The 86 on Toyota's Chopping Block ?

[86MLR]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

As long as Toyota has an existing relationship with BMW, and as long as BMW has an interest in introducing a small, light sports car under the Mini banner, Toyota really ought to just go ahead and build the low tier sports car in cooperation with Mini. The SFR and Superleggera concepts even bear a pretty striking resemblance, as if maybe some behind the scenes discussion might have already been happening.

Mini hey, nope from me.

I am certain a FWD 86 would not be on my shopping list.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

Mini hey, nope from me.

I am certain a FWD 86 would not be on my shopping list.

Who said anything about a FWD 86? For that matter, who said anything about FWD at all?

[86MLR]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Who said anything about a FWD 86? For that matter, who said anything about FWD at all?

You brought up the use of the Mini (BMW) = FWD

If they partner with Mini, I assume they will use the Mini platform, hence, FWD.

As long as in the end we end up with a cheap RWD manual coupe that has Japanese reliability, I cannot see that happening with BMW though.

I'm curious on how this new Euro built Supra will go, and how much the 6cyl and 4 cyl cost in the end.

If the 4 cyl Supra is reasonably priced that will definitely kill the 86.

Toyota isn't going to have 2 4 cyl RWD front engined sports cars, and that's not counting the Lexus RC

Honestly, I would be happy if Toyota just built their own cars and cut Subaru (the boxer motor really has some issues) and BMW (who, here at least, are overpriced and unreliable) away.

If anything, I believe Toyota should update a old 2ZZ-GE, give it a manual transmission and drivetrain that can handle the power, you could even give it 1mm more stroke and call it a 86, or not and call it a Celica, and bam, next cool cheap sports car from Toyota.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

You brought up the use of the Mini (BMW) = FWD

Just like Subaru = AWD. So my BRZ is AWD? Or maybe, just maybe, did Subaru depart from their standard configuration for the joint venture, just like BMW could for an SFR/Superleggera project?

And that still doesn't explain why you mentioned a FWD 86, since neither of the cars I posted have anything to do with the 86 platform.

Originally Posted by 86MLR

If they partner with Mini, I assume they will use the Mini platform, hence, FWD.

Why would you assume that? Toyota didn't use a Subaru platform for the 86. The two companies developed a new platform. The Superleggera concept was originally intended to be an electric vehicle, which already departs from the current Mini configuration. Meanwhile, the SFR concept was RWD. They're both CONCEPTS, which means they don't necessarily predict what might end up in a production vehicle. Toyota already proved they don't have to just buy someone else's car and rebadge it, since that's not what they did with the 86. If there were a joint project, it would be a new platform developed together, so it wouldn't necessarily follow any of your preconceived biases against Mini.

What I find interesting about them is that they have some stylistic similarities, fit the same market niche, were both being promoted in public around the same time, both seemed like they were on their way to production and both vanished from sight around the same time, which also seems to have coincided with Toyota partnering with BMW for the Supra project. It's not inconceivable that both companies decided to put their tiny sports car projects on hold to see how the Supra venture worked out, with an eye toward birthing another joint venture made up of the best features of both of those concepts if the marriage works.

[ermax]

The BMW partnership could leverage an i4 for a new 86 but it makes no since to use the Mini chassis as the base for a RWD car. True the original FT86 concept used a Legacy chassis but making an AWD car RWD is much easier than making an FF chassis FR. Most FF cars can’t accommodate the driveshaft. I’m not saying they couldn’t work together I just don’t see them using the Mini chassis as a base.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by ermax

The BMW partnership could leverage an i4 for a new 86 but it makes no since to use the Mini chassis as the base for a RWD car. ... I’m not saying they couldn’t work together I just don’t see them using the Mini chassis as a base.

Oh for fuck's sake. It's clear we're all now just going to post with our heads up our asses so that we can't actually read what was written, so I fucking give up.

