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

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

On a side note, when (if ever) will we get "invisible" A-pillars via creative use of cameras and screen technology?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBN5CWMcOnE"]Jaguar Land Rover Transparent Pillar, Ghost Car Navigation research - YouTube[/ame]

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

On a side note, when (if ever) will we get "invisible" A-pillars via creative use of cameras and screen technology?

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

>Land Rover Video

I see this and then I think "Well there goes another $4,000 added on to the base price of every car for things that 99% of the population doesn't need".

[Kiske]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I see this and then I think "Well there goes another $4,000 added on to the base price of every car for things that 99% of the population shouldn't need".

FIFY

[Irace86.2.0]

I’ve been trying to figure out how the center of gravity is lower than the 86. Does the car sit lower? Did they add weight low in the vehicle like using an iron block? Maybe a dry sump?

Also, the 50/50 ratio. Is this measured with a driver or without? I recall someone here who weighed their 86 with and without himself in the car and found the weight distribution 50/50 or 51/49 or something. Isn’t it more important where the weight is than if it is 50/50 like if the weight isnt center mass, but rather, at the ends then that isn’t ideal, but the car might be 50/50?

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I see this and then I think "Well there goes another $4,000 added on to the base price of every car for things that 99% of the population doesn't need".

I don't think we should need this - but with how thick A-pillars are getting, I think a case could be made for it. Especially as avoiding pedestrian collisions is such a priority.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’ve been trying to figure out how the center of gravity is lower than the 86. Does the car sit lower? Did they add weight low in the vehicle like using an iron block? Maybe a dry sump?

Also, the 50/50 ratio. Is this measured with a driver or without? I recall someone here who weighed their 86 with and without himself in the car and found the weight distribution 50/50 or 51/49 or something. Isn’t it more important where the weight is than if it is 50/50 like if the weight isnt center mass, but rather, at the ends then that isn’t ideal, but the car might be 50/50?

It's not that hard to have a lower cog than the frs and 50/50 weight distribution isn't that big a deal since the car is usually moving when it matters so the weight will be shifting around anyway.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by fatoni

It's not that hard to have a lower cog than the frs and 50/50 weight distribution isn't that big a deal since the car is usually moving when it matters so the weight will be shifting around anyway.

Tada mentioned he wanted the twin at 53/47 (i.e. not exactly at 50/50) for better initial turn-in response.

This 50/50 weight distribution is most likely a Bimmer marketing thing. I think even the Miata isn't perfectly 50/50 without the driver, even tho the printed ad says so.

BTW I asked my physics scientist friend about this new Supra where the engine is taller and narrower than our boxer engine yet with a roof that's lower. He said this overall lower CoG by a small margin could be BS and he would rather have the advantage of the more stable boxer since an engine is heavy.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by krayzie

Tada mentioned he wanted the twin at 53/47 (i.e. not exactly at 50/50) for better initial turn-in response.

This 50/50 weight distribution is most likely a Bimmer marketing thing. I think even the Miata isn't perfectly 50/50 without the driver, even tho the printed ad says so.

BTW I asked my physics scientist friend about this new Supra where the engine is taller and narrower than our boxer engine yet with a roof that's lower. He said this overall lower CoG by a small margin could be BS and he would rather have the advantage of the more stable boxer since an engine is heavy.

im pretty sure being front heavy would make turn in worse. also, i dont think the boxer engine has a whole lot to do with the cog. what do they mean by stable?it sounds like they mean the car has a smaller polar moment and i imagine the supra will have a smaller moment than the frs as well. there were some compromises to fit a boxer in the engine bay that dont happen with other engine configurations.

[Tokay444]

Nothing has a front end like a 911. Know why? Because all the mass is in the back.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by fatoni

im pretty sure being front heavy would make turn in worse. also, i dont think the boxer engine has a whole lot to do with the cog. what do they mean by stable?it sounds like they mean the car has a smaller polar moment and i imagine the supra will have a smaller moment than the frs as well. there were some compromises to fit a boxer in the engine bay that dont happen with other engine configurations.

The answer could be output.

86/BRZ/FRS 53/47 weight distribution explaination @ 5:13

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHVhaTNRk8E"]2013 Scion FR-S/Toyota 86 Chief Engineer Tetsuya Tada Interview - YouTube[/ame]


Fairlady Z/350Z 53/47 weight distribution explaination @ 6:33

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2KBlta-zu4"]Best Motoring International Vol. 06 - The 350Z Shock - YouTube[/ame]


Engine height for the front of the car is definitely a compromise with configuration other than a boxer. The boxer being wider, Subaru flipped the lower A-arm front to back and made the coil spring diameter smaller for better packaging (I think they got this idea from looking at older Porsches). All these stuff were discussed to death ages ago on this forum.

