So you think being off as far as they were at the point where they even had a running test vehicle to consider is acceptable then? In what way is what they did there not over-promising and under-delivering?

What part of the word estimate do you not understand? It's not about over promising and under delivering. It's about making an estimate, which in no way, shape or form constitutes a promise.

estimate
[verb es-tuh-meyt; noun es-tuh-mit, -meyt]
verb (used with object), estimated, estimating.
1.
to form an approximate judgment or opinion regarding the worth, amount, size, weight, etc., of; calculate approximately:
to estimate the cost of a college education.
2.
to form an opinion of; judge.
verb (used without object), estimated, estimating.
3.
to make an estimate.
noun
4.
an approximate judgment or calculation, as of the value, amount, time, size, or weight of something.
5.
a judgment or opinion, as of the qualities of a person or thing.
6.
a statement of the approximate charge for work to be done, submitted by a person or business firm ready to undertake the work.

Jesus. No fucking wonder so many people got their panties in a knot. But even funnier than those who got all caught up in development "promises" being made by Motoring.Au still bought the car in all it's disappointing glory.

Yeah I can't believe people saw that article and assumed the Twins were getting the WRX turbo engine. The 170 lbs-ft torque estimate is a dead giveaway.

The S2000 must have done it way worse since they started out as the S1600 with their target dead set on the Miata, it resulted in an overpowered monster and completely lost the original plot. I wouldn't blame them tho with Honda being as western as they are, the classic ethos of more is better. Ironically the Miata was primarily developed in Irvine, California but with their goals tightly focused.

Me I just can't see how a slightly lighter curb weight body with higher output engine on Primacy HP tires would handle better, with their target also set on being a Miata competitor. Toyota's design goals imo were on the driving experience and not spec numbers to brag. Subaru should have totally kept their mouth shut during development.

We have no clue where they got that "estimate" from. They could have pulled it out of their ass like about 98% of the rest of their "insider" info. Even if a true quote (we will never know) at that point in time it was a target not a promise.

It even says it is a different engine in plain English.

The 86 RC weighs 2,624lbs, less than 50lbs from that magic 2,5XX number. You just need to live in Japan to buy it. :bellyroll:

This article came out years after the initial ones. Earlier articles stated no specific power outputs. "next gen WRX engine" was what they were given from the manufacturer at that time.






I'm not sure you two are grasping the fact that "over-promise and under-deliver" is a figure of speech, and posting a bunch of dictionary definitions is not relevant.


It is a fact not open to debate that a representative from the manufacture gave motortrend that estimate, and knew when doing so that it was all but certain to end up in an article that the general public would see. A company rep that had already accessed a running test car stating 2500 lbs and ending up with 2700-2800 lbs is a little too far off to be considered a reasonable estimate. So once again, they would have been better off keeping their mouth closed.

FWIW, I was never under the false assumption that the FT86 would be powered by a WRX motor, turbocharged or otherwise. I was always expecting an NA engine. However I was expecting a curb weight closer to 2500 lb. I also thought that if it were a 2.0 liter engine it would be more of a screamer, or at least love to rev. Thought I thought it would be larger, like a 2.5 liter, since at the time Subaru sold nothing smaller than a 2.5. So really 220-240 hp from an NA 2.5 liter engine isn't some fantasy land dream.

Also, I always thought there would be a TRD dealer option for a supercharger. I mean FFS they offered one for the tC and a few other models, why the hell not the FT86?! :mad0259::brokenheart:

But that is just it and it certainly is up for debate. Doesn't matter what is said the websites will edit it or just plain make things up. If they said "we are targeting 2,500" and it was written "it is estimated to be 2,500" those are two totally different statements. Show me something on Toyota or Subaru news releases that says it not what some clickbait autosite fiction writer says they said. The same applies to the engine. I do not recall reading anything that said a "next gen WRX engine". They said from the get go that they would be developing an engine specifically for the car. If people assumed that was the same engine that would go into the WRX that is their problem. Because many people fell for the wording does not make it fact.
This is what happens when people put way to much trust in shoddy internet reporting on concept/development cars. The reality gets buried in the bullshit and people will just pick and chose what "facts" they want to hear.

This thread is still going so I keep coming here to see if someone actually found some information on a new MR2 but nooooooooooo.............

This^ also sort of baffles me. Even if they offered it a large price and reduced warranty at least it would give those that want it a factory option. I totally get that they said from the start that they were leaving such things up to the after market but as said they have done it for other vehicles so why not this one?

There is no new info to be found beyond clickbait speculation. Toyota is silent on the subject.

No. If a company rep delivers a running test car and also provides them a company weight estimate, which the publication then identifies as company provided in their article, that is not heresay. The company is responsible for what they do and do not tell these publications, and a degree of truth in what they provide must be assumed. Just the same, the publications are usually pretty open about what is company provided information vs. what they infer from reviewing patents, hearing rumors, etc.


The engine one is a little more open to interpretation. I would however, challenge anyone on here to find an early article circa 2010-2011ish timeframe that contradicts anything I am saying.