Subaru Toyota Collab on Next Gen 86 Stopped

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by OwlDance

Now this is hearsay and I have no idea how true it is but the ft86 itself only sold enough to be considered barely a success despite the costs being shared in the joint project. That doesn't bode well for seeing significant RnD IMHO. Everyone loves to talk more power, but I'm not sure there's a terribly huge amount more that can be accomplished with the current platform while keeping costs the same.

Not to steal @Tcoat's mantra but the car sold exactly the number Toyota/Subaru thought it would based on what the built. If anything, they left a few sales on the table in terms of being conservative. If they had built too many you would have seen more advertising, and most likely rebates to try to move them. They also had to have production numbers nailed down for suppliers so they could only increase/decrease production marginally if at all.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by OwlDance

But I'm not an engineer, so this is just me throwing my speculations/concerns into the wind.

The eternal struggle

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

.... And what's the point of this post, besides the obvious trunk space that everyone already knows about?

A lotus elise/exige is a third car in the garage. It handles like a go kart, low to the ground and has a gem of a motor (That Toyota 2ZZ-GE!). It does have a small trunk and a passenger seat, but its super impractical.....

-Getting in and out is a chore for even a short person (the car is tiny). Its like getting and sitting inside a bathtub through a window opening that is as high as your waist.
-Once inside its got pretty comfortable but thin seats, and hardly any if at all amenities, so everything's exposed.
-Its probably loud as hell inside...but I think the 2ZZ motor makes up for it.
-It has a trunk...that fits stuff....but its not very big.
-depending on how wide you are you are most likely going to be intruding into the passenger shoulder space.

You'd have to compromise a lot to make it work as a daily driver. Occasional fun car? hell yeah. Trying to daily it? hell naw.

Or you could get a BRZ or the like and half nearly the same experience with vastly more comfort, and quite frankly much less money.
With that said i'd love an Exige/Elise with the 2ZZ, not the later ones with the supercharged 1ZZ Hell i'd even look at an Evora if I want something a bit more "exotic'y"

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by OwlDance

The thing that concerns me is if we've reached a current (realistically approachable) maximum for power to displacement to efficiency ratio with the FA engine for NA applications.

This is why an NA FA24 would make a lot of sense. You can make it a bit less high strung while still getting 230hp (95.8hp/l vs 102.5hp/l). This will help with efficiency a bit. Combine that with increased highway mpg by making top gear a bit longer, and we might see very similar fuel economy out of a bored or motor.

[HachiRokuX]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

This is why an NA FA24 would make a lot of sense. You can make it a bit less high strung while still getting 230hp (95.8hp/l vs 102.5hp/l). This will help with efficiency a bit. Combine that with increased highway mpg by making top gear a bit longer, and we might see very similar fuel economy out of a bored or motor.

Less high strung = lower redline, right? Kinda like how the AP2 S2K’s 2.2l engine’s redline was 700ish rpm lower than the original car while delivering more HP/torque at a lower rpm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by HachiRokuX

Less high strung = lower redline, right? Kinda like how the AP2 S2K’s 2.2l engine’s redline was 700ish rpm lower than the original car while delivering more HP/torque at a lower rpm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn’t HAVE to have a lower redline, it can have lower compression, different valve timing, etc.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

This is why an NA FA24 would make a lot of sense. You can make it a bit less high strung while still getting 230hp (95.8hp/l vs 102.5hp/l). This will help with efficiency a bit. Combine that with increased highway mpg by making top gear a bit longer, and we might see very similar fuel economy out of a bored or motor.

And then Toyota can write off those markets where taxes are imposed on engines over two liters.
...I think... I'm going one what I've read here in the past. I pretty much lurk/skim these more speculative threads.

[Adam_L]

Does the UK , certain European countries impose extra taxes on engines that are over 2L ? Sorry, I should google that one

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by chipmunk

.... And what's the point of this post, besides the obvious trunk space that everyone already knows about?

And what's the knowledge of everyone's trunk space, besides the obvious post of this point?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by OwlDance

The thing that concerns me is if we've reached a current (realistically approachable) maximum for power to displacement to efficiency ratio with the FA engine for NA applications. The car as is has a really solid blend of fuel efficiency, practicality, size, weight...everything but the power, which is a little lackluster.

