Why would more power ruin the car??

[mrg666]

I just had to drive home from work to wait for a technician at home. That is what I am doing now. I had a full tank of gas before driving home with just about 10 miles worth of gas used. But I enjoyed that 10 miles; that is why my average mpg was low around 25. On the way home, traffic was crowded, moving but slow, I just had to drive normally following the other cars. When I arrived at home, my average mpg was increased up to 29. The car drives just like the normal FR-S I had before supercharging it when driven normally. My power upgrade didn't do anything to ruin the car, there is just more power if/when I want/need. Handling did not deteriorate at all; it just needed wider tires. The only risk of ruining the car is me, the driver.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Harey

Toyota, Subaru and others say that more power would ruin the twins.

You know, as I watch people shouting past each other in this thread, it occurs to me that I don't recall ever seeing any evidence this actually happened.

Did Toyota or Subaru actually say that more power would ruin the car?

Did Toyota or Subaru actually say that more power would ruin the car?

I've seen justifications for why it doesn't have more power. But I don't recall any of those explanations claiming more power would ruin it.

[BigHugeFatGuy]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

You know, as I watch people shouting past each other in this thread, it occurs to me that I don't recall ever seeing any evidence this actually happened.

Did Toyota or Subaru actually say that more power would ruin the car?

Did Toyota or Subaru actually say that more power would ruin the car?

I've seen justifications for why it doesn't have more power. But I don't recall any of those explanations claiming more power would ruin it.

https://jalopnik.com/toyota-engineer...o-a-1823700286

Here’s the key quote from Tetsuya Tada, chief engineer both for the 86 as well as the imminent new Supra, speaking with the Australian news outlet Car Advice:
“One characteristic of the 86 is that in terms of the front balance its slightly front loaded so it makes the handling more fast and agile. So if we were to come up with a turbo version, we would have to go change the weight balance between the front and the rear.
“That means we have to come up with a completely new platform, so it’s not about just changing or slight modification in the engine parts.”

So, yeah. It's BS.

"In either case, both of these feel like cop outs, particularly since so many tuners already show that an 86 plus a ton of power makes a very fun car."

[circuithero]

Oh boy, this one is back. Here is my post from 5 years ago (!), still applies.


For those with goldfish attention span:


Basically pick 2: Cheap, Fast, Light. You won't get an entry level sports car that is powerful, light and cheap. You want more power while being cheap? That comes with more weight (370Z). You want it to still be light and 'relatively' powerful? Well that won't happen at this price point (Lotus, 4C, Cayman). Selling cars is still a business and you can't expect quality champagne on a beer budget.


I tracked my at the time 2013 FRS back to back with a modded e92 M3. The FRS was more fun to drive on track and I didn't miss the power. This car is exactly what it needs to be.


I think you have a pretty naive notion (no offense intended) of what it takes to make something like this happen. No way in hell are you going to get a 270hp, 2800lb car for 30~32k, especially from the twins.

Why is that? Well lets look at it from an engineers perspective. First and foremost, a feasibility study has to happen to make sure a project like this would not only be economically feasible but have a chance of being profitable. This is most likely where this idea would be shut down by any smart project manager. Why is that?

Well, first of all you are looking at an already small select portion of a smaller section of a market, the sports car market. You know what is profitable? Corollas, Civics, Cayennes. In fact, for all the 911 die hard fans, what saved Porsche a decade ago was not the Boxster, not the 996 911, it was the Cayenne. Because for every mid-life crisis guy looking to test the hair on his chest there are 1000+ A to B drivers. This trend is only continuing as less younger people are driving and of those that are, are looking for something simple, cheap and with navigation and iOS integration. Sports car are very rarely profitable. Sports cars are more traditionally used as marketing exercises with halo cars (ala GTR) and to aid the perception of a company: which is exactly the purpose of the twins. Nobody wants to say I own a car from the most beige, gray, bread and butter company. This is the main reasons manufacturers participate in racing, win on Sunday and sell on Monday.

