Will the 2015 get this power boost?

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by Frost

Oh I know about the Yamaha co-operation but when I said with another company, I meant another CAR company.

MR2 = Lotus
FRS = Subaru

Last I checked the Supra and Celica were all in house.

The LFA engine was the pinnacle of Yamaha sound engineering (for a car)... that ballast made the engine SING.

A lot of misconceptions and mythology are being propagated around this thread.

1-The MR2 had no involvement from Lotus. Read this with commentary from Chief Engineer Tadashi Nakagawa:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Toyota-Coupes-Spyders-Brian-Long/dp/1903706165"]Toyota MR2 Coupes & Spyders: Brian Long: 9781903706169: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


2-The LFA engine already 'sang' for years in Formula One w/o a Yamaha Ballast. That was done for fine tuning the extra displacement and interior noise for the production vehicle. Toyota didn't go to Yamaha to make an engine for the LFA, they already had one in F1. That was the whole point:

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...v10-f1-engine/

As of 2000, Toyota also owned 10% of Yamaha.

3-Yamaha and Toyota have been working together for much longer than the 80's. Started in 1967 with a little car called the 2000GT. You know, the one that just sold for $1.15 Million:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/...s-record-price

4-Toyota made it's first sports car in 1962. It had a BOXER engine! Boxers are also true to Toyota's own racing heritage. Toyota Sports 800:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Sports_800"]Toyota Sports 800 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


5-Toyota wanted an engine with the lowest Center of Gravity possible
for it's revival of the RWD AE86. That's the boxer engine, period. Why develop it in house when they already owned a 9% interest in Subaru as of 2005. Up to 17% today:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...erge-products/

6-The AE86 is a Touge and drifting legend per Initial D and we have Toyota to thank for it. As we do the rally champ Celica All Trac, and 1000hp Supra whose block is arguably the most robust Inline-6 ever made even beyond anything from the R32.

7-Toyota wanted to revive a fun RWD sport coupe per Akio Toyoda's new mandates. All Toyota cars are to eventally see improved handling and driving experiences per these mandates. The last Camry S took it to that Accord. The new Lexus IS takes it to BMW. It made the LFA which is one of the top 4 fastest production cars ever to circle NurRing if you remove the Radical and Gumpert Apollo:

http://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-t...times-top-100/

We have the GT86 which has NO direct competitor and takes it to lots of cars at the same ore more expensive price point. No other company was involved in this decision or direction.

In sum, the idea that Toyota can't make a fast, fun or capable car or even tie it's own shoes is a bunch of BS.
------

A couple of thoughts back on topic:

50 more HP w/o compromising the balance would be nice, however 200 is plenty on normal streets. Personally I don't know how more of the complainers aren't getting into trouble with 200hp as is. Nearly doubling the speed the limit anywhere you go is very easy to do in this car. I think maybe some drivers are either too lazy to drive the car properly or have 20inch dubs on their wheels. Or stop drag racing big block pickup trucks.

The torque dip and state of tune are the only real legitimate complaints regarding engine performance and you don't have to wait till 2015-17 to fix that.

[go2brz]

No other company was involved in this decision or direction.

In sum, the idea that Toyota can't make a fast, fun or capable car or even tie it's own shoes is a bunch of BS.

You make it sound like this is a Toyota and Subaru was just a handy parts supplier..........That is pure bullshit. This car is more Subaru then Toyota, and Subaru turned down Toyota's chassis design and layout flat. Totally rejected it. This car came out of a skunk work from Subaru after turning down the initial Toyota idea. Toyota accepted it and helped to make it a better car with lots of technology passed between the companies. It is a Toyota/Subaru, but it is certainly not a Toyota, and there is no evidence that they could have built this same car without Subaru.

This is not meant to be anti-Toyota at all. It was a great idea to make this project and I applaud both companies for their combined efforts to compromise when needed, but to still stick to the hardcore idea of a real light weight car that is all about handling, and not to compromise it like most mass production car companies end up doing when making a car at this price point.

All this car needs to survive is to keep making small engineering improvements, and maybe a bit more power over time. They way it is now it can last as long as the Miata has. Toyota is smart enough to know that this car is a winner. If they want to do something different or much more powerful, then let them make it another car (like a Supra). But trying to turn this one car into a complete line of variant cars that don't match the original (like the Mini lineup) is a mistake IMO.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by go2brz

Subaru turned down Toyota's chassis design and layout flat. Totally rejected it.

