http://i.imgur.com/ViiqC5N.gif



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? I can make a "sports car" out of a truck frame, but it won't be a really good sports car. That's the issue. The front is designed to hold AWD differentials and thus the proportions are not amenable to a good, light, RWD sports car design. In addition, the ratios of width to height, which are a part of the platform, would not be good for a low car. Rather than looking at what is there, look at what components of that design would be good for a sports car. The assumption you obviously make that the platform could be "cut down" with a reworked front end degrades the idea that this is THE platform for all of the cars. If the assumption you make is true, then there is no real platform at all, just a bottom frame.

This is the difference between an automotive engineer and a mechanical engineer. My background was in product development and design in a number of industries. So I'd like you look again at the design, taking into account that the platform will be designed for AWD (and not RWD) and tell me how you could make a good sports car from it. If you have a CAD program, take the ratios of width and height and place a car body on it and you'll see it will be far too tall to be a low sports car. What you'll get, at a minimum, are the proportions of an Impreza or WRX which are about 58" tall. Our BRZ's are about 51" tall. Think about it....

I never said that. If I were tracking a car, I'd remove as much weight as possible in all parts -- and I've done that in the past. Why would you assume otherwise? However, as a daily driver, I'd easily add 200 pounds for things like air conditioning, a better ride, comfortable seats, a good infotainment/audio setup, electric windows, etc. You wouldn't? In terms of saving a few pounds for custom wheels for a daily driver, I do think it is a waste of money. You don't? I also said that buying extra wide wheels and tires for this kind of street car ADDS POUNDS to the car you don't need and is a waste of money will most likely reduce performance and MPG.

And I've owned Porsche's for 27 years, by the way. I sold my last one about 2 years ago.

Yes, you didn't say that. I totally agree with you. I was referring about @Tcoat

Wrong. Subaru 101: the front diff is in the transmission, also referred to as a transaxle, a term you've surely come across in your background in product development and design in a number of industries. This makes it ridiculously easy to convert a Subaru to RWD. Just take the front halfshafts out and replace the front diff with a spool. Subaru did a bit more of a thorough job by getting a new transmission for the BRZ.

Subaru AWD tranny:
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads...80185725.1.jpg

BRZ tranny:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/attac...1&d=1427562662

Wrong again. The BRZ is already based off the Impreza, like all modern Subarus are. Just like 20 years ago they were all based on the Legacy. You think it's coincidence that the front wheels are so far back for a RWD car? Or that it's quite front heavy with 55% over the front axle? Why didn't they increase the rear overhang to get it to 50-50? That's a trick BMW loves. Why is the engine so far forward? Why do we have a random 'overpipe' where the uppipe/downpipe on a wrx go? The chassis and engine design was supposed to be clean slate right? Guess what? There's still an Impreza under all that metal.

This is exactly what global platforms are for: Scaling.
The platform has all the basic features a car's chassis needs: Subframe interface points, a floor pan, bulkheads and firewalls, suspension pickup points, etc. The dimensions between them are variable, as the real engineering is figuring out how these subcomponents fit together. Once you figure out a solid way of putting the chassis together, you can change dimensions to suit your applications.

VW uses the MQB platform from the Polo to the Atlas, the latter being pretty much twice the size as the former. It also underpins 3/4 of everything VW/Audi/SEAT/Skoda make, including the low slung TT and massive SUVs. The Nissan FM platform underpins the 350Z/370Z and Skyline, the Infiniti FX SUVs, a bunch of RWD sedans, eventually the R35 GTR, and a GODDAMN FWD MINIVAN Yes, the 370Z shares its platform with a FWD minivan.

Mechanical Engineer can be any industry. It merely denotes an area of expertise, in my case Mechanical design, Static and dynamic analysis, scalable architecture design, and design for manufacturing, among others. Regardless, the governing principles are the same. Stress, strain, CTE, mass, inertia, vibrations and dynamics, it all applies accross industries. A good engineer can hop between them and excel in multiple fields.

Irrelevant, see first paragraph.

Idem.
Also Subaru already did:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...FnwwfscyUiLlUg

Again, refer to my previous paragraph about platform sharing. This is nothing new. The whole point of scalable platforms are the fact that they're, what? Scalable? naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Indeed - and the point about "platform" is not that you use all of the pieces shown in that image either. The new meaning of "platform" is that you have something similar to prefabricated Lego assemblies that you can vary by model with just a few hard fixing points, so you're barely constrained by the structural geometry.

