Weight of FT-86?
 

Hi everybody!
From when I heard about this Toyota/Subaru I was very excited to see it one day on our roads and own one. I am a BMW fan and an Alfa Romeo owner. I yet owe and an other old Alfa Romeo 145 with a 1.7l Boxer engine and I love it.
The car concept I like it front engine, rear wheel drive, manual transmission and naturally aspirated high revving engines. Of course I like the car to be very light. If to look at these criterias, the FT-86 is the perfect car for me. M3 is too heavy, Cayman and Lotus have the engine at the back, the 911 GT3 is too expensive...


So, back to topic, are there any infos on the wieght of the FT86? The last Alfa Romeo 4C Concept weighs 870 kg, but it seems to be all made of carbon fiber, what I don't think will make it to production, also it has the engine at the back. I would love it to be at least 1200 kg (DIN)! Any confirmation?

Thanks.

I would love for it to be at MOST 1200kg.

Nothing official on its production weight. The mk1 concept, the original FT-86, is listed as 1000kg in Gran Turismo 5, but that means very little.

This is probably the most anticipated, argued, and needed stat amongst the real fanbase of this car.

Thanks. I care about the weight not only for handling but also for straight line performance. In order for a NA 2.0l to be accelerate fast is has to be very light. It would be awesome if it weighed 1000 kg!

Hi Levi, from a recent article by Autocar, FT-86 could have a weight of 1100 kg. http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...llCars/256560/

In real terms I believe that the final weight will be at around 1250/1350 kg. A good result for a modern ad safe sport car. But I would like to find also a turbocharged option under the bonet. NA engine (around 200 hp) for tha entry-level. 270 for the turbo version. It would be great.

Saluti concittadino

1350 kg = fail

the s2000 was smaller and that car weighed 2800+ lbs. dont like to compare to convertibles? the 370z is similar in size, and a pig at 3200+ lbs. Genesis coupe 2.0T is also 3200+ lbs. whatever number you want the car to weigh, add 200 lbs on that figure and that's probably what it'll end up as...

Genesis coupe is bigger, and they made an attempt at making the interior more upscale. 370Z has an engine that's twice as big.
S2k is pretty heavy, but they can beat it I think. Celica was under 2500 right? Add rear wheel drive, maybe some extra modern goodies, 2700-2800 shouldn't be too hard, no?

Perfect, I want it to weigh 1000 pounds :bonk:

Actually, I remember an interview from way back where they stated a goal of less than 1300kg or 2866lbs. So yeah that would be a failure.

I'm going to reference the Miata's weight. The Grand Touring trim is quoted at 2511 lbs [1139 Kg]. Considering the added weight of rear side glass, a bit longer body, and the structure of the roof, an overall stiffer unibody, and more airbags, I'm going to stick with the popular estimate of 2700 lbs [1225 Kg]

Fingers crossed!

i personally peg this car at about 2800.

safety standards have mandated a ton of things like side airbags, stability control, pedestrian front crash standards, etc. also if you dont want a crappy crash rating, you will over engineer things. add in the ever growing lust for technology in cars (bluetooth, ipod, nav, etc.) and you end up with the heavy cars of today.

So 2650 - 2750 lbs then? :w00t:

:word:

Give me 2500lbs or give me death!!!



(well maybe not the death part...)

My dad, a field technical specialist for Toyota, has been told by a top 10 toyota exec that weight will be between 2600 and 2700 pounds. he has also been told power will definetly be 200 bhp

:w00t: story breh.

Has your dad spoke about a turbo version like Autocar does?:popcorn:

Interesting first post.

I got a visual where the "top 10" executives are strutting around the office wearing a big ribbon that says "I'm in the Top 10!" like a badge of popularity. :bellyroll: What worries me about an executive saying anything is they're all talk with very little actual knowledge of the vehicle development. They want the car to be 2600-2700 pounds and 200 HP, but they can't promise it, only fire people when it doesn't happen.

Time will tell!

If they can make it happen, I'm all ears. Don't get your hopes up from some one with one post...

I'm saying, 2,892 lbs. :popcorn:

yeah 27-28 sounds about right, but I want a turbo model damn it...so I can get my 300Hp and be happy.

I see you love Supra's, so do I but I never saw any. Love the "high-revving" Turbo I6.


Well, 1200 kg (EU) is not bad but would love it to be even lighter as having only 200 PS compared to the Cayman R that has 340 PS and weighs 1295 kg (DIN), eventhough they are fare from being in the same price range.
The best thing would be one normal FT-86 and one radical FT-86R, like the , Mercedes AMG BlackSeries, BMW M CSL and Ferrari Scuderia treatment.

yeah I'm addicted to them...:happyanim::burnrubber: I have found that the MKIV is just about everything I want in a car, but now I'm looking for something new. but want the same HP to weight ratio so the everything feels right...if that make any sence.

vw scirocco (rival of ft 86) weighs tot. 1340 kg (1.4 tsi 160cv fully fueled)

There is also a Scirocco with 200CV, not to mention the Scirocco R. Considering inteded pricing, which one do you think it's gonna compete with? Certainly not the entry level 160CV trim.

