Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB - Nissan Design Boss: No Chance of Toyobaru Fighter

- Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Nissan Design Boss: No Chance of Toyobaru Fighter (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103458)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZDan (Post 2607839)

Why do you think you prefer more forward c.g.? It would make drifting with modest horsepower easier I guess...
c.g. between front wheels won't work with rear wheel drive. At all.

For FR layout, the more rearward the c.g. the better as far as I'm concerned. 55/45 feels unnatural to me! 50/50 puts 11% more static load on the drive wheels, allowing greater acceleration which further loads up the drive wheels. Pretty critical for higher power/weight cars. I wish I could get it to more like 45/55 on the FD.

Driver location relative to c.g. is probably what you "feel" more so than absolute c.g. location. Driver sitting well aft of vehicle c.g. gives more sensitivity to rotation.

Imagine a 2-seat version of the FT86 with the engine/trans and driver moved 30" or so aft. Better, more rearward weight distribution (50/50 or better, easy), AND you get the classic FR sports car FEEL with the driver sitting just in front of the rear tires. Toyota and/or Subaru should do this...

A centrally balanced car feels nervous to me, too easy to overcorrect. I find a forward COG more forgiving and predictable; keep it pointed and steer with the throttle. My driving style is not very smooth, but very aggressive and a bit wild. I'm not really a drifter, but I can do it pretty well, but even there I do it without e braking like a lot of people; it's all weight transfer and power over even in cars with little power. That requires really railing on the car to get it to do what I want, but I like that and it's probably why I don't find the BRZ limiting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by themadscientist (Post 2607858)

A centrally balanced car feels nervous to me, too easy to overcorrect.

One of the most responsive and easy to control cars I've ever driven at the track was a 600 lb. Formula 440. Somewhere in the 45/55 - 40/60 range, VERY low polar moment! Easy to get sideways, but also easy and quick to recover.

I think that suspension geometry, springs/sways/dampers, steering ratio and assist, and alignment settings should affect handling "nervousness" much more so than weight distribution.

What centrally-balanced car did you drive that felt nervous?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZDan (Post 2607852)

It is surprising to me that with that much wheelbase to play with, AND a short H4 engine, that they couldn't do much if any better than the S13/S14 on weight distribution. Apparently the steering shaft forces the H4 engine to sit further forward than an inline or V engine. Somebody should make a V4 sports car...

It's on purpose. They wanted it to be easily controllable for drifiting. More front-biased weight distribution + a long wheelbase = a lot of stability and time for correction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by themadscientist (Post 2607858)

More forgiving, sure, but also slower to change direction, and, ultimately, worse at cornering (for grip-racing purposes, not drifting).

A lot of it has to do with wheelbase and suspension too though. Part of the twitchyness of cars like the s2000 and rx7 is the short wheelbase in tandem with the more rearward weight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZDan (Post 2607878)

Yeah, the NSX should be a classic example of an easily controllable, very, very responsive & great handling car with a weight distribution like that. Also, Caymans/Boxsters. These sorts of cars aren't known to be twitchy.

All good points, certainly. That's why I explained how I drive, it's sloppy and crazy, like swinging a gladius instead of a katana, not at all the fastest way around the track. I think my distaste for certain cars is more my failing than there's. If I had the time and money I'd attend some racing classes to adjust my style, but I don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by themadscientist (Post 2608208)

There's a time and a place for abusive & forceful as well as smooth & gentle. lol

I would if I could. At least I don't wind up my 1-2 shift with my hand out the window before the downstroke. :happyanim:

Nissan Design Boss: No Chance of Toyobaru Fighter

Mr.Impreza Potential Buyer: No Chance of a Nissan Purchase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sideways&Smiling (Post 2607434)

The wheelbase of the twins is 101.2"... pretty long for these sorts of cars. The difference between the different KAs is minor. The newer one has better midrange. Either way, it's not a very exciting engine, which is why most turbo it or swap it.

Last I recall, the '91-'93 S13 intake camshaft had a slightly better profile for higher RPMs, though I can't remember the exact lift/duration specs. Intake cam swaps from the S13 into the S14 weren't unheard of. Regardless, the KA in stockish form was not rev happy at all with peak power occurring at about 5500rpms for KA24DE. I can understand why most people ditch it. Mid-range output was nice for daily driving though. Nevertheless, I still had fun with it with some tweaks here and there.

Gosh.. it's been years, but the fun I had with the 240sx was what really got me into this hobby. It's a pity Nissan refuses bring it back, but I can't fault them given the market for our niche cars. I'm just glad someone else finally stepped in 15 years after the 240sx last rolled off the factory floor.:respekt: