It didn't have the range. And that's what makes it so heavy. Maybe it wasn't popular because of its styling (and rightfully so)

You can get off your high horse here. My parameters have been consistent for basically ever on here.

[QUOTE]Active/torque vectoring differentials are outlawed in F1, are on many exotics and sports vehicles like the ISF, Focus RS, Porsche and Supra/M cars to name a few. Are all these sporty vehicles inherently flawed? [QUOTE]

The Focus RS absolutely is inherently flawed. Without the vectoring its handling would be reflective of it's weight imbalance. Plenty of cars handle fine without the vectoring, that aren't flawed, but its still an option for them as well. I'm saying the ones that are flawed need it in order to handle proper. It's a bandaid. My GTI is guilty of that as well. But I bought it to be a DD grocery getter so whatever, I don't have any allusions about it being some great performance vehicle. Porsche made the 2nd gen Cayman larger, and as a result the only way they made it as nimble as the first gen was to offer torque vectoring as an option. So I would consider that a flaw yes. It's also the same reason a chunky 992 911 is able to hang with lighter more mechanically pure driving 911s of years before.

That was a term of expression. Sarcasm at the joke of it. I agree it's sad as well.

If anyone could do it, probably will be Mazda (if they're still an independent company in 10 years). But a hybrid Miata sounds miserable. Hopefully they'll just make it an ICE until the technology exists to make it an EV with the same ethos.

Huh? What do I care if a sports car is popular or not. I just want something to be popular enough for the business case to exist for it to not lose money, i.e. so someone will see value in building it. Seems pretty obvious to me that an EV sports car needs range equal to an ICE sports car so that it can be used for track events. Otherwise what's the point. These cars are toys. Again I'm all for variety but what you're seeing is cancellation and replacement with vehicles that aren't the least bit similar.

We will have to see what happens. There obviously is a small market for these type of vehicles or the 86, Miata, Lotus, etc wouldn't exist. It isn't huge, but it is big enough not to ignore, and it invigorates the brand. Sporty cars and trucks bring more brand loyalty than sedans and CUVs. It is good for business. We know this is the case or Toyota wouldn't have put the effort into the 86 and Supra.

At one point in time we had the Miata, the Solstice, the Sky, the MR2, Boxster, and others. Has so much changed that this market is gone forever? I don't think so. I wouldn't be surprised if these type of cars get even more traction. Why? 800hp large, sports sedans and pony cars aren't a big deal. Powerful EVs will destroy them anyways and naturally replace them. Many enthusiasts are gravitating to old platforms and lightweight cars. They are better for autocross and track days than a Redeye. I think a Redeye was almost identical to a Miata around a test track in a review that I saw, despite the power. Aero, lightweight, grip and handling will be more important, which is doable with a lightweight EV. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility. In fact, the modular structure of the skateboard design will lend itself to multiple different shells.

The i3 was just as successful as many cars on the road. Again, you are making statements without defining the criteria you are using to make your statements. What metric are you using to say it wasn't successful? Profits, production numbers, years in production...?


By your own admission, the system can be used to improve an already balanced system with minimal weight (active diff on the M3 is like 10-20lbs heavier). You suggested EVs are flawed, so they are using the torque vectoring to fix a problem, yet they may be just taking advantage of something inherently available. The skateboard design has a low center of mass; the battery is center, so it can have a good polar of inertia for rotation; the motors are between the drive wheels, so weight is directly over the wheels for traction; a front and rear engine can create a near 50/50 weight distribution. This is all good stuff, or even better stuff.

There are variants of the same car optioned without the active diff, and they still destroy older variants.


Because you said the i3 wasn't popular, so by your own statement someone would reasonably conclude you care if a car is popular. Seems popular enough if it is going to be in production for ten years and sales have gone up each year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i3#Production

Again, the point of the BMW i3 is to demonstrate that EVs aren't necessarily heavy. A different form factor version of the BMW i3 in a sports car format could be even lighter. Range and speed aren't necessary for a sports car. Going to the track is a consideration for enthusiasts, but not really on the list of concerns when producing an affordable sports car. The vast majority of Miatas and 86s never see a track or get a single modification. I don't see why an EV would be different.

An EV Miata is totally doable with today's technology and still be compelling. It might even sell alongside an ICE version, and it could do well, especially at autocross or for short tracks, but it would be even better as a no-fuss weekend Sunday driver that would need little maintenance. For anyone in a city like me with a 3 mile commute, and who is 30 minutes from the coast and who has a two hour loop for canyon driving, 150-200 mile range is more than enough.