Link? I agree with the thrust of your post (This car would be entirely different in execution without Subaru) but I don't recall this story.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by go2brz

You make it sound like this is a Toyota and Subaru was just a handy parts supplier..........That is pure bullshit.

Your misinterpretation of my post which was a response to another post is BS. What's also BS is believing Subaru ever wanted anything to with the GT86 in the first place. The facts about inception and development are clear about that. It was Toyota that rejected Subaru's chassis and layout flat out, get your history right.

It's amazing to me that anyone could read my post and find where I said Toyota made the GT86 w/o Subaru and wanted nothing to do with them. WTF are you people smoking? I thought weed was good for glaucoma.

[go2brz]

I'm smoking your post and nothing else. It was not meant to be confrontational, just a response to what you wrote, and if that is not what you meant, then you should find a better wording. If there is any BS involved though, it comes from your clear knowledge of "the facts about inception and development are clear about that"......if you read all the original ie Pre-production quotes from both companies and then the initial auto press discussions of the genesis of this car then you are simply mistaken or misread. This car is not a Toytota, it is a joint project built by a Subaru factory with a Subaru engine, that would only be built if they both decided on a platform togehter. Everything I have read points to the second platform design which was accepted and that it was the platform Subaru put up after they turned down the first Toyota Design option. Toyota made this car possible and helped Subaru reach the basic requirements that the car required by giving technology to Subaru in turn for a car that Toyota did not have the means to manufacture in the same platform design. Toyota helped give life to this caris car and as I said it is a joint Subuaru/Toyota, and I only put Subaru in first because they build it with their engine and it was a Subaru chassis/engine layout.

If you want to believe that this is a Toyota, or that they could have built this car with any engine they had in their inventory, and that they are the reason the car is as good as it is, then you have that right without question from me. Just don't tell me I'm talking BS, because that is one thing I don't do. I try to stick with facts. If you want to argue about your facts over mine, then let's have some fun as I have lots of research and articles with quotes from both comanies that put this matter into better perspective. I have actually posted them before, and recieved lots of thanks comments. You have every right to disagree with me. But when you start calling BS......well then you are making claims without backing them up by just saying I am lying or just full of BS.
I don't have a desire to convince you of anything. You have the right to your beliefs, just as we all do. So I am glad to drop this if that is what you prefer also. Gladly....

[go2brz]

[QUOTE=strat61caster;1403670]Link? I agree with the thrust of your post (This car would be entirely different in execution without Subaru) but I don't recall this story.[/QUOTE

Autoweek and Automobile Magazine both on their intiial 2012/2013 breakdown of the car's intitial design. I will have to look up the exact month.

But a search would also pull this up as it was involved in a pretty heavy thread.

I will try to find it myself, but I know the original article quotes are all on this thread. Will try to dig it up tomorrow as it is getting late tonight.

I read both magazines breakdown of the car and it gestation period. They were pretty similar, and both talked about the second design from Subaru being the one that was accepted. Not a big deal to me, just like the facts to be straight, so that credit goes at least where credit is due.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by go2brz

Toyota made this car possible and helped Subaru reach the basic requirements that the car required by giving technology to Subaru in turn for a car that Toyota did not have the means to manufacture in the same platform design.

I'd just like to point out that Toyota didn't help Subaru to design this car, they PAID Subaru to design this car. In just about every article there is one thing consistent, Subaru was very resistant to this car initially. You cannot trivialize the fact that FHI makes money on every 86 made because Toyota pays them to.

I await your article about the 'second' Subaru designed platform.

[protpibe]

From what I've read, the BRZ/86/FR-S team was made up of engineers from Toyota and Subaru that saw themselves as a unit that was separate unit from both companies.

This was a really interesting read:

http://blog.toyota.co.uk/tada-how-to...eated-the-gt86

[go2brz]

Once the final design concept was approved by Toyota and to be built in a Subaru factory, it did become a combined engineering unit. That was the smart thing to do as both companies were combining thier own ideas and or technology and it needed to be coordianted well. I believe what this Toyota person is saying, and that is the truth from his perspective. I have also read and watched a Subaru video on this car (posted on this site) and the perspectives are similar but still diffrerent. We will never know the true exact details of how they came to work together so well, and who did what on each detail of the car, but the fact is they did and they built a fine sports car.

I'd just like to point out that Toyota didn't help Subaru to design this car, they PAID Subaru to design this car.