I can't see getting much more out of this car's all purpose practicality without slashing its weight further (seems hard to do without using more expensive materials or significant design changes, this car is plenty big yet light for its size) or going FI, which is a whole other rabbit hole of design compromises and money.

I know it's silly for most people to consider MPG and efficiency on a sports car but I don't think anyone would turn their nose from using less gasoline, not to mention the ever more stringent emissions regulations with each passing year.

A lot of this car is of a one off design, so to speak. The manual transmission was designed strictly for this car and power, the engine itself was a joint venture between Subaru and Toyota as a one off (which did lead to DIT and the FA24), there's a lot of RnD they'd have to do to make sure the car can still be called by the same name, without just making an entirely new car to begin with.

Now this is hearsay and I have no idea how true it is but the ft86 itself only sold enough to be considered barely a success despite the costs being shared in the joint project. That doesn't bode well for seeing significant RnD IMHO. Everyone loves to talk more power, but I'm not sure there's a terribly huge amount more that can be accomplished with the current platform while keeping costs the same.

But I'm not an engineer, so this is just me throwing my speculations/concerns into the wind.

In the end, hp/l doesn't really mean much as a performance metric.

There's no such thing as a one-off design any more. Yes, it looks different to us than every other Subaru out there, but to a computer it's quite similar to Subaru's other cars. Im convinced that the design of this car was really a low-risk experiment prepping for the recent Subaru updates. I'm sure Toyota got something out of the exchange on the back end too.

Now what would that mean for a future generation? Well, it means that the model has already been developed and then improved further, so Subaru should be able to crank out a new "design" fairly quickly and inexpensively. Yes, yes, certification is always expensive, but having a model you know works significantly reduces risk on that which results in needing less integration and test time beforehand.

And I am an engineer, but also throwing my speculations into the wind.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Spuds

In the end, hp/l doesn't really mean much as a performance metric.



There's no such thing as a one-off design any more. Yes, it looks different to us than every other Subaru out there, but to a computer it's quite similar to Subaru's other cars. Im convinced that the design of this car was really a low-risk experiment prepping for the recent Subaru updates. I'm sure Toyota got something out of the exchange on the back end too.



Now what would that mean for a future generation? Well, it means that the model has already been developed and then improved further, so Subaru should be able to crank out a new "design" fairly quickly and inexpensively. Yes, yes, certification is always expensive, but having a model you know works significantly reduces risk on that which results in needing less integration and test time beforehand.



And I am an engineer, but also throwing my speculations into the wind.

Exactly. Similarly it should be fairly low risk to take the FA24 and design a new header, an intake manifold with port injectors for it, and spec some hotter cams and positions for it.

A good point was raised about European taxes over 2 liters. Maybe we’ll get 2 engines like the Miata? Maybe they’ll say that’s tough Europe? Maybe they’ll squeeze the 2.0L for even more than 102.5hp/l? Maybe a mild hybrid setup for torque?

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Exactly. Similarly it should be fairly low risk to take the FA24 and design a new header, an intake manifold with port injectors for it, and spec some hotter cams and positions for it.

A good point was raised about European taxes over 2 liters. Maybe we’ll get 2 engines like the Miata? Maybe they’ll say that’s tough Europe? Maybe they’ll squeeze the 2.0L for even more than 102.5hp/l? Maybe a mild hybrid setup for torque?

They can't squeeze more the existing 2.0L engine. We couldn't even get the updated intake & exhaust manifold!

I wouldn't expect much more power in a 2.4L either. Probably 220-225bhp and a much better torque in mid rev range which is what most people love ...

[juniorrr]

Yeah thats not true.... Toyota Debunked this.

https://www.carscoops.com/2019/01/to...ll-axed-range/

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by juniorrr

Yeah thats not true.... Toyota Debunked this.

https://www.carscoops.com/2019/01/to...ll-axed-range/

"We will go out on a limb here and say that the 86 will get a successor, but it might not be co-developed with Subaru this time around. "