Targa top
 

This is the Supra, but if this was done for the BRZ/86, I'd be the first one in line to buy one (regardless of whether it was the first or second gen car):

https://jalopnik.com/the-2021-gr-sup...-ne-1845929374

The world needs more removable roofs...

I had one of very few targa top kits ever made on my 3000GT VR4.
Believe me, it sucks to try and get the car structurally sound after having it done.
Stopping it from leaking, creaking, blegh.

Would have liked simple manually* removable panels where each roof bubble is, which seemed structurally do-able as that section (either side of the center brace) on the unibody is I believe blank (and covered with a separate piece - e.g. like the carbon fiber option on the S209 STI models) .
*As if anyone does that in the 21st century, but a simple solution I miss from the old days. And of course w/o the creaks & leaks.

Having been in roll-over, I'll keep the roof where it belongs forever and always, unless there's a full cage option.

Yeah, it basically turns the car into a convertible, and needs all the usual structural reinforcements - which add weight and cost, and still don’t give the torsional rigidity of a fixed roof.

But it sure would be fun.

Do you mean T-tops? T-tops (keeping a center bar) were all the rage in the 70’s and 80’s. I had a 1992 Nissan NX2000 with T-tops, and absolutely loved it!

It was a reasonable compromise design. It wasn’t as stiff as a fixed roof, there could still be some axial twisting, but it was better than cutting the entire roof out and seemed to nicely address longitudinal flexing.

Some people didn’t take them out that often, finding it a nuisance to have to remove two separate panels. I didn’t mind. Just a couple of minutes and it was a near-convertible experience, with the safety and security of a rigid top.

It’s been so long since any car has been offered with T-tops, probably 25 years. I suspect all the designers have long since forgotten about them, or written them off as obsolete. It would be a cool, gutsy move for someone to bring them back (cough cough, are you listening Subaru?), but the odds are probably even less than ever seeing a factory turbo.

T-top was made up until at least the 2002 Camaro. They were great back in the day, and it was hard to beat an IROC Camaro with a t-top in the 80s. I know there’s a mullet stigma haha, but damn they were and still are great looking cars. Although structural rigidity took a hit with the removable roof panels.

The current Jeep Wranglers have their Freedom panels, which remind me very much of the old t-top, but there is no center bar, just interlocking twin panels. Love it on my Rubicon. Nostalgic.

What I would give for a late 80s 911 targa.

Yeah, I'm good with a proper hardtop roof. If you must, put a sunroof in. Or get a convertible. I'd actually prefer an MX-5 RF style fully retractable roof to a targa, it's got many of the same issues with potential leaks, creaks and rattles, but at least it is quick and easy to raise and lower the roof electronically. Manually fiddling around with a targa top is so 1990s. ;)

I think the mechanical folding roof has largely replaced them.

The RF is a targa. It’s just a targa with mechanical actuation.

For me, "targa" implies a *fixed* hoop behind the driver/passenger, as on Porsche 911 Targa and Corvettes since 1984 (or 1968 if T-tops are considered a variation of "targa").
I had a '90 RX-7 convertible where you cold remove the roof panel by itself which gave a targa look, but I wouldn't call that or the Miata RF a targa.

But anyway, IMO targas and T-tops are a bad idea, at least for cars that aspire to be relatively lightweight and sporting... A fixed roof is an extremely mass-efficient way to get stiffness. Having a removable panel means you have to make up for the stiffness lost by beefing up the lower chassis of the car, which is much less efficient and adds mass.

Mazda should make a fixed-roof version of the Miata, which if properly done could *reduce* weight by 100 lb. instead of the RF, which *adds* 100 lb. Although they'd likely just take the increase in stiffness without subtracting structural mass anywhere, which should be roughly weight-neutral...

A mechanical folding roof like the Miata gives a full convertible experience, but is also much more complex, heavier, and expensive than T-tops. I can't imagine Subaru/Toyota doing that with this car.

I was trying to think of a way Subaru/Toyota could add some kind of quasi-open air experience to the BRZ/86 without needing major surgery (or expense) on the car. A targa top would be fun, but would need extensive structural reinforcements that might not be practical. T-tops would seem to need less.

At a minimum, how about a large removable sunroof, such as used to be available on the Porsche 924? I think that by leaving the perimeter roof channels intact, most of the structural integrity of the body is maintained. I don't think the sheetmetal in the middle contributes much. The entire panel could be lifted out and stored in the back (maybe even with some clips to attach it in the storage area). Something like this:

https://i0.wp.com/924s944.com/wp-con...40%2C480&ssl=1

I believe targas are referring to the entire overhead panel being open, and I think the RF is referred to in articles and literature as a targa, but I could be mistaken. Bad idea for structural rigidity for sure, but cool as heck for just cruising. Not as immersive an experience as a true convertible, but targas and t-top cars allow one to preserve the exterior aesthetics of a coupe while still being able to have a nice open air experience. IMO targas and t-top cars feel much more open air than sun roofs.

