Club sport option might be interesting

what about keeping a 2.0 for the normies who just want the car
but having a "club" m odel like miata does with the bigger engine, manual only but with the sachs, brembos and 4.3 diff..

would scoot!

Id also be for the turn signals being moved. they are kinda in a bad spot for guys who pop them out on hard cornering..

220 whould be nice but id like 200 ft lbs! that would make it feel more spry


and front double wishbone.. come on guys

You poop out side markers while cornering?

Yeah on compression and hard cornering angles the tires will pop them out and ruin the "a" clip alotta guys resort to taping them up

Last year of 86, MT with 206 HP =]

In Subaru’s defense I think they would have rather used a turbo boxer engine. Toyota wanted to keep the car NA, no exceptions, and they have stuck to it. I have a feeling Subaru would not object because Toyota is a much bigger company, and that seems to be Japanese culture. (I’m not Japanese but that is what it looks like to me).
I would love for the 2nd gen twins to have an updated flat 4 or even 6 cylinder engine. I like that the boxer engine allows for such a low COG and front end. The front of a 86 is crazy low, not ride height but center of gravity, I love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use to think the low COG was some marketing bullsh*t, but I really noticed it right away when I first drove the FR-S. My S2k felt like weight was moving around so slow in comparison.

I like the car as it is. This car is a great platform for modifications. I don't need the car to come from the factory perfect, nor do I need it to be exactly as I would modify it. Of course, the PP option or other options would be nice, but I would like to see the price stay low, and I doubt this car will see many trims or different options like we have seen over the years from the Impreza/WRX/STI.


These are things that would go the furthest in my book, that save me the most money and/or that I simply can not do as an aftermarket add on.


1. I don't care about more power from the factory. I want more reliability for FI without a drop in compression. Getting more than 350whp with stock internals would be great, so I want stronger rods and pistons. Maybe titanium, sodium filled valves, a closed deck, or engine bracing. Something to give the motor a better base for upgrades for FI. I can't see them putting in a 2.4L and making it significantly beefier, or adding a turbo while dropping compression, and again, making it significantly beefier. My suggestion is doable with the addition of quality materials and minimal R&D.


2. Along the same lines, a beefier transmission would be nice. If the engine and transmission could handle the torque typically associated with 500whp then that would be great because the vast majority of FI users could avoid having to do an engine build while getting more power if the engine and transmission weren't ticking time bombs.


3. I always thought I wanted the option for 4 seats. Not anymore. There are enough 4-seater options in the market, and I used the rear seats less than a few weeks worth of days in the last five years. If they want to do something practical then keep the seats and add a fastback/hatch for improved practicality. If not then I would prefer to ditch the rear seats in favor of moving the driver and the engine more to the middle like the S2000, so a 50/50 weight distribution and a shorter wheel base are high on the list, and I believe an added bonus would be improved chassis stiffness.


4. I'm approaching 40, so static suspension is looking less fun each year. I would take active suspension, so the car can transition between comfort, sport and track. Those looking to upgrade the OEM suspension to aftermarket coilovers will be swapping out the system anyways to static compression, so this shouldn't change much except raise the entry price, but I believe it would be worth it for many users.


5. Lastly, the one item that would really add to daily use, especially in California, especially in a warming climate, would be ventilated seats. I really appreciate the heated seats for those cold days, and I would equally appreciate ventilated seats on the warm days. Specifically, this would be great after the gym; it would be great when you don't want back sweat on a nice, fancy shirt; and it would be great, so I am not shifting in my seat as much on hot days.


Those are my top five. Honorable mentions are blind-spot, warning lights on the side mirrors (shouldn't these be standard equipment on all cars?), track camera with the PP option, factory turbo, and reworked gauges.

I have been a supporter of leaving the power the same but beefing up the internals and transmission. It would really help since the owner can then do what they like. I know beefing the transmission would add weight but that could be compensated in other ways I'm sure.

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

250 Nm, not ft-lbs, which is 184 ft-lbs


Yes, the transmission holds more than 184 ft-lbs because I am at 12psi with E85, but many people have broken the transmission hard-shifting on the track at stock torque. At my torque, the life/reliability of the transmission will be much shorter/compromised.


