Oh if anyone buys this, I am literally going to laugh at you if I ever see you on the road. This isn't close to the 86 blood, sedan really? Do you guys really want to see a sedan filled with a family drifting?

Oh god no.......... why can't they just stick to making a high performance BRZ/FRS/GT86? Throw on some stock Brembo's, a nice high pressure Turbo, 260-270hp and call it day and you'll have everyones love and money

I hate when companies get power drunk off of a good idea/product and turn the whole thing into shit

This^^^

I miss a few weeks of coming on this website and I come back to this?

TOYOTA WA JU DOIN

This is either the return of the Altezza or they will simply drop the hybrid powertrain into the existing IS. Although it makes more sense for the 300hp turbo FA20 to be the next WRX STI (aren't they already testing this on the Nurburgring?).

Please don't compare this AWD concept to subarus symmetrical AWD system. :bonk::thanks::popcorn:

This doesn't sound like it's going to be a gt86/BRZ sedan. I think they're just making a whole new model based off the gt86/ BRZ. It won't be marketed as the same car and it shouldn't be. This sound more like Toyota is helping Subaru make the new legacy.

just destroy the cars roots to maximize there dollar.....WOW

4door awd sedan lol. Total BS. Subaru wouldn't allow a pompetitor of the wrx.
Period. This is bs.

And if I ever see you drifting I will have a good chuckle as well.

While this article is likely hearsay at best, the bit at the end was interesting. If they were to test the waters by releasing a turbocharged model in 2016, that would be pretty cool. As long as there are no significant changes made to the FA20, would that mean we could purchase a TRD/STi turbo kit in the future? Interesting indeed.

Fuck all hybrid cars forever. Hybrids are just the shittiest of shitty ideas: either convert to clean power generation and electric cars, or build smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient combustion cars. Use diesels in utility-oriented cars and efficient gas engines in sporty cars.

I really don't get it: why would they take a small, relatively light, simple, and inexpensive platform and then fill it with three motors and racks of batteries? Toyota already have the hybrid market cornered with the godawful Prius variants...

Yes! Hybrids are for people who have to get to the store and work and could give a shit about how they get there. Each car type has their market, they need to stop mixing the too. Isn't it bad enough we have to look at that barf Panamera?!

Even if this car tips the scales at 3200-3300lbs, that's pretty damn light for a supposed 300hp sedan, especially in today's world. Look at the new 335i - it weighs in at nearly 3600lbs.

I just don't understand all the anger.

Least efficient part of using an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) is start-stop driving, which isn't an issue for electric propulsion (which only uses the energy you need). Electric propulsion doesn't have the energy storage to do long distance cruising like ICE's can, so why would combining them to cover the weak points of each be a bad thing? You get increased efficiency off your old infrastructure (ICE/fossil fuels) while developing the future technology and infrastructure (Electric). It's a good idea, but anyone who thinks it's more than an in between step is fooling themselves. Problem is, we need this stepping stone to get to the future.

No argument that they're mostly boring and soulless and I'd rather do fossil fuels or all electric, but blindly bashing on hybrids is not an intelligent position.

Read up on super capacitors. All-electric quick-charging cars aren't that far away. Some prototypes are using bodywork as batteries.

I think that's a bit further off than people hope, there's also safety concerns (body panel ruptures, bunch of charge goes where?) but I think it's feasible within our lifetimes (for the younger members) that we go all electric for personal transportation. I mean, we theoretically have fuel cells that are acceptable for transportation usage (The Honda Clarity has been around for over 5 years now) but we can't quite nail down the formula or build the infrastructure. Not everything promising today pans out tomorrow, just check out the nuclear cars of the 50's and the rotary prototypes from the late 60's.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity"]Honda FCX Clarity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon"]Ford Nucleon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Rotary_Combustion_Engine"]General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]



20 years ago if you had told people that some of the most popular cars would be hybrids the average consumer would have laughed. 120 years ago they would have been baffled that we ever moved away from electric motors in the first place.

