Those "low customer demand" sales numbers are still way above some of the iconic cars that people here swoon over. Higher power would not sell more of the car just shift the group of buyers. All the F&F YO, numbers rule, bench racers would buy them and the average just want a nice little inexpensive coupe crowd would stop. Even if they increased the HP by 50% half the people screaming for more would still say it isn't enough and not buy the car. Then if they doubled it that same crowd would whine how much it costs and it is a rip off and STILL not buy it.

This is the car the internet cried and begged for. Everyone who was actually going to buy one, bought one already. Those who didn't, for whatever reason (the power, the interior, the final design, whatever) were never going to buy it anyways.

Every time I read someone bitching about the twins, I assume they don't know how to drive the car, and seem to think that keeping the revs in the tq dip is the ideal solution for performance.

well it could end up being like the Miata and 124 Spider where each automarker used there own motor.

but yeah i wouldnt be surprised if they just shove a BMW motor into it to save on R&D cost.

Agree to some extent. The moment they stop production, I'm holding onto this baby as my retirement plan - it will be a classic.

Having said that though I doubt they consider this a failure from a financial perspective. They knew well and good what they were getting into. That they struggled to meet supply at launch suggests they never intended to make a profit selling large volumes. To put into perspective, would anyone take a supercharged yaris or hotted corolla seriously if that was all you had? Even Honda has copped it on this front. Sometimes you need some loss leaders.

Anyway fast forward and engine options are out because subaru won't allow it (eats into wrx sales) and shoving anything else in there will change the car too much. I suspect the MR2, alongside other cars is a way of toyota saying what else can we do since the life of the 86 is limited. THe advantage of MR2 is that there is no need for engine development (it will more or less run FF configurations in reverse) and all it requires is some chassis development which Toyota already has a predecessor anyhow - this is a viable option to explore given the 86 life is limited.

The Twins are a textbook example of why automakers don't (or shouldn't) listen to enthusiasts.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

of all the click bait articles about a "new MR2" this seems to be a better written one.

http://www.autoblog.com/2017/03/09/t...ccessor-rumor/

I 100% side with manufacturers saying "too bad, so sad" to enthusiasts. They're the loud minority when they want something, such as a lightweight, RWD coupe, but then cry about nearly everything when it gets put into production, but is "slow".

I actually don't want that engine in the car otherwise the hoodline would need to be raised. It's high enough as it is with the current car. :thumbsup:

There I fixed it for ya! :D

Yup those same people that said the S2000 didn't have enough torque who probably never have driven one or doesn't really know how to drive stick.

Except it was enthusiasts and a thread on Club4ag that served as part of the launching pad for the twins. It was a group that understood the type of car Tada wanted to make I think so that helped. Plus Moto.

I wish not to talk about weekly politics, but with the EPA reconsidering strict fuel efficiency standards for future cars and light trucks, this could thrust the way for a gaping hole in the lineup of what American enthusiasts want.




S660? I've seen what looked like endure-dirt bikes loaded onto a pickup truck where I could smell the fumes a 100 feet away. I guess some people know what they really want.

Yes - but that kinda proves the point: the enthusiasts (ie. Club4AG folk) who will put their money where their mouths are, simply exist in too small a quantity.
The broader casual enthusiast world (think Jalopnik readers) talk good game about buying a light weight, focused (read: spartan or uncompromising) sports car, but when push comes to shove, look for excuses to back out.

Hence why Nissan bailed on the iDX, Kia the Stinger coupe (the original yellow one), and Chevy the 130R.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

But boy did they make hundreds of thousands of us happy.

:burnrubber:

And not just the enthusiasts! There are many, many, many, "normal" drivers out there that love their little coupe. As a forum we tend to focus on the "enthusiasts" but for every one of us there are a couple of hundred John or Jane Public that have no idea what the HP, COG, FC, TQ, of the car is and really don't care as long as it starts everyday and looks pretty.

I think over time a lot of people who heavily criticized this car will slowly realize just how much thought and effort Toyota and Subaru put into this platform. If the 86 didn't exist I would probably be driving a 20 year old car right now.

100% agree with you. Hell go back to original reviews of the 240sx, I'm pretty sure more than one said "This is a great sports car let down by a truck engine"

This time we didn't get a truck engine.

:burnrubber:

There are still tens of thousands of these things to be built, maybe even another 100,000+ will roll off the assembly line, as they get sold again to second, third, and fourth+ owners many more will get the chance to enjoy something cool.

That is a great point too. Having an "exclusive" car with limited production numbers is overrated if you plan on driving it daily. I love that there will be plenty of OEM interior/exterior parts available on the used market for years to come. I don't want to spend thousands of dollars on a replacement bumper if mine gets ruined.

The car that the internet cried and begged for? Toyota didn't follow through on their own promises. The car they gave us is heavier and more expensive than what was promised.

Your first comment is just conjecture with nothing factual to back it up. And the second one makes no sense because yes, Subuar actually could just drop in their WRX engine, i.e. no engine development required.

Not really, see above how Toyota gave us a heavier and more expensive car than originally promised.