That being said, shouldn't it seek to better it rivals than simply match them? That would be redundant.

Most want and wish the FT-86 to be light. Looks like an optimistic and realistic wieght is 1200 kg, acording to the forum members. But what measure are these 1200 kgs? It is important to know as is changes very much? Dry Weight, Curb Weight (DIN) or EU Weight (EGW)?
If FT-86 weight 1200 kg (Dry) it is a total fail. If it weighs 1200 kg (Curb), it is not bad, if it weighs 1200 kg (EU) it is really very nice (eventhough I wished 1000 kg Curb).

It's not as if this hasn't been discussed in numerous threads but...

If it's a stiff chassis, I expect it to weigh more and handle better than expected at a cost of acceleration. So I think the idea of a 1300KG(2866lbs) curb weight is not completely unrealistic. But without knowing what methods they'll use on the chassis I'm guessing as much as everybody else :|

The S2000 and Solstice were heavy roadsters but they were also made prior to the new 2012 US safety standards. Many cars ballooned and some died simply because of the mandate.

Again, this is what happens when we let the government dictate way too much in the private market. If people WANT to be in the middle of a balloon sandwhich when their car is hit, they'll buy the balloon car. If a lot of people buy X-companies balloon car over Y-companies non-balloon car, Y-company will start making their own balloon car.

Soon we'll have cars that'll spit out safety foam like in Demolition Man, all in the name of "safety", when the greatest support of driver safety has nothing to do with the car, its the driver's themselves.

In any case, 2800lbs is just a scary thought. Thats still too heavy.

It's kinda sad nowadays how anything less than 3000lbs is considered "light", especially when there is a WORLD of a difference in driving feel between a 2400lb car and a 2800lb car.

As far as safety goes....if I wanted to feel safe on the roadways, I'd DD a 1970 Oldsmobile Delta 88. DARE anyone here to try to hit me in that tank.

I am shocked! 1300 kg (DIN) for the FT-86, that means 1375 kg (EU)? This is such an underpowered pigg. No way, this would just be a total fail. You feel alot more difference between a 1200 kg car and a 1300 kg car, than between a 1600 kg car and a 1700 kg car. The lighter a car is, the less weight makes already some difference. Add 200 kg on an Audi Q7, you won't feel anything different or feel it heavier.

Safety is a big concern as crowded as roads and cars become more numerous and faster. I don't discount that it is important to people and I do feel that some parts of safety are important like chassis stiffening.

And 3000lbs has been considered light for quite awhile now. Didn't the old school Challengers weigh in around that? The HachiRoku was a lightweight but there were still lighter cars. In 1990 the Civic was closer to 2000lbs and the Suzuki Swift(Metro) was 1800lbs.


Wow :I

I wasn't saying safety is not important. I was saying a free market can take care of safety on its own, without the government -forcing- it upon EVERY vehicle in a lineup. If you want a car that makes you feel safer, get the damn safe vehicle. You don't buy a sports car to feel safe, and generally, safety isn't a major concern when debating its purchase.
But again, take any new car....and bring it up against the 70 oldsmobile I listed. At best I'll have a custom harness in there (Seatbelts are important), and you'll have a balloon coming out of every orifice of that car's body, probably one jamming up your ass, and it won't save you from my tank.

the 1st gen Challengers were 3800lbs....don't know where you got the idea it was closer to 3000. The Mustang was the welterweight of the group, coming in like ~2500lbs or something, but it was a 'pony' car, not a full blown Muscle car. The EF Civic was 2300 and lol...the swift? You're going to bring that into comparison?

We could debate free market vs. government regulation until the cows come home and all we're going to end up with are cows angry that they've been left unattended for years. The fact is that sometimes without the government stepping in to tell industries to do something for the greater good, the industry would take too long to fix whatever the problem is and we'd all be worse off for it. Total free for all in the economy is a terrible thing, just as total government control is a terrible thing. The ideal lies in a healthy balance and mutual respect of both government regulation and free market innovation.

That being said:
Cars are over-regulated at this point. There are some things that are now mandated for stupid reasons that I feel should simply be options like the third brake light, tire pressure monitoring systems, pedestrian safety bumpers, and event data recorders. Most of these things serve no realistic benefit that can't be solved through better driver education and frequent retesting of drivers. It adds pointless complexity and just one more system to brake down. The tire pressure sensing system in my mountaineer has been malfunctioning for over a year and I really don't care. I keep track of the air pressure in the tires on my own.

