When will we get some "official" news on engine

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by ryun84

I'd take 148hp...










... if the car came in at 1000lbs.

I'd take 148 bhp at 2420 lbs. Dead serious.

Make me a $19k version with a stock FB20, Toyota. Make it a stripper (options, not dancer) and keep it light.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I'd take 148 bhp at 2420 lbs. Dead serious.

Make me a $19k version with a stock FB20, Toyota. Make it a stripper (options, not dancer) and keep it light.

Just honestly curious, is that because you plan on doing an engine build/swap anyways so you could care less about the stock motor?

[racinstylez]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I'd take 148 bhp at 2420 lbs. Dead serious.

Make me a $19k version with a stock FB20, Toyota. Make it a stripper (options, not dancer) and keep it light.

the Honda CRX Si was 150hp and 2200 pounds. Even 148 at 2400 would be horrible. I think that equates to like a 0-60 in 9 seconds

[Exage]

Originally Posted by tranzformer

I don't know, everything I have read from people in the auto industry points to the new FB20 as the basis of the FT-86 engine. http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car...-four-car_news Why wouldn't they use that and then tweak it for the FT-86? You really think they will design a whole new engine just for the FT-86/216a? That doesn't make economical sense.

Unless you have even the slightest clue about engine design (let alone components), I'm not even going to go into it this with you... You'll just end up aggravating me and cause me to post a bunch of technical engineering gibberish you and most people at Car and Driver wouldn't understand.

They don't have to make a whole new engine which is why I specifically stated the FB20 BLOCK. I think it makes more economical sense to take the FB25 block and components and re-design it to 2.0L than risk pre-mature engine failure by constantly ringing out a D4-S FB20 (especially if the redline is above 7500rpm). I've stated my views on this previously in your other thread. But, who knows? It's all speculation!

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by tranzformer

Just honestly curious, is that because you plan on doing an engine build/swap anyways so you could care less about the stock motor?

Not right away. Those numbers will still be decent for a fun, economical, daily driver as long as it handles. But yes, I've written before on here that if I had to pick between a lightweight good chassis, and power, I'll take the lightweight chassis EVERY time.

First mods for me will likely be wheels/tires, then suspension.

Power can be added once the 'new' wears off. Forced induction, engine swap, even a bottle... With my Supra (and a lot of cars), adding power is a non-issue, cutting weight is infuriating...

So once I do go for the power, starting with 2420 lbs would give me a car boner. That's like knocking 1000 lbs off a Supra!


That's also a very price-dependent statement on my part. Would I pay $25k for 148 bhp and 2420 lbs? Nope.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by Exage

Unless you have even the slightest clue about engine design (let alone components), I'm not even going to go into it this with you... You'll just end up aggravating me and cause me to post a bunch of technical engineering gibberish you and most people at Car and Driver wouldn't understand.

They don't have to make a whole new engine which is why I specifically stated the FB20 BLOCK. I think it makes more economical sense to take the FB25 block and components and re-design it to 2.0L than risk pre-mature engine failure by constantly ring out a D4-S FB20 (especially if the redline is above 7500rpm). I've stated my views on this previously stated in your other thread. But, who knows? It's all speculation!

No need to attack me, not sure exactly what you are trying to gain?

So if it is all speculation as you said, then why get aggravated? You should be able to carry on a conversation without getting upset about something that I have no reason why you are upset about? Can't we talk about cars without making drama?

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Not right away. Those numbers will still be decent for a fun, economical, daily driver as long as it handles. But yes, I've written before on here that if I had to pick between a lightweight good chassis, and power, I'll take the lightweight chassis EVERY time.

First mods for me will likely be wheels/tires, then suspension.

Power can be added once the 'new' wears off. Forced induction, engine swap, even a bottle... With my Supra (and a lot of cars), adding power is a non-issue, cutting weight is infuriating...

So once I do go for the power, starting with 2420 lbs would give me a car boner. That's like knocking 1000 lbs off a Supra!


That's also a very price-dependent statement on my part. Would I pay $25k for 148 bhp and 2420 lbs? Nope.

I remember you posting that about wanting lower weight chassis in another thread. I just couldn't remember what you were planning on doing engine wise. What you said makes a lot of sense in many ways.

I just really hope we hear something (specific details) from Toyota about the car/engine in the upcoming months to carry us over until the production car is launched. Just need something.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by racinstylez

the Honda CRX Si was 150hp and 2200 pounds. Even 148 at 2400 would be horrible. I think that equates to like a 0-60 in 9 seconds

Um, what? CRX Si was like 106 hp.

148 hp at 2420 lbs gives me 16.35 lbs/hp. And a 7.1-7.3 0-60 mph estimate.