VW's MQB platform is a great example, this:

http://cdn1.autoexpress.co.uk/sites/..._nighta_tt.jpg

is based on the same "platform" as this:

http://cdn1.carbuyer.co.uk/sites/car...utfrontuk2.jpg

For comparison, the sizes/weights of those two are (rounded):

Audi TT: 4.2m x 1.8m x 1.3m (l x w x h), wheelbase = 2.5m, 1200-1400kg
Skoda Kodiaq: 4.7m x 1.9m x 1.7m, wheelbase = 2.8m, 1400-1800kg

They are substantially different in every conceivable way, yet they share a common platform. The upcoming Audi A1 is likely to be smaller than the TT, and that is also based on MQB!

:confused0068:


It looks that you ignored the pictures I posted one page before. It is totally wrong saying that the BRZ is just a coupe Impreza.

Next Gen BRZ/86!
 

You're confused because you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I said it is BASED ON the Impreza platform,as @nikitopo also mentioned, but since you've been entirely tonedeaf to anyone who tries to explain the way modern car platform sharing works, I doubt you'll get it this time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And this is supposedly a good thing for the bean counters I understand. And that Mk3 TT felt like the size of a truck when I simply sat in it at the auto show. :clap:

Next Gen BRZ/86!
 

Eh, it's only 1/2" longer than the mark 2 (4.5" more than the mark 1) and it weighs 200 lbs less than the original (top trim vs top trim), and it's widely hailed as the best handling car in VW/Audi's current lineup (R8 notwithstanding). The lightest MK3 (FWD manual) actually only weighs 2714lbs!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I do not have an engineering background yet I deal with engineering issues every single day. I have worked in technical positions in the Tier One auto industry for almost 30 years and a bit does rub off.
I have never ridiculed weight reduction. I have questioned your claimed results from performing random parts changes. The fun part is that so has every other single person that has responded to your claims. You yourself open almost every post on the subject with "nobody agrees but I have...". You are yet again saying that every other person is wrong about the platform and the only supporter that you have is somebody that obviously has not had any contact with the industry for 20 or more years and thinks things are still done as they used to be.
Get over trying to attack me and listen to what is being said.

I think the idea of a scalable platform is lost on him. He is still living in the 60s when they changes a grill and called a car a different brand.


This:


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...05-06-2011.jpg


This:


https://o.aolcdn.com/images/dims3/GL...review2010.jpg


And this:


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rersXmRo_D...a-celica-1.jpg


Are all built on the MC platform. There have been and still are a total of over 30 totally different vehicles in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and drivetrains built on this platform since the 1990s and here we are being told that once a platform is built everything must be the same size and drive train.


Gotta love the whole "ask and engineer but only one that agrees with me" comments.

🤣


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was clear that you don't have an engineering background and no matter your years of "experience", you'll always have an unclear understanding of how things work. It is what it is for people that don't have an appropriate background and have to deepen into the details. Try to share some knowledge in your level of expertise and not about everything. Or as it has been suggested, find someone with an engineering background and let him explain to you the details. You are just ridiculate yourself with such opinions. A random part of changes? How do you think STI or TRD or other sport divisions are working? They'll contact specific vendors and in many cases they'll just re-brand existing parts. Why do you attack me for example and not Shiv who provided so many years a generic tune for EL/UEL catless headers? From your point of view a generic tune for a header will give zero gains. Same about your reasoning on the global platform. What is your technical reasoning apart from playing with words and providing random examples from the internet? We are discussing here about the future of the 86/BRZ platform and I provided specific examples of how the BRZ was specialized. Same about other people who were trying to explain to you in detail that the new global platform is not appropriate for a real sports car. We were not doing a generic discussion.


Are you really searching for supporters over here? Personally, I'm not. If something is wrong, then it's wrong and I don't care who agrees or not. If you think that you have a "fun base" and that they'll support you in whatever case, then it is not how things should work. Especially when you are spreading non-sense with non-existent technical reasoning. I don't know if the mods like the forum to work like this, but it is certainly the wrong way!

There is not one thing that I have said that is not technically accurate. It just isn't what you want to think so in your standard manner you simply dismiss it. This is a speculation thread and the possibility that they could use the Global Platform is a reasonable part of such. I fully understand the details and do not need anything explained to me. When an engineer supported exactly what I said he was also summarily dismissed so the whole "get an engineer" thing is just more of your smoke and mirrors. It is not a matter of garnering support that people agree with what I said it because it is the reality and not some fantasy world as you seem to live in.

lol @ nikitopo complaining about Shiv here for no reason... He always made clear his cam timing were for specific header he either sells or ft86speedfactory sells..and he just made them available for free for everyone not because he sells OTS tune but because he sells oft and since most of people does not have an idea how to set a tune from scratch, he gives them a good base
if you dont like them don t use them and dont spit on them, you have not the right to do so...
you just have to enjoy your expensive canned tune with your 1500$ OEM header with huge cat : )

alsp you seem to not understand that the only way to tune the cams is with your specific car on a dyno and try to find what pulls the most power out.. you think a tuner can do that remotely?
but well your 250-260bhp car pulls already over a Porsche, you dont need a perfect cam setting right?

