Please be true

[Allch Chcar]

What wut? $15k in conversion from yen is closer to $12.5k US Market.

Probably will stay Overseas.

And the 1.5liter is probably a transverse engine. They would need to convert it to longitude using a subframe with engine mounts to make it RWD. The only Transverse engines that power the rear wheels are AWD units.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

What wut? $15k in conversion from yen is closer to $12.5k US Market.

Probably will stay Overseas.

And the 1.5liter is probably a transverse engine. They would need to convert it to longitude using a subframe with engine mounts to make it RWD. The only Transverse engines that power the rear wheels are AWD units.

First, there was a second page to the article that says it is transverse, as well as being RWD, and possibly getting a solid axle. And a bunch of posts above yours were trying to puzzle that out.

Second, have you ever heard of the concept of transversely mounted mid-engine rear wheel drive layouts? I believe you criticized my reading comprehension in another thread. That is not the problem. It is your writing. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you meant there are no front mounted transverse engines that only power the rear wheels.

If the statement that you wrote is as you intended, ZOMG! Do I have a car for you! (Since you've probably never heard of it...) The Toyota MR-S!!! Has the power and weight that you are looking for, is RWD (with a transverse engine!), handles beautifully (I've heard, no personal experience), and probably decent economy, and cheap as they are only available used (but not that old).

You're welcome!

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Dimman

First, there was a second page to the article that says it is transverse, as well as being RWD, and possibly getting a solid axle. And a bunch of posts above yours were trying to puzzle that out.

Second, have you ever heard of the concept of transversely mounted mid-engine rear wheel drive layouts? I believe you criticized my reading comprehension in another thread. That is not the problem. It is your writing. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you meant there are no front mounted transverse engines that only power the rear wheels.

If the statement that you wrote is as you intended, ZOMG! Do I have a car for you! (Since you've probably never heard of it...) The Toyota MR-S!!! Has the power and weight that you are looking for, is RWD (with a transverse engine!), handles beautifully (I've heard, no personal experience), and probably decent economy, and cheap as they are only available used (but not that old).

You're welcome!

You're forgetting NSX, Beat, Fiero, Elise, Atom, and lists just goes on and on... well I guess, NSX isn't really cheap.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

You're forgetting NSX, Beat, Fiero, Elise, Atom, and lists just goes on and on... well I guess, NSX isn't really cheap.

But remember he wants a slow 140hp car, so I picked the MR-S for him!

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Dimman

But remember he wants a slow 140hp car, so I picked the MR-S for him!

Then my vote go to MR2 (1st Gen) w 4A-GZE. They're pretty sweet looking... but MRS has better power/weight ratio... You're right, MRS is nice eco yet sporty car (and that feedback is from actually driving MRS). If you get right suspension set-up w nice mild engine tune, it's fun ride for sure.

[Allch Chcar]

I read the second page. It said they used a transverse 1.5liter and wanted to avoid using a solid axle. The second link in this thread suggested they settled on an IRS.

Regarding the MR-S. I'm actually watching for an older pignose 240sx Hatchback, pre'92 models they make 140BHP but they're 2.4liters.

Transverse RWD usually means the engine is in the back, the pics of the hothatch showed back seats and there might still be an engine under them who knows. Front mounted Transaxle with RWD only is an unorthodox layout. Unless it was a rear transaxle setup it would make more sense that it was front longitude with RWD.