At 450 Nm or 332 ft-lbs of torque, the AC6 would be a good improvement and adequate.

Ahhhhhh thats what I was missing


the Ay6 holds 345 ft lbs or "468" nm which would be the next step and its already available. in the USDM markets

No +5HP (2.5%) isn't going to help sales and is basically a rounding error. +50HP (25%) would help sales.

Personally, I'm not enamored with the whole NA thing like Toyota engineers seem to be. I just don't understand their intent with that. (I know they have their reasons, and they have the option to be wrong). I do prefer superchargers over turbochargers for low end increase, but if someone wants to stuff a Blackwing into my FRS I'll hand them the keys.

No, like this

https://cdn.bringatrailer.com/wp-con...IMG_7425-2.jpg

I think the whole NA vs FI, from the manufacturer, is a well marketed excuse to keep the prixe point low.

People need to remember that the twins are the cheapest RWD manual sports coupe in the market.

Adding FI would up the cost, significantly, in doing so they would lose "alot" of sales.

They (Subaru/Toyota) "could" throw out some real special/limited editions (not crap body kits or stickers) with boost, BUT, and it's a really big butt, LOL, to accomplish this, and still give a warranty, that won't bite Subaru and Toyota on the arse, would require a full new and improved power train and drivetrain.

How much extra will this cost?

Here in Australia a base Impresa costs $25kAUD, a base WRX costs $45AUD.

I would assume pricing for a FI twin over a NA would be typical.

A base 86 here costs $35kAUD.

Of course they wouldnt boost the base GT model, they would boost the GTS, which cost $45k AUD.

Here in AU that would make a factory boosted twin around $60kAUD.

How do these "rough and hasty" calcs work for you guys in the United States and Canada?

I think it is hard to have an 86 that is true to the AE86 with a turbocharged platform. They want light weight, RWD, responsive, high revving.


If they go FI then it'll be a turbo, and I would prefer that platform to a supercharger, even though I have a supercharger. I do like my supercharger for the fact that it feels NA and that it requires me to rev it out to get the torque, but I can't see it coming from the factory. Even though I like the power, there is still a difference between my setup and the NA setup that has me missing the NA setup. I don't know. Maybe I can squash that nostalgia by getting in a stock 86 again and feeling how less powered it is.


I don't think they can get an extra 50hp from an extra 400cc of displacement if they use the FA24, but I could be wrong, yet if they didn't then what is there alternative? Is there a Subaru 1.5-1.8T?

It seems what the US call hatchback variants is different to other parts of the world.

I believe the F type you posted is a Fastback Coupe.

The S13 is classed as a Fastback.

The Supra was a liftback.


When people say hatchback, myself, and google, think of this > https://www.google.com/search?q=hatc...ih=530&dpr=4.5

Which is why that Shooting Star thing comes to mind.

I wouldn't mind seeing what a twin fastback/liftback looked like, although I do prefer the notch back (American term, thanks google) versions.

Did you forget something? Not to mention the turbo alternatives that are not RWD like the FWD Civic Si or AWD WRX.



http://cdn1.autoexpress.co.uk/sites/...-spider-06.jpg

Do you mean the Fiat 2 seat convertible with 1.4L "125kW" MultiAir Turbo? That would be lossing 30kw from the current 152kw.

Subaru does have the 1.6 turbo from the Levorg, but, 125kw, it does have 250kn though, but the engine makes it power down low and doesn't really like to rev.

And no I didn't include any AWD or FWD, or convertables, or station wagons because they are not a RWD Sports Coupe.

If my pricing of what a FI twin would cost is way out then explain it , calc it out for your location, our explain where my calcs are flawed.

Please though, I'm talking RWD sports coupe with an option for manual transmission.

That Fiat puts out 184 ft-lbs, so you lose horsepower, but gain torque.