You make this place fun.

This has nothing to do with @Tcoat 's so called fan base. On this topic he's technically correct, the best kind of correct.

Go dig around Wikipedia if you want more info, there is enough technical info about cars, their platforms, predecessors and successors for days of research.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a PhD in engineering and I taught at graduate and undergraduate level Mechanical and Chemical engineering in MA. In my opinion, you have no idea what you are talking about. I would hire one tcoat instead of a dozen engineers like you.

So ...

@Tcoat @bkharmony @Yoshoobaroo @mrg666

Nothing more specific on the particular topic apart from personal attacks and insults. Well done!

:clap:


I am exluding @tomm.brz because he seems to have some real issue with comprehension as a non native speaker.

Something tells me we should stop feeding the trolls, guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ya I think you are correct. Anything else we put in front of him will just be discarded anyway. As hard as I look at my reply to his lengthy attack and futile attempt to discredit me I do not see where I attacked him back in any form of personal manner.

Anybody with even a basic level of comprehension understands what we we saying so if a few want to disbelieve they are welcome to carry on doing so.

https://i.imgflip.com/2910c5.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Generator

Only the voices in his head.

Only comprehends sentence fragments that can be cherry picked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if all of the measurements in a platform are variable, why have one? If they are "scalable", then you have the issue of the platform being inappropriate for the BRZ. That negates the purpose of a "platform" because you no longer have manufacturing line efficiencies. And you conveniently disregard Subaru's statement that AWD is an integral part of the platform. You seem to be force fitting your desires into an argument. In addition, the BRZ is the ONLY car in Subaru's lineup that was designed by Toyota. Why would a car designed by Toyota be built around a Subaru platform? Does Toyota have the knowledge and expertise of Subaru's platform? We know that it is the Toyota guy that is designing the new Twins, not Subaru.

You have no facts to back up your arguments. No where in the description of Subaru's Global Platform do they talk about scalability. In fact, we don't know how scalable the new platform will be or what elements will be scalable. It is just not factual. One of the major aspects of the new platform is front end crash safety. How can you get that massive front end under the low hood of a BRZ? On the other hand, it is a fact that Subaru says that AWD is part of the platform. Nowhere does it say RWD is part of the platform. It is a fact that Toyota is designing the next Twins, not Subaru.

There is a difference between using your engineering background to manufacture "fake news" regarding the next BRZ rather than taking the facts that we know and coming to logical conclusions. I do understand your arguments, but without facts, they are just fairy tales.

In the end, neither of us will know about the new BRZ until the 2021 models (which is also a fact, by the way). But it is far more probable, GIVEN THE FACTS THAT WE KNOW TODAY, that the global platform will not be used. That said, I do expect some commonalities in specific parts, infotainment systems, interior materials, etc. But in the big scheme of things, these are very small items.

but why : )
it has almost become funny at this point !
almost as funny as his statement of his basically stock car pulling like a 260hp Brz (be aware, this could be rise in any moment ! ) but he seems he cannot declare here in public the weight of his super fast car
All i want to know is how many kgs he shred from it : (

Dude, calm down. We are speculating about a car that does not exist. We don't even know for sure if this marriage between Toyota or Subaru will continue....or how it was consummated in the first place :barf:

Next Gen BRZ/86!
 

There it is. I had a hunch. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I'll just leave you wallowing in your ignorance, you seem to enjoy it. The facts are out there, really easy to find out with this newfangled internet. Enjoy!

http://replygif.net/i/279.gif




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's address some of your misconceptions.

1. "Platform" no longer means what you think it does. It no longer means cars sharing a floorpan or even major structures, like it might have done 20 years ago. It means a standardised way of putting together the major structures, that allows vastly different vehicles to be manufactured in a similar way. I'd urge you to read this article - "kits" as mentioned are now commonly referred to as platforms (see Wikipedia's MQB page).