Either way, there is no doubt that Toyota invested mega-cubic dollars to R&D and develop this car. It's very good, it's been hyped up for over 5 years - coincidentally Toyota had no proper sports cars and was often quoted as being the most bland and boring auto manufacturer (while maintaining #1 profitable spot for many years in NA). My personal bias tells me that Honda has quite decidedly snatched the boring auto leader from Toyota. Regardless, this car was a huge gamble and I'm sure the manufacturer will take a couple years, to hopefully, maybe break even after all the R&D and development; provided the car continues to be relatively popular. Now if you notice, a lot of journalists who have tested the TRD concept (no added power) have come away with the - "Yea its faster...but...it kinda lost that fun, approachable nature". And therein lies the crux! Mind you we are already talking about the miniscule sports car market and how many people in that market truly want to race or something harsh? Maybe 5/100? 5/1000? The same reason the ITR was non successful in the NA market, for every one of the dedicated enthusiasts who wants a race car for the street, 1000's do not and there are no enough of us to fund and offset the costs associated with such a project.

Well why would it be so expensive in your opinion? Full Blown can do it for 4.5k right? As a manufacturer, you have no idea how much red tape is surrounding each car! There is emissions, warranty, reputation, recalls, lawsuits, crash safety standards...etc, etc, etc. The list is endless. Why was the 350z so much heavier than the Rx8, despite being smaller in dimensions? Why is the Genesis so heavy? Torque. Torque brakes everything. You add torque to a car, a car mind you that they want to do no warranty work on for 5 years (because then any chance you have of making profit on the car is gone) and you need to beef up EVERYTHING. Suddenly, you need more clutch, bigger driveshafts, sturdier differential, bigger brakes...etc. Suddenly your turbo twin that was supposed to be a great car, is a 3200lb pig that has not playful spirit of its predecessor and the reason the original twin was selling so well. Boost adds more points of failure, extra heat and you would not believe the amount of testing and iterations that a manufacturer has to go through. You have to test in cold climates up north, in desert climates, in humid climates, for 100k+ and the entire time you are paying engineers, drivers...etc. Then you have to apply for emissions, tune for economy..etc. All those development costs are then passed unto the consumer. Suddenly the guy's who were shouting and crying for more power are backing away, "Well I would've paid 32k for a 270hp, 2800lb car, but 40k for that pig? Hell no, I would rather tune the base FRS...".

Not to mention the hierarchy within a manufacturer. The BRZ is a light, relatively quick car. Add a bit of power and tire and suddenly its competing and breathing down the neck of the STi and that is something no manufacturer wants.

This is an ENTRY level sports car and it will stay that way, the same reason the miata has been relatively successful. Because for every guy who wants to boost the miata, there are a 1000 who are content driving the car the way it is. You think the mazdaspeed miata was a profitable project? Hell no. That car only added what, 40hp? Via unreliable IHI turbos?

I am one of the guys who tracks and autox's. If I was working for Toyota I would never greenflag a project like this because I have seen this cry wolf scenario before.

[PhyrraM]

There is a quote in one of the Subaru or Toyota "tech" vids from 2013 that has one of the engineers specifically stating that power is the easiest thing to add in the aftermarket, so they chose to optimize everything else.

[HKz]

Originally Posted by BigHugeFatGuy

https://jalopnik.com/toyota-engineer...o-a-1823700286

Here’s the key quote from Tetsuya Tada, chief engineer both for the 86 as well as the imminent new Supra, speaking with the Australian news outlet Car Advice:
“One characteristic of the 86 is that in terms of the front balance its slightly front loaded so it makes the handling more fast and agile. So if we were to come up with a turbo version, we would have to go change the weight balance between the front and the rear.
“That means we have to come up with a completely new platform, so it’s not about just changing or slight modification in the engine parts.”

So, yeah. It's BS.

"In either case, both of these feel like cop outs, particularly since so many tuners already show that an 86 plus a ton of power makes a very fun car."

...it isn't BS.

