Maybe the FT-86 doesnt need massive power........
 

The Lexus LF-A has done a 7:22.85 time at the Nurburgring - making it the 10th fastest production car ever to have lapped that circuit:thanks:

If Toyota is filtering down tech from that monster LF-A, perhaps they are aiming for a more fun to drive, involving, great handling car.........instead of a TLGP ricer car?

The Lexus LF-A only pushes 552Hp and weighs around 1480Kg. It certainly isnt the fastest in a drag race, or top end racing, but see what it has accomplished, and that time on street tires!

I have had a turbocharged Corolla and a 4AGE 20v Corolla and have been in the racing scene here in South Africa for quote some time, and although the modded Golf GTi's and Focus ST's, Opel OPC's etc can run ahead and some decimate cars like the BMW M3's, etc, all agree that a high revving car such as the RunX (Corolla) RSi [2ZZ-GE], 4AGE 20v Corolla's and Honda V-Tecs are fun to drive:bow:


Link to times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times

Lexus LFA with Nürburgring Package clocks 7:22 with minimal effort [video]
email
print June 27, 2011 5:28 am By Brian Potter

10th place for the fastest production vehicle
Leading up to this past weekend's ADAC 24 hour race at Nürburgring, Lexus took their hot LFA Nürburgring Edition and ran an exhibition hot lap.

Driven by Gazoo Racing's Akira Iida, the team driver/manager clocked an impressive 7:22.85 putting it in 10th place for the fastest production vehicle to attack the extreme circuit.

According to LexusEnthusiasts.com this video was on display at the Nürburgring 24h race alongside the LFA Nürburgring Edition. Furthermore, the lap in the video was carried out for exhibition purposes only - essentially a warm up.

A full fledged attempt will be made in a few months, so an even faster time is expected.

Thanks to Shiro for the tip!

Source: lexusenthusiast.com

http://www.worldcarfans.com/11106273...2-with-minimal

I thought they already emphasized this in every single debut of this car. "FUN. TO DRIVE."

Lol. Someone is being quite silly or the old news hasn't reached you yet my friend. :P

Although.. there are people on this forum who expect 9999HP from this car. hahaha

:happyanim:
I know the emphasis on this car - about it being fun, but my point of this thread is because of peoples expectations of this car - to beat mustangs, etc in a straight line.

I think most people here get it, but at the same time we go back and forth on real time performance vs how they are going to market this vehicle to make it successful, and then the 'nice to haves'. Things will settle down once we get some real stats and pricing.

^That.

Also when you see $23-26k FWD/AWD sport compacts killing Stang on the straights and twisties stock for stock, you kinda don't expect to get a less featured slower n/a $23-25k sports coupe, even though it's balanced. That's all some of us are saying.

I like how you said, the LFA ONLY pushes 552hp! :bellyroll:

The 3rd gen Integra was the voted the best handling FF vehicle and it had 195hp @ 8k rpm and weighed in around 2639 lbs (1197 kg) <-Type R. The GSR was 170hp @ 7600 rpm and weighed 2765 lbs (1254 kg). I really hope this car will fall somewhere close to these specs.

Apparently the 2011 GTR ran a 7:24. I dont see the LFA's time as impressive now, lol.

Take the GT2 RS and its 7:18 lol

Where do ya think the FT will end up? 8:30ish? maybe 8:40?

9:05+

C5 Corvette, S2k, Boxster S, 350Z and Lotus Exige run 8:40s

^ I know you have issues with the car, but seriously slower than a GTI?

Dont know the full circumstances of the run, but if the 2001 Civic Type R hung in there at 8:47 (197hp, 2800lb) I'd expect this car to beat that with similar stats and if we give into this whole 'car of balance' thing. Maybe just wishful thinking too I suppose...

I noticed you originally had it at 9:45 then changed it to 9:05+.

The Golf Mk V GTI did 8:53. I would expect something similar to that.

Hell, a 2012 Corvette Z06 bests the LFA and it only has a $75k sticker price. lol

I'd have my money on 8:35 for the FR-S

Yeah it was a ninja edit. I was getting too harsh lol.