The first Tesla roadster was over 2800lbs, around the same as heaviest i3.

I don't understand why? Admittedly there are no cheap performance hybrids, but there's nothing to say they couldn't implement an electric motor that would benefit the performance characteristics. I'm a little surprised the GR86 wasn't developed in this way. After all there are plenty of mild 48v Hybrids out there.

This could happen only if Toyota played the major role in 2nd gen. With Subaru having the active role, we should feel lucky that we got even the D-4S technology for a second time. All they did this time was to apply the same exercise of the past, but starting with the FB25 engine instead of the FB20 engine. And they were so stubborn at first, that they were thinking they could make it with their own DI technology without using D-4S.

All Subarus except for the BRZ use Subaru's own DI system though. Also Subaru has their own hybrid system that incorporates the motor in the transaxle. They could design it without Toyota. it's not a technical challenge, but a market challenge.

The Miata is going electric not because the market is asking for it, but because it's the only way the Miata will survive. A hybrid BRZ would be more expensive and almost impossible to sell next to the gas version. Once they're unable to sell gas only cars the hybrid may become an option out of necessity, or the model will be discontinued.

I could be wrong but an entry level sports car is a hard enough sell at 30k, let alone 35-40k for a hybrid version. Remember the Supra starts at 44k.

Yes they have their own hybrid system which was first introduced in Crosstrek and in fact it was a disaster. The car was slower than the one with plain engine and I think mileage wasn't much better too. I believe they get now some support from Toyota to continue with their electrification future.

I think that Miata could give us something quite interesting and more relevant to where we are moving. I agree that it is not easy to sell a 30k sports car, but I would prefer to pay maybe 5k more than to buy cheaper and pay after higher taxes cause of the worse vehicle classification, higher CO2 etc.

I agree that it all seems/is possible. But nobody is interested in building a driver centric EV sports. Most automakers are currently interested in finding out how to build EVs at a profit, and nothing else (almost all failing at it too). if BMW already did it, why aren't they building on that then? Instead of selling 4000lb+ plus ovals? I apologize for underestimating the i3's sales. I never see them, ever (and I see more Teslas than I can remember on a daily basis). I'd reply to the comments about the torque vectoring, but this conversation is getting too fragmented, lol. I agree EVs can more easily attain the "ideal" weight distribution for handling, I wasn't trying to suggest that.

Hybrids add weight, complexity and cost. Three things that each by themselves is in complete conflict with the Miata...nevermind all three.

Some mild hybrids combine the starter motor, alternator, and flywheel, so in a sense complexity is reduced, sort of... A battery pack (or supercapacitors or combination) sized for energy recapture from braking rather than for huge range can be compact and lightweight. And you get an on-demand power-adder from the electric motor so ICE could be a bit smaller/lighter/cheaper and more efficient.

I think mild hybridization should surely be a part of the approach to reducing CO2 emissions. But in the US just applying same CAFE standards to trucks and SUVs as they do to cars and eliminating the adjustment that gives larger cars a break would be huge in reducing CO2 emissions.

I personally wouldn't blame the "environmental green movement" for a lack of lightweight interactive sports cars. Lightweight is good for the environment. But the market has never been that interested in those cars and with brands consolidating all of their models into a handful or even a single platform...it doesn't make much sense. The market wants big power, tech, insulation, and acres of piano black plastic.

Which sucks, but this isn't really a new thing.

As for new electrified sports cars...I started writing this for an article but then sat on it:

"Right now at Mazda, there’s a team focused on how to make an electric sports car as rewarding to drive as the Miata. And a big part of that is software engineers tweaking the accelerator tuning, torque vectoring, electronic steering, brake by wire, and brake regeneration. Trying to make it feel more natural and cohesive. More like a sports car and less like a space ship.

At least I hope so. The next Miata will at least be a hybrid and it will set the bar for what an attainable electrified sports car can feel like to enthusiasts. It will have lots of tech and it will still feel like a Miata. Some people will still be upset.

Climate, politics, the market, whatever. The bottom line is that sports cars have to change to survive. But they don’t have to suck."

Anyway, I really want an Alpine A110.

- Andrew

Yes, I agree. It's particularly maddening for sports car enthusiasts to see them go extinct/get fat from regulations (crash and emissions) while in the meantime SUVs and trucks basically get a pass. It's nonsensical.

(of course just follow the money)

It's not the "crash and emissions regulations". Fact is Subaru and Toyota are producing a modern S13 240SX at the same weight, with much more power and greater chassis stiffness, *much* nicer interior, at same relative price point as Nissan did in the early 90s. And the Miata is not too far off from early-90s era weight as well. While meeting all those modern crash and emissions regulations.