I love me a Targa, and wish a proper one was available in the Twin. The correct way to do it is what Chevy does with the Corvette, build it into every car from the beginning.

The only one I've actually owned was an '83 Camaro Z28 Conversion. It had a black convertible top that stretched over to cover and worked amazingly well. The car probably did have some noticeable flex in it as there was no real stiffening to my knowledge (I bought it off the dealer floor, conversion already done). I can tell you it was definitely better than the convertible conversions they were doing at the same time that felt like pretzels when you drove them.

For @Red-86 I've owned lots of cars with sunroofs and every one of them leaked at some point. Not a fan.

https://www.topgear.com/sites/defaul...?itok=ruF2qeyV

A continuous (i.e. no sun/moonroof-hole) thin, lightweight shear panel contributes a LOT to torsional stiffness, while weighing practically nothing. Putting a big hole in the roof requires a somewhat massive frame around the hole => heavier with less torsional stiffness. Also more $$$.

The 86 unibody already has what looks like “t-top” cutouts?
I’m not a structural engineer (!) but that doesn’t stop me (: from speculating on the ease of which two small *manually* removable panels couldn’t have been “cut” from the roof section & fitted w/o reducing rigidity or adding much up top weight.

*But as some of us already mentioned I doubt anyone but die hard fans of 70-90s throwbacks (why I drive this car) would appreciate that design.

As Dadhawk said, when it's part of the design from the beginning it can work without the added weight or twisting. Think Lotus Elise.
(By the way, we have had three Subarus with sunroofs and none have leaked. Just saying YMMV)
I'll just put this here for you all to enjoy, reminisce and think about what you are/have missed.
https://www.automobilemag.com/news/1...s-to-remember/

Aerospace structural engineer here ;)
The thin, lightweight shear panel that is the outer roof contributes significantly to roof shear stiffness and chassis torsional stiffness. Removing this shear panel leave you with an open picture-frame that is relatively free to deform as a parallelogram (even with the central "T" brace). Shear panel weighs very little but gives a LOT in terms of shear and torsional stiffness.

By that same token though, if you have some type of lightweight (say CF) roof panels in place, wouldn't they provide that same rigidity, even if they didn't when removed?

Actually, it doesn't. The frame in the roof above the door would have to come off as well for a true T-Top. That's a pretty significant piece.

Technically you could split the middle frame member, move it out towards the ends and do a sunroof without much loss, but you would lose the "bubble" part of the roof on each passenger side to do so (or rather the low part in the middle.

Yes, I would love a targa or TTops, or even a nice sunroof. No, I would absolutely not hack up a current model. This is something that would need to be designed in from the factory.

I loved the TTops in my old 300ZX. They never leaked, but they would make a little noise as the car got older. Totally worth it.

My MR2 had a large removable sunroof you could store under the hood, since the engine was in the back.

How do you remove the top section of the door frame without reducing rigidity?
Also, this platform is flimsy enough, to the point where my trunk lid has enough later movement under load to butt up against the inner portion of the rear quarter panel/trunk opening just above the tail lights and to the point of removing paint on both sides.
As for the MR-2, it's the '93 without T-Tops that is the most sought after, and command the highest resale.

The manufacturer is going to have defined *minimum requirements* for strength and for stiffness, which will have to be met in all configurations. So chassis/frame structural design will be driven by the "no-roof" configuration. So even with structural roof-panel(s), you'll still have the additional structural mass built in and just enjoy added stiffness with it installed. An the customer is gonna want an *easily* removable panel or panels, not one that they have to bolt in to make it a rigid part of the chassis structure.

IMO best to let convertibles be convertibles, and let fixed-roof coupes be fixed-roof coupes and enjoy the weight benefits. Corvette has suffered a massive weight penalty since 1968 introduced T-tops. C5 and C6 Z06 enjoyed a bit of a weight reduction with fixed roofs. Then for C7 they decided "who cares about weight, we'll supercharge it!" Now for the C8 they've decided they *really* don't care about weight :rolleyes:

I don’t want to give up the double bubble roof for a sunroof or targa top. Not to mention you introduce more flex into the car. No thanks! There is a reason the coupe version of the MkIV Supra is the most sought after.
Don’t get me wrong I think sunroofs and targa tops are fun, but the cars I’ve owned with them I found I never used them much. [emoji2373]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ditto FD RX-7. Non-sunroof models are the most sought-after.