Think everyone is on the same page here whether adding power straight up "ruins" the car, it doesn't, it just merely makes it different. For some people it is more fun to have a bigger power/handling ratio, yes, but for many others it is now no longer a car that you drive at 9/10s as much as possible...that alone changes the characteristics of the car. And even if they added power there will still be disappointment because it will still be no contest compared to V8 muscle cars which are dirt cheap in the 86's biggest market..

[SCQTT]

I'm sure the horse has been beaten into a bloody pulp. Ruin is the wrong word. I'd say it is carefully developed to be a great BALANCED package, out of the box. There are so many factors that goes into product development that many are NOT considering. Development cost, R&D and tooling amortization, worldwide vehicle regulations, market position/retail price, product lifecycle, how this product fits into the brand identity, the list goes on and on. Will adding a turbo or supercharger from the factory ruin the balance of this car from a driving aspect? For some yes, for others no, depends on how you plan to use it. Adding a turbo and the other required equipment WILL upset the balance of many other things. Retail price point is one of them. Suddenly it's a $32K car and close to $35K OTD. The argument could be made that if it had more power, it would find more buyers, but with a higher price the expectation of luxury plays a role and weight starts getting added....then you need even more power. In this day and age of platform sharing it is remarkable that this chassis made it off the drawing board and received the green light at all. As a cost saving measure almost everything shares a platform with another vehicle or two in a brand's lineup. Subaru is very big on this with the majority of their cars being more Lego like than anyone else's. Even the mighty STI shares tons of parts with more pedestrian Subarus and it pays the price in weight. The twins share very few parts with other Toyotas/Subarus. In many ways it would be easier to make a 250HP Corolla R for sub $30K than an 250HP 86. (for public consumption) I think the twins are a great platform as a project car perhaps for many that could not afford a $35K car -they can buy one of these and build it in the direction you want to go. What other RWD coupe can you buy for sub 30K in this weight range? Sure you can add FI and not change the weight balance to much, but you ARE adding $3-5K minimum and you would be changing the warranty and maintenance dynamics. Ruin the car? Maybe not, perhaps it is a project, perhaps it is one of the last cars we can actually easily mod. Maybe the manufacturers knowingly gave us a project. A car that could be left alone as a fun daily driver or could be built into a beast and everything in between depending on your wants and needs.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by BigHugeFatGuy

https://jalopnik.com/toyota-engineer...o-a-1823700286

Here’s the key quote from Tetsuya Tada, chief engineer both for the 86 as well as the imminent new Supra, speaking with the Australian news outlet Car Advice:
“One characteristic of the 86 is that in terms of the front balance its slightly front loaded so it makes the handling more fast and agile. So if we were to come up with a turbo version, we would have to go change the weight balance between the front and the rear.
“That means we have to come up with a completely new platform, so it’s not about just changing or slight modification in the engine parts.”

So, yeah. It's BS.

"In either case, both of these feel like cop outs, particularly since so many tuners already show that an 86 plus a ton of power makes a very fun car."

No, that didn't answer the question. He said it would be a different car. He didn't say it would ruin it.

I'm pretty sure this entire thread is based on a straw man.

[mrg666]

too long man, just tell me ruin or not

Originally Posted by circuithero

Oh boy, this one is back. Here is my post from 5 years ago (!), still applies.


For those with goldfish attention span:


Basically pick 2: Cheap, Fast, Light. You won't get an entry level sports car that is powerful, light and cheap. You want more power while being cheap? That comes with more weight (370Z). You want it to still be light and 'relatively' powerful? Well that won't happen at this price point (Lotus, 4C, Cayman). Selling cars is still a business and you can't expect quality champagne on a beer budget.


I tracked my at the time 2013 FRS back to back with a modded e92 M3. The FRS was more fun to drive on track and I didn't miss the power. This car is exactly what it needs to be.


I think you have a pretty naive notion (no offense intended) of what it takes to make something like this happen. No way in hell are you going to get a 270hp, 2800lb car for 30~32k, especially from the twins.

