Right. So one car that you think was ruined (and given that it followed the universally disliked W169 and the rollover-prone W168, I'm not the only one that would strongly disagree) is an example of why platforms are bad? All the cars based on W176 are the same size as an A Class. If anything, it's one of the least likely cars to be compromised by its platform.
What are your thoughts on the Audi TT RS, which is a direct Cayman S competitor? Based on the same platform as this tedious POS:

https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/auto...t-2016-729.jpg

Care to explain where the TT RS is compromised by being based on the same platform as that thing :laughabove: Not as good as the Cayman S maybe, but then neither is anything else for £50k.

Ultimately you're still not getting what "platform" means in 2018. Look back at the pictures of the Passat and TT chassis, and see how little is common to those cars, which share the same platform. A tiny section between the A-pillar and the front axle. Do you genuinely believe that sharing that little with an Impreza is going to compromise the BRZ's dynamics? Especially given that the platform will already be based around a horizontally opposed longitudinal engine?

@spikyone Yes I believe that it would be compromised. Don't forget that a next gen 86/BRZ should be somehow better and the level of the current car is already pretty high! I know many people locally that would never look for an Audi TT RS and they have one or even more BRZ's in their collections. It isn't a coincidence that so many people praise this platform and saying it is one of the best money can buy unless you go into very high cost territories. Check an opinion here:

"That car makes incredible fun, is really good balanced
and I'm not thinking of anything that I would change
if it was my car. And that happend so good as never before.
And the last car which I find really cool
was the Porsche Carrera GT who cost 450.000€"

https://youtu.be/13xlLxVgiF8?t=408

Your belief has no basis is reality.

The MQB based TT is by FAR the best handling car out of the 3 generations, and is the lightest as well.

Even Clarkson, who hates FWD based cars and their handling, lauded the new TT on how the front end grip is fantastic to bite in and then the rear is just loose enough to hang it out.

Arguably the TT now is so good BECAUSE of the intensive platform sharing, as it gained a lot from the Golf R. VW doesn't put their best engineers on the R8 or the Chiron. They put their best engineers on the Golf, and that benefits all its platform-mates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are plenty of enthusiasts who do not like the 86 and feel like it's overpriced for what you get.

And a couple of hundred threads here on how to change just about every aspect of the car. Not to mention that if you leave it almost stock then you are told you know nothing about cars.

@nikitopo

Do you believe the current BRZ/86 was designed without compromise?

Monster Raving Loony ParTay!

Of course it has compromises and some of them were kinda intentional. Why so many people are modifying it? However, not in the area of the chassis. This is what makes it so special. If next BRZ was compromised a bit on the chassis, but had the 2.4 NA engine and similar cost level people might say that it is much better. It is all about priorities and perception.

if the chassis wasn t a compromise they would have worked around a carbon fiber chassis and worked around it to compensate for the slighty higher center of gravity it gives compared to the aluminum chassis we got, like a 4C

Ignorance is making facts up. You and your cohorts don't have any references FROM SUBARU for your assumptions on THEIR definition of a platform. You are taking YOUR theory and saying it is fact. Nowhere in any Subaru documentation to they talk about RWD as part of the platform but they do say that AWD is a required part of the platform. Assuming that it will be good for a RWD sports car, is indeed, fake news. Assuming it will be infinitely scalable, is again, fake news. Assuming that Toyota will bend to the will of Subaru for the Twins is fake news. Assuming the designer of the twins from Toyota will limit his design to the Subaru Platform, is totally fake news.

The problem is that I do understand your concepts and in a theoretical world, they make sense. Taking the "I have superior knowledge to you" approach in your arguments, and dismissing factual inconsistencies is the hallmark of fake news. You can't take a theory and try to rationalize the surrounding facts to fit the theory. This is the antithesis of basic scientific method. Logical argumentation should be devoid of emotional bias. Personally, I'd like to support your theories because that would mean Subaru will continue to support the BRZ over time. But I cannot try to rationalize facts that don't fit that theory with, again, fake news. Furthermore, logic dictates that a new sports car design would probably be better without the limitations of an AWD platform with cars that are not designed for sports car handling and proportions.

Given the facts we know (and not assumptions that have no Subaru delineated factual basis), there is absolutely no reason to believe that the global platform will be used for the new 2021 BRZ. If you don't understand the difference between deduction based upon delineated facts versus theory that requires the rationalization of facts, I just can't help you....

There was a review lately of an ex-gt86 owner who has now a 4c. He really misses his old car and he realised that the GT86 is one of the best cars on the market. Especially as a track project car!

More details here:
http://www.gt86ownersclub.co.uk/foru...8.html?KW=#top

1) The speculation that they could use the global platform was presented in the scenario that Toyota pulled out and left the whole thing up to Subaru. Nobody ever claimed that this was indeed what was happening.


2) The Global platform is reported by Subaru as being used in their full range of cars from "A subcompact hatchback to a seven passenger SUV". It is not theory that it will be a scalable platform. This is well documented and irrefutable.


3) You have expressed nothing but an "I have superior knowledge" attitude and dismissed every factual piece of evidence placed in front of you. Your frequent "Ask an engineer" statements fly out the window as soon as an engineer answers. Now they are "Ask an engineer that agrees with me only".


4) Toyota does not have to "bend to the will" of Subaru. They tasked Subaru with much of the original design. Much of that design and even some of the actual parts are used in the new platform. Subaru will play a major role in designing any new version. The Lead Engineer is exactly that the lead. There will be a large team that actually performs the work. That team will consist of both Toyota and Subaru employees. That is presuming that both companies stay involved.


5) The new platform and any other platform can be used with any form of drive train. This has been done hundreds of times on the same model car over the decades. Because it is primarily designed for one drive system does not automatically rule it out for all others.


6) All of the speculation (no theory has been presented) has been based upon "delineated facts". Just because you disagree with or don't understand those facts does not mean that the logic is wrong.

And for every one of those there is at least one that hated the platform and would never go back no matter what.


Subjective opinions are subjective.

i would trade my brz for a 4c instantly lol.
but well.. i m poor
and anyway, @nikitopo i dont really care what a guy who changed car think, it s his own business, i answered to you about the chassis. there is a compromise and it is the money
for how good our chassis (i love it personally) it s still a 30k € car, there will always be a margin to improve it