Production of MR2 stopped in 2007; new car will be a coupé instead of roadster

[daiheadjai]

The "more expensive" part is easy - the yen appreciated over the course of the development cycle, so that they had to increase prices to make the numbers work. Not really something Toyota could control (though maybe they could have hedged against it).
The heavier part, I'm not sure, but I'd love to see if crash regs and safety equipment standards also changed over the lengthy gestation of the car.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Time and effort huh? Toyota and Subaru, right now, are more profitable than at any other time in their history. And they couldn't be bothered to provide 1-2 powertrain options? (that didn't even need to be bespoke) Doesn't sound like a lot of thought and effort to me, all things considered.

The 86 is the lightest RWD fixed-top car you can buy in North America that offers a manual transmission as an option.

And it starts out at 25k brand new.

You sound greedy.

[daiheadjai]

Keep in mind: a Celica GTS (and also the RSX-S) cost about 31-32k Canadian when it was new (so 2001 dollars). The BRZ costs 31k Canadian today (well, I got that quote in 2013). That's a steal for 200hp, 6 speed and RWD.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

The 86 is the lightest RWD fixed-top coupe you can buy North America that offers a manual transmission as an option.

And it starts out at 25k brand new.

You sound greedy.

Yup even my BRZ limited at MSRP in 2014 was already priced lower than the final 2001 Integra GS-R if adjusted for inflation and with better performance. Nothing really to complain about.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Uhh, all you have to do is relocate the intercooler and the engine is no taller than the FA20.

Yea and I'm sure they can fit some double wishbone suspension in the front while at it too lmao.

[Coaster]

That sure escalated.

Here is the latest I have seen about gen2... I thought it would have been in the making already. Hope it is a Subaru.

“Will it be with Subaru?” said Schlicht. “I don’t know. But for the concept to carry on, with the low engine, we’d have to do that. There are a lot of reasons to continue with Subaru.”

A key engineering feature of the GT86 is its low-slung Subaru flat four engine, which keeps the centre of gravity low for better handling.




http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/ne...-expected-2019

[Calvin27]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Your first comment is just conjecture with nothing factual to back it up.

Unless you actually work at Toyota/Subaru we are all making it up to some extent. But if you think Subaru would create a wrx competitor with the same powertrain then that's a pretty loaded assumption to make. When I said it would change the car too much, I mean driving characteristics, overall balance and most of all price. Not sure what is hard to understand about that.

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

And the second one makes no sense because yes, Subuar actually could just drop in their WRX engine, i.e. no engine development required.

Reasons mentioned above as to why they won't. Apart from the official line, you think toyotoa realyl would have said no if Subaru said, hey' we can just use the wrx engine we got here.'

[why?]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I think over time a lot of people who heavily criticized this car will slowly realize just how much thought and effort Toyota and Subaru put into this platform. If the 86 didn't exist I would probably be driving a 20 year old car right now.

Me two, I was going to start looking at first gen MR2's, then decided to check out the BRZ again.

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

The "more expensive" part is easy - the yen appreciated over the course of the development cycle, so that they had to increase prices to make the numbers work. Not really something Toyota could control (though maybe they could have hedged against it).
The heavier part, I'm not sure, but I'd love to see if crash regs and safety equipment standards also changed over the lengthy gestation of the car.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

At the beginning Toyota was going to release two different cars at the same time, basically the SFR and the 86, but at some point decided that was just not going to happen. They were talking about a car just like the 86, and then a smaller car with a 1.5l engine that sounded just like the SFR for a lot less. Then like was mentioned the value of the Yen went up too far and messed up everything. If the 86 started at $20k US most of the complaints would go away.

[WolfpackS2k]

Ah yes, the "inflation adjusted" argument. One of the weakest ones there is

You're tearing people's arguments down because it's conjecture, yet provide no sources of your own? GG bro.

What proof do I need to display? If you've been following along since the FT86 show car came out then you'd already know. And if you haven't, not my fault.

[mazeroni]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Ah yes, the "inflation adjusted" argument. One of the weakest ones there is



What proof do I need to display? If you've been following along since the FT86 show car came out then you'd already know. And if you haven't, not my fault.

Sorry to butt in but...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...enue/88060678/

"Key to the lowered forecast is a new currency-rate projection. The company now expects a rate of 102 yen-to-1-U.S.-dollar, compared to a previous forecast of 105 yen-to-1-U.S.-dollar. That's down from 120-yen-to-1-U.S.-dollar in the 2016 fiscal year.

During its most recent quarter, Toyota suffered the "significant impact of yen appreciation," which reduced operating profit by 15%, Toyota managing officer Tetsuya Otake said in a statement."

