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

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by ermax

He posted all those stats but forgot to post the stats for all the cars that were being discussed. The Twins are sold in manuals at 75%. The S2000 was only in a manual. The Civic Type-R is manual only. Focus ST/RS are manual only. The Mustang and Cameron sell more in manual than auto. All these kids clinging on to those older platform like the 240SX and RX7 is good for the future of the MT because they are learning to drive manuals (without the help of their parents) and will probably continue to drive MT as long as possible.

It isn’t about technical superiority. It’s about personal preference and typically people buying cars in this segment prefer a manual. Hence my statement above that we need to keep cars like these around for the survival of the MT. This segment as a whole probably doesn’t make a lot of sense statistically yet we still have it.

The s2000 was already out of production for the US market before 2010.
True, the twins sold more manuals but the automatics for the twins are both slower and more expensive which does not sit well with the target market. This was probably done intentionally by give the car worse gearing for the autos. Most modern autos are faster not slower than there manual counterparts in performance cars..
The Focus ST/RS is probably on its way out as Ford has announced that it will be ceasing production of almost all its passenger car line except the Mustang in favor of more profitable SUVs and trucks.
You are going to have to show me where the Mustang and Camaro sell more manual transmission cars than auto because my research says just the opposite.
The Civic Type R is a low volume, relatively expensive supped up econocar that may retain the manual only for its production run.

Like the dinosaurs there may be a few survivors like the alligator, crocodile and komodo dragon. Maybe.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by rvoll

Safety and emissions requirements aside, I do think designers like Tada think about the car holistically -- and that is traditionally Japanese as well. They look for "perfect balance" which includes handling, style, performance, etc. Once you add significant hp, you have to change the handling characteristics. When I stroked the motor on one of my Porsches, the car was no longer balanced and as forgiving. It took me a year to bring it back with suspension changes, bigger wheels and tires and specially constructed transaxle mounts. I could out drag people better, but it was not as much fun at the track.

This is my favorite post. In a post he created where this car will get two different engines and different power outputs, he argues that Japan won't change power in a car because it will ruin the perfect balance.

[ermax]

Originally Posted by Rampage

The s2000 was already out of production for the US market before 2010.
True, the twins sold more manuals but the automatics for the twins are both slower and more expensive which does not sit well with the target market. This was probably done intentionally by give the car worse gearing for the autos. Most modern autos are faster not slower than there manual counterparts in performance cars..
The Focus ST/RS is probably on its way out as Ford has announced that it will be ceasing production of almost all its passenger car line except the Mustang in favor of more profitable SUVs and trucks.
You are going to have to show me where the Mustang and Camaro sell more manual transmission cars than auto because my research says just the opposite.
The Civic Type R is a low volume, relatively expensive supped up econocar that may retain the manual only for its production run.

Like the dinosaurs there may be a few survivors like the alligator, crocodile and komodo dragon. Maybe.

My point was all the cars listed fall under a segment that is low volume and caters to MT. Again, this has nothing to do with one being faster than the other It's about personal preference and fun factor. FYI, Toyota didn't go out of their way to make the AT slower on our car. They just didn't bother building a specific tranny for the car and simply dropped the A960E from the IS250 in with some software changes and different stall converter. Again, they knew they needed to focus on their target market which is MT.

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Once you get beyond basic fuel efficiency requirements, how EPA and CAFE ratings/regulations work in this country confounds me. I think partially because I have a difficult time locating the proper information online. So this question might seem naive, or dripping with ignorance.

But how is now that, from basically 2010 onward, low displacement engines no longer rev high (above 7500) with reason given as emissions. But, at the same time high performance (larger displacement) engines from Ford, Porsche, Ferrari, Lambo, etc are more prolific than ever, and are revving higher than ever.

This is something I don't understand.

To get more specific about how this happens, it has more to do with what markets a car will be available in than anything. A global car like the 86 is sold worldwide and so it has to meet the requirements for the most stringent markets it will be sold in. The Mustang is only available in limited markets so by choosing not to make it available in markets that are especially stringent with emissions, they can increase the limits of the motor. There is also something to be said for technological progress and ~5 years is a long time in those terms.

[BRZer86]

Originally Posted by MJones_RB

FWIW, the Supra acts like a much heavier, less nimble car around the track, where the 86's low COG makes it a better performer. Now, if they could just give it some guts...

According to Tada, the A90 has a lower COG than the BRZ/FRS/GT86. And based on that video, the A90 looks flat coming out of the those turns. I’m no engineer but I guess if you lower the COG of a vehicle it may allow some tolerance to add weight and not be punished for doing so.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by fatoni

This is my favorite post. In a post he created where this car will get two different engines and different power outputs, he argues that Japan won't change power in a car because it will ruin the perfect balance.