If a 250hp, 3600lb, AWD R32 turd can clock in at 8:36 than the FR-S can do it in 8:35. Especially if the FR-S weighs in at 2700 with 200hp. Trying to be optimistic ;)

My guess would be around 8:40, but I couldn't care less what the time is.

It was done on street tyres and wasnt a full effort. They are hoping for a 7:15 time when they go for a proper run:bonk:

Impressive when its done I'm sure:thanks:

The GT2 RS is a stripped out racecar and did that time on slicks - as compared to the LF-A (street tyres) and the Corvette is just an animal so all credit to the Vette for its time (also was done on slicks btw):slap:

I wouldn't call the GT2 RS stripped out. You are thinking of the GT3 RSR ;).

http://wallpaperstock.net/porsche-91..._1920x1440.jpg

Btw the GT2 RS was done on OEM michelin pilot super sport cup tires. I wouldn't consider that in the same sentence as a Hoosier RS6.

Also since you are making all the comparisons why not mention the fact you get more performance with the GT2 RS for 1/2 price compared to the LFA?

^ Gah damn that's a sexy as interior. I hope we have something half as nice in the 86

Agreed completely. I think it will hit around the 9 minute mark.

It absolutely will be slower around the ring than a GTI. I have a GTI....the torque advantage alone MORE than makes up for the ~300 extra pounds of weight, and with summer tires the GTI pulls over .9g. The FT-86 won't produce higher grip, and it won't accelerate as well due to the lack of torque, especially at low speeds.

Don't even get me started on mods....I've put $1500 into my car and it puts 240hp to the wheels. $1500 in mods on a 2.0L non-turbo might net you 15-20hp....not 65-70.

The old adage "horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" is true. The reduction in necessary shifts as well as the huge advantage accelerating out of low speed corners means significantly faster lap times. Look at the Car and Driver lightning lap results for production cars: The 2011 Mustang GT with the track-package brembo brakes and re-calibrated suspension pulled essentially the same lap time as the nearly 300lb heavier base Camaro SS. Why? The SS has a 6.2L V8 that produces insane torque, improving acceleration out of every single corner, while the DOHC 5.0 in the mustang has similar power numbers but less torque, delivered at higher RPM.

200hp is FINE in a car like this, especially if it's 2700lbs. But if it wants to be competitive it should have an equal torque rating, or it should produce a higher HP number. Yes, I know the car is about the handling and the feel....but for 95% of owners, it's going to be driven on the street, where it is illegal and irresponsible to take advantage of the at-the-limit handling advantages. If Toyota wants the car to succeed with buyers it needs to offer a car that excels at real world performance.

I would be happier with an FT-86 that produced 200hp and 200lb/ft than one that produced 240hp and 150lb/ft.

No, the vette's time was not done on slicks. It was done on the fully street legal R compound tires that are offered from the factory. They absolutely are not slicks.

The Ring is a high-speed course. The advantage of that extra 50hp is HUGE on a track like that. The FR-S will simply not be able to match it because of that.

@ Maxim,

Check out the link to the lap times on my first post.
According to wikipedia:

The Vette:-
General Motors conducted test,[9] base specification car with optional super-slick track DOT competition tires (Michelin Pilot Sport Cup Zero Pressure)[10] and non-stock safety equipment, video confirmed.

The RS:-
Manufacturer claim. OEM Michelin Pilot Sport Cup super-slick competition DOT tires used.

Yeah, one problem: You said According to Wikipedia. I could simply go on there and edit it to whatever I wanted.

A simple search of popular automotive sources (I generally use autoblog) as well as Chevrolet's own website shows that the 7:22 run the latest Z06 pulled off was done with the Z06 Carbon package (specifically the Z07 suspension/tire package), which includes the optional suspension upgrade and street legal R compound tires by michelin (Michelin Pilot Sport PS2). (same type of tire as Porsche uses on the RS vehicles). The safety equipment ADDS weight as well.

The tires are fully street legal, non-slicks, and offered from the factory. I think you should look up the definition of slicks, as the GT2 RS also did not run on slicks. R compound street tires are just street tires with extremely aggressive tread compositions, and they're still nowhere near the performance of an actual track slick.

