Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan
54/46 weight distribution for the 86, vs. 49/51 for the S2000. That is a huge difference in rear grip off the line and IMO a way more important factor than any supposed suspension geometry issues.
Not only does the flat-4 have to be positioned super-high for exhaust clearance, it has to be positioned super-forward for a mechanical steering linkage to make it to the rack. Also, 2+2 shoves the rear wheels way aft which also contributes *a lot* to nose-heavy forward weight bias.
What we (I) need is a more rearward mounted NA v6 in a dedicated short-wheelbase 2-seat FT86. But no...
|
Yes i totally agree and thats what i'm saying. And Yes all of what you stated does contribute to a less than favorable 1/4 mile, but it could keep the useless back seat for cheaper insurance rates with a 6 cyl because of the extra ft/lbs torque that 2 extra pistons would produce, an n/a high compression 3.0 V6 would produce well over 200 ft/lbs. Imo Toyota should have aimed for a 6 cyl sports car that ran 13s in stock form, perhaps not even include Subaru in on the deal if need so be. My daily driver is a V6 Rav4 and even with all the mods i've done to the Frs, it probably is exactly the same or just a twat hair quicker in the 1/4 than my Rav that weighs 3,700 lbs. But of course the Frs will out handle it massively in any situation.