Official: Toyota FT-1 Concept / First New Supra Prototype Spotted!

[krayzie]

I rather have it as a less powerful less expensive LC.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Unless it's a convertible I don't see any benefit to ditching the rear seats. I would appreciate the extra 8-10" of wheelbase too.

Benefit to ditching the rear seats is that they can move the rear wheels way forward, just behind the driver, where they should be for FR sports cars. This tremendously improves front/rear weight distribution. Rear seats are why our cars are 54/46. Not really a problem for our cars because of the lowish power, but for Supra power/weight it's not so good... Not having +2 seats allows the Supra to have 50/50 distribution despite a long and heavy inline six up front.

Personally, I prefer a short wheelbase for sports cars. If it's gonna have a 106+" wheelbase it might as well be a sedan. Or a wagon.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Benefit to ditching the rear seats is that they can move the rear wheels way forward, just behind the driver, where they should be for FR sports cars. This tremendously improves front/rear weight distribution. Rear seats are why our cars are 54/46. Not really a problem for our cars because of the lowish power, but for Supra power/weight it's not so good... Not having +2 seats allows the Supra to have 50/50 distribution despite a long and heavy inline six up front.

Personally, I prefer a short wheelbase for sports cars. If it's gonna have a 106+" wheelbase it might as well be a sedan. Or a wagon.

Being off from 50/50 weight distribution is only a problem if you don't change the stagger of the tire widths/spring rates/sway bar rates to account for it. See Porsche.

Maybe 8-10 inches extra is a bit much, but bringing it to a similar WB as the twins, let's say 102", would make rear seats viable. I like longer wheelbases also because they make sliding more predictable. Modern cars have accurate enough racks to have super fast steering so you don't need to rely on a short wheelbase to change direction quickly.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Being off from 50/50 weight distribution is only a problem if you don't change the stagger of the tire widths/spring rates/sway bar rates to account for it. See Porsche.

50/50 isn't "perfect". For a high-performance rwd car, rearward bias is better. Porsche is on the RIGHT side of 50/50. FT86 is on the wrong side of 50/50, but with such modest power/weight it isn't really much of an issue.

I like longer wheelbases also because they make sliding more predictable.

One of the most predictable and controllable cars in a slide I've ever driven was a Formula 440 at Road Atlanta. 706 lb. car+driver on a 64" wheelbase! I think other factors are a lot more important than wheelbase as far as control, predictability, and driftability are concerned. AP1 S2000 on 94.5" wheelbase is way less predictable and controllable in a slide than a 240Z on 90.7" wheelbase.

Modern cars have accurate enough racks to have super fast steering so you don't need to rely on a short wheelbase to change direction quickly.

I maintain that smaller, shorter wheelbase cars are inherently more fun to drive, for me anyway. You can put a super-quick steering box on a sedan but that doesn't make it a sports car. I'm glad the Supra's wheelbase is reasonable and not following the general trend towards ever larger "sports" cars.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by ZDan

50/50 isn't "perfect". For a high-performance rwd car, rearward bias is better. Porsche is on the RIGHT side of 50/50. FT86 is on the wrong side of 50/50, but with such modest power/weight it isn't really much of an issue.



One of the most predictable and controllable cars in a slide I've ever driven was a Formula 440 at Road Atlanta. 706 lb. car+driver on a 64" wheelbase! I think other factors are a lot more important than wheelbase as far as control, predictability, and driftability are concerned. AP1 S2000 on 94.5" wheelbase is way less predictable and controllable in a slide than a 240Z on 90.7" wheelbase.



I maintain that smaller, shorter wheelbase cars are inherently more fun to drive, for me anyway. You can put a super-quick steering box on a sedan but that doesn't make it a sports car. I'm glad the Supra's wheelbase is reasonable and not following the general trend towards ever larger "sports" cars.

Good points, I've always had trouble with predictability on short wheelbase cars, good to hear it's not a trait inherent to the short wheelbase!

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by krayzie

I rather have it as a less powerful less expensive LC.

So a relatively heavy, relatively poor handling, automatic only, grand-touring, sports car?

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

So a relatively heavy, relatively poor handling, automatic only, grand-touring, sports car?

Yea why not it's already automatic only.

[vh_supra26]

https://www.supramkv.com/threads/the...s-thread.1383/

[m.box.design]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

So a relatively heavy, relatively poor handling, automatic only, grand-touring, sports car?

I think the Lexus IS is that already.

[gymratter]

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by m.box.design

I think the Lexus IS is that already.

While 3300 lb isn't light, the smallest Lexus coupe is around 4000 lb. To say the two are comparable isn't remotely accurate.

[TommyW]

Comment from Road and Track after test drive:

The only unfairness in all of this was the Toyota 86 we brought in our convoy through the mountains. Longer, narrower and considerably lighter than the Supra, the 86 was a different animal on these looping byways. The feedback from the Supra’s brake pedal and small-diameter, thin-rimmed steering wheel never quite lived up to the 86’s chatty interfaces. Then again, the four-cylinder coupe disappeared in the Supra’s dust with every rip up the tach. One car rewards precision and momentum; the other has grip, poise and pace to make any driver feel like a hero.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

While 3300 lb isn't light, the smallest Lexus coupe is around 4000 lb. To say the two are comparable isn't remotely accurate.

Just to recap because I think you are confused:

-Krayzie said that a cheaper and less powerful version of the Lexus LC 500 would be ideal
-I commented that his ideal would be a boat on wheels
-The next guy commented that Krayzie’s ideal already exists in an IS series
-Then you made a comment that doesn’t connect.

[shadoken]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

While 3300 lb isn't light, the smallest Lexus coupe is around 4000 lb. To say the two are comparable isn't remotely accurate.

Google says The Lexus IS is 3,583 lbs on the turbo one.