Again, the car was delivered heavier and more expensive than promised. They should have made a developmental change at some point to account for this with more power.

Uhh, all you have to do is relocate the intercooler and the engine is no taller than the FA20.

Time and effort huh? Toyota and Subaru, right now, are more profitable than at any other time in their history. And they couldn't be bothered to provide 1-2 powertrain options? (that didn't even need to be bespoke) Doesn't sound like a lot of thought and effort to me, all things considered.

The "more expensive" part is easy - the yen appreciated over the course of the development cycle, so that they had to increase prices to make the numbers work. Not really something Toyota could control (though maybe they could have hedged against it).
The heavier part, I'm not sure, but I'd love to see if crash regs and safety equipment standards also changed over the lengthy gestation of the car.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

The 86 is the lightest RWD fixed-top car you can buy in North America that offers a manual transmission as an option.

And it starts out at 25k brand new.

You sound greedy.

Keep in mind: a Celica GTS (and also the RSX-S) cost about 31-32k Canadian when it was new (so 2001 dollars). The BRZ costs 31k Canadian today (well, I got that quote in 2013). That's a steal for 200hp, 6 speed and RWD.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Yup even my BRZ limited at MSRP in 2014 was already priced lower than the final 2001 Integra GS-R if adjusted for inflation and with better performance. Nothing really to complain about.

Yea and I'm sure they can fit some double wishbone suspension in the front while at it too lmao.

That sure escalated.:bonk:

Here is the latest I have seen about gen2... I thought it would have been in the making already. Hope it is a Subaru.


A key engineering feature of the GT86 is its low-slung Subaru flat four engine, which keeps the centre of gravity low for better handling.




http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/ne...-expected-2019

Unless you actually work at Toyota/Subaru we are all making it up to some extent. But if you think Subaru would create a wrx competitor with the same powertrain then that's a pretty loaded assumption to make. When I said it would change the car too much, I mean driving characteristics, overall balance and most of all price. Not sure what is hard to understand about that.

Reasons mentioned above as to why they won't. Apart from the official line, you think toyotoa realyl would have said no if Subaru said, hey' we can just use the wrx engine we got here.'

Me two, I was going to start looking at first gen MR2's, then decided to check out the BRZ again.

At the beginning Toyota was going to release two different cars at the same time, basically the SFR and the 86, but at some point decided that was just not going to happen. They were talking about a car just like the 86, and then a smaller car with a 1.5l engine that sounded just like the SFR for a lot less. Then like was mentioned the value of the Yen went up too far and messed up everything. If the 86 started at $20k US most of the complaints would go away.

Ah yes, the "inflation adjusted" argument. One of the weakest ones there is :sigh:

What proof do I need to display? If you've been following along since the FT86 show car came out then you'd already know. And if you haven't, not my fault.

Sorry to butt in but...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...enue/88060678/

"Key to the lowered forecast is a new currency-rate projection. The company now expects a rate of 102 yen-to-1-U.S.-dollar, compared to a previous forecast of 105 yen-to-1-U.S.-dollar. That's down from 120-yen-to-1-U.S.-dollar in the 2016 fiscal year.

During its most recent quarter, Toyota suffered the "significant impact of yen appreciation," which reduced operating profit by 15%, Toyota managing officer Tetsuya Otake said in a statement."

I haven't been following the 86 development for that long, so I don't know about weight and cost, but the yen-to-dollar argument is valid.

As to "dropping in the turbo motor," isn't the turbo for the WRX mounted beneath the motor? My understanding is that the low mounting point of the motor would require that Subaru redesign the plumbing for the engine.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...ter-scion-frs/

"It's not like Toyota can just slap on a turbo kit over a weekend in the garage and roll the result into showrooms, either. Any turbo system must meet specific targets for reliability, fuel economy and emissions. When changes underhood are made, it means the car needs to be crash tested again. Estimated price
tag? Industry sources estimate that similar projects can run as high as $50 million, depending on their complexity."

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/d...25-618x412.jpg

http://pure86.com/wp-content/uploads.../hi_FA20_1.jpg

I don't have a way to measure the images, but these two engines are vastly different heights, especially below the block. The engine would have to be mounted higher and that would completely shift the center of gravity - the entire point of the current mounting point.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CaKHxMefg78/maxresdefault.jpg

Unfortunately, profits no longer = do whatever you want. Especially for car companies. Given automakers like Toyota are spending billions more on R&D for alternative energy vehicles without any assurances that the entire automarket won't drastically shift in the next few year, economic collapse won't hit again, etc. Smart business decisions are made with consideration to what may or may not happen decades into the future. Every million that is misspent today can have ramifications down the road.

This is especially true when you are building millions of vehicles. Saving $1 or even $100 can drastically shift revenue in a company's favor. Thus you have the broken promises.

I don't necessarily agree with that strict focus on profits, but it makes sense in the business world. Especially when you have to answer to board members and shareholders. "$XXX to develop you sports car that will ultimately lose us $500 million over 10 years of sales?"

