Video: Toyota GR86 SPIED for the First Time!

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

I don't know what people drive where you live, but around my area the idea that the other vehicles on the road are "much much slower than the Twins" doesn't seem to hold water. Unless our definition of "much much slower" is vastly different.

Those examples are the exceptions not the rule. Even then there are not many there that beat the Twins (MT) 6.6.
Where are all the econobox and base car numbers for the cars that are the majority?

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Those examples are the exceptions not the rule. Even then there are not many there that beat the Twins (MT) 6.6.
Where are all the econobox and base car numbers for the cars that are the majority?

I didn't look at economy cars. The base numbers shouldn't matter on the posted examples because all use the same engine/transmission across all trim levels. If anything, higher trim should be slower due to added weight of accesories/luxury items.

I wasn't looking at them as being faster than a twin, only that they weigh twice as much and are really only marginally slower.

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by TheDonEffect

The AE86 was first and foremost, a grocery getting, cheap, humble car, that surprised people by taking advantage of things that cars with those attributes tend to have: light. The current 86 sorta hits those marks, it is decently practical, but it isnt particularly cheap. A Civic SI for instance is significantly cheaper, as is the GTI. While I like the way it looks, it's not a function over form design that the AE86 was. The 86 is more Celica than AE86.

I don't think that would be possible. The AE86 could amortize some of its development costs along with the millions of vanilla Corollas (remembering that at the time, FWD wasn't widespread, so even vanilla versions shared similar drivetrain/layout etc). The Civic has that advantage as does the GTI (both can share their costs over the volume of the rest of the line), but neither of them are dedicated RWD platforms.

I just don't think it's feasible to have what you suggest anymore, unless its a FWD sport coupe/hot hatch, or it's something like the Mustang/Camaro, which have large volume fleet sales.

[Dadhawk]

Here you go, a huge list of six second cars from the 2010s you can compare to your hearts content.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

I don't think that would be possible. The AE86 could amortize some of its development costs along with the millions of vanilla Corollas (remembering that at the time, FWD wasn't widespread, so even vanilla versions shared similar drivetrain/layout etc). The Civic has that advantage as does the GTI (both can share their costs over the volume of the rest of the line), but neither of them are dedicated RWD platforms.

I just don't think it's feasible to have what you suggest anymore, unless its a FWD sport coupe/hot hatch, or it's something like the Mustang/Camaro, which have large volume fleet sales.

The AE86 did not share the same drive train and layout as the standard Corolla. The only thing they shared was the 4AGE in certain trims. The first FWD Corollas came out the same year as the 86.

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

The AE86 did not share the same drive train and layout as the standard Corolla. The only thing they shared was the 4AGE in certain trims. The first FWD Corollas came out the same year as the 86.

Welp, TIL...

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

Welp, TIL...

I guess you could say the previous generations leading up to could have lead into them to be fair. I don't know enough about them.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

I guess you could say the previous generations leading up to could have lead into them to be fair. I don't know enough about them.

The OG eight six also shared the platform with the more budget oriented AE85, so I'm sure that helped as well.

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

I guess you could say the previous generations leading up to could have lead into them to be fair. I don't know enough about them.

I suppose we could argue that the AE85 helped share costs...
Possibly also that the Japanese bubble economy of the period allowed them to do a lot of things that just wouldn't be feasible anymore...

[TheDonEffect]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

Not so sure that that's how it works. I can make several points that would make this idea of yours seem foolish, ridiculous, and a waste of money to do. But the answers lie on the last several pages of this thread. I think your point makes the least sense from everything I've heard so far (not exactly trying to roast you, just confused on your thought process). Just to keep it simple, why would Subaru/Toyota pay a bunch of money to de-tune a reasonably engineered turbocharged engine, when they could pretty much spend the same amount of money (or even less) to just give you the real deal??? I feel as though this kind of an idea is instantly out of question for any manufacturer to take part in. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing it.

No worries, and like you this is just my opinion, but let me expand it a little further as you raised some good questions.

