Beefing up components adds weight and expense while lowering efficiency and stock power. You either go big or go home. The Supra TT, bless its heart, was stout but overpriced. It sold so well, they killed the model for 17 years.

I would take an extra <50lbs from the T56 Magnum for 700ftlbs of torque capability, which would be low and central in the car. For an extra 25lbs, I would take a transmission that would be between that rating and the rating of our transmission, which is probably less than half of that transmission.

Our current trans is 250 ft lbs rated. which is pretty stout really.

anything between the T56 would be a standard non magnum which i think is 450 ft lbs. or a CD009



the next upgrade would be the AC6 which aisin also makes and thats rated for 450 Ft lbs and uses 90% of already tech'd Aisin products

https://www.aisin-aw.co.jp/en/produc...lineup/mt.html

It is also something that maybe 5% of the new car buyers would have any interest in at all. Our perception of the average buyer is skewed by the number of modders on this forum. The reality is that the vast majority will never see anything beyond 20HP over stock levels. Hell, even on this forum the guys pushing 300hp or more are a tiny minority. To build a stock engine in an economy sports car to cater to such a small segment of the buyers would be financial suicide.

They increased the structural support a little for My17+, which did little to price, and it required engine recastings. I don't know, but since you mentioned the Supra, was the BMW N55 with an open deck and weaker aluminum much cheaper to produce than the B58 with a closed block and more modern metallurgy and coatings?


My thoughts are they could either take the FA24 and spend the money to design a D4S system that integrates with that engine and what not, which will require new engine molds, wiring harness, tuning, etc, or they could not change a thing on the current engine, except have stronger rods and pistons, and perhaps lighter, yet stronger components. Even if it required more exotic materials, the cost could be cheaper than the other option.

Ooooo, re-read. You missed something.

But as I said before this would only benefit a small minority. It would not sell more cars for them.

@Tcoat actually works in the supplier industry. I think he had his say.

Take an M3. Replace the turbos with the 340i turbos. Make it NA but keep all the other parts upgraded. Think it's going to go for a 340i price? No.
It'll save like $500. Think people would prefer that over the actual upgraded M3? Sure, like 50 people in the world would go for that variant, since they were going to upgrade the turbos anyway.

This is totally logical. I get the bean counters argument against supply and demand.


The question is what could they do?


1. Do nothing. This is unlikely.


2. Turbocharge the FA20. This is less likely because it would likely require beefier components and add significant weight in all drivetrain components. Even though they are redesigning the chassis, the same limitations could exist with packaging a low, rear-set engine with a turbocharger system.


3. Swap to the FA24. This is likely because the motor will probably be more powerful and slightly stronger, but the motor might be heavier and have a lower redline. A transmission upgrade will likely be required. With a slightly lower redline and a 94mm bore, is it a GT86 any longer? If they drop the rear seats and move the engine and driver seat back then I could see this working to avoid more weight disruption.


4. Improve reliability on the current engine/drivetrain, while also making the car a better platform for power/tuners.


While I see your point against the last possibility, for the same argument, would the other options appeal to the masses any better if they really don't care about more power, especially on this platform, right? You say most don't have much modifications in power. That would suggest most don't care about more power.


I could imagine buyers appreciating more reliability, whether that is for daily driving, driving the stock car on the track, or whether they want reliable power upgrades; it works for everyone. It is all in how they market those improvements.

I don't think the two necessarily follow. 99% of car buyers (a statistical fact that I just made up) buy their power at the dealership. More power there could sell more cars, as there are car buyers who passed on the car because it was "only" 200HP and no upgrade options were available.


But how do you prove a car is more reliable at this level until the variant has been on the market for 5 years or more? A new version is not going to be intrinsically more reliable just because you change it. That isn't going to sell cars upfront.

I see it similar to the Supra... 335hp/365tq quoted on the motor, yet it put that or more down to the wheels. That doesn't seem like the best advertising if quoted, stock power is what matters most to buyers. Current bolt-ons put the power at over 600whp, which does nothing for anyone planning to leave it stock, so again, why do so much to overbuild the motor if the average buyer is going to keep the car stock or minimally modify the car? Obviously this is good news for those hoping to modify the car and/or for those wanting good reliability. Yes, the Supra has a legacy to maintain, but this doesn't really fit much with the bean counters.


Similarly, they could bump the power up 20hp/tq, but would that change much for the current shoppers or sway anyone from the higher horsepower community if most 86 owners aren't going for much more power anyways?

I don't know about that. Did the extra 5hp in the MY17+ models sway more people to buy manual transmissions instead of automatics? Would another 5hp sway anyone to consider the 86 platform over something else? This motor is close to being tapped for NA power.


Adding a turbo means adding structural integrity, as a necessity for reliability, so adding a turbo would get what I am asking, plus more cost/weight, which is harder to sell for an entry level sports car.


A FA24 will likely not rev as high, so power will be down from that, but there is more torque overall, so power will be up overall. For consideration, the K20A2 made 200hp and 143tq at 11.0:1 compression. The K24A2 made 197hp and 171tq at 10.5:1, so I could see the FA24 being similar, with a decent bump in torque, but less of a bump in horsepower, proportionally. Would 15-20hp and 25tq be enough to persuade more to buy a 86? I don't know. Personally, I would rather see more reliability and potential.


The marketing at the dealership is where that comes in. They won't be winning any oooo's and ahhhhh's by advertising/boasting about a 225hp 86. I doubt any power bumps will be a central part of the advertising. They will focus on the feel and emotion the 86 invokes, sticking to their bread and butter. Many more cars offer more power, sometimes even for cheaper.

Did you figure it out?

Im not sure what Im missing


T56 Magnum 700 ft lbs
T56 standard viper 550 ft lbs
CD009 cant find official numbners but its commonly known 500 "whp" with sloppy shifting can bend em up
AC6 450 ft lbs
AZ6 250 ft lbs (the one we use) though people are suggesting its more like 300 ft lbs