Why is that? Well lets look at it from an engineers perspective. First and foremost, a feasibility study has to happen to make sure a project like this would not only be economically feasible but have a chance of being profitable. This is most likely where this idea would be shut down by any smart project manager. Why is that?

Well, first of all you are looking at an already small select portion of a smaller section of a market, the sports car market. You know what is profitable? Corollas, Civics, Cayennes. In fact, for all the 911 die hard fans, what saved Porsche a decade ago was not the Boxster, not the 996 911, it was the Cayenne. Because for every mid-life crisis guy looking to test the hair on his chest there are 1000+ A to B drivers. This trend is only continuing as less younger people are driving and of those that are, are looking for something simple, cheap and with navigation and iOS integration. Sports car are very rarely profitable. Sports cars are more traditionally used as marketing exercises with halo cars (ala GTR) and to aid the perception of a company: which is exactly the purpose of the twins. Nobody wants to say I own a car from the most beige, gray, bread and butter company. This is the main reasons manufacturers participate in racing, win on Sunday and sell on Monday.

Either way, there is no doubt that Toyota invested mega-cubic dollars to R&D and develop this car. It's very good, it's been hyped up for over 5 years - coincidentally Toyota had no proper sports cars and was often quoted as being the most bland and boring auto manufacturer (while maintaining #1 profitable spot for many years in NA). My personal bias tells me that Honda has quite decidedly snatched the boring auto leader from Toyota. Regardless, this car was a huge gamble and I'm sure the manufacturer will take a couple years, to hopefully, maybe break even after all the R&D and development; provided the car continues to be relatively popular. Now if you notice, a lot of journalists who have tested the TRD concept (no added power) have come away with the - "Yea its faster...but...it kinda lost that fun, approachable nature". And therein lies the crux! Mind you we are already talking about the miniscule sports car market and how many people in that market truly want to race or something harsh? Maybe 5/100? 5/1000? The same reason the ITR was non successful in the NA market, for every one of the dedicated enthusiasts who wants a race car for the street, 1000's do not and there are no enough of us to fund and offset the costs associated with such a project.

Well why would it be so expensive in your opinion? Full Blown can do it for 4.5k right? As a manufacturer, you have no idea how much red tape is surrounding each car! There is emissions, warranty, reputation, recalls, lawsuits, crash safety standards...etc, etc, etc. The list is endless. Why was the 350z so much heavier than the Rx8, despite being smaller in dimensions? Why is the Genesis so heavy? Torque. Torque brakes everything. You add torque to a car, a car mind you that they want to do no warranty work on for 5 years (because then any chance you have of making profit on the car is gone) and you need to beef up EVERYTHING. Suddenly, you need more clutch, bigger driveshafts, sturdier differential, bigger brakes...etc. Suddenly your turbo twin that was supposed to be a great car, is a 3200lb pig that has not playful spirit of its predecessor and the reason the original twin was selling so well. Boost adds more points of failure, extra heat and you would not believe the amount of testing and iterations that a manufacturer has to go through. You have to test in cold climates up north, in desert climates, in humid climates, for 100k+ and the entire time you are paying engineers, drivers...etc. Then you have to apply for emissions, tune for economy..etc. All those development costs are then passed unto the consumer. Suddenly the guy's who were shouting and crying for more power are backing away, "Well I would've paid 32k for a 270hp, 2800lb car, but 40k for that pig? Hell no, I would rather tune the base FRS...".

Not to mention the hierarchy within a manufacturer. The BRZ is a light, relatively quick car. Add a bit of power and tire and suddenly its competing and breathing down the neck of the STi and that is something no manufacturer wants.

This is an ENTRY level sports car and it will stay that way, the same reason the miata has been relatively successful. Because for every guy who wants to boost the miata, there are a 1000 who are content driving the car the way it is. You think the mazdaspeed miata was a profitable project? Hell no. That car only added what, 40hp? Via unreliable IHI turbos?

I am one of the guys who tracks and autox's. If I was working for Toyota I would never greenflag a project like this because I have seen this cry wolf scenario before.