You should probably also rethink your usage of Wikipedia as a source of information....it's edited by people who don't understand the difference between these kinds of things and it's full of errors.

Man, reading this thread and a couple of the other ones, I might be a bit pessimistic about this car's chances on the marketplace given the competition, but there's a whole hell of a lot of people here who are going to be extremely disappointed when this car comes out and ends up being non-competitive on any objective measure with it's primary competition....

It's going to put up performance numbers on par with the 8th Gen Civic Si. It's not going to perform like a type-R, and it's not going to run with a 370z or Cayman on the 'Ring....

I thought i read in another thread

that the Subaru's boxer engine produced equal hp/tq numbers...and its Naturally aspirated.

Maxim,

Take a chill pill buddy.
I didnt post this thread to start a flame war for the LF-A vs GT2 vs Vette, the reason I posted it was because if Toyota/Lexus can make a car that pushes less power than its competitors and is slower in a straight line than some, yet run a much faster lap, then surely some of the tech must have filtered down to this Concept.

All out horsepower and torque doesnt define a cars performance, its power delivery and balance, aerodynamics and mass also play a huge factor. If the FT86 is well balanced and handles as if on rails, it will be able to take in more speed through the corners and accelerate quick out also thus not requiring huge HP to overcome all out speed.

I apologise for not doing more research in regards to wikipedia, etc.

Negative Ghost Rider.

I'm also not trying to flame. I just come off as cross ;)

But yeah....the tech that makes the LFA fast (except it's no faster than it's competition and costs SIGNIFICANTLY more) includes things like active aero, full underbody diffuser, extremely expensive brakes, lots of carbon fiber....none of those things have any chance at all of happening on a 25k sports coupe.

If anything, I'd use the LFA as an example of why I'm worried about this project. It spent forever in development, cost so much to make that they had to sell it at double the competition's price, and it only performs, at best, on par with the competition.

Then again, the LFA was developed by Toyota and regardless of whether it bruises people's egos here, the FT-86 development, by all indications, was handled primarily by Subaru.

Just because you've mentioned it, I'd like to add the worse thing about that is Subaru actually listens to Toyota about power and performance and ae86 successor marketing BS and now you get a semi-low hp BUT "it's going to be fun to drive" car. Like WTF are they thinking, for at least the past 15 years they been making 260+hp performance models globally.

you are correct, the numbers are nearly the same for current subaru boxer 4 engines, unlike conventional inline or v configurations which power characteristics have a slightly larger rotational power difference in hp and tq relations. flat-6s have a larger difference compared to the flat-4s...but TQ characteristics are still unlike more popular engine configurations.

FB20 makes 148hp/144ftlb @6000
FB25 makes 175hp/178ftlb @6000
EJ20E makes 140hp/138ftlb @6000
Ej254 makes 175hp/170ftlb @6000
EZ36 makes 260hp/247ftlb @6000

vs

(ballpark figures at the same RPM)
I-4 2.0l makes 148hp/129ftlb
I-4 2.5l makes 175hp/153ftlb
I-6 3.6l makes 260hp/227ftlb

Yes, however the state of tune for those engines is different than the state of tune for a 2.0L that produces 200hp.

The Boxer-4 that produces 148/144, when tuned to provide higher HP, will produce less torque. I doubt a 200hp 2.0L boxer would produce more than 165ft/lb. It's just the nature of the beast. This is true for all types of engines. It's one of the reasons why the 4 cylinders in trucks produce low HP numbers...the state of tune has the power spread out over a wider RPM band, which is better for pulling and easier on clutches and transmissions.

However, as mentioned, the HP/TQ ratio in a boxer-4 is better than an inline-4. So it's not going to be a complete dog down low like the 2.0L that was in the last-gen Civic Si (197hp and 139lb/ft)

This, however, does not address the fact that even if the torque figure is a respectable 170lb/ft, it's going to be reached at like 4000rpm, and the engine will not be very tractable below that.

This is why I want a turbo. A low-pressure unit like in my GTI would be great...they aren't that expensive, and you get all the torque as early as 2000rpm. Much less lag than a higher pressure unit like on the WRX and STi. And you can easily tune it for more if you so wish.