YES. YES I WOULD.




though mine would have 3 hot women occupying the other seats, but you got the general idea

The energy density of batteries is too low for what we'd really like to have for our vehicles (it takes over a thousand pounds of batteries to give a fairly aerodynamic sedan [Model S] a 260 mile range). Supercaps are more than an order of magnitude worse than that (so a thousand pounds of supercaps would only give a Model S a <26 mile range). Yes, they're great for fast charging and discharging, but they're nowhere near the required energy density to be viable as the main energy storage in a car yet. They could potentially be used to provide quick bursts of power though, so the main battery wouldn't need to provide as much current.

Actually me too. But with two small children and a big dog.

A sedan would defeat the purpose of the 86. There was never a sedan or convertible so why ruin the legacy with such crap? Upgrade the engine to a 2.5L and call it a day.

As rolling science experiments I'm sure they serve a purpose, but between the batteries that are only ~60% recyclable and the fact that a ton of electricity in the US is generated by burning coal AND the fact that the resulting cars are generally awful to drive, I don't see why people wouldn't be better off just buying a TDI Golf and getting better fuel economy than a Prius: it would use less fuel, be similarly practical, and wouldn't require replacing a $2500 battery after a few years. Hell, even the 123d, which was a pretty fun looking car (a diesel-powered 1-series hatchback) managed to hit a combined MPG that was in the mid-40's, and that car accelerates as fast as our BRZs and by all accounts handled pretty well... beats the hell out of a Prius / Volt / insert-boring-USDM-hybrid-here. Why can't we have these instead of Prii?

I basically have a philosophical objection to hybrids: I think electric cars are pretty cool (although we need to come up with better ways of generating the power), and efficient internal combustion designs are cool. Even the hybrids that are basically electrics with a built-in gas-powered generator for long trips make a bit of sense to me. What doesn't make any sense to me is a car like the Prius that has to lug around two complete propulsion systems for literally no fucking reason at all since it gets poorer fuel economy than some ICE designs and drives like shit. They only thing they do well is serve as a place for thoughtless would-be greenies to stick "namaste" and "coexist" stickers so that other drivers can giggle with ironic glee when they get cut off by the hybrid driver who's cutting across five lanes of highway traffic without looking while driving 85mph in a 65. Because that's good for fuel economy, you know.

My other major objection to hybidism is how every manufacturer seems to feel obliged to release hybrid versions of all of their cars. This gives consumers the impression that they're able to make "green" choices by electing to purchase a "clean, environmentally-friendly hybrid version" of whatever massive land-boat they think they want to drive. It's silly because if you want to do your bit to save the planet, the answer is clearly not to buy a hybrid version of the SUV you already drove, but to drive something that's smaller than a house. Or take public transport. Or carpool. Or do literally anything that isn't buying a hybrid SUV. There's no reason to spend so much time and money fighting physics when you don't have to...

Ugh. Enough about the stupid sedan that will never be. This forum is about a RWD Coupe. That's the whole point of the 86.

Why do these threads keep making headlines on the site???

Euro scene and TOP GEAR BBC is ruining the Japanese aftermarket scene. All I hear is BMW series this or Porsche that. I cannot stand anything vw/audi/porche/bmw. Mainly douchbags drive these cars and call each other bro.

The only two European manufactures I have respect for are Ferrari and Mercedes Benz.

Rant over.

Three points:

1. Nobody says you can't buy diesel instead of a Prius, or a fuel efficient gas engine. Hell if I wanted to be green I'd buy a mid-80's Civic. They get 40+ mpg for pocket change. Reserve newer diesels for those that can't lose their comfort but want to be green. I honestly think Diesel is more likely than electric at this point, the infrastructure is in place and as long as organic life exists on this planet we can manufacture diesel fuel.

2. You already explained it, it's a rolling science experiment. An auto company needs to develop a more efficient vehicle, hybridization makes sense as it covers the weak points of both technologies available today. Why wouldn't you try to at least break even on that kind of R&D investment? Of course they tried to sell them.

