Anybody here getting that greasy "$27k" feeling?

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Dimman

$2k over a tC. MAX!

What are the cost differences between a FWD transaxle and a RWD transmission, drive-shaft and rear diff? About $2k to the manufacturer?

tC shares parts with the Camry, the FT86 with the Subaru version plus, likely the future WRX/STI ,and maybe some Legacy/Impreza bits. It is NOT low volume. It will only be low-volume if they over-price it.

If they are serious about re-invigorating the performance image, there should be no 'fanboi' or 'racer' tax on this car. Manufacturing-wise there is no reason for it to be expensive.

And don't justify extra cost in development, just because we see vids of it on the 'Ring. The Camry probably goes through even MORE extensive testing to make sure it is a silent, economical, marshmallow...

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by Neutral_Eyes

I didn't bother pricing the Genesis 2.0T because it's a stupid car - underpowered for all the fat it's carrying around.

I'm sorry, but calling a GC a stupid car in comparison to a Miata? Miata stereotypes aside, the car could be the greatest handling car on the planet, but it's fugly. When they added that smiley face theme to a car sized/shaped like the Miata overall shape... -shudder- you won't catch me standing next to one, let alone dropping >$20k on one.

The GC might not be the greatest handling car, but it's stupid how easy it is to squeeze power out of the 2.0t GC. The MX-5 is about $800 more than the GC2.0T. Take that $800 bucks, pick up an intake and Power Axel Reflash and the car gains 45rwhp/65ft-lbs. It might not handle as well as a Miata, but at least it has some style.

Originally Posted by Driftster

You say it' stupid, i say it's a fantastic car...

a Mid 6 0-60 puts it nearly a second faster than the mx5 in a sprint despite it's size, it's making 210HP which is only "10" hp more than the FT is projected to make, however it's also making 223Ftlbs from 2000rpm...

The things on just as strong a engine platform, and coming stock with brembo's a LSD for sub 25k and probably a fair bit more interior room/luggage space...


I'm all for debating cost and what not, but please use some reason behind the decisions..

Don't throw a certain trim level into the mix simply to prove a point without having any reasonable grounds for inclusion...

I mean really, neglecting the 2.0T all together was unnecessary, and generally...You don't buy a roadster if you don't WANT a roadster....The Retractable hard top on the miata doesn't turn the car into a non-convertible..It's still a drop top..Buying the retractable hard top option is purely subjective as there's no solidified reason to spend that extra money outside of bling.....It increases weight, it raises center of gravity, and it doesn't increase chassis rigidity with the top up

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Driftster

you're missing things like possibility of standard HiD's, the fact that the FB20 in this car isn't a carbon copy of the FHI Fb20 it is toyota's recast of subaru's with yamaha head work...in other words the engine isn't over-free...Don't forget that toyota's recast factored in direct injection as well...
Direct injection is not free, therefore you have to implement that cost as well..

The concept had adjustable suspension, if THAT stays that's deff going to catch some extra $$$ on the sticker as well..



Yes...FUTURE wrx and FUTURE STi.

And thus far the FB25 and FB20 have no concrete sharable parts. that remains to be said...

TC shares parts with an in house company, there is little to no markup on companies that are still under the family tree. However FHI and Yamaha aren't subsidiaries of toyota's car production, meaning toyota isn't getting off the $$ hook.




This car is going to be sold to fanbois and racers...The proof is in the scion label... If it was an attempt at reinventing the 2000GT in a proper sports car form without the stigma of loud pipes big chrome rims and metal flaked paint, then it wouldn't be a scion car, simple as that. The entire brand Scion is there to cater to the "fanboi" "racer" crowd..




We justify extra cost in development because of the engine being built...then rebuilt...then out of house tuned...

We justify extra cost of development because it has been IN development for quite a few years..

And we also justify based on just how much public campaigning has gone on for this car, as that is also not free.

The thing is all the development costs and marketing go into EVERY car. What I am getting at is:

1: Just because Toyota has finally decided to offer a sporty coupe with the proper wheels driven for a change, is no justification for it to be vastly more expensive than a similar FWD car, such as the tC. People seem willing to overlook this. Stop it. RWD is not worth an $8k premium for crying out loud.