Although that is true for the non performance lineup. You want that 2.0 to make 200hp you're going to have to give up some tq. The FB20 starts off at 14xhp/14xtq.

Current FB25
170hp @ 5800rpms
174tq @ 4100 rpms

For comparison
Hyundai N/A 2.4 liter four with 200hp 186lb ft gets about 35mpg hwy.

I would expect from the FR-S same HP, less TQ, more MPG for a smaller engine and lighter car especially using D4-S and the price premium.

http://afeatheradrift.files.wordpres...is-falling.jpg


Good discussion..... but now I'm losing optimism.

true true..even the SOHC EJ204 coupled with AVCS from the legacy 2.0 makes 190hp/145ftlbs @ 7100rpm

but lets try this..take those same basic stats..and add

D4-S ~ to boost fuel efficeny and TQ
Dual AVCS DOHC
Narrow FB Cylinder Heads ~ to increase air flow
Asymmetrical rods ~ boost tq and displacement
lengthen the stroke ~ to bring the powerband down a bit.
Boost Compression Ratio to 12.5:1

We can't not gain more power and efficeny at that point starting from a baseline of 190hp/145ftlbs.....190-250hp/170-180ftlbs seems more likely at that point.

biggest boxer 4 dyno iv seen was from a shop down in australia, dynoed a fully built EJ204 at 288hp/240ftlb, i remember looking at the thread a few years back on a subaru forum.

What is your reasoning for this?

Physics. Lateral acceleration is primarily a function of mechanical grip, which is a function of contact patch and tire material.

The GTI is slightly heavier but has wider tires. The FR-S is slightly lighter but has narrower tires.

Additionally, the rim/tire package on the prototypes that are running around is not only narrower, but it is also smaller in diameter. People forget that a larger diameter tire ALSO produces a larger contact patch (lengthwise), it's not just the width.

Thus, given the tire size and probable weight of the FR-S, I find it unlikely that it will pull any better than the .93g that the summer tire package GTI does. Aerodynamics can dramatically increase tire traction by increasing friction without increasing weight, however neither the GTI nor the FR-S has sophisticated aero-tuning. Additionally, it makes no sense to include aggressive downforce in a 200hp street car: so little of the vehicle's life will be spent at speeds high enough to take advantage of the aero that the additional drag and fuel economy hit is simply not worth it.

Look at the Miata. It's even lighter than the FR-S but it also pulls less lateral acceleration than the GTI.

People talk about tuning the suspension for more grip, etc, but it's kind of misleading. You're not going to get very much effect in absolute grip from a suspension tune. The suspension set-up primarily determines how the vehicle behaves at the limit, you can tune in understeer or oversteer, but you're not going to get a large difference in absolute traction...the tires primarily dictate where that limit is.

That's why a wheel/tire upgrade is always the first thing that should be done when modding a car. It is cost effective and offers huge increases in performance.

^ Except we don't know the final FT tire size yet and compared to 3000lbs, the FT could end up weighing significantly less than the chubby GTI. Seems like arguing g's right now is a shot in the dark.

I wouldn't say it's a shot in the dark. If the FT-86 hits the weight target of 2700lbs, that's still only 300lbs difference. That might make a .01-.02 difference in lateral grip....which is slightly less than the difference between a 225 tire (what the protos are running, I believe) and a 235 tire of equal compound would have.

I'm gonna guess that we'll see the major magazines reporting lateral acceleration figures of about .87-.90g for the FT-86 once it's released, based on the tire size of the prototypes.

Remember: The "feel" that Toyota is going for is antithetical to putting huge tires on a car. Wide tires increase grip but decrease steering feel. Just like the Mazda Miata, high ultimate grip is likely NOT one of the performance targets for this car.

It's been stated over and over, the target for this car is the feel....that means great transient response and steering feel....which are completely separate from lateral acceleration. There is no doubt in my mind that in terms of steering feel and transient response, the FT-86 will embarrass the GTI...however, without wider tires, it's not going to actually corner harder in stock form.