A car is designed around, among other things, the power it's intended to produce. So to those who want a turbo engine and think that that they could just make the current car as is and just throw in a 260hp engine in it, it just wouldn't work for the OEMs, although boy I wish they would. Reason being is that if it has more power, it needs more tire, more tire requires a different suspension setup, which may require more bracing, etc etc. Then you need more brakes, more speed inevitably needs more cooling, etc etc. And that's even before we start talking about crash safety. It really is a slippery slope to weight gain. Look at all the super and hyper cars out there, with ridiculous budgets and very niche standards they need to achieve, and even then they still weigh well north of 3000lbs, even closer to 4000lbs sometimes. It's why the GMD T50 is so special. Caymans are mid engined and two seaters, and cost 4x as much, and arent any lighter. Also consider that the Type R weighs over 200lbs more than an EX-T hatchback (both are turbo so not all the weight came from the engine changes per se).

So my solution was to offer a detuned engine, so that the car can still be designed to a lower power target, and you don't have to mess with the current formula too much. And why would it cost anymore? The FA20 in the twins is a dedicated configuration for the twins. It's more rule than exception that an OEM takes an engine and configures it to a specific model, alot of times to a specific trim as well, so configuring or detuning an engine is not unfeasible, rather it's very common.

And having a lower power target can also help them appease the current 86 faithful who want a more NA feeling engine. They can tune it for no lag, instant power, with a small turbo and tune accordingly for instance. Consider that the turbo engine in the Accord is a detuned version of the Type R engine, and also consider that the engine in the Si and EX-T are all different configurations, even different displacements to the Type R. So yes, it can absolutely be done.

And I've driven my share of modern turbo engines, I'm sure it could appease the majority of the people who seem to love the FA20, and for those who they cant satisfy, they'll make up for with new people.

So you captured, mostly, the magic of the original car, but now you also caught the attention and perhaps satisfy the crowd who's been clamoring for a turbo engine. Sure, they'll see the modest 210, 220, whatever hp rating, but they'll quickly learn that it's the 260hp FA24F out of the Ascent, and it's perhaps just a tune away from unlocking all of that power... and more.

And then you also start stealing sales from Ecoboost mustang buyers, perhaps even some buyers that went and bout a 240i, 340i, etc. And now you can really develop some interesting special editions, like a true special edition, with track spec equipment and a factory significant power bump.

Additionally, now that they've recouped alot of the development cost of the 86, by just doing a mild update on the platform itself they can save some money that could go towards putting in the Ascent engine.

[TheDonEffect]

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

I don't think that would be possible. The AE86 could amortize some of its development costs along with the millions of vanilla Corollas (remembering that at the time, FWD wasn't widespread, so even vanilla versions shared similar drivetrain/layout etc). The Civic has that advantage as does the GTI (both can share their costs over the volume of the rest of the line), but neither of them are dedicated RWD platforms.

I just don't think it's feasible to have what you suggest anymore, unless its a FWD sport coupe/hot hatch, or it's something like the Mustang/Camaro, which have large volume fleet sales.

I get what you're saying, but the point I was trying to make was that the AE86 was practical and cheap, and was therefore very low key. The current 86 isn't particularly practical (although reasonably so) nor relatively cheap. Why that's the case is what you're addressing, which I largely agree with. Nonetheless, the 86 is more Celica than AE86.

Perhaps the real solution here is to make the Corolla RWD...

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by TheDonEffect

I get what you're saying, but the point I was trying to make was that the AE86 was practical and cheap, and was therefore very low key. The current 86 isn't particularly practical (although reasonably so) nor relatively cheap. Why that's the case is what you're addressing, which I largely agree with. Nonetheless, the 86 is more Celica than AE86.

Perhaps the real solution here is to make the Corolla RWD...

Have you not seen the junk in the trunk thread!?!?

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Have you not seen the junk in the trunk thread!?!?

Fold those back seats down and you can get some junk in that trunk! The trunk opening is shallow so that does limit things.
Now practical for taking more than one person with you? Not so much. Although we did fit 5 people in my FRS for a short trip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by JesseG

Fold those back seats down and you can get some junk in that trunk! The trunk opening is shallow so that does limit things.
Now practical for taking more than one person with you? Not so much. Although we did fit 5 people in my FRS for a short trip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well... Compared to the OG 86 it's not much different I think...