2: Some of the fancy bits are shared with other models, (likely any fancy headwork will end up on the WRX/STI as well) and these costs that are not included in more basic cars will be spread out over several models, and given Subaru's history, over a long time.

I'm hoping with all the 'customization' talk it will be just a basic stripper, with the Scion dealers trying to gouge noobs on options.

[Neutral_Eyes]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

I'm sorry, but calling a GC a stupid car in comparison to a Miata? Miata stereotypes aside, the car could be the greatest handling car on the planet, but it's fugly. When they added that smiley face theme to a car sized/shaped like the Miata overall shape... -shudder- you won't catch me standing next to one, let alone dropping >$20k on one.

The GC might not be the greatest handling car, but it's stupid how easy it is to squeeze power out of the 2.0t GC. The MX-5 is about $800 more than the GC2.0T. Take that $800 bucks, pick up an intake and Power Axel Reflash and the car gains 45rwhp/65ft-lbs. It might not handle as well as a Miata, but at least it has some style.

Style is subjective, to each their own. I wasn't comparing the MX-5 to the GC, just listing prices. As far as 2.0T performance goes, I just don't see the point while there's a 300hp Mustang V6 to be had for the same coin.

But neither of those cars are really my thing, I've been trying to get out of my Miata for a while now, but there's nothing new out there right now that feels the way I'd like, save for an MX-5. I figure the FT-86s lies somewhere between MX-5 and S2000, which is why I'm here, waiting.

Orginal point was I keep seeing comparisons to cars priced well above what we expect the FT-86 to cost, and I wasn't sure why.

[Neutral_Eyes]

Originally Posted by Driftster

Because the GC and mustang don't fall into the same category of car...The mustang has a 300hp v6 yes, it also has a sloppy gearbox, poor performance gear ratios, a rather poop interior, it's brakes won't last an entire lap, it's suspension will have you feeling like you're not taking driving seriously...

Meanwhile the GC will get you brembo brakes a nice short crisp gearbox with gears designed to work with the cars powerband and intention while not sacrificing performance and a pretty snazz interior.

There's reasons why people buy the fusion/focus + options over the mustang v6...and as it sits..a "stripper" 300hp mustang...is right at the FT's price point as well..

You've obviously driven neither.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Driftster

Tell that to Honda and the S2000..

They've been making light stiff chassis for years.....The F20 engine followed the exact same formula all their other engines did low torque high revs high hp...The thing was rather sluggish in a straight line it's potential came from it's ability to maintain speed in a corner...Yet how much did it cost originally? Around 40,000?

It happens all the time...

The TC uses an engine that has been in production for 3 years, which aside from the silly accordian manifold and dual valve control....could be said to have been around for 11 years..

The engine in the FT is BRAND new..Less than a year old.. Toyota doesn't make Box engines, yet they've taken subaru's FB and put their own spin on it...So no it's more than just "putting a trans tunnel and differential" out back to create this car..

Development costs and marketing DO go into every car...

How many cars are being as marketed as the ft86?

How many cars have had such a long ad campaign?

Ex...The new porsche 991, JUST got wind of it a week or two ago...Yet porsche already has multiple mules and prototypes in camo driving around and the car will be released by the start of next year...That's it..THIS car on the other hand...has been in prototype phase for 2-3 years......with lord knows how many mules and prototypes..



i'm going to doubt the fancy headwork ends up on the WRX as the FB20 is a n/a engine tuned for NA performance in which cfm movement isn't as huge a deal as having minimal valve overlap(a benefit to NA...but not with turbo)....Maybe the impreza RS, but STI? no...

Given subaru's history, heads is the ONE thing' they don't spread across the lineup.



How many Stripper TC's have you EVER seen?

Ontop of that, with all of the people on this board "expecting" the car to handle as good as a mx5 or a cayman and have an engine note that doesn't sound like a race horse with irritable bowel syndrome, chances are no one is going to buy one WITHOUT a LSD option, or coilover option, or exhaust option, or some spoiler...etc etc etc, considering TRD likes to make a bunch of half-useless crap for their cars

Ad campaign? Where? We are more of a marketing campaign in a way than what Toyota has done with a couple of car shows and press-releases. This site isn't costing Toyota millions of dollars...