3. If people weren't buying them, the auto manufacturers wouldn't make them. People buy them, get an increase in fuel economy and fund future technologies so we can enjoy fun sports cars while everyone else is charging their cars overnight.

Why do you take technology so personal? You have a vendetta because these things are dull. SO what? From an engineering perspective hybrids make sense in todays world, and they will for a long time. It's hard to explain why it's a good idea, I'm trying to find an article or link that covers roughly 4-6 engineering courses that I've taken. Might have to write it myself...

What some of you need to remember is that the proposed hybrid system in the 86 Sedan is not about economy but extra power to the front wheels when needed. I really can't see why so many are opposed to it, especially as it looks like it will be an option.

Someone says we can't buy a diesel, because most good diesels don't get sold here for whatever reason :(

Haha, I'm pretty sure I hate hybrids because every other car in southern California is a Prius and I'm absolutely sick to death of being stuck behind them doing half the speed limit on every back road ever and then watching them careen through traffic at double the speedlimit on every freeway ever. They just seem to attract the world's worst drivers (sort of like Volvo wagons fifteen years ago). Throw in the fact that they don't really seem to do anything well (they may do well for themselves as a tech development platform, but it's hard to argue that the ones that are for sale right now offer anything particularly novel in terms of performance / capabilities over conventional cars that are already available in most markets.

At the end of the day I feel the same way about hybrids as I felt about the electrically-actuated fuel-flap on my old Golf: they're an overpriced, overly-complicated solution to a non-problem (latches with pull-strings / smaller, lighter cars both worked fine).

Fast 4doors are becoming more and more popular as they are a one car does it all option for the family man that can only afford one new car. Like the new grand national a fast four door has room for the kids and can be driven all winter. On top of being a daily car it can be tracked and autoX and holds it's own on a drag strip against other stock cars. Toyota would deffinitly not be the first company to do this.

Sent from my Q10

LOL! are you kidding ?

The rest of the world has been making those Sport Sedan, it is just expansive, and now Toyota want a Dip in it with a cheap one.

Cadillac
BMW
Mercedes
Audi
.
.
.
etc

Toyota is late to the game

To me, I think the real best advantage of using a hybrid system is the reduction in emissions, heat, and noise - especially at a traffic stop. Living downtown, many times I've pulled up at a red light in the middle of summer and see the people at the bus stops sweltering, and our car's extra heat while running doesn't help that. Don't forget the obnoxious cricket fuel pump sound as well when sitting idle.

A TDI is going to continue to make noise while stopped at a light - some models of which can be very obnoxious (my friend's 05 TDI is stupid loud), where a hybrid will switch to electric mode and allow for cooler, quieter operation.

I think a lot of more modern cars (including the modern diesels) have engine-off systems for stoplights-- put it in neutral and let the clutch out and the engine clicks off. It re-cranks when you put the clutch in. EVs definitely help reduce smog, though-- especially if you don't live near the power plants.

You're talking about 1st gen, mostly prototype technology. Give the auto industry 5-10 years and they'll have super-capacitors and solar in cars. Imagine having the bodywork coated in solar cells, bodywork also doubling as SC's, AND a huge SC cell running along the bottom of the car for an ultra low center of gravity.

One of the reasons current electrics are so inefficient is because they're unable to store regenerative braking power fast enough. If a SC car could get at least 100 miles per charge, that'd be a game changer. If it only takes a minute or two to charge up, we'd have a viable cross-country electric for road trips. At that point, it's just a matter of charging stations catching up, and gas stations would probably start installing charging stations.

I wouldn't count on it. In 5-10 years, supercaps probably won't even be up to the energy density that lithium rechargeable batteries already have, and we don't have a ton of battery powered cars running around right now. Also, having the bodywork double as supercaps probably won't happen anytime soon, since then little dents and dings could cause shorts in your electrical system, which would be a very bad thing for a supercap-powered car.
Not true at all. The regenerative braking in modern electric cars can go directly to the battery without a problem, and the only time we can't store it fast enough is when you are slamming on the brakes. As for the minute or two to charge up? The problem there isn't the batteries/capacitors in the car. The problem there is the electrical grid needed to supply the power for charging.