It is my understanding that Toyota did the basic body design with each front end being the main difference, allowing each company to differentiate the models. Toyota also gave major technology boosts to Subaru to be able to meet the goals of the car. That includes from major Direct injection technology and more for the engine, down to the keyless access system, which they are allowing Subaru to now use on the 2014 Forester and will be on the Subaru's as an option by 2015. Toyota had a lot to do with this car. My point is only that the final design concept is not a Toyota design. But they had the idea to make a true sporst car and they made this car happen for both companies, but without the Subaru basic design this car would not be anything like what it is. A truly balanced, incredibly low center of gravity sports car with lots of good technology. The combination of companies allowed for this car to exist with a high level of technology at a very reasonable price.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by go2brz

I'm smoking your post and nothing else. It was not meant to be confrontational, just a response to what you wrote, and if that is not what you meant, then you should find a better wording. If there is any BS involved though, it comes from your clear knowledge of "the facts about inception and development are clear about that"......if you read all the original ie Pre-production quotes from both companies and then the initial auto press discussions of the genesis of this car then you are simply mistaken or misread. This car is not a Toytota, it is a joint project built by a Subaru factory with a Subaru engine, that would only be built if they both decided on a platform togehter. Everything I have read points to the second platform design which was accepted and that it was the platform Subaru put up after they turned down the first Toyota Design option. Toyota made this car possible and helped Subaru reach the basic requirements that the car required by giving technology to Subaru in turn for a car that Toyota did not have the means to manufacture in the same platform design. Toyota helped give life to this caris car and as I said it is a joint Subuaru/Toyota, and I only put Subaru in first because they build it with their engine and it was a Subaru chassis/engine layout.

If you want to believe that this is a Toyota, or that they could have built this car with any engine they had in their inventory, and that they are the reason the car is as good as it is, then you have that right without question from me. Just don't tell me I'm talking BS, because that is one thing I don't do. I try to stick with facts. If you want to argue about your facts over mine, then let's have some fun as I have lots of research and articles with quotes from both comanies that put this matter into better perspective. I have actually posted them before, and recieved lots of thanks comments. You have every right to disagree with me. But when you start calling BS......well then you are making claims without backing them up by just saying I am lying or just full of BS.
I don't have a desire to convince you of anything. You have the right to your beliefs, just as we all do. So I am glad to drop this if that is what you prefer also. Gladly....

You made it confrontational engaging w/ the BS remark, and it doesn't help you spouting more BS in your fallacious diatribe. Claiming facts and evidence as criteria and you still have yet to produce a single one.

I also don't appreciate you straw manning my post to say I said this is a 100% Toyota car. You are definitely smoking something when the fog is blinding to you to the fact I was responding to people that continue to claim here and elsewhere repeatedly that Toyota can't make a fast or sporty car without somebody else's help just because they sell a bunch of Camrys, Corollas and Prii/Priuses. That's BS and I offered evidence as such at least five times using each point. You have offered nothing but hot air.

Funny referring to me as the 'Toyota' person. I also own a true Subaru w/ frameless B-pillars among 3 other cars, so you can cram your attempt at character assassination as a Toyota fanboy. All I was doing was clarifying misconceptions that people who don't know any better seem to perpetuate. So let me offer you MORE evidence.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHVhaTNRk8E"]2013 Scion FR-S/Toyota 86 Chief Engineer Tetsuya Tada Interview - YouTube[/ame]

1:05-"Five Years ago I went around the world to speak to car enthusiasts..." Not Subaru, not Fuji Heavy Motor, not Peter frickin' Solberg, Tada did. Go on this forum (http://club4ag.com/) as ask them when Toyota approached drivers for input on the next sports car and if Subaru had ever done the same.

3:03-When I proposed building a pure FR car without a turbo, Subaru was really taken aback. Building a sports car witout a turbo or AWD was a joke to them.

3:26-"It was difficult times back then, we didn't advance for 6 months." Yeah, thanks mighty Subaru.

3:50-They agree to make a test car to convince Subaru. The actual test mule was a Legacy only with RWD and the boxer mounted low and further back. Subaru starts to get the concept.

The only reason Subaru had anything to do with this car is because Toyota wanted to use a boxer engine to keep the CoG as low as possible and dragged them kicking and screaming into production. That's it primarily. This was discussed from the beginning on that same forum around 5-6 years ago and is supported by Tetsuya Tada, the Chief Engineer for the GT86 who is the father of this car regardless of which emblem you have on your hood. He works for Toyota and was under directives from Akio Toyoda.