The high front end that you're hung up on is not an integral part of the platform; that image will just be to show what a rolling chassis based on the platform could look like. Here's the chassis from the Audi TT, compared to the VW Passat B8, both MQB based. The bulkhead/firewall/scuttle (whatever you call it) and forward lower chassis arms are the same, but that's where the similarities end.

http://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/2..._TTtech_01.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/o3rBvIO.png


2. We can be almost 100% certain that Subaru's platform will be scalable, because that's what car-makers mean when they talk about platforms in 2018. A highly modular way of constructing cars that allows flexibility.

3. "Manufacturing line efficiency" means being flexible enough to make what you need to make, when you need to make it, so that the line is properly utilised. Here's a photo of the production line at Nissan's plant in the UK, with a Qashqai (red) immediately followed by a Leaf (silver) and another Qashqai (blue) - the car in front of the Qashqai is a third model.

http://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publi...-1-690x450.jpg

The ability of lines to produce multiple models was also referenced in the article I linked. Using standardised interfaces between the blocks used to create a car, as you see with these new platforms, actually leads to increased efficiencies because the cars are all assembled in a similar way.

4. Driven wheels are not an integral part of a platform. Let's be simplistic: take out the half shafts of your AWD, and you have a RWD. There is nothing physically preventing a RWD car being derived from an AWD platform. If you kept the pre-2010s definition of platform, it might be difficult to make a FWD platform into AWD or RWD (no transmission tunnel, like the Passat chassis above), but if a rolling chassis can handle AWD, it can handle RWD.
And the state of the art now is that any rolling chassis is just one of many possible implementations of a platform.
AWD is simply part of Subaru's philosophy. They were talking about symmetric AWD long before the BRZ existed. It does not preclude their platform being used for RWD; if anything their focus on symmetric AWD makes any such platform perfect for use in RWD. By contrast, VW's MQB is geared towards transverse engines, which make less sense for RWD - but even then it's not impossible to do.


The only thing you got right is that none of us know for certain. Your arguments that Subaru's platform can't be used, or would be inherently unsuitable, for the next-gen twins are simply wrong.

This is known already and in fact there are conversion kits that can modify a WRX from an AWD to a RWD car. His point was that you cannot have a proper sports car like this. You can do it, but it will be a compromise just to reduce costs. I uploaded a couple of pictures 2-3 pages before that show that the BRZ was really about differentiation and specialization comparing to the Impreza. How can you achieve all this with a global platform? Other car makers have gone into this direction, but with the drawbacks mentioned above. Since you are from UK, check what happened to the first generation Mercedes A-class cars when they had to transition to the MB W176 platform. They really ruined a breakthrough car and nowadays I cannot find any difference of the new A-class comparing to a VW Golf or an Audi A3.

In ways you can't possibly comprehend 🤣

In all seriousness, 4 different people have explained it well now, 3 of them citing the MQB platform, the poster child of modern platform sharing. If you still don't get it, you're being deliberately obtuse or lack the acuity to understand.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perfect!
We have already been through all this with him many times though. If the oft repeated Subaru statement of "The SGP will be used for all vehicles from a subcompact hatchback to a seven passenger SUV and will be fully adaptable for both hybrid and EVs" is not and indication of scalable then I don't know what is. Either the sub compact or the seven passenger SUV would be pretty silly looking if they used a fixed frame for both.


The picture he keeps using is that of the 17 Impreza which is the only vehicle currently in production on that platform. Even as it stands that platform is much different that the old Impreza one that was used. It is already much lower at 5" (the stock BRZ is 4.9") and the wheelbase is not that far off at 105" (the BRZ is 101). At just over 3,000 pounds for the new Impreza it is not at all inconceivable that if you shave off the extra roof, the hatch mech, reduce the seats, cut back on the soundproofing and do away with a bunch of the other quasi luxury bits the Impreza platform as it stands now could easily come in at BRZ weight or even less. Not sure how many know but the new platform already uses some parts developed for and lifted straight from the BRZ. The electric steering is a straight parts bin application in the new Impreza. The new impreza has very little in common with the old platform and is closer to the BRZ than people realize. So a very basic scale back of the current production platform with some base changes to permit RWD only and we have the under pinning's for a sports/GT car. It could even be the higher powered version that so many seem to think would sell so well.
For about the 10th time I will state that any such vehicle would indeed NOT be what they make now but could be a very suitable successor should Subaru decide to do it on their own.


Oh and I have first hand experience in just how good and different this new platform is.

Those obviously aren't your cars. I don't see any snow.

LOL Ya that was last April. If it had been this April it would have been a whole different picture!

In

Favorite thread snippet "Aluminum Blech"

Approve

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.