[OfficeWorker]

I'd be interested to know the answers to the following questions:

• Would a higher power BRZ actually increase BRZ sales?
• Would a higher power BRZ draw in more external buyers who would otherwise not purchase a Subaru at all, or potentially cut into WRX sales despite them being drastically different cars?
• Does Subaru feel that, if the BRZ was discontinued, that a substantial portion of BRZ shoppers/owners would crossover to considering/transition to the WRX?
• How does the BRZ fit into Subaru's plans to transition existing lines to offering hybrid/electric? (with the realization that Subaru sells something like 1/4th the cars of Toyota, and at a time when it sounds like the next WRX could be a hybrid.)
• Further, (at a time when Subaru is spending a ridiculous amount of R&D funds on electric), does Subaru/Toyota feel that the car has substantial economic viability to not only justify whatever reengineering/development/modification would be required to increase the car's power, but also yield a ROI that would be greater than other areas of potential investment?
• Does Toyota have internal plans to introduce a RWD car that could be a potential intermediate between the 86 and forthcoming Supra? (e.g., a new MR2)
• How much sync/discord is there between Subaru and Toyota executives in regards to the car's current role, possible future, how it factors in with future environmental initiatives, and where each respective Maker sees it fitting in with their future lineups?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by OfficeWorker

I'd be interested to know the answers to the following questions:

• Would a higher power BRZ actually increase BRZ sales?
• Would a higher power BRZ draw in more external buyers who would otherwise not purchase a Subaru at all, or potentially cut into WRX sales despite them being drastically different cars?
• Does Subaru feel that, if the BRZ was discontinued, that a substantial portion of BRZ shoppers/owners would crossover to considering/transition to the WRX?
• How does the BRZ fit into Subaru's plans to transition existing lines to offering hybrid/electric? (with the realization that Subaru sells something like 1/4th the cars of Toyota, and at a time when it sounds like the next WRX could be a hybrid.)
• Further, (at a time when Subaru is spending a ridiculous amount of R&D funds on electric), does Subaru/Toyota feel that the car has substantial economic viability to not only justify whatever reengineering/development/modification would be required to increase the car's power, but also yield a ROI that would be greater than other areas of potential investment?
• Does Toyota have internal plans to introduce a RWD car that could be a potential intermediate between the 86 and forthcoming Supra? (e.g., a new MR2)
• How much sync/discord is there between Subaru and Toyota executives in regards to the car's current role, possible future, how it factors in with future environmental initiatives, and where each respective Maker sees it fitting in with their future lineups?

Anybody that could accurately answer most of those questions won't.
Anybody else is just guessing at best and totally bullshiting at worst.

[strat61caster]

bs I can accurately answer those:

1. No (otherwise they'd be profiting off that market)
2. No (see #1)
3. No (they build this car because Toyota pays them to build this car)
4. It doesn't (see #3)
5. Undetermined (waiting for current market trends to play out)
6. Undetermined (see #5)
7. Undetermined (see $5)

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

bs I can accurately answer those:

1. No (otherwise they'd be profiting off that market)
2. No (see #1)
3. No (they build this car because Toyota pays them to build this car)
4. It doesn't (see #3)
5. Undetermined (waiting for current market trends to play out)
6. Undetermined (see #5)
7. Undetermined (see $5)

Since I agree with all you said I probably should of phrased it that "anybody that can officially say..."

I will add for #3 that there is already a substantial portion of the BRZ shoppers/owners that already consider or transition to the WRX/STi.

[shiumai]

Originally Posted by HKz

...but for many others it is now no longer a car that you drive at 9/10s as much as possible...that alone changes the characteristics of the car.

You bet it changes it. After installing my Edelbrock SC, my car now goes to 11. When it was stock, it would go up to 10. Now it's one faster. When it was N/A, and I was driving at 10/10, where could I go from there? Nowhere. So, I figured that when I needed that extra push over the cliff, the SC would let me go to 11.