I'm not advocating that the car ONLY have a stock FB, I'm saying make a cheaper, stripped volume version. Like I said $19k. Do it, Scion/Toyota.

I can add power to a motor. It's tough to strip weight in a nice and comfortable manner.

[Exage]

Originally Posted by tranzformer

No need to attack me, not sure exactly what you are trying to gain?

While asking questions is a good thing, asking the same question or questions again can get a little aggravating no? Do you agree or disagree? Do you see what I did there? Hang on don't answer those!

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...t=1124&p=32927
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...page=2&p=33042

These are my posts from your other thread which explains why I don't think they will use the FB20 block. The fact that the Yamaha name has been thrown around now explains why I HOPE they don't use the FB20 block as the foundation for a naturally aspirated engine.

[xantonin]

Perhaps someone can actually answer the question.

Surely there's another auto show coming up. Does any one know the next date for an auto show that Toyota is likely to attend?

[blur]

Originally Posted by Dimman

So once I do go for the power, starting with 2420 lbs would give me a car boner. That's like knocking 1000 lbs off a Supra!

Does the MRS give you a car boner? lol

BTW. Im pretty sure toyota learned its lesson from the MRS, low power =/= fun

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by blur

Does the MRS give you a car boner? lol

BTW. Im pretty sure toyota learned its lesson from the MRS, low power =/= fun

I'm already talking all about it in the "What if the FT86 fails?" thread.

So yes, it does.

Problems were:

I couldn't buy one in Canada until now, but only as a used US import.

It was a convertible (I'll go through hell to find a hard-top).

They are amazingly impractical. (whatever...)

They look kinda like a wussy Boxster. (Oh well... Hardtop makes them look way better.)

But: They handle awesome (I've heard, never driven one.)

They can have a 180hp 2ZZGE with a 6 speed manual installed rather painlessly.

Doing so will cost about half of what a new FR-S will ,including a decent car.

So, again, yes. It absolutely gives me a car boner. (FT86C/FR-S does that on looks, though... )

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I'd take 148 bhp at 2420 lbs. Dead serious.

Make me a $19k version with a stock FB20, Toyota. Make it a stripper (options, not dancer) and keep it light.

I uh....me too!

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by blur

Does the MRS give you a car boner? lol

BTW. Im pretty sure toyota learned its lesson from the MRS, low power =/= fun

It wasn't the car's power that made it a dud...

It was the fact that it derived so FAR from its roots from the AW11 and SW20 MR-2's....a roadster Porsche boxster wannabe? It screamed girl car in factory form. The original MR-2, the AW11, was also slightly underpowered (it came with the same 4A-GE the AE86 did), but it was a HUGE success, in both casual sports car lovers, and hardcore racers. The car was exceptionally quick for its engine size and power thanks to its weight, and had the cornering of near a rail car. The ZZW had basically all this....but it was a convertible....that looked like a boxster. Not very manly. On the flip side, the AW11 looked like a lotus (hurr, wonder why? Do your homework!), and for its time and age, was a very sleak and sexy compact sports coupe. It was also the only MR layout sports car you could get while being on a strict budget. To appease the masses that wanted more power, Toyota released the S/C version in 1988, upping power output to 160hp. WOWEE, 160HP!?!?! I know, it sounds monstrous...wait...by today's standards....no. But it was still FAST. Why? The damn car barely weighed a ton, scaling in at 2400 lbs. It was already fast on the 115hp / 2300lb standard with the 4A-GE. Dimman's suggestion of 148hp @2400lbs is far from crazy.

BTW. I'm pretty sure the AE86's, Miata's, EG-EK civic Si, etc. fanhoods have proven that infact, big power =/= fun.

What Toyota should've done with the 3rd Gen MR-2 was go to back to its roots, so to speak. The SW20 is an amazing car in its own rights, but it feels bloated compared to the AW11 and the legacy it left behind. Instead, for the 3rd gen, it should have been a hardtop coupe, like the AW11, but toned down in weight and utilizing the 2ZZ-GE, with a 2ZZ-GZE sport plus model that would probably push ~220hp in factory form, with a stiffer tuned suspension from the factory and standard LSD. The fact the car would weigh about 300lbs less than the SW20 (2800lbs, my model would be ~2500lbs, or lighter, comparable to the Celica GT-S of its time), would actually make the car faster in the straight compared to a stock SW20, while reviving its handling characteristics of the AW11. It would (obviously) ditch the styling of wannabe boxster, harking more to a direct descendent of the SW20, which had an amazing style to it, probably something similar to the Elise, which is kind of a nod to what the AW11 was.

You wanna hear my thoughts on what the next gen Supra should be?

Hahaha, Dimman, you got Ogre power morons frothing at the mouth for you comment.

BTW, Ogre: