also, the "low c.g." benefit of a flat-engine is minimal to nonexistent. Flat engines have to be situated with the crank quite high relative to V or inline engines for exhaust clearance to the ground. This puts the crank and main bearings, crank damper, flywheel, clutch and trans higher than it can be with a V or inline engine.
Does the installed flat-4 have an overall lower c.g. than a compact cam-in-block V8 like the LS situated with the crank and trans a good 2" or so lower in the car? Maybe, maybe not...
For reference, the Corvette's c.g. is lower than the twins' or any flat-engine Porsche.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Also, the "low c.g." benefit of a flat-engine is minimal to nonexistent. Flat engines have to be situated with the crank quite high relative to V or inline engines for exhaust clearance to the ground.
...

Does the installed flat-4 have an overall lower c.g. than a compact cam-in-block V8 like the LS situated with the crank and trans a good 2" or so lower in the car? Maybe, maybe not...

Good points but if you look at the underbody of the FR-S, even if you eliminated the header, you could only drop the engine about 1" further because of the oil pan. Here's a side profile of the FA20 with the oil pan location marked in red and drawn to scale:

Originally Posted by ZDan

For reference, the Corvette's c.g. is lower than the twins' or any flat-engine Porsche.

The C7 is definitely a compelling case for the V8. Even accounting for the lesser ground clearance of the Vette, the CG height is still about 0.4" lower than the Twins. Very impressive packaging! I know lowering the CG height on the Vette has been a focus point for GM's engineers since at least the C4 generation. They've definitely put in the work on that (and it shows).