90s Z-car fans would kill for a slick-top Z32 turbo, Nissan didn't offer one :cry:

Technically you wouldn't have to give up the double bubble for a targa. A hard top could remain pretty much as it is.

The slicktop Z32 was lighter. People wanted them for track cars. I get that.
The reason they were rare and the reason Nissan didn't make a slicktop TT is because they didn't sell well when they were new - because the TTops were awesome :D The slicktop was the budget Z.

Adding a big heavy slab of glass to the highest point on the car is counter-productive to anything a sports car is trying to achieve also.

I think they didn't sell well because Nissan didn't make many of them, I don't think they even offered it at all in the US some years! For sure if they'd made a twin-turbo slicktop for a discount vs. T-top, they would have sold more. And we would have had a stiffer Z32 TT that weighed 3400 lb. instead of nearly 3600 lb. Doh! This is making me think I might need an LS3 slicktop Z32 in my life...

As ZDan said, I consider a targa to be car where the rear hood/C-pillar is fixed in place like a coupe, and only the roof section is detachable. The RF only looks like a targa, but as the rear C-pillar section is part of the overall mechanism that folds when changing it doesn’t add much rigidity or any real rollover protection. Conversely, a proper targa does, which is part of the appeal over a regular convertible i.e. they are safer in a crash.

In any case, I doubt a proper targa is in the twins’s future. It would likely be a small proportion of sales, so they are better off focussing on the coupe from a sales and production rationalisation POV.

Well, they would have sold the same number of cars, but maybe more of them would have been slicktops. In the end though most people buying new during that era sought out the ones with removable panels. If you couldn't get the T's then you either went to a car you could get them, or you settled. Remember most of the buying public couldn't give a flip about things like stiffness. They buy for the coolness factor, and nothing was cooler than t-tops.

Do you think they have the same cool factor in 2020 they had in 1990? I’m not sure they do. I think the sports car market has largely solidified on full coupe or convertible as the popular options nowadays.

Oh well, I guess I should give up hoping for a targa or T-top BRZ. I would never cut up a car, I'd only buy a factory version.

I certainly appreciate that a fixed roof would always have greater structural rigidity than any kind of holes cut into it (T-top, big sunroof, targa, whatever). As long as it wasn't ridiculously floppy, that's a trade-off I'd happily make. At my age there are no more 'track days' before me. All my driving is solely on the street. I'd trade some chassis rigidity for the fun of some kind of open (even if semi) roof experience.

To a point... one of the cars I owned back in the day was a Honda del Sol. It was a full targa top, and provided a terrific near-convertible open-air experience (even the back window lowered electrically). But the car had chassis rigidity somewhere between wet toilet paper and cooked ramen noodles. It would seem like the cowl would twist and shake through 25 degrees of arc (exaggerating of course, but it felt like that!). As much as the targa top was great fun, that was too much flexi-flyer even for me.

My first A80 Supra was a targa. My second one was a hardtop. So much better. Lighter. Less chassis flex. The chassis flex with the targa off while aggressively driving in the canyons was ehh. Also, the car got sooooo dirty with the targa off when I would leave it off parked for a while. Pollen, dirt, dust, bird shit, etc.

I would never own a convertible, even a hardtop convertible either. I would barely use a sunroof. We rarely use our Q5's panoramic roof. It is rare. I prefer the windows down or cracked anyways.

Well, no, unless it's in crossover or a Jeep.

I'll take the contrarian view (as I usually do...) that a targa top, T-tops, or even a big removable sunroof might be especially cool in 2020 because it would be different. No one else sells a car with T-tops, or an affordable targa (the Porsche 911 aside).

Retro can sell. Why not a retro style top? I might be the only one, but I'd buy one in a New York minute (as long as the chassis was reinforced enough so that the car wasn't as floppy as overcooked spaghetti).

Every non-convertible Corvette is a targa...

That chassis reinforcement and the removable top(s) add both weight and cost. For me, that'd be like adding insult to injury: "here you go, we gave it T-tops so it's both heavier and more expensive!" >:(

Maybe from 1975-1985ish, when almost no convertibles were available.

By 1990, many sports car enthusiasts were *over* ubiquitous, heavy, clumsy, often leaky and rattly "T-tops". I was anyway...

I'll be honest, I don't even see the point of the new Corvette Convertible. Other than the fact it stows itself, there convertible isn't much more than a targa anyway.