Can it be too sporty?
 

So the FT is supposedly going to have the lowest center of gravity in a production car. great! but it got me thinking. this car is going to be my DD. and most of you guys chose it as DD or dual purpose DD/track in the poll. so can they go too far?

for example, ride height. both for looks and handling, low to the ground is good. but can they make it too low? if i buy this car and i start scraping the bottom every time i get gas or go up a driveway imma be pissed...

another one that was already discussed is the spare tire. i'd rather lug the extra weight of a full size spare than be stranded on the side of the road...

and then there are the extremists asking for no AC, no power windows, etc.

so can this car become too sporty for its own good? so much so that it becomes annoying for everyday life?

Hm... it's not like lambo or Ferrari, so you don't need to worry about scraping the bottoms. Also it need to have certain height between ground and the bottom (safety stuff), so you don't really need to worry.

my mr2 is my daily. i enjoy driving it everyday. for some people that may be the case being too sporty. this car probably isn't for them. some of my (bigger) family members who get in my car complain right away about how cramped it is compared to a "regular" car as they call it. i always stay quiet to hear them grunt as they get in my car.. haha

As long as you are not "hella flushed" then you should be good to go as far as being your DD. The only thing that could get annoying is constantly getting pulled over and if you're rolling around in a gutted car.

Check your state laws b/c here in CA, the limit is 22" from the center of your headlight to the ground. If your car is too low, this is how they'll gauge your citation.


Headlamps on Motor Vehicles
24400. (a) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be:

(1) Equipped with at least two headlamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the vehicle, and, except as to vehicles registered prior to January 1, 1930, they shall be located directly above or in advance of the front axle of the vehicle. The headlamps and every light source in any headlamp unit shall be located at a height of not more than 54 inches nor less than 22 inches.

(2) Operated during darkness, or inclement weather, or both, with at least two lighted headlamps that comply with paragraph (1).

(b) As used in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), “inclement weather” is a weather condition that is either of the following:

(1) A condition that prevents a driver of a motor vehicle from clearly discerning a person or another motor vehicle on the highway from a distance of 1,000 feet.

(2) A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture.

Low COG doesn't mean that they have to drop it in the weeds.

It just means as much weight as possible is as low as they can make it. It's still going to be a stock ride height car, no lower than a tC or XRunner.

The engineers aren't stupid they know people would be pissed.

More reason not to be hassled for rides. I have a family sedan and in high school everyone wanted to be my friend, lol

This is going to be a production car from Toyota. You know, the same company that makes Beige Supreme [Camry]. We're not talking about a Lotus Exos T125 here. It'll never be "too sporty" for anyone remotely interested in a sports car.

Think about what you're saying. You can't sell a sports car with double the price and fewer accoutrements than the absolute crappiest car on the lot [i.e. Scion xD]. It'll have A/C and power windows/locks/mirrors. The only cars that don't come with such things are select hyper-crap boxes like the Versa and Accent. Remember they're also tuning the FT-86's suspension on the Nurburgring; this means it needs workable ground clearance to handle the jumps, road crown, curbing, etc.

i dunno about that. the tC has a ground clearance of 6.3" with a 55.6" height but the miata has 4.6" ground clearance with 49" height. the FT is looking closer to the miata at this point with 50" height, so if we assume it has less than 5" ground clearance, that's maybe cutting it close for my pot hole infested roads.

i dont own a miata so i dont know if that car is "too sporty" for me. and if it is, then the FT would be too. as an anecdote, in this past winter my evo with 5.3" ground clearance got stuck in moderately deep snow. this was with all seasons so yes that had a huge impact. but the semi low stock ride height didnt help. now imagine losing an extra half inch clearance, being RWD, and being a light car like the FT...

so while i want the car to be sporty, after reading all the interviews, etc. little bits of fear start creeping in. i want this car bad, but i dont want too sporty a car for DD...

I will enter a fit of rage if I ever see Hellaflush y0! On this car. But it's inevitable, sigh.

Also, low center of gravity doesn't necessarily mean it'll be scrapping the ground.

X-runner!?! :clap: An X-runner is pretty high compared to most sport compacts.

Ironically you were the same person who had the nerve to put Scion and Supra in the same sentence in another post!! :slap: -> :bs:-> :bellyroll:

japanese car makers have always excelled at making sporty cars that were still extremely livable as daily drivers. the nsx was so reliable and easy to live with as a daily driver that it turned the exotic sports industry upside down. it was a huge influence on gordon murray when he built the mclaren f1 and it wasn't until after the nsx was released that the exotic sports car manufacturers got real about building reliable sports cars that were easy to live with as a dd. the s2000 is an exception to that rule as the suspension is rock hard, but it's ride height still isn't bad stock. if you can get over the fact that it's a soft top with zero luggage space then even the s2000 is pretty livable as a dd. in other words i wouldn't worry too much, especially since they're going for a low msrp and adding an auto option. that means they want non-maniacs to buy it as well!

well that's a matter of opinion. what may be too sporty for one is not to another. make no mistake, i want it to be sporty. but the line between sporty enough and too sporty is very individual... so i'd like to know what other people think, having read the latest interview with tada. having heard about things like the dash being designed so you can easily add a cage. tada promising the worlds lowest center of gravity, etc.... is that marketing fluff? exaggeration of technical minutiae? or do they really mean it? make it really sporty and sell it as a scion because the buyers will be young and more receptive to a more "hardcore" sports coupe?

good point :thumbsup:

how does the S2000 deal with snow (with snow tires obviously)?

lowered cars are ONLY faster on baby's butt smooth tracks. On a real road, you want to have enough suspension travel to prevent the suspension from hitting the bump stops. If you lower a car in a regular macpherson strut setup, you are losing suspension travel. That means you'll be in the bump stops more often which is bad for handling. The only way to make a car very low to the ground without losing suspension travel is to go with coilovers or inverted struts, and those would be too expensive for this car. A well tuned suspension can be sporty without being overly stiff. It's all about how the springs and dampers are tuned.