Let's assume that the proposed car is about as efficient as a Tesla. To go 100 miles, such a car would need about 30kWh of electrical capacity. To charge this car in two minutes, you'd have to supply it with 900kW of power. If you're charging it at something like 500V, this means nearly 2kA of current will be flowing through the wire, requiring a conductor larger than 2000 kcmil in size (this is a copper wire nearly 2 inches in diameter). Alternatively, you could push up the voltage, but then you need thick, heavy-duty insulation. In addition, if 3 or 4 of these cars were charging at once, the charging station could easily pull as much power as a fairly large skyscraper, which the current electrical grid is not designed to handle. It really isn't as simple as you're trying to make it here.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the recent breakthroughs with graphene supercapacitors. The research scientists are claiming they hold as much charge as Lithium, except charge in a fraction of the time.

Everything I've read about regenerative braking is that even at low to moderate braking force the current batteries aren't able to absorb/charge-up all of that power.

Considering graphene doesn't require an electrolyte, it should mean we don't need gigantic 1-ton batteries to make a car go 100 miles on a charge. Also, even if it takes 10 minutes to charge the batteries, that's no big deal for a road trip and a comparable charge time to fossil fuel fill-ups if you take into account a piss break and grabbing a drink from the shop.

[ame="http://vimeo.com/51873011"]The Super Supercapacitor | Brian Golden Davis on Vimeo[/ame]

Those are pretty cool, but I'd always be a bit wary of putting too much faith in press releases, at least until there are some actual products out there using them.

That's not so much a limitation of the technology as it is a limitation of the implementation used in most modern hybrids. The Porsche 918 Spyder can regeneratively brake at 0.50G, which will take you from 60 to 0 in 5.5 seconds. Yes, for truly hard braking, it still has to use the brakes, but for the majority of braking around town, that seems perfectly adequate. Other cars could do something similar, but it all depends on how they want to set up their electric motor, controller, and batteries (and what current, both charging and discharging, they want to design it for).

Even if it matches the energy density of lithium, you'd still need ~1klb of capacitors to get a ~200-250mi range. As for the 10 minute charge? That still requires (using the same estimated capacity as in my calculations above) a 180kW charger, pushing something like 400A of current. This is admittedly getting down to the level that the wires are of a nearly reasonable size, at least, but it's still an awful lot of power to be pushing around, especially with multiple cars charging at once. Also, this isn't that much better than what the Tesla can already do with the superchargers, which can provide about 200 miles of range in a 30-40 minute charge (vs your proposed 100 miles in 10).

Personally, i'm a bit confused on what Toyota is doing with sedans. They seems to be having an identity crisis with the Camry and Corolla and have been for years, and it seems like they are wanting to hastily capitalize on the success of the 86 by morphing it into a sedan which will (if history is any judge) quickly become the same thing as the Camrolla.
Don't kill the bar, Toyota.

This makes me upset...I hope this is just a rumor. :|

I think he made the same point as you

I really hope a sedan doesn't release. Just means more people will have an BRZ/frs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Well, if the BRZ/FRS are cancelled due to lack of sales and profits, you'll get your wish - no BRZ/FRS for anyone!

I don't understand why anyone would be upset with this. The more they can utilize the platform, the better. That means a better chance of future generations of the vehicle as well. It's not like they're just going to slap a couple of extra doors onto the existing cars and call it a day. And I'd be shocked if it had a similar name as well. From the outside you probably would have no idea it's the same underpinnings.

As far as exclusivity and people not wanting to see things developed just so their cars are more rare. Well, sorry, you bought a Subaru or a Toyota. You want exclusivity, save your pennies and get something really exclusive.