Obviously, RWDs are not very common, so it is worth mentioning turbocharged cars in the same class that are often cross-shopped. These would include FWD compacts and hatches. The VW GTI, Hyundai Veloster, etc. Is there something inherently expensive about RWD?


The Ecoboost Mustang is another example if you need one... 2.3L turbocharged engine that puts out 310hp and 320tq and is...wait for it...RWD! I have more examples like the Camaro 2.0T or Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T.

Mustang Eco $55kAUD (big fat boat that needs a V8, LOL, 4cyl Mustang)

Don't get the 2.0 Camaro here

Golf GTI $45 (but FWD and fugly hatch or wagon)

Hyundai Veloster turbo $35k (cheap but FWD and fugly).

I didn't cross shop any FWD car when looking at the 86.

I sold a AWD (2015 STI) because I didn't enjoy the characteristics of the car.

My cross shopping

I was looking at getting back into a RWD manual light-ish car that was fairly cheap and fun to thrash, plus it needed to look good, so not like Kia or Hyundai or VW Golf hatch.

I have owned a MX5 and didn't want a 2 seater convertible (I wasn't sold on the look of the arse end of the ND).

The Mustang 5.0 was too expensive at around $65k AUD (I personally wouldn't even contemplate buying a 4 pot Mustang)

I looked at some low km older cars as well, S15's, (I've owned a few Nissan Skylines but they are a bit boaty), some FD's, but, in the end, they were really old, and for a mint one I would be paying new 86 money anyway.

Which left really only 1 car, or two really, a 86 or a BRZ.

So, after me cross shopping all my available options there was only one real option.

I got my little manual sports coupe RWD in the form of a limited edition 86.

And with a little AVO turbo it now flys (only running 8 psi), and some good suspension (MCA) it now handles great, it is now as fun as 10 fun things and looks really really good.

So basically a new, turbo, RWD, manual sports coupe that handles great for around $45.(the cost of a fugly FWD GTI), it's also faster than my old 2015 STI, so there's that to.

I'm in Australia, AWD isn't really an advantage here, unless it's raining, which it is now......

As for being inherently expensive, anything that sells in limited numbers claims a premium, the twins are not really big sellers number wise to justify a lower cost.

Meh, personal preferences and all.

Opinions may vary

It is fat, but it is faster 0-60 than the 86 and in other metrics, and it does it at a price that competes with the 86 with a turbo and an engine with good potential that is cheap to extract more power.

Sorry Australian prices are so different, but your statements don't apply here.

All the cars I mentioned are $25k +/- a few thousand and are turbocharged or even AWD. There is no reason why Toyobaru couldn't do a turbocharged engine in the 86 from an economics perspective. If the Hyundai Genesis Coupe can sell less cars than the 86 and make a 2.0T then Toyobaru could do it.

Adding a turbo system to the current platform and doing a tranny upgrade and everything puts the engine/car closer to the Civic Type R in price and performance, which would make the 86 more expensive, but the Civic SI has a similar price and performance to the 86 with a 1.5T that makes 205hp/192q, so Toyobaru could have done something like that. Some might prefer the higher displacement NA engine over the more torquey turbo, but the turbo is a better platform for easy, cheap power gains, so the 86 could be moved to a turbo engine at the same price, and it could be seen as an improvement.

My statements apply here in AU though, other countries, I don't know, Japan, Europe not sure what they have.

I'm also NOT comparing against AWD or FWD.

As for America, that's your neck of the woods, I'm more concered about what is released here and Asia.

As for cost, I only put in costs to compare, relating the AUD and the USD is the same as relating rhe USD to the Yen.

I am keen on cost comparisons though.

How much more do you think a 86 would cost in USD with a factory turbo vs the NA version?

not to pip in but i wanted to stab at this last point


I firmly believe a truely well sorted out turbo build for the 2nd gen 86 would push starting costs over 30k USD and higher trim models into 40K USD

and a sub compact 2 door thats smaller than the mustang ( or what have you in aussieland)
is in the same price bracket and while you migh tnot get the same feel or performance. the common folk see that as "more car" for the money.



also the Brisbane is up in these neck of the woods. hows about that

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!