In that scenario, Tada has to show that there is a net gain to other areas of the business. For example, 86 drivers will eventually start a family and buy a Camry or Highlander, or the older drivers will get an Avalon or something. (Hyperbole.)

I think we are focusing a little too much on what is possible and not enough on what was promised. We all remember the early teasers during the development stage. 2 seater sports coupe with back seats, the new WRX engine, 2500 lbs, priced at low to mid 20's. No power figures were given but at the time, the old WRX was making about 25 more horses than our cars do, with a TURBO. What was presented would lead any reasonable person not necessarily to believe that the car would be turbocharged, but that it would match or exceed the current WRX power figures one way or another. Although, given Subaru's rich history with turbo motors, it would have been a fairly safe assumption. Internet erupts in excitement.


Let's jump ahead to what was actually produced: Over 2500 lbs by a triple digit amount, WRX motor present but with a lesser power output than what is available in any even remotely modern WRX, priced mid to high 20's. Company sees fit to spend time/money/resources during their ground-up design to incorporate the structural rigidity to support a convertible version, a convertible version they would later decide not to make, but decides the space to incorporate a potential turbo/supercharger/flat six is not worth the effort.


We can speculate and debate the reasons for this all day but I can tell you one fact right now. It is typically a better practice to under-promise and over-deliver than to over-promise and under-deliver. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the need or lack thereof of more power, Subaru and Toyota still under-delivered on their promises.

Here are a few more pics showing motor and awd incompatibility:


WRX: Engine sits in front of wheels and transmission is inline with wheels
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulle...1&d=1366783824

WRX: height comparison, engine sits higher
http://subaru-com-au-4.s3.amazonaws....ne_impreza.jpg


BRZ: Engine, not transmission, is inline with wheels and it is lower
http://subaru-com-au-4.s3.amazonaws.com/brz1.jpg

[QUOTE=Yardjass;2871797We can speculate and debate the reasons for this all day but I can tell you one fact right now. It is typically a better practice to under-promise and over-deliver than to over-promise and under-deliver. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the need or lack thereof of more power, Subaru and Toyota still under-delivered on their promises.[/QUOTE]

What I am reading from what you wrote is that a lot of speculation on the part of internet commentators drove a false narrative. Unless Toyota or Subaru issued a press release or something similar, then I am not really onboard. Even if that is the case, I am only 5/10ths of the way there.

I agree that over-delivering is always better. There are plenty of examples in the game industry where people preorder a game and reviews are embargoed until the day of sale, and millions of people are left with an incomplete game. That is bad business.

But, in that case you paid for the thing and got something else.

Toyota didn't promise to bring a turbo GT86 for $23K to your driveway, then they showed up with a Scion FR-S and a COD charge of $2,950 (or whatever it cost new in 2013).

tl;dr The auto industry is big and complex. Each car has around 30,000 parts. Things happen and it is better not to let the rumor mill get out of control while also controlling expectations.

I just realized how off-topic this thread was before I stepped in... Can someone catch me up? Are we discussing the alleged MR2, people's overreaction and speculation over questionable and incomplete information, and Toyota's credibility when it comes to delivering products and business practices?

.... Cuz a simple "three brothers" comment - probably out of context - made things go 0-100 real quick. Ima step out...

I think some people are still hung up that the 86 didn't live up to the hype that was generated before the car's release, and they are hoping the MR2 will be everything that the 86 was not.


The problem is that there was too much hype following the car and people were expecting a 2+2 Cayman for the price of a Civic Si.

FREAKIN' THIS^^^^^^^
To the best of my knowledge not one single person was held at gunpoint and forced to buy the car as it is.


So it didn't exactly match what they HOPED to do, so what? They came bloody close and all the second guessing by the internet business and engineering experts that don't have a bloody clue how the industry works are just talking out their asses.


"Oh but it isn't what I wanted so it is no good and all those that are happy with it are fools and sheep. Boohoo, whine, sniffle".


Go buy something else or make it what you want there are loads of options.

[Saving this space for: "Wow, the new Supra turned out not to be the car I thought it should be."] :thumbsup:

Grrrr. I had a long winded response all typed up and a computer error ruined it. Here's an MT article with the 2500 lb manufacturer prediction, which was when the car was actually a working prototype, and way later than most of these statements were made.


http://www.motortrend.com/news/2013-...e-first-drive/


Cliffs are official statements said 2500 lbs and WRX motor. Price point matches vehicles that come with the kind of power that these would make with F.I. Price speculation came from the rumor mill and market comparisons. The rest came from what the actual experts decided to publish.


We can't expect online self proclaimed engineering and business "experts" to know what they are talking about. However, actual experts missing the weight mark by hundreds of pounds and taking way too long to squash the F.I. rumors that the themselves helped create, isn't something that should be blamed on ignorance. I dare say that removing the early manufacturer's statements/teasers and bringing the exact same car to market would have resulted in a lot fewer people bitching.

I still hang on to my S14 240sx, but the 86 is a fine daily driven replacement.
I can't believe that car turned 21 last year or that it took 14 years to come up with a decent replacement.

Although I bet BMW fans will be pleasantly surprised at how sporty the Z5 will be.