Overlap is handled by cams, not the head. Also something that Toyota did with the GE/GTE engines. Same head, different cams (at least in the Supras). Subaru is obviously trying something different, so who knows?

Porsche designs are very evolutionary, bad example.

FB engine development cost will be spread out over a million years, like the EJ. Impreza, Forester, Legacy... Performance version will be spread out with the WRX/STI.

S2000 example is dis-heartening but maybe, just maybe, Toyota will do the right thing, instead of letting dealers screw their customers because of the ZOMGWTFBBQ factor of the car.

I forgot about the talk of the LSD being standard. So tack on $500 to my number.

I don't care about every person that tacks on $8k of 'performance' options on their cars, so long as I don't have to. Not seeing 'un-optioned' tCs doesn't matter to me. (I hardy see tCs in Canada anyways...) They are available cheap. If retards want to pay more for electric yellow Release versions, their problem, not mine.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Other than the great handling and lightness .

there is no other... those 2 qualities are THE essence of the miata. you cant "buy" lightness and handling. those have to be built in.

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by madfast

...you cant "buy" lightness and handling. those have to be built in.

I don't know what you're on, but I want some.

[Exage]

Originally Posted by Driftster

You say it' stupid, i say it's a fantastic car...

a Mid 6 0-60 puts it nearly a second faster than the mx5 in a sprint despite it's size, it's making 210HP which is only "10" hp more than the FT is projected to make, however it's also making 223Ftlbs from 2000rpm...

A Genesis Coupe 2.0T does not manage a mid 6.

It will put down between 6.8 and 7.2 depending on the options and spec.

MT tested 6.8s: Track Model

C&D tested 6.8s: R-Spec Model

C&D tested 7.0s: Base Model

R&T tested 7.2s

I personally wouldn't call it a stupid car, but it is far from fantastic in stock form. The 2 liter turbo and RWD sounded extremely tempting until I found out about it's obesity problem (: The "lightest" curb weight is 3294lbs).

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Exage

A Genesis Coupe 2.0T does not manage a mid 6.

It will put down between 6.8 and 7.2 depending on the options and spec.

MT tested 6.8s: Track Model

C&D tested 6.8s: R-Spec Model

C&D tested 7.0s: Base Model

R&T tested 7.2s

I personally wouldn't call it a stupid car, but it is far from fantastic in stock form. The 2 liter turbo and RWD sounded extremely tempting until I found out about it's obesity problem (: The "lightest" curb weight is 3294lbs).

Yeah but the engine can make good power with $1,500 invested. In a N/A 4 cyl engine you would get 10-14bhp-6tq with that money.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Yeah but the engine can make good power with $1,500 invested. In a N/A 4 cyl engine you would get 10-14bhp-6tq with that money.

Better to turbo a 2600lbs NA car in the quest for ultimate performance...

(Not saying its cheaper, though...)

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Yeah but the engine can make good power with $1,500 invested. In a N/A 4 cyl engine you would get 10-14bhp-6tq with that money.

It's no use. 3300#s with 210hp/223tq is obese, but a 2500#s 170hp/140tq is a gift from god. The ease or difficulty of getting more out of your motor seems to be a non-factor.

[Neutral_Eyes]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

It's no use. 3300#s with 210hp/223tq is obese, but a 2500#s 170hp/140tq is a gift from god. The ease or difficulty of getting more out of your motor seems to be a non-factor.

"Adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere."

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by Driftster

2500#'s and 170hp/140tq is a gift from god?

Man i had no idea you guys loved the Celica GT-S that much..because that's exactly where it sits, and that vehicle was abysmal..

You seem to be missing the focus of the Genesis 2.0T...As mentioned it's designed to be a platform to tune on, it's dirt cheap and you get a proven strong powerplant and a turbocharged engine in a RWD car...It was created with room to grow, meanwhile you don't see many 2.5RS's out there N/A ready to kick ass and take names..

And you're STILL assuming it's going to weight 2500lbs..

It's OK, sarcasm is hard to detect online. I was agreeing with you. I'm most likely buying a GC2.0T when the new front end comes out.