Maybe the FT-86 doesnt need massive power........

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Damn, a lot of cats hissing at each other in this thread. Despite Maxim being a oversimplifying roll-center and general suspension geometry avoiding beeeotch about it, he finally got to the actual point that few seem to want to admit; the FR-S will end up feeling like a coupe' version of the Miata.

All this talk about 'ring lap times is utterly pointless. We're not trying to hang with Stefan Bellof.

Yes I oversimplified the geometry and roll center stuff because I didn't feel like writing a thesis

Suffice it to say that in stock trim, given the concerns for at the limit handling that manufacturers MUST take into account for liability and tire wear reasons, suspension set-up will not yield any great increase in grip. The '86's lower CG may marginally help grip but it will primarily be felt during transient response (same with it's superior polar moment of inertia).

Better?

Of course there's hissing cats. That always happens when people are passionate about something.

But yeah....'Ring times for a car like this is pointless. Posting a good time on the Nurburgring is dependant on 3 things: High power, high grip, and high downforce.

The FR-S will have 0 out of those 3.

Much more interesting would be how well it competes in Car and Driver's Lightning Lap, which I think is one of the best features that any car magazine has.

[bofa]

Originally Posted by Maxim

Yes I oversimplified the geometry and roll center stuff because I didn't feel like writing a thesis

Suffice it to say that in stock trim, given the concerns for at the limit handling that manufacturers MUST take into account for liability and tire wear reasons, suspension set-up will not yield any great increase in grip. The '86's lower CG may marginally help grip but it will primarily be felt during transient response (same with it's superior polar moment of inertia).

Better?

Of course there's hissing cats. That always happens when people are passionate about something.

But yeah....'Ring times for a car like this is pointless. Posting a good time on the Nurburgring is dependant on 3 things: High power, high grip, and high downforce.

The FR-S will have 0 out of those 3.

Much more interesting would be how well it competes in Car and Driver's Lightning Lap, which I think is one of the best features that any car magazine has.

Agree with the C&D part... should be fun to see. The ring comparisons are still valid if you are looking at similar cars that also, in your opinion, lack those same 3 key things. And since they are spending so much time there working on it I would imagine they are eyeing a specific goal... would be nice to know what that is.

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by Fly Guy

I'm starting to understand now. Thanks, Maxim. There sure is a lot of give and take.

Yeah, there are hundreds of factors at play in this stuff....sometimes it's just crazy what goes into it. Really makes me respect suspension engineers. I think it's fair to say that their part of the vehicle is probably the hardest.

Increase front tire/wheel size = decrease steering feel
Increase brake size = increase wheel size = decrease steering feel
Increase horsepower = increase weight of supporting components = increase weight of car overall
Increase track = decrease structural rigidity = decrease suspension response

There's just a huge amount of give and take for a car.

Performance does not always equal enjoyment. If the FR-S is more enjoyable for me than those cars, I'll buy it. However, since both the Mustang and Camaro actually handle decently and go like spanked ass, the FR-S is going to have to give me a blowjob every time I touch the steering wheel if all it can make me smile with is the handling.

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by bofa

Agree with the C&D part... should be fun to see. The ring comparisons are still valid if you are looking at similar cars that also, in your opinion, lack those same 3 key things. And since they are spending so much time there working on it I would imagine they are eyeing a specific goal... would be nice to know what that is.

Yeah, Ring comparisons aren't completely useless. It's just that, in terms of getting a picture of how good the car is, you almost couldn't pick a worse track. It doesn't play to any of the FR-S's strengths. Compared with it's peers on a high speed course like the Ring, the FR-S is going to look worse than it actually is.

I've said before...I'm ok with RX-8 type performance and if the targets for this car are met, that's about what it will have. However, one of the reasons I'm ok with RX-8 performance is because not only does the RX-8 handle great and is decently quick, it's also quite premium feeling inside. A $23k Scion isn't going to be premium feeling inside. Thus I'm worried that the car may not offer me enough.

[bofa]

Yep I'm having those same concerns. Honestly, I'm hoping the Subie variant offers a few pleasant surprises.

[iff2mastamatt]

I'm looking for a fun car to drive with a 2+2 seating configuration, but I'm not going to make excuses so I will force myself to "like" this car. For me, it will come down to the test drive and if I'm impressed, I'll buy it- regardless of the specs. However, unless this is some revolutionary automobile that can maintain low specs and perform well, then I'll be amazed. This thing doesn't have to be a Z, but if it's not as FUN to drive, I'll pass.