That is not what he said. The 86/BRZ was DESIGNED for the power output. You can always build a car to handle a higher output with increased frame strength, mounts, etc., and then change the suspension/wheels/tires/transmission/etc. for the LOWER power output and handling differences. It's a matter of how the car is designed. My guess is that the car will be maximized around the 6 cyl version and the 4 cyl version will have some handling compromises.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by ermax

My point was all the cars listed fall under a segment that is low volume and caters to MT. Again, this has nothing to do with one being faster than the other It's about personal preference and fun factor. FYI, Toyota didn't go out of their way to make the AT slower on our car. They just didn't bother building a specific tranny for the car and simply dropped the A960E from the IS250 in with some software changes and different stall converter. Again, they knew they needed to focus on their target market which is MT.

The MT will eventually go the way of the dodo bird. I have the auto and the paddle shifters do a decent job and sport mode is fine. Besides, I get better mpg with the higher rear end. I'd like to see a modern DCT. I really like shifting, but very few younger drivers will ever drive a stick and very few of the upper end sports cars even have a stick option. Face it, stick drivers are dying off.... I think it is a 50/50 bet that the next gen 86 will have a manual option. The Supra will not....

[ermax]

Originally Posted by rvoll

The MT will eventually go the way of the dodo bird. I have the auto and the paddle shifters do a decent job and sport mode is fine. Besides, I get better mpg with the higher rear end. I'd like to see a modern DCT. I really like shifting, but very few younger drivers will ever drive a stick and very few of the upper end sports cars even have a stick option. Face it, stick drivers are dying off.... I think it is a 50/50 bet that the next gen 86 will have a manual option. The Supra will not....

I’d be willing to bet they do end up with a manual on the 4 and 6. BMW has manuals for both of those engines. Maybe not the first year but at some point.

[SuperTom]

Originally Posted by rvoll

The MT will eventually go the way of the dodo bird. I have the auto and the paddle shifters do a decent job and sport mode is fine. Besides, I get better mpg with the higher rear end. I'd like to see a modern DCT. I really like shifting, but very few younger drivers will ever drive a stick and very few of the upper end sports cars even have a stick option. Face it, stick drivers are dying off.... I think it is a 50/50 bet that the next gen 86 will have a manual option. The Supra will not....

MT is really the ultimate anti-theft device since many people just can't drive

[Pbrown]

smaller than the 86 and only comes automatic + Canadian winters And they are going to charge double the price, I'm out.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Pbrown

smaller than the 86 and only comes automatic + Canadian winters And they are going to charge double the price, I'm out.

If the "leaked" dimensions are correct then it may have a shorter wheel base but to call it smaller is not really accurate. Overall it is slightly larger. Not much larger but certainly not smaller.




Wheelbase 2,570 mm (101.2 in) 2470 mm (97.2 in)
Length 4,240 mm (166.9 in) 4380 mm (172.4 in)
Width 1,775 mm (69.9 in) 1855 mm (73 in)
Height 1,285 mm (50.6 in) 1290 mm (50.8 in)

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by ermax

I’d be willing to bet they do end up with a manual on the 4 and 6. BMW has manuals for both of those engines. Maybe not the first year but at some point.

They are using the Cayman as a benchmark. Pricing will probably be in the mid-50's. At that level, I just don't think you'll have a big call for a manual -- especially if they use an auto anywhere near as good as the PDK. But this is all conjecture and dependent upon pricing and the target segments.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

If the "leaked" dimensions are correct then it may have a shorter wheel base but to call it smaller is not really accurate. Overall it is slightly larger. Not much larger but certainly not smaller.




Wheelbase 2,570 mm (101.2 in) 2470 mm (97.2 in)
Length 4,240 mm (166.9 in) 4380 mm (172.4 in)
Width 1,775 mm (69.9 in) 1855 mm (73 in)
Height 1,285 mm (50.6 in) 1290 mm (50.8 in)

Technically correct, but aren't the proportions much different given that the BMW inline 6 is much longer than the 86 boxer 4? If you want 50-50 weight distribution, it also means the engine is pushed back from the front axle. Therefore, the passenger compartment and rear hatch area are probably much smaller. Hard to really compare on overall dimensions....

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by rvoll

Technically correct, but aren't the proportions much different given that the BMW inline 6 is much longer than the 86 boxer 4? If you want 50-50 weight distribution, it also means the engine is pushed back from the front axle. Therefore, the passenger compartment and rear hatch area are probably much smaller. Hard to really compare on overall dimensions....

The statement wasn't "The interior is smaller" the statement was "The car is smaller". Not a big deal and I was simply pointing out that the car is not smaller according to alleged dimensions. Now of course the difference could simply be bumper length and body panels but still not "smaller".