If regs are to blame, it is indeed the regs that have been heavily rigged by the automakers and fossil fuel industry to actually *encourage* bigger and heavier cars, and *especially* MUCH bigger and heavier trucks and SUVs. If they all had to meet the same fuel economy and CO2 emissions standards, we wouldn't have a huge portion of the population driving around in 4000, 5000, 6000 lb. tanks. Totally agree, it's beyond ridiculous...

My take is that 20-30 years ago if someone wanted some pep and a sporty driving experience in a car they had to go to a proper sports car. So the true hardcore enthusiasts were augmented with plenty of softcore drivers. Today most cars are decently quick and tire and suspension technology make even the most boring commuter car being able to out-handle the average driver, so the softcore enthusiasts don't need a sports car anymore. Hence the shrinking market.

Yup. My dad traded his 997 for a Macan GTS. I get it. On paper it is pretty much a dead ringer for the performance figures of the 997, and it’s more practical. It matches the 0-60, slalom speed, almost everything is exactly the same.

But man, the 911 would raise the hairs on your neck when you drove it hard. The Macan just doesn’t.

Half true IMO. While it's all still possible (as evidenced above) it requires much more effort, will power and dedication from the automakers than it used to. And compared to the past, at this point most simply don't care about passion projects that in most cases won't have large (or any) profit. A bridge too far, if you will.

I honestly put the decline of affordable, lightweight sports-cars down to changing consumer preferences (anecdotally, people are getting fatter, lazier, and like the higher seating of SUVs they can ‘walk into’ over low sports cars they have to ‘fall down’ into). As others noted, it is still possible to engineer lightweight RWD sports cars that pass all modern emissions and safety regulations since Mazda and Toyota/Subaru are still doing it.

But the other manufacturers probably look at Mazda’s and Toyota’s sales numbers and ask, why bother? Why should the other automakers invest the hundreds of millions or even billions needed to develop a new sports car for relatively modest sales when a fraction of that investment can produce yet another SUV or dual cab ute variant on an existing platform that will sell in far greater numbers? They’re in the business of making money with the least risk, and sports cars are are high risk and expensive to develop where SUVs are low risk.

I’m actually hopeful that improving EV tech might make lightweight, awesome handling sports cars that are easier to develop possible. I’m open to an EV MX-5 if they can keep the weight down (it doesn’t need a heavy, long range battery). It has the potential to have an even lower centre of gravity and better acceleration with next generation EV motors and batteries. The main barrier will be similar to the existing barrier to ICE sports cars… will consumers buy enough of them to justify the development?

As a lightweight vehicle enthusiast, this thread is making me sad. Spot on with everyone buying SUVs - herds of them everywhere these days.

I hate them with a fiery passion. For one thing, many of them are huge. They hog the road and fill up car parking spaces that still seem to be sized for much smaller 1980s cars. But I also hate what they have done to normal car sales… coupes, hatches, sedans and wagons are all dying off, being replaced by SUV lineups. Other than the elevated seating position and slightly easier loading of heavier items, there is nothing the typical SUV does that a good wagon cannot do better. The wagon is more aerodynamic, lighter and so uses less fuel on average. It has a lower COG and handles better. It doesn’t block the forward view over the roof as much. It looks better! And many wagons actually have more cargo space than many SUVs (especially these fugly ‘coupe’ SUVs). But the market has spoken apparently, and passenger cars are going the way of the dodo as SUVs take over the roads.

The thing that really irks me is that at the same time we have a push to make vehicles as ‘green’ as possible, we live in the heyday of the lumbering great SUV! I mean, look at the things that make a car as efficient and environmentally friendly as possible… aerodynamic (so it must have a low profile), lightweight (so it has less mass to move), small (uses less materials). The SUV is the antithesis of all of these! Even as engineers wring every last ounce of efficiency out of engines, many of the fuel efficiency and emissions benefits of improved engines are lost because these modern engines need to haul around these huge and heavy vehicles! It’s so ridiculous.

Some japanese may be working on cartridge type of battery 🔋.

That one thing about car design now, a lot of them look terrible on paper/photo but are actually pretty sleek in person. :thumbsup:



Atleast you can still buy car/wegons like the nice honda oddesy wegon that's like low to the ground from factory in Australia? They only have abomination in north america cuz soccer mom's demands it. :word:

but look at the numbers. a 2019 86, a nearly textbook example of a small, lightweight, barebones car, only manages to achieve 21mpg city/ 28mpg highway.

the 2019 kia sorrento for an example, in all it's 'heft' lays claim to 22mpg city/29mpg highway.

so the SUV is more efficient by the numbers, even if it's only 1 mpg... if one's got a family, there's really no difference, so people are understandably buying the biggest thing that they can afford that suits their needs. small cars have a ton of caveats. i'm single and i don't even like taking the 86 for grocery shopping. no matter how few bags i get, it always somehow turns into a champion-level tetris game...

