Big lump of metal way down low. CG was a consideration in the design.

It is a brand new designed so I would expect a few bugs. Only thing to hope for is they get resolved.

As for power, the older Honda's with variable lift are probably never going to be beaten. But, and it might be a dumb question, but I don't like Honda and never really follow them, have they stopped making variable lift engines and only do variable timming?

100hp per liter has been a very good target for a NA application with a single height cam lobe. To have it reliable and torquey enough to power a car is a nice accomplishment.

My fiancée has a skyactiv Mazda 3 with manual.. It's a really smooth engine. There is no torque dip from what I can tell, but I don't drive it much and when I do I'm not on it. However it's a dog.

I guess you missed my post about how I think COG is just marketing BS. Do you really believe a small change in COG is that important or that an inline 4 would change the COG that drastically?

The other elephant in the room that nobody has addressed is modern-day emissions and fleet-wide fuel economy standards in the US. Remember Honda's K20 was discontinued because it couldn't meet modern emissions standards, and Honda's F20 was never very fuel efficient for its size.

I would bet it's far more efficient getting 200 hp out of a NA 2.0L by using a higher static CR + direct injection, rather than using variable-lift cam profiles and higher RPM. The stiffer valve springs necessary for high RPM operation can't be terribly efficient. As a bonus, you get better torque with more compression, which helps alleviate some of the criticism with Honda VTEC engines about lacking low-end torque.

It's ultimately a series of trade-offs either way, although it would have been interesting to see how much horsepower an FA20 with variable lift valves and 9000 rpm could make.

They do. Only smaller trucks have 4 cylinders, like a gmc top kick.

Yes. You can feel the difference between a suspension that has a fraction of an inch of tilt or rake, camber or caster by a tenths of a degree, tire pressures adjusted by a psi or two. Moving the center of mass is going to have a similar effect. The car will roll over more, which will require stiffening to ensure the suspension is effective which drives up cost to band aid the problem, or you leave it alone and suffer the induced body roll (see Miata, Mustang).

It was a big deal that this car has a lower c.g. than a Cayman or 911 or any number of high performance cars. It still is. Every car is a compromise, if you want a reliable high performance Japanese fourbanger with a chassis designed to accommodate it's short comings there's still plenty of S2k's around. They put the effort in to dial in the feel they want, the same way that Porsche has dialed out the rear engine disadvantages over the decades. Toyota wanted to cut to the chase and start with a low c.g. configuration instead of fighting the disadvantages of their existing power plant options.

Mustang c.g. 21" (C&D)
Cayman c.g. 20" (C&D)
911 GT3 c.g. 19.4" (C&D)
Miata c.g. 19" (C&D)
S2k c.g. 18.7"
86 c.g. 18.1"
LFA c.g. 17.5"

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...-40000-new.pdf
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...11-gt3-feature

They spent millions in R&D and engineering and this is the car they came up with. How many times do you think they had bean counters pleading them to use literally any other engine in their stable rather than partnering with Subaru?

You make it sound like COG is the most important factor in handling. As you stated all cars are compromises and the small hit in the height of center of gravity for a more powerful and bullet proof engine is one I would take in a heart beat.

Also, I'm pretty sure the partnership had more to do with cost savings in the sense of using Subaru factories over not wanting to develop a new engine.

Apologies, I will never make the argument that c.g. is the most important thing. But you cannot dismiss it as marketing bs. It's physics.

Your opinion is that the tradeoff for c.g. was not worth pursuing a boxer engine over an I4 or V6. It is Toyota's opinion that the c.g. was more important. Nobody made you buy the car.

You're also right in that they could have partnered with Subaru and stuck in a generic Toyota engine and saved a couple bucks. My point was there were (and are) probably thousands of voices within Toyota echoing your sentiments and the expensive boxer still won out.

Edit: I really hope that because of the Toyobaru a competitor comes out that suits your needs, the Nissan IDx and Kia Stinger seem to be more what you're after. Although the Miata is out right now and seems to fall more in line with your desires.

Lower CG probably makes no appreciable difference in raw performance but makes a remarkable difference in handling feel. When I bought my dad his SVX (our first Subaru), we were surprised by its low slung handling feel. This was despite the factory ride height, mechanical hardware for AWD up front, and coming from having had 10 FR or MR sports cars between us. My dad and I now each have a BRZ.

Like how go karts feel extremely engaging even at relatively low speeds for a motor-driven vehicle, the 86 is about the driving experience over performance numbers. The boxer is key in achieving that despite modern crash-worthiness requirements and regardless of marketing hype. I base this on the effect the boxer had in the SVX.

Every car made is about having the engineering/design align up with budget constraints and manufacturing capabilities. Sure, a high output I-4 can be made... but at what cost? Toyota had no such engine in its arsenal and wasn't willing to make one. Subaru felt they can do it and can benefit from a modified FA20T in the Forester (and other cars).

Everyone wins.

In the end... be glad the car was built. A lot of projects like this get canned even before the car leaves the auto show floor as a concept.

-alex

I'm not even a hardcore gearhead (yet) F- the numbers . You can't feel in the seat of your pants how this car handles probably better than any car u drove before. I know you track guys can speak up but this car kicks ass. Every autocross weekend were out there kicking more POWERFUL cars asses!!! Of course tunes and bolt ons enhance but this car is not about power , want power get something else

werd

I'm not sure why people think I don't like the twins. I wouldn't have bought one if I didn't. There is nothing wrong with the twins, I'm just stating my opinion on what I think would have been better.

I think the car would have been better with a different engine regardless of it being an inline or flat layout. If it had a bit more power and/or better reliability.

Given that I'm not sure how the miata fits the bill and I do have a bias against convertibles, which make the s2k a no go. I think the only car that would be comparable to what I'm looking for would be the cayman, which we all know cost more than double the price of the twins.