As the Wachowski brother's showed amazingly in their matrix trilogy, its a matter of choice vs. control.

And in a total free market, the will of the consumer would dictate the direction of the product. If safety were such a HUGE concern for the consumer they would buy the car's with the higher crash test ratings, features, options, etc. over car's that lack it. As long as competition is thriving, other companies would follow suit, or suffer losses.

The entire point of the debate is less on free market vs. government regulation though, its about freedom of choice, personal liberty, and restraining the government from overstepping its boundaries by -forcing- you to make a choice about your own personal safety, liberty, etc. that they have no right to force upon you in the first place. That's the bigger picture. Free market vs. government regulation is an example of such a situation.

Problem is that many companies/corps have become exceptionally good at manipulating, confusing, and guiding the consumer to the point where 'choice' doesn't even seem like an appropriate word anymore.

Oh, and my stock EG Si was 2326lbs, and the factory-stripped EG CX's were under 2100lbs.

Thank you! :happy0180:

There's no such thing is a totally free market anyways. Well, unless you want to count Somalia. If you want to see what happens when the government doesn't do anything, look there.

There's really no choice in either situation, the latter of which holding the greatest degree of no choice. With government control, complete and utter, you have zero choice.
At least before such a thing you could always have bought the volvo instead of the Yugo, if safety were your thing.

Oversight is not a bad thing. If the government wants to run a program that tests cars against certain safety quotas, and then releases said information to the public to aid in consumer awareness, thats one thing, and thats fine, as its not eliminating personal freedom. Not only does it assist the populace in making decisions based off their wants, but with consumer empowerment you do hold private companies to a morale standard.

You have them as it sits now, saying it is illegal for you, in your own property, your own car, telling you its illegal, with fines attached, to remove safety equipment. Thats not oversight, thats enforcement, and a breach of personal freedom. It should have never gotten that far. The problem is that when you give agencies a nibble of power they quickly wanna take a bite, and then eat the whole cake...and then bake their own cake and eat it...and then modify the recipe to their liking, throw your recipe away, and make you make cakes their way, and eat that cake, and no other way, or so help you, they'll have the National Cake Eaters Regulatory Committee up your ass with cake fines.

From his year line he was talking about the EF, if I'm not mistaken. But you're completely right on the EG. My friend had an Egg DX and wished it was the CX for the lightweight savings...was planning on dropping in a B16A...I think, thats what its called?

Some of the weight-savings measures of that CX were no power steering from the factory, and just gutting every 'optional' feature on the car. Like passenger side-view mirrors. Like I said, factory-stripped. But it needed it, I think it had only a 70 hp 1.5L 8 valve motor.

When I was a young fool, and had my stock Si, I used to love racing and humiliating riced-out, F&F inspired CXs.

Meh, I couldn't find the source for the Challenger. All I could find was info about the Charger and the most barebones of those only touched 3400lbs and were considered inaccurate. The old Challenger was a bit smaller and lighter from what I remember. Yes, I am familiar with the whole Pony car idea and that the Mustang was infact advertised as more of a driver's car with better handling than the Muscle cars. Personally, I believe that whole idea died out with the foxbody :\. I hear good things about the newer Mustang and it is a bit heavier(gained at least 350lbs since '00) but it's been refined aswell. The major enthusiast focus has only been on the v8 Mustang since the '94 model. At least the Foxbody had the SVO and was light enough to still be capable.

I used the swift example by mistake, oops.
I was actually talking about the '94 DX hatchback and it might have been 2100lbs by then. The EX are heavier. The DX hatchback ended up around 2300lbs before they canceled it after the '00 model. Bit off topic but meh.

Interesting discussion :popcorn: but it is not exactly on-topic. The biggest problem you're running into with this line of discussion OST is that driving is governed under privileges and many things are quickly becoming privileges instead of rights. And when someone on either side gets a crazy idea, everybody suffers when the politicians change the rules. Eg. it seems like every time there is a major shooting or vehicle accident there have been calls for increasing the rules and regulations. Either for gun sales or vehicle safety equipment. I think you are right in that education for both would be more beneficial. Logically it makes sense to require education and training for vehicles, but heck design it as a voluntary program and encourage it with stickers, badges, titles, anything! Someone with good driving skills, driving education, and knowledge should be noticed and be an inspiration for others! No more of this, "lol I r drving" while texting/drinking/stupid nonsense.

The world in need of better driver training and getting rid of idiots :) nah never will happen. But really with the weight of the FT86 it will be a LOT lighter than the evo I'm used too besides if it is a bit heavy I'll just put it on a diet of CF and titanium.

:sm3: Ban the member who has selective reading.