Quote:
Originally Posted by GTV86
I don't think I incorrectly referred to COG. I agree that it means centre of gravity. The reason while discussing this I started to talk about balance was to prove that COG was NOT the reason the boxer was chosen. Because if it were, they would also have been as equally focussed on maintaining front/rear bias, which is equally important for handling, and as I explained, could have been better allowed for in the fact that the motor could've been mounted 200mm or more further back then it was. But it wasn't because it was easier to put it where they did.
The boxer engine does have a low COG. But that wasn't why it was chosen. It was chosen because the car is a Subaru, and the motor was their next gen motor. The COG was just something they could then market after the fact. As being "we chose a boxer to keep the COG low, which is good for handling" (Again, not denying that low COG is good for handling, or that a boxer has low COG) I'm saying that if they truely cared so much about handling, enough to govern the congifuration of motor used which would give the lowest COG, then in my eyes, they would have also have been equally focused on front to rear balance, which could have been much better acheived by mounting the motor further back than where it was.
I see a lot of people arguing this point about centre of gravity, good handling etc. But it seems more about self-justification. Put it this way, if you really cared about the centre of gravity, and view it as the golden goose of handling, then why are these same people usually running stock - 20mm lowered cars? Lower car means lower centre of gravity. Because they've also accepted the forum hype of "lowering the car more than 20mm is bad" which is in part true. Its the suspension geometry of the car that works in that ideal range, not the car. You can lower the 60mm, and correct the suspension geomtery back to the ideal range; yet now you're 40mm lower, with the same geometry. Ditto with smaller wheels. 16" and 15" both fit over stock brakes, and even the AP Sprint kit. Smaller wheel, Smaller overall wheel/tyre diameter; equals even lower COG. You don't need to run big wheels and big tyres.
But a COG purist that points out the boxer as being superior , is almost certainly not doing either of these points I mention above. Also, once you've got the car that low, the aero effects, particularly from a difuser, are hugely increased; which have even further positive effects on handling.
So yes, I do understand COG quite well. But I also think it's a bit rich pointing out its value if you're also running stock to near stock ride height, on 18" wheels.
Not a direct dig at you @ eikond btw. |
You don't seem to give much credit to the Subaru/Toyota engineers. You seem to insinuate that they were lazy and stopped short of perfection without good reason.
Here's the reason:
"Tetsuya defends the FR-S's front weight bias as suiting the power level of the car better than a 50/50 weight distribution. If the car had 300 horsepower instead of 200, he says, then he'd prefer a less nose-heavy weight bias to facilitate traction.
Looking under the hood, the engine sits low but there's a curiously large gap between the rear plane of the engine and the firewall. This car doesn't need to package axles to the front wheels (there will never be an all-wheel-drive variant), so why not shove the engine to within a millimeter of the bulkhead, thereby reducing the car's polar moment of inertia to an absolute minimum?
Tada-san's explanation boils down to this: They had to make room for the steering rack. A front-mount rack location à la
Mazda MX-5 was not an option since the boxer engine layout is inherently wide and blocks the way for a steering shaft. To accommodate a front-mounted rack the engine would have to be located where the pedal box currently resides. As such they instead employed a rear-mount rack location that places the rack between the engine and firewall, in the process pushing the engine forward somewhat."
As for your comments about "86" owners compromising the low COG with bigger and heavier wheels and lowering the car only a little when more is possible.. You are right about this. But you have to account for the goals and budget of each owner. Most people who spend only a couple hundred $ on lowering springs choose 20mm drop as a safe point. Sure they could go lower, but vendors and experts have warned that more than 20mm drop will cause the stock struts to fail early. Plus, lower than 20mm drop makes speed-bumps and driveways risky for daily driving.
Wheels are typically done for cosmetics.. myself include. I think anyone who is serious about tracking their car will opt for smaller, lighter wheels.
Back to your original point.. You say that swapping other engines (toyota specifically) would be a better option for "86" owners. I disagree.
Had the engineers placed more value on weight bias than low COG, they would have picked an inline 4 cyl similar to your beloved 3SGE BEAMS. But they didn't.. they went another route. It's a done deal..
So now owners have to decide what to do to make more power. You claim that an engine swap is a better way to make that power. If money were not part of the equation, then sure.. I'll agree with you.
But why swap a motor when you can turbo the FA20 and make 300 to 400hp reliably?
I guess the part of this discussion that interesting to me is this question:
What's more important to a car.. Front/Rear weight bias or COG height?
Will a car perform better with 50/50 split and 20" COG or with a 53/47 split and 18" COG?