OK, I want an EV drivetrain.

Hell, pip in mate

I might not agree with other peoples opinions all the time, but I like hearing them.

I'm always up for new ideas and information.

As for the Mustang, I find them to drive like a V8 Commadore or a RWD Skyline, fun to cruise around in, fun boosting on a straight line, fun at the track, but to fat to be fun and flickable on tight tracks or the street.

The Mustang GT is an understeering pig on track. It would take some $ to change that.

I would take the 86 in a heartbeat!

They would make a nice street car though.

turbo isn't the answer.

ITB IS!

I hope the gestation period is short... I can't wait 7years...

I'm slowly coming around to this. In my case, as an 86 replacement (which is primarily my daily driver) I wouldn't have an issue with it, but I would never road trip it outside of the round trip range. I still prefer hydrogen fuel cells for road trips (assuming insfrastructure, etc, but I have to make that assumption for EV as well). You just can't beat ICE for road trips, and I don't think you will be able to for at least 10 years.

I just can't bring myself to buy a car that doesn't have the infrastructure support I need, and electric still doesn't have that. Also, I'm not going to compromise and accept hour long stops on road trips. When driving solo, I don't stop for more than 10 minutes at a time, including meals. If they can get 80% charge down to 15 minutes, and I don't have to plan my trip based on where charging stations are, then I'm all in.

Toyota has done SC before (MK1.5 MR2) so I'm not willing to rule it out.

If you base a turbo system off the current engine, as an additive to bump power levels and performance, then of course it will be more expensive. This would also change the car because they would need to reinforce everything to make it reliable because 250-300hp is not what the transmission, suspension, brakes, etc are made for.

If they replaced the current motor with an off-the-shelf, low-compression, lower-displacement, turbocharged motor then they could do it for a similar price just like others have done, as I mentioned before. The one off FA20 has a D4S system on a high revving and high compression motor that was expensive to engineer. They could use an existing, high-production motor to reduce costs like others have done with an output of 220hp and 200tq. Unfortunately, Subaru doesn't have a 1.5T. They had the EL 1.5 back in the day, but who knows what they could be developing for an electric/hybrid architecture with Toyota.

Is it too much to ask for both?

Man, if they made a fastback version and stuck ITBs on the engine I wouldn't be able to pull out the cash fast enough. I'll never be able to explain the obsessions but I absolutely love both and deeply want them.

Fastback?

What is the problem with this beautiful profile?

https://i.imgur.com/dYXIJE5.jpg

I'd like to see what a two seater chassis of this car would look and drive like instead of a 2+2.

It'd be lighter, more compact, which means it could be snappier and on the power quicker to make up for its low power to weight ratio without altering the engine itself. You'd still have good seating space and trunk space, but no idea on how it would handle if it had a much shorter wheelbase.

I feel like the FA20's already pushing its limits stock and I don't see much room available for the designers to get more power/refine it further than it already has. Maybe it's time for a different one, but I'm not a fan of the boxer engine as a concept. An I4 to my knowledge can accomplish all the same things while being lighter. The car, while well balanced for the boxer, already has a heaver front bias and is probably one of the heaviest components of the vehicle. Considering engine swaps rarely upset the car's design and balance I see changing out the boxer as only a boon. But being a subaru toyota collab I don't see the boxer getting changed out.

If the AT unit isn't changed out, at least a shorter final drive would be hugely beneficial. As for the MT, it could at least do with a taller 6th and slightly more spacing from 3-4-5.

Wishful thinking: adaptive dampers/suspension. One year as an owner and the thing that annoys me the most is needing to avoid lanes and even small roads in a commute. If you hit a bad bump it feels like an alignment appointment in the making.

I mentioned the same thing here. A two seater could shorten the wheelbase, move the engine back, make the car 50/50, reduce weight, etc. They should do it.

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=167

Nooooo!
I will post here as well, then.
I need the rear seats to take my kids to school and still get those "idiot of this school!" looks from the minivan and SUV drivers.