[Giccin]

Originally Posted by iff2mastamatt

I'm looking for a fun car to drive with a 2+2 seating configuration, but I'm not going to make excuses so I will force myself to "like" this car. For me, it will come down to the test drive and if I'm impressed, I'll buy it- regardless of the specs. However, unless this is some revolutionary automobile that can maintain low specs and perform well, then I'll be amazed. This thing doesn't have to be a Z, but if it's not as FUN to drive, I'll pass.

Agreed. Will wait to drive before I make a decision. Plus if I don't like it I can "accidentally" burn the clutch. O_O

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by Giccin

Agreed. Will wait to drive before I make a decision. Plus if I don't like it I can "accidentally" burn the clutch. O_O

Yeah, despite how negative I may seem, I will of course give the car a fair chance if it doesn't quite meet what I consider my minimum specs for fun.

[iff2mastamatt]

Originally Posted by Maxim

Yeah, despite how negative I may seem, I will of course give the car a fair chance if it doesn't quite meet what I consider my minimum specs for fun.

I think most of us feel this way. No matter what, the final product of this car will attract some buyers, and push away others on this forum.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by Giccin

Agreed. Will wait to drive before I make a decision. Plus if I don't like it I can "accidentally" burn the clutch. O_O

Or you could wait for the new MX-5 or RX-9.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Maxim

Agreed completely. I think it will hit around the 9 minute mark.

It absolutely will be slower around the ring than a GTI. I have a GTI....the torque advantage alone MORE than makes up for the ~300 extra pounds of weight, and with summer tires the GTI pulls over .9g. The FT-86 won't produce higher grip, and it won't accelerate as well due to the lack of torque, especially at low speeds.

Don't even get me started on mods....I've put $1500 into my car and it puts 240hp to the wheels. $1500 in mods on a 2.0L non-turbo might net you 15-20hp....not 65-70.

The old adage "horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" is true. The reduction in necessary shifts as well as the huge advantage accelerating out of low speed corners means significantly faster lap times. Look at the Car and Driver lightning lap results for production cars: The 2011 Mustang GT with the track-package brembo brakes and re-calibrated suspension pulled essentially the same lap time as the nearly 300lb heavier base Camaro SS. Why? The SS has a 6.2L V8 that produces insane torque, improving acceleration out of every single corner, while the DOHC 5.0 in the mustang has similar power numbers but less torque, delivered at higher RPM.

200hp is FINE in a car like this, especially if it's 2700lbs. But if it wants to be competitive it should have an equal torque rating, or it should produce a higher HP number. Yes, I know the car is about the handling and the feel....but for 95% of owners, it's going to be driven on the street, where it is illegal and irresponsible to take advantage of the at-the-limit handling advantages. If Toyota wants the car to succeed with buyers it needs to offer a car that excels at real world performance.

I would be happier with an FT-86 that produced 200hp and 200lb/ft than one that produced 240hp and 150lb/ft.

I like the fact that you get it!!! This car doesn't need more than 200 hp it needs equal amounts of torque.

[bofa]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I like the fact that you get it!!! This car doesn't need more than 200 hp it needs equal amounts of torque.

Agree there but I don't think there's a chance in hell with a N/A 4 banger...

[SUB-FT86]

I think its possible with the right size displacement 4 banger. Anything under 2.5 liters is mostly the problem. Hyundai has a 2.4 liter with D/I that makes 200hp/184tq. I think a 2.5 done right can come very close especially if it has some modern engine tech stuffed into it.

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I think its possible with the right size displacement 4 banger. Anything under 2.5 liters is mostly the problem. Hyundai has a 2.4 liter with D/I that makes 200hp/184tq. I think a 2.5 done right can come very close especially if it has some modern engine tech stuffed into it.

If they did a 2.5L with the same specific outputs as the 2.0L as the STi/TRD version I'd be more than happy....

I figure that'd be like 250hp and 220ft/lb. I'd pay high 20s for that if it was lightweight and well optioned.

I'd also pay high 20's for a 200-220hp turbo 2.0L version that was equally well optioned.

I don't particularly care which.