[86MLR]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Toyota really ought to just go ahead and build the low tier sports car in cooperation with Mini.

Referencing your post, I thought I was.

Mini = FWD, unless you bring the 4all Countryman into the equation, which sits at a fat 1500kg.

Anyways.......how about that Mini reliability, umm, oh wait....what

[MrDinkleman]

Originally Posted by 86MLR

Honestly, I would be happy if Toyota just built their own cars and cut Subaru (the boxer motor really has some issues) and BMW (who, here at least, are overpriced and unreliable) away.

Sign me up!

[why?]

Because Toyota has never not once in its history used a FWD platform backwards for the MR2. Oh wait...

Originally Posted by 86MLR

You brought up the use of the Mini (BMW) = FWD

If they partner with Mini, I assume they will use the Mini platform, hence, FWD.

As long as in the end we end up with a cheap RWD manual coupe that has Japanese reliability, I cannot see that happening with BMW though.

I'm curious on how this new Euro built Supra will go, and how much the 6cyl and 4 cyl cost in the end.

If the 4 cyl Supra is reasonably priced that will definitely kill the 86.

Toyota isn't going to have 2 4 cyl RWD front engined sports cars, and that's not counting the Lexus RC

Honestly, I would be happy if Toyota just built their own cars and cut Subaru (the boxer motor really has some issues) and BMW (who, here at least, are overpriced and unreliable) away.

If anything, I believe Toyota should update a old 2ZZ-GE, give it a manual transmission and drivetrain that can handle the power, you could even give it 1mm more stroke and call it a 86, or not and call it a Celica, and bam, next cool cheap sports car from Toyota.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Oh for fuck's sake. It's clear we're all now just going to post with our heads up our asses so that we can't actually read what was written, so I fucking give up.

I knew what you meant.

[bcj]

As above, Mini is already an AWD platform.

Now, I'm wondering if a 4 wheel steering, rear engine Mini would be fun.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) says that one tactic for persuading people to accept your point of view is to just make up a statistic and state it outright as if it's fully supported, even if it isn't. During the presidential primary campaign in 2015, an influential pundit named Nate Silver declared that Donald Trump had a mere 2% chance of winning the Republican nomination. Several news outlets reported Silver's "expert" estimate as fact and touted it as proof that the Trump campaign was just a sideshow that didn't matter.



Adams (who actually teaches corporate seminars on persuasion) recognized it as a bullshit number pulled out of the guy's ass to campaign against Trump's nomination in the hope that people would hear it, accept that Trump had no chance and refuse to take him seriously. So Adams posted on his blog that Trump had a 98% chance of winning. That bogus estimate dovetailed perfectly with Silver's bogus estimate and got a lot of attention, resulting in Adams making the rounds on the television networks persuading viewers Trump had a 98% chance of winning.



Even though the number was bogus, in hindsight Adams was right.



That's all David Phillips at Automotive News is doing. It's a bogus number he just pulled out of his ass to try to persuade you his expert predictions have value.



He has a 50% chance of being correct.

Nate Silver uses statistics to build his models. He had given Trump a 3 in 10 chance of winning. It turned out that the polling saying that Hillary would win swing states was close and a large number of undecided voters in that election opened the door for abnormally large variance.

Also, Adams is a deranged person these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Nate Silver uses statistics to build his models. He had given Trump a 3 in 10 chance of winning. It turned out that the polling saying that Hillary would win swing states was close and a large number of undecided voters in that election opened the door for abnormally large variance.

Also, Adams is a deranged person these days.

So a deranged person was able to accurately predict the results of an election where an expert who uses statistics to fake I mean build his models was completely wrong.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

So a deranged person was able to accurately predict the results of an election where an expert who uses statistics to fake I mean build his models was completely wrong.

Like you said, it was a 50:50 shot because predicting an election is like predicting which sports team will win. One guessed and the other one used an algorithm but it always has to actually play out to see who wins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk