Toyota GT86 / Scion FR-S Convertible Rumored for Geneva Debut in March 2013

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by raul

Although I don't support the idea, because typically folks who buy a convertible aren't the type of folks who care much about structural rigidity and weight (a.k.a non-enthusiasts),

Agreed, but it's still an option. Why couldn't a moonroof be an option? I'm not asking for a standard equipment moonroof. And it would still be significantly less ruined than a full convertible.

[NetMagi]

I understand the pic in this thread is just a 'shop', but wow those lines do not work in my opinion.

The rear flares and metal would need to be re-worked for this car's shape to work as a cabrio.

I second what a lot of other folks said. . I'd love to see an option for a hatchback.

-Rich H.

[czar07]

do you think it may just be an aero top rather than a full on cabrio?

[Re_Invention]

Originally Posted by merlin2111

For everyone who is saying that convertible buyers are not enthusiasts please keep in mind that that the Miata is the 1# modified and raced car in the history of automobiles.

I have a soft top but I rock a hardtop 75% of the time. I love the idea of a soft top. I would take it off add the sway/struts to keep the rigidity and then get a sexy hard top for it. Most people who hate on convertibles have never driven a Miata. It is not a Mercedes or Lexus which gets sloppy as hell. It is a race car with the sky above your head.

Originally Posted by Texas FR-S

Yup... Although I was very happy owning the MX-5 because it was a pure sports car developed as a convertible from ground up.

Tex got it, the miata is a ground up convertible sports car - and an amazing one at that. Having the option would've been nice but I'm content that Mazda (and the s2000 as well!) decided not to bring over a coupe version of the it, the convertible is simply great as it is. With maybe the exception of some exotics (458 comes to mind) it's very rare, in fact, I can't think of a single one... that a chopped top coupe turns out to be a great sporty convertible meeting or exceeding the coupe version.

An also interesting look would be convertibles that turned into coupes and how they fared. Some that come to mind; BMW Z3/Z4, Pontiac Solstice, Shelby Cobra.. I say it's a mixed bag: some were better for it and some weren't.

Anyways, back to subject - A targa top may actually make some sense, does anyone know how it effects structural rigidity as compared to the standard coupe or a convertible? I know Porsche uses the targa method a lot in their history and I believe it was to retain some of the chassis balance/feel. Pop's Grand Sport Corvette has it and I think it's fantastic, a great balance for a sports car.

[FT_Monk]

Originally Posted by Re_Invention

The Cab is a cash cow for the company, they need to recoup some of their investment in this risky project. Also, have you literally read nothing? No turbo for FRS - it's been confirmed many times, hell even in this article

Cash cow is when they sell a bunch of cars and makes money; when lots of engineering cost going into boutique model like convertible that will not sell it is called money pit.
Read carefully and you will see that I said they should build the turbo version instead of convertible

[dori.]

Originally Posted by fistpoint

Agreed, but it's still an option. Why couldn't a moonroof be an option? I'm not asking for a standard equipment moonroof. And it would still be significantly less ruined than a full convertible.

have you SEEN the roof of the 86?

how the **** could the be able to add a moonroof to that.

a roadster designed from the ground up (as in with reinforced chassis) is less ruined than cutting a fricking hole in the roof of a rigid coupe

[whaap]

I think of cars like the Z, Cayman, the old CRX and how nice the access to the rear was with the hatchback configuration and I would have willingly sacrificed a few dollars or even a few pounds for a hatchback. I guess that's why they make vanilla and chocolate.

[Turbowned]

Originally Posted by merlin2111

For everyone who is saying that convertible buyers are not enthusiasts please keep in mind that that the Miata is the 1# modified and raced car in the history of automobiles.

I would not say that a convertible 2 seat roadster is a non-performance vehicle, but I would say that a convertible with any more than 2 seats is nothing more than an overweight wannabe cruiser, no matter what kind of engine, brakes or dampers it's fitted with. I'm looking straight at you, Mustang, Camaro, BMW M3/M6, and Audi S5! That's why I'm hoping if indeed they do make a 'vert 86, that it's a 2-seater.

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by dori.

have you SEEN the roof of the 86?

how the **** could the be able to add a moonroof to that.

a roadster designed from the ground up (as in with reinforced chassis) is less ruined than cutting a fricking hole in the roof of a rigid coupe

I seriously doubt that. A convertible needs lots of reinforcement in case the car rolls, much more than just a hole in the top.

