Next Gen BRZ thoughts

[gravitylover]

It should stay naturally aspirated but built to be able to handle the FI upgrades people will inevitably do. NA is more sporting IMO. I don't know maybe because the engine should be able to handle it offer FI as an option, possibly dealer installed, so that the systems are designed to play well together but I don't think it's necessary across the board. The interior should stay clean and simple other than a far better head unit and more adjustments on the front seats including lumbar supports. Slightly bigger and better brakes, again in anticipation of people adding power. An easily adjustable suspension to accommodate different driving styles and needs but it doesn't have to be electronic, I'd be ok with a mechanical adjustment, so it keeps the cost down and keeps it more reliable.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

What modifications are required that would add significant weight? The current factory engine is fine with different internals, so negligible weight gain there. A factory turbo or TVS blower, stronger trans internals, stronger driveshaft and axles, would be ~100 lbs. Maybe another 50 lbs for thickening up the diff cage and rear chassis attachments. Where does the other 450 lbs come from?



I know by limiting it to auto-trans only an additional ~100-120 lbs of weight loss was passed over, so yeah, I have an idea of how hard they tried on that car. The Civic Type R has ~300 hp, 4 doors, is longer, taller, and wider than a Supra, and weighs ~3100 lbs (and yes, I know it's an FWD car). The Golf R has ~300hp, 4 doors, and AWD, and also weighs less than a Supra, so again, I don't see why I should believe 300 hp in a BRZ is an outlandish request. Sure, it wouldn't weigh 2800 lbs, but it's not going to balloon up to 3400 or likely even halfway there.

Then why did they not make a 2800 lb Supra if it is so easy?

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Then why did they not make a 2800 lb Supra if it is so easy?

read the entire post before responding

Originally Posted by gtengr

Sure, it wouldn't weigh 2800 lbs, but it's not going to balloon up to 3400 or likely even halfway there.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by gtengr

What modifications are required that would add significant weight? The current factory engine is fine with different internals, so negligible weight gain there. A factory turbo or TVS blower, stronger trans internals, stronger driveshaft and axles, would be ~100 lbs. Maybe another 50 lbs for thickening up the diff cage and rear chassis attachments. Where does the other 450 lbs come from?

My intercooled turbo setup was almost 100lbs by itself with no cat in the manifold. The axles, and diff have enough overhead for more power. Its the trans we don't know about. I could see 3100 being realistic. We know the Supra is a bit bloated with BMW tech. What we don't know is what chassis stiffening or concessions would need to be made for safety in regards to packaging the additional components. On top of that it would be the FA20DIT Like we don't have enough oiling issues with the FA20 NA.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

read the entire post before responding

I did. Meaningless comparisons to other vehicles are meaningless

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

My intercooled turbo setup was almost 100lbs by itself with no cat in the manifold. The axles, and diff have enough overhead for more power. Its the trans we don't know about. I could see 3100 being realistic. We know the Supra is a bit bloated with BMW tech. What we don't know is what chassis stiffening or concessions would need to be made for safety in regards to packaging the additional components. On top of that it would be the FA20DIT Like we don't have enough oiling issues with the FA20 NA.

Who says the axles and diff have enough overhead? Word of mouth? The fact that they don't break for some does not mean they have enough safety margin for the manufacturer. I highly doubt that most of the drivetrain would meet any sort of reliability margin with a 300hp stock engine.

[Opie]

Most car prediction sites; "we know that Subaru’s platform will be nixed to make room for Toyota’s TNGA platform. We thought this was the case before, but now we know why (and we probably should have seen this coming.) Subaru’s platform just isn’t suitable for RWD cars."

I have to LOL at this....looks like the SGP would easily work with a RWD setup...just like the previous generation platform did on the current car.

And I've attached my "guesses" as to some of the 2nd gen's details....we can compare when the "official" details are released.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I don't get the argument of this at all? Wanting a turbo BRZ doesn't mean you want all the crap that is available as options on other models (or dealer installed).

And wanting a new gen BRZ doesn't mean you want a turbo either.

I just want a MSP version...

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Who says the axles and diff have enough overhead? Word of mouth? The fact that they don't break for some does not mean they have enough safety margin for the manufacturer. I highly doubt that most of the drivetrain would meet any sort of reliability margin with a 300hp stock engine.

No I am mistaken. I though the IS250, where a good part of our drivetrain was derived, had the 3.5 liter as an option but it did not. So disregard.

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And not a single one of them predicted the dip!