[vh_supra26]

Full gallery in link below.

https://www.supramkv.com/threads/mos...h-19-2018.803/

[NemesisPrime909]

Originally Posted by vh_supra26

Full gallery in link below.

https://www.supramkv.com/threads/mos...h-19-2018.803/

it is quite beautiful

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’ve been trying to figure out how the center of gravity is lower than the 86. Does the car sit lower? Did they add weight low in the vehicle like using an iron block? Maybe a dry sump?

Corvette also has a c.g. lower than the 86. There's nothing magic about boxer engines, and in fact they usually have to sit with the crankshaft positioned much higher than an inline or V engine to have room for exhaust plumbing. This puts a lot of heavy stuff relatively high up: crankshaft, block, flywheel, clutch, transmission. So even though the cylinder heads are quite low, the net c.g. height benefit for a flat engine is close to zero.

Also, the 50/50 ratio. Is this measured with a driver or without? I recall someone here who weighed their 86 with and without himself in the car and found the weight distribution 50/50 or 51/49 or something.

Stock? That doesn't sound right. With driver and passenger and full tank of fuel it's 53/47. Magazine test reports I've seen 54/46. This points out another weakness of the boxer configuration for FR configuration: the engine ends up sitting WAY forward relative to where an inline or V-engine would for steering shaft clearance. The engine being shorter than an inline-4 helps, but again, net/net it's probably a wash.

A V4 would for me be the perfect small/lightweight/inexpensive sports car powerplant...

Originally Posted by krayzie

Tada mentioned he wanted the twin at 53/47 (i.e. not exactly at 50/50) for better initial turn-in response.

That's b.s. More front weight doesn't give "better initial turn-in response". All cars are a compromise and this one is no different. It has 53/47 - 54/46 distribution because it's a small 2+2. They would have had to extend the front wheels forward lengthening the wheelbase to get 50/50 given that the rear wheels had to be a bit aft to allow back-seat passengers.

For *me*, I wish they made a dedicated 2-seat/hatch version with the engine/trans, firewall/cowl and front-seaters moved about 18" aft. That would give much better weight distribution (and 50/50 *is* "better").

This 50/50 weight distribution is most likely a Bimmer marketing thing. I think even the Miata isn't perfectly 50/50 without the driver, even tho the printed ad says so.

I've never seen Miata ads claiming 50/50... I have seen them claim close to 50/50. They could have easily gotten 50/50 merely by lengthening the wheelbase moving the front wheels forward a la S2000 (49F/51R). But at Miata power/weight it's more important to keep weight down and wheelbase short.

Anyway, 50/50 is *not* "perfect". FR cars with decent power to weight are better with rear weight bias. If I could get my 550hp FD to something more like 45F/55R, I would (stuck at 50/50 with driver and 1/2 tank fuel).

BTW I asked my physics scientist friend about this new Supra where the engine is taller and narrower than our boxer engine yet with a roof that's lower. He said this overall lower CoG by a small margin could be BS and he would rather have the advantage of the more stable boxer since an engine is heavy.

Have to call B.S. on this, too. Lower vehicle c.g. is of course more important for handling dynamics than lower c.g. of just the engine.
Also, I guarantee the supra's driveshaft, flywheel/clutch, transmission all sit much lower than the 86's. Overall engine/trans c.g. height is probably not that different, and not far from vehicle vertical c.g. location for either.

Originally Posted by krayzie

Engine height for the front of the car is definitely a compromise with configuration other than a boxer.

Not really... Look at how high the boxer engine sits:


And while we're talking about it, look how far FORWARD the boxer engine has to sit:


A boxer engine is not ideal for either vertical or fore/aft c.g. location in an FR car...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

...

I think you are right on a bunch of your points.

If they had made the 86 a two seater then the engine could have been moved back further like the Corvette or 370z; other FR 2+2 setups like the Camaro or Mustang have engines that are necessarily moved forward.

The Corvette’s engine does sit low because it is further back but it is significantly higher than the 86 motor. Remove the AC compressor, alternator and intake manifolds on both vehicles, and it is much more apparent the difference. The LS and LT motors are really compact, so that helps, but the Corvette also has other heavier components down low like their heavier transmission, differential, etc.

BMW tries to keep CG low by using a slant six, so I’m guessing the Supra’s two seater setup will allow them to tuck the engine back and low enough. I wonder if there will be an xDrive option. I’m guessing not because tradition.

BTW, the curb weight and distribution I have seen is without a driver. I can’t find the thread when the guy weighed himself in the car. I’m curious to know if there would be a significant difference. Obviously the height and weight of the driver will be important variables:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4287