Also, where the hell do you get this "ground up" concept from? The car was designed to NOT be a convertible. It most certainly was an afterthought, that's why there isn't one already out. The Miata on the other hand is a "ground-up" convertible.

[dori.]

Originally Posted by fistpoint

I seriously doubt that. A convertible needs lots of reinforcement in case the car rolls, much more than just a hole in the top.

Also, where the hell do you get this "ground up" concept from? The car was designed to NOT be a convertible. It most certainly was an afterthought, that's why there isn't one already out. The Miata on the other hand is a "ground-up" convertible.

holy misunderstanding batman

what I mean is, if they design the roadster from the ground up as a roadster and not just chop the top off and call it a day. As in based on the 86 but with a new revised chassis.

I KNOW the car wasn't designed as a vert. everyone knows that

[Gixxersixxerman]

these might have been posted on the forum before.. either way, i came across them looking for a FRS high def wallpaper



and a BRZ version

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by dori.

holy misunderstanding batman

what I mean is, if they design the roadster from the ground up as a roadster and not just chop the top off and call it a day. As in based on the 86 but with a new revised chassis.

I KNOW the car wasn't designed as a vert. everyone knows that

I understood just fine. But they can't do what you say, the car already exists as a hardtop. Chopping the top is exactly what they have to do otherwise it becomes a different car all together. Is there a DeLorean somewhere in this thread I'm missing?

[dori.]

so you mean to tell me that toyota/subaru et al can't design a roadster based on teh ft86 without taking the existing chassis and just changing the top of the structure?

as opposed to making a new chassis based on the platform. ok brah.

since you know about both companies engineering capabilities and resources, you win.

[glorydays]

It looks like a very skinny chick with a ridiculously fat ass

[DRACHENV6]

They need to design the convertible really well in order for it to sell. I think the focus should be weight, style, handling, and price.

IMO the following are a must:

1. Weight reduction + hardtop (retractable or removable like the s2000)
2. A car that does not look like the IS-convertible.. Yuck!
3. Handling that is at least on par with the s2000
4. Competitive pricing
5. +/- Kerrs hybrid system. Let's see what it can do before coming to conclusions

]

The BRZ/FRS won over car enthusiasts but toyota/subaru are looking to expand their target audience. I think it's a smart move, but they need to stay true to their roots or this will become another IS-350/F letdown.

If this ends up looking like the solara....

[Re_Invention]

Originally Posted by DRACHENV6

They need to design the convertible really well in order for it to sell. I think the focus should be weight, style, handling, and price.

IMO the following are a must:

1. Weight reduction + hardtop (retractable or removable like the s2000)
2. A car that does not look like the IS-convertible.. Yuck!
3. Handling that is at least on par with the s2000
4. Competitive pricing
5. +/- Kerrs hybrid system. Let's see what it can do before coming to conclusions

]

The BRZ/FRS won over car enthusiasts but toyota/subaru are looking to expand their target audience. I think it's a smart move, but they need to stay true to their roots or this will become another IS-350/F letdown.

If this ends up looking like the solara....

? This is a little confusing. If the niche car enthusiast market is taken care of, why does the convertible need the weight and handling to be spot on? I think it simply needs styling, price, price and price to appeal to an expanded market (non-enthusiasts). I'd be willing to bet that automatic transmission equip cars will make up the bulk of sales, even. The car is already well designed, chopping the roof off won't make a consequential difference to the average buyer (to a track junkie: sure) - just make it cheap, look good and have plenty of them on the lot. Even if the convertible sells well only for a couple of years, it'll still be good business for Toyota since it's cheaper in r&d to do this than make a brand new model. And it's great for the buyer as the Miata finally gets some competition (although we've heard that one countless times in the past)

And thinking about the higher performance super-capacitor model that should be out in a few years.. I'm excited for it and all but why not put that tech into a higher scale (Supra) model and keep the FRS as a simple, ironed out canvas like Mazda did with the Miata. I shudder when thinking about the Mazdaspeed version. Keep it Simple, Stupid! Maybe I'm just annoyed that the current car has some issues and room for more natural growth and looking at exotic/unnecessary components is too.. ambitious? They should spend some time making the current product the absolute best it can be, then explore some unique approaches.

[ben15r]

Originally Posted by Re~Mix

Targa top anyone!?

+ Cage

[RaceR]

Render