Depends on the examples you pick. The 86 isn’t a particularly economical small car. My wife’s small 200kw, 1200kg hot hatch gets under 6 litres per hundred on average and a mate’s family Toyota Kluger uses more than double that (often into the 15s around town). Both have the same power, one just carries an extra tonne of mass.

The automatic 86 was 24/33. I think the 8 speed transmission in the Sorento helps. If these CUVs don’t have a CVT then they have a million gears approximating a CVT. The larger displacement engine probably makes more torque down low, so the engine doesn’t need to be revved out past a torque dip to move the car. For what it’s worth, the 2019 Kia Forte does 31/41 city/highway, so light weight still wins; the SUV/CUV isn’t a win/win.

Crash tests aren’t really a thing driving size the way people are talking about or a Miata and a Fiat 500 couldn’t exist. Yes, vehicles are bigger than their predecessors, and part of that is based on crash standards, but the drive to SUVs and bigger trucks is a cultural thing and a marketing thing.

https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/VQ...fe79b26.cf.jpg

Styling trends change over time. A huge sedan could be a two door coupe too in the past. America has always liked big vehicles, but they just had a different shape. Trucks, SUVs and CUVs are just more practical and easy, and people are just less interested in style or being different. This is also evident in the landscape of black, white and silver vehicles; there isn’t a whole lot of colors because it is more practical to buy something that sells well, that is safe, and manufacturers don’t want to build inventory for colors that don’t sell. People don’t want to pay extra for color. People in general don’t have the money for vehicles like they use to, so they try to maximize their money on space, safety, utility.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sMLAM9aVvS...tandcolour.jpg

Luxury vehicles seem to defy the rest of the industry. There are still CUVs that sell better than other models, but then you have brands like BMW that has a sedan at every size and in coupe and sedan forms, and in two and four door variants like it creates a 4-series coupe to differentiate against a 3-series sedan, but then it makes a four-door GT variant of the 4-series. Apparently BMW can build a million different variants to satisfy everyone in tge market and still make a profit, but every other manufacturer needs to ditch their coupes or cars all together (ex: Civic coupe, Ford).

I think I’m ranting and lost my point.

That’s because the 86 has a NA engine geared to try and achieve respectable HP and acceleration numbers and be somewhat exciting - economy was almost an afterthought. The KIA Sorrento has an entirely different engine and gearing - high revving excitement was not high on the priority list.

Put the engine and transmission from the Sorrento into the 86 and the 86 would murder the Sorrento’s economy numbers, even if it was less fun to drive. Likewise, put the 86’s engine and gearing into the Sorrento and watch the economy get far worse. There is no doubt that if you controlled the key variable by using the exact same engine and transmission in both a coupe and SUV, the lower, lighter, more aerodynamic coupe will be more economical, because physics.

Why on earth would someone with a family buy an 86 if it is their only car? It’s a sports car, not a family hauler.

Yes, I know, that’s what saddens me. So many people I know would be just as well served with a nice hatchback or wagon - just as much space, better handling, and the potential for better economy (as long as we aren’t comparing a less economical sports car engine to a low powered econo-SUV engine).

I see so many people commuting to work, or just driving to the shops alone or with only one passenger, in giant ass SUVs and it is just more car than they objectively need. Yes, I understand the myth that ‘bigger is better’ but it isn’t always which was my point. Sometimes bigger is just an unnecessary waste of resources and space. And as a result of the bigger is better mentality, the rest of us have to put up with these giant road hogs.

Sounds like maybe you bought the wrong car.. for you. ;) I never had a problem fitting my grocery shop in my 86 or now in my Z.

But this is largely beside the point, I wasn’t arguing small sports coupes are the logical alternative to SUVs for people needing a practical vehicle, I was pointing out that other types of regular car like hatchbacks and wagons are just as practical and more efficient than most SUVs and would suit most people’s needs just fine if it wasn’t for automotive ‘fashion’ which dictates SUVs are the default vehicle choice nowadays. A coupe might not compete with an SUV for practicality, but a good hatchback or wagon sure can. Indeed, many SUVs are merely more expensive, jacked up, high riding hatchbacks anyway… case in point, the Subaru XV, which is literally a more expensive, high riding Impreza hatchback.