FT86 as a 2-seat sports car

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think the bottom line is, it's not going to happen. Toyota already has a two-seater if you want one. They are not going to take a car that sells in low volume and create a second version of it that will sell in even lower volumes. What would be more likely than that (bit still seems unlikely at this point) is they would partner with someone and make a third car, the "new" MR2.

Even the (now apparently abandoned) SFR with it's smaller size and wheel base was planned to be a 2+2. Even if made it had already been said that the SFR would not come to the US because it would not meet the requirements. Chopping an 86 down will have the same issues.
As you said they made their two seater and are happy with it.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Of course I should know better than saying anything against the common sentiment in these "experts" circle jerk threads though.

I was in motor vehicle biz for 15 years as a structural engineer, did overall vehicle layout/design, suspension development, prototyping, testing, etc.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Yeah, this is all hypothetical.

What ZDan and I want is a modern, inexpensive and Japanese version of a TVR coupe—a 2400lb Mini-Viper.

YES. For me, wouldn't even have to make any more power than the FT86. Always easier to add power than subtract weight...

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by ZDan

There's no reason moving the back of the car forward into the space where the back seats were would be particularly difficult

Now all we need is a front totaled Twin, a back totaled Twin and a Russian chop shop and your dream can come true. Make one end a BRZ and the other end an 86 for more uniqueness! I'm sure there's some YouTube revenue in there for Garage 54 or similar.

[Cephas]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

... there was probably no way they could make the rear much shorter even if it was only a two seater. North American crash standards have a minimum crumple distance for both front and rear which can be difficult to meet.

??

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Cephas

??

I repeat. Showing other cars with a completely different design and structure does not for one minute mean you can just chop a section out of an 86 and call it a day.

[Cephas]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I repeat. Showing other cars with a completely different design and structure does not for one minute mean you can just chop a section out of an 86 and call it a day.

I'm just wondering how cars like the Smart (and the Honda Fit, probably?) square with your mention of crumple zone distances.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Cephas

I'm just wondering how cars like the Smart (and the Honda Fit, probably?) square with your mention of crumple zone distances.

The Smart was designed to be small. It has an integral safety cage built into it that a "regular" car like the 86 does not. Also, the engine is in the rear eliminating the portion of the crumple zone required for a front engine car.

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/smart-car1.htm

[DarkSunrise]

There's a lot of sentiment that Mazda should build a Miata coupe (real one with permanent roof, not the RF). They had a small run with the NB in Japan, but never sold into the US:





Same concept applied to the ND with some image editing:



Not a bad looking car. I'd consider one as a canyon/track car if I ever stopped needing my rear seats.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The Smart was designed to be small. It has an integral safety cage built into it that a "regular" car like the 86 does not. Also, the engine is in the rear eliminating the portion of the crumple zone required for a front engine car.

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/smart-car1.htm

What Hawk said.
We are back to compromises. They of course could make it but it would either be heavier or considerably more expensive.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Cephas

I'm just wondering how cars like the Smart (and the Honda Fit, probably?) square with your mention of crumple zone distances.

You also need to take into account the engine layout. The Fit has a transverse mounted engine. Much more room for, activities.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The Smart was designed to be small. It has an integral safety cage built into it that a "regular" car like the 86 does not. Also, the engine is in the rear eliminating the portion of the crumple zone required for a front engine car.

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/smart-car1.htm

I think Saturn was the only other manufacturer that used the safety cage system cuz they had the plastic body panels.

Im sure there was one or 2 models from another manufacturer that used it too...i forget which ones.

I believe it doesnt get widespread use because its expensive and heavy to manufacture.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I know. I said this in my opening statement.
My whole (and very simple point) was that it is not as easy as them just cutting out a section and moving parts forward even if modular. They have to still meet standards whether you want or think they don't.
As usual the discussion centers around the hypothetical reasons they could or should do something while ignoring the reasons that couldn't.
There is a reason that all the cars you keep showing are either really old or very expensive.

They could do it. They won’t. It isn’t an engineering problem. It is a decision to make a 2+2. The standards could easily be met with a two seater. In fact, removing rear occupants makes rear crash standards that much easier.

The only reason they couldn’t is because they don’t want to or because they don’t want to commit long term to a single car platform like the Mustang or Miata that will forever be slightly modified if the platform necessitated that. Ford got rid of sedans. It wasn’t because they can’t make a sedan or couldn’t make profits off sedans. Their sedans sell more than many cars. It was because they think they can make more money with other crossovers. Toyota already made a choice to invest in cars like the 86 and Supra despite the sales volume and profits because it is good for the brand. They did the same with the LFA and other projects. There is no reason they couldn’t do an economy-priced, sporty, two seater coupe.

This is just a hypothetical. We know it’s highly unlikely.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think the bottom line is, it's not going to happen. Toyota already has a two-seater if you want one. They are not going to take a car that sells in low volume and create a second version of it that will sell in even lower volumes. What would be more likely than that (but still seems unlikely at this point) is they would partner with someone and make a third car, the "new" MR2.

It’s not going to happen because it isn’t as profitable as other options. It isn’t going to happen because it is a risk, and they want to make safe moves. This is all a hypothetical, but having a premium/luxury coupe doesn’t mean they can’t have an economy coupe. BMW for instance has a 2-8 series with coupes and sedans at every price point. Most manufacturers build sedans and crossovers at every size and trim level. They could do it.

My thing is that they lose by compromising. Buyers settle for a partial sports car and buy that, but most of the time the sporty car is a sedan in clothing. I say they should leave the hot hatches for those that need utility from a sporty car, and they should make a dedicated sports car like the Miata, but a coupe. Classically, a sports car was a converted, but a sports coupe is rarely buikt. We don’t need a another Miata or a Fiat 128 or a Saturn Solstice or Chevy Sky or a Z4 or Boxster or whatever small car had to be a convertible before they made a coupe or didn’t. There seems to be an aversion to making a small, 2-seater coupe. Even the MR2 was a targa. Convertibles and targas seem to be necessary for some reason that even GT cars had them like the Camaro and MKIV Supra (hardtop was a limited production option). Anyways, I’m ranting knowing it’ll not happen.