Stock ride height or lower?

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by CyberFormula

when did we find out that the boxer engine will get in the way of the type of suspension we can use?

if this is true....i sense the 2nd generation 86 will have something new.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

It's just wide, so they can't fit double wishbone suspension. But a lot of high end cars use MacPherson struts so is this really an issue?

I just noticed the Greddy has more drop on the front. I don't like how there is no visible gap :/ Supercars have fenders that FIT despite being low and having a small gap., when you have the tire starting to tuck it doesn't look natural.

Yep serialk11r is correct. Unlike V or I configuration engines, the H configuration engine sits at full width at the mounting points. Forcing the chassis to accept a wider engine means increasing the total width of the engine bay at the base frame. This removes less space in the wheel well volume of a similarly sized built car and limits the movement and space of a multi-link suspension.

Heres an illustration i conjured up just now..just to get an idea.

[7thgear]

i don't see the flat engine as being a problem for suspension design, esp soemthing small like the 2 liter.

the engine sits on top of a cross-member and the lower control arms are attached to that cross member.
So regardless of where the engine is, the lower control arms COULD be as long as you want, even so long as to mount at the center of the car.

Since the engine is flat, they could have designed the upper control arms to attached above the engine with a bulge or something (if it's anything like my subaru, there is at least 5" between the inner strut tower and the engine)

the shock mount could have left the same.



MacPherson struts are awesome, and i think for the intended purpose are better than multi-link. Setup is key.


What I'm really curious about though, is why they didn't build the engine bay similar to an S2000, engine sits way back relative to the front axle and there is this nice thick beam connecting the front of the car, which also acts as reinforcement for the suspension pick-up point.

also, one problem of flat engines is that the exhaust manifolds and oilpans necessitate that the actual engine sit about 4-5" higher than it could. So you're moving 95% of the mass 5" upward just because of some pipes and an oil pan, which could otherwise be converted to a dry sump system.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by LSxJunkie

The S2000 was a 2 seater with a tiny trunk. You could mount the motor farther back because you could push the cabin farther back. No back seats, tiny trunk.

yes but the flat 4 is longitudinally shorter, and the only real sacrifice would be that the transmission tunnel inside the car would be larger/higher, reducing front seat lateral space. (also a bit harder for your wife/gf/bf to crawl over during those steamy moments)

when i look at all the screenshots of the FT86 with it's hood up and all the underside pics, all i see is my own Subaru RS, which was essentially made in 1992-93.

however i could be wrong... i'd love to see the final engine placement

all i know is that in a typical subaru, which mounts the air intake towards the inside, there is about 10" of space that you could push the engine back if you made the intake face forward, which the FT86 did

hwoever from all the angled pics that i saw, the engine is going to end up sitting just like it does in any other subaru, because as i said before, the engine sits on the subframe, and the sub frame determines where the wheels stick out. This WORKED for the AWD system because you needed those front axles in sync with the control arms.

but this is RWD, and i feel they could have attacked the problem using a bit more brain power

maybe this is why the car is going to be afforadble given what it is (a really good car, i hope)