Why would we? Its not really -that- big of a deal anyways. If you're driving crazily then you're keeping it above ~4500rpm, and if you're actually trying to save gas while driving in town, you'd be following the old "shift at 3000" gas miser mantra. Both points are utilizing max torque. At least this car makes enough torque that low down that you can still scoot around town while shifting early and not feel like you're driving an 80's econo 4cylinder.

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

~200 hp

Looks like I predicted the correct HP though.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

Why would we? Its not really -that- big of a deal anyways. If you're driving crazily then you're keeping it above ~4500rpm, and if you're actually trying to save gas while driving in town, you'd be following the old "shift at 3000" gas miser mantra. Both points are utilizing max torque. At least this car makes enough torque that low down that you can still scoot around town while shifting early and not feel like you're driving an 80's econo 4cylinder.





Looks like I predicted the correct HP though.

I am strongly in the dip don't mean shit camp. It is meaningless except on a graph.

Was more a poke at the debate on the torque than a critique.

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by gtengr

What modifications are required that would add significant weight?

Which route we going? Affordable or expensive?


Expensive: Not much really, just use lighter higher cost materials to keep weight down where it can be. Overall cost to the end consumer would probably price it out of any competitive range though.



Affordable: Everything gets bigger. If we were to say a baseline 270hp, a ~26% bump in overall power over the previous generation, then yes you can expect some girth. Bigger brakes all around, half-shafts, driveshaft, beefed up transmission, beefed up suspension, beefed up rear differential, and then further reinforcements to the chassis to handle the increased total weight and power. Then finally you have either
A) The bigger engine
B) A longblock that weighs nearly the same as the outgoing engine, but has the weight additions of then entirety of the new turbo system.



It's a lot of little somethings that adds hundreds of pounds to the final curb weight.


On their first try (the current gen) they could barely muster a hair under 2800lbs on a car utilizing 200hp. Honestly, I was kinda surprised by that number when it was first released before realizing that with modern NHTSA standards, there's a lot of added crap enthusiast drivers don't want or need that the manufacturers simply can't get around, especially at its initial ~$25k MSRP offering point, where using the more expensive lighter materials is simply not an option.


This is sort of a moot point though, as the rumors of the next gen car using a different chassis platform haven't been confirmed or denied. If they end up using a completely different platform, instead of modifying the current one, then we're basically back at scratch figuring out what the final weight would be.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Opie

Most car prediction sites; "we know that Subaru’s platform will be nixed to make room for Toyota’s TNGA platform. We thought this was the case before, but now we know why (and we probably should have seen this coming.) Subaru’s platform just isn’t suitable for RWD cars."

I have to LOL at this....looks like the SGP would easily work with a RWD setup...just like the previous generation platform did on the current car.

And I've attached my "guesses" as to some of the 2nd gen's details....we can compare when the "official" details are released.

what reason do you have to suspect they'll be going to 5x114.3? i haven't seen anything about that yet

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I am strongly in the dip don't mean shit camp. It is meaningless except on a graph.

Was more a poke at the debate on the torque than a critique.

I wouldn't say meaningless. Just blown out of proportion. You can work around it, or if you're already used to driving torqueless peppy 4cylinders of yesteryear (4A-GE) then it doesn't really bother you to have to constantly down shift into the power band so you can accelerate, pass, etc. But I won't discount a beautiful flat torque curve. My MK3 Supra had that. Push all the way to 5500 ish.


Kind of like how "slow" the twins are. They're out gunned by other cars in the price range concerning overall power, and can be beat in drag races against said cars, but they're not slow cars by any means.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Opie

Most car prediction sites; "we know that Subaru’s platform will be nixed to make room for Toyota’s TNGA platform. We thought this was the case before, but now we know why (and we probably should have seen this coming.) Subaru’s platform just isn’t suitable for RWD cars."

I have to LOL at this....looks like the SGP would easily work with a RWD setup...just like the previous generation platform did on the current car.

And I've attached my "guesses" as to some of the 2nd gen's details....we can compare when the "official" details are released.

It is hard to look at the Subaru platform and see how a RWD car could work, not because of the rear end, but because of the front end. As you can see, the engine bay is designed for Subaru's Symmetrical AWD platform, with the transaxles inline with the front wheels and strut towers, which are butted up agains the firewall. Compare that to the 86, which has the engine inline with the strut towers, and the firewall moved back, it would seem like the platform just wouldn't work.

The fact is that Subaru and Toyota made Subaru's platform work for the 86 when all Subaru was producing was FWD and AWD cars. In fact, if we compare the engine bays of a 2013 WRX to a 2013 86, it would also seem that the architecture wouldn't be compatible.