Perhaps Toyota also hoped this would bring the two companies closer together after acquiring more stake in the company and sharing assembly plants to produce across multiple platforms. Now Tada is saying they will likely look for a non boxer engine in the next GT86, this means Subaru would be out. They also are withdrawing from cross assembly at the Indiana plant, so things don't look so rosy between the two. Especially after Subaru said they won't make a GT86 sedan and Toyota said they will. Should be interesting to watch play out...

Yes, Subaru had a reluctant hand in contributing to the chassis design and manufacture of this car. Hooray.

What I find ironic is I used to like most of my fellow Subaru owners, but after the GT86 came out, many of the BRZ twats have turned into a bunch of Toyota bashers a la GM/Ford/Dodge redneck sycophants. I've never heard this kind of crap from Subaru owners before till this car came out. Almost makes me sympathize w/ the Evo crazies that bash on Subaru all the time.

Another irony is Subaru using the GT86 to benchmark the new WRX's handling using a car they didn't want to make in the first place. Toyota says your welcome.

Also, you need better sources than Autoweek and others that regurgitate the same BS rumors from each other without any verification. Mustang gonna lose 400lbs. Right. Next Corvette will be mid-engined. Right. Same misinformation every time and they gobble it up, spit it out in print and attach a spy shot of a camo car. There's people on these types of forums that know more about future cars being developed than most of those rags will ever know.

Again, my original point is that people who think Toyota can't make a sports car on their own are full of shit and the overwhelming historical evidence supports that point.

[go2brz]

It's really hard to speak one's opinion without upsetting someone else. Truth is I spoke my opinion and tried very hard to put it in reasonable language that did not offend anyone in particular. Obviously that did not work with you. I meant no personal offense and you have every right to feel what ever you feel about this car.

If you think that I set out to "straw man" you, all I can say is your paranoia will destroy you.

You can state your opinion against my arguments and that would be reasonable. Your current response is unreasonable, so I don't have much to say except that you have deeply overreacted.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by Frost

Oh I know about the Yamaha co-operation but when I said with another company, I meant another CAR company.

MR2 = Lotus
FRS = Subaru

Last I checked the Supra and Celica were all in house.

The LFA engine was the pinnacle of Yamaha sound engineering (for a car)... that ballast made the engine SING.

You forgot: Celica XX = Lotus

[krayzie]

Well it looks like the handling pack will come out first, with 18" BBS forged rims running on staggered 215/225 setup on Dunlop or Bridgestone tires and revised Sachs dampers on stock springs. The supercharger may well be a TRD option. If they do a hybrid system on the 86 then Toyota will forever replaced Honda as my idol being the technological frontier on affordable cars.

I wouldn't be surprised if they make the 86 with more power as a midlife refresh just like how the Porsche 944 and FC RX7 both got power increases with turbo variants. Toyota probably looked at these old formulas during development (convertible variant anyone?)

And look at MR2 and Celica XX (aka. first Supra), the first ones had suspension and handling tuning with the help of Lotus (in exchange for Toyota's parts bin), the follow-up models were in-house by Toyota. The revised 86 may well be totally in-house.

If that's the case, I think Toyota will end up with a Mk2 86 all by themselves and Subaru ditching the BRZ to go back to a pure 4WD line-up now tainted with direct injection only engines.

[Frost]

Originally Posted by krayzie

Well it looks like the handling pack will come out first, with 18" BBS forged rims running on staggered 215/225 setup on Dunlop or Bridgestone tires and revised Sachs dampers on stock springs. The supercharger may well be a TRD option. If they do a hybrid system on the 86 then Toyota will forever replaced Honda as my idol being the technological frontier on affordable cars.

I wouldn't be surprised if they make the 86 with more power as a midlife refresh just like how the Porsche 944 and FC RX7 both got power increases with turbo variants. Toyota probably looked at these old formulas during development (convertible variant anyone?)

And look at MR2 and Celica XX (aka. first Supra), the first ones had suspension and handling tuning with the help of Lotus (in exchange for Toyota's parts bin), the follow-up models were in-house by Toyota. The revised 86 may well be totally in-house.

If that's the case, I think Toyota will end up with a Mk2 86 all by themselves and Subaru ditching the BRZ to go back to a pure 4WD line-up now tainted with direct injection only engines.

I hope in ditching Subaru, they will actually have a relative 'inexpensive' but good performance engine to plop into the next gen 86. I haven't seen Toyota put out a mass consumer engine worthy of being performance other than the last gen Celica GT-S engine. Toyota has been notorious for re-using engines, where the heck is all that R&D? Just on hybrids and hydrogen fuel cells?