I haven't been following the 86 development for that long, so I don't know about weight and cost, but the yen-to-dollar argument is valid.

As to "dropping in the turbo motor," isn't the turbo for the WRX mounted beneath the motor? My understanding is that the low mounting point of the motor would require that Subaru redesign the plumbing for the engine.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...ter-scion-frs/

"It's not like Toyota can just slap on a turbo kit over a weekend in the garage and roll the result into showrooms, either. Any turbo system must meet specific targets for reliability, fuel economy and emissions. When changes underhood are made, it means the car needs to be crash tested again. Estimated price
tag? Industry sources estimate that similar projects can run as high as $50 million, depending on their complexity."





I don't have a way to measure the images, but these two engines are vastly different heights, especially below the block. The engine would have to be mounted higher and that would completely shift the center of gravity - the entire point of the current mounting point.



Unfortunately, profits no longer = do whatever you want. Especially for car companies. Given automakers like Toyota are spending billions more on R&D for alternative energy vehicles without any assurances that the entire automarket won't drastically shift in the next few year, economic collapse won't hit again, etc. Smart business decisions are made with consideration to what may or may not happen decades into the future. Every million that is misspent today can have ramifications down the road.

This is especially true when you are building millions of vehicles. Saving $1 or even $100 can drastically shift revenue in a company's favor. Thus you have the broken promises.

I don't necessarily agree with that strict focus on profits, but it makes sense in the business world. Especially when you have to answer to board members and shareholders. "$XXX to develop you sports car that will ultimately lose us $500 million over 10 years of sales?"

In that scenario, Tada has to show that there is a net gain to other areas of the business. For example, 86 drivers will eventually start a family and buy a Camry or Highlander, or the older drivers will get an Avalon or something. (Hyperbole.)

[Yardjass]

I think we are focusing a little too much on what is possible and not enough on what was promised. We all remember the early teasers during the development stage. 2 seater sports coupe with back seats, the new WRX engine, 2500 lbs, priced at low to mid 20's. No power figures were given but at the time, the old WRX was making about 25 more horses than our cars do, with a TURBO. What was presented would lead any reasonable person not necessarily to believe that the car would be turbocharged, but that it would match or exceed the current WRX power figures one way or another. Although, given Subaru's rich history with turbo motors, it would have been a fairly safe assumption. Internet erupts in excitement.


Let's jump ahead to what was actually produced: Over 2500 lbs by a triple digit amount, WRX motor present but with a lesser power output than what is available in any even remotely modern WRX, priced mid to high 20's. Company sees fit to spend time/money/resources during their ground-up design to incorporate the structural rigidity to support a convertible version, a convertible version they would later decide not to make, but decides the space to incorporate a potential turbo/supercharger/flat six is not worth the effort.


We can speculate and debate the reasons for this all day but I can tell you one fact right now. It is typically a better practice to under-promise and over-deliver than to over-promise and under-deliver. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the need or lack thereof of more power, Subaru and Toyota still under-delivered on their promises.

[Irace86.2.0]

Here are a few more pics showing motor and awd incompatibility:


WRX: Engine sits in front of wheels and transmission is inline with wheels


WRX: height comparison, engine sits higher



BRZ: Engine, not transmission, is inline with wheels and it is lower

[mazeroni]

[QUOTE=Yardjass;2871797We can speculate and debate the reasons for this all day but I can tell you one fact right now. It is typically a better practice to under-promise and over-deliver than to over-promise and under-deliver. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the need or lack thereof of more power, Subaru and Toyota still under-delivered on their promises.[/QUOTE]

What I am reading from what you wrote is that a lot of speculation on the part of internet commentators drove a false narrative. Unless Toyota or Subaru issued a press release or something similar, then I am not really onboard. Even if that is the case, I am only 5/10ths of the way there.

I agree that over-delivering is always better. There are plenty of examples in the game industry where people preorder a game and reviews are embargoed until the day of sale, and millions of people are left with an incomplete game. That is bad business.

But, in that case you paid for the thing and got something else.

Toyota didn't promise to bring a turbo GT86 for $23K to your driveway, then they showed up with a Scion FR-S and a COD charge of $2,950 (or whatever it cost new in 2013).

tl;dr The auto industry is big and complex. Each car has around 30,000 parts. Things happen and it is better not to let the rumor mill get out of control while also controlling expectations.

[mazeroni]

I just realized how off-topic this thread was before I stepped in... Can someone catch me up? Are we discussing the alleged MR2, people's overreaction and speculation over questionable and incomplete information, and Toyota's credibility when it comes to delivering products and business practices?

.... Cuz a simple "three brothers" comment - probably out of context - made things go 0-100 real quick. Ima step out...