FT-86 II debuts in Japan

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

The production version will look a lot like this concept Marrk.

Well according to Moto it looks more like the original concept than the Mk2.

"It actually looks better. Take the Original FT86 concept, and add a little more flavor from Scion project's FRS Concept, then smooth down the lines so that it's less tuner looking, and more OEM finesse. Retain the 2000GT C-Pillar, sharpen the tail. And that's how a final version will be. (That's all I can tell you at this point.)"

[tree fingers]

I'm getting excited about this car, and, originally, I had no intentions to buy it. I'm getting ~10MPG in my Subaru. So, if this car weighs less than 2600 with A/C, I'm in. Otherwise, what's the point? I may as well build an AE86 coupe.

We'll see. : ]

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by tranzformer

Well according to Moto it looks more like the original concept than the Mk2.

"It actually looks better. Take the Original FT86 concept, and add a little more flavor from Scion project's FRS Concept, then smooth down the lines so that it's less tuner looking, and more OEM finesse. Retain the 2000GT C-Pillar, sharpen the tail. And that's how a final version will be. (That's all I can tell you at this point.)"

I wouldn't mind "smoothing down the lines" of that from bumper/grill/spoiler/lip thingy. But the rest of it looks close.

[RRnold]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

[u2b]l6T831aFXoU[/u2b]
Man, I feel like I'm official translator for this site. LMAO

K, here's a quick translation.... Again, it's gonna be Engrish translation & not an English translation. If you have problem that?

TT: Ah~ I hear "rear seats are hard to install, so make it option to have rear seats" and so on feedbacks
MC: Reading different articles, I hear crash safety and all the safety rules that wasn't in AE86 age... we hear a lot about weight problem. That's why using boxer engine and make center gravity low to make good balance... overall how much it's gonna be weighted?
TT: Weight is very important part... we hear cut under 1,000kg (2,204 lbs), but reality adding all those safety stuff included in this car... this car going to be really light car.
MC: Light?
TT: Altezza was 2L NA (IS300, but in Japan had 2L NA) and current safety stuff is more strict than Altezza. How much was Altezza?
TK: 1345kg (2965 lbs)
TT: .....
TK: Is it lighter than that?
TT: Absolutely lighter than that
MC: So it is safer than lighter
TT: Yes it will be
MC: Comes w airbags and everything and light
TT: Of course
MC: Ah~ now that's some high expectation
MC: Tsuchiya-san, how do you feel? What's the minimum weight the FT86 have to be?
TK: Minimum weight?
MC: Yes, minimum weight

Thanks for the translation Ichi! I found this bit very promising!

[Marrk]

Is it just me or does anyone else get nervous when they hear "the flat-4 engine design allows us to place the engine low in the chassis" over and over again? Is that the best that they can say about it? Does the engine have no other notable features?

How about: "The engine mounts will be positioned so that engine swaps will be easy." Has Toyota already decided that many buyers will be dissatisfied with the stock engine and will want to do a swap? And, if so, are they not putting maximum effort into the design and manufacture of the stock engine?


You heard it here first: The weak part of this car is going to be the engine. I have spoken.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Marrk

Is it just me or does anyone else get nervous when they hear "the flat-4 engine design allows us to place the engine low in the chassis" over and over again? Is that the best that they can say about it? Does the engine have no other notable features?

How about: "The engine mounts will be positioned so that engine swaps will be easy." Has Toyota already decided that many buyers will be dissatisfied with the stock engine and will want to do a swap? And, if so, are they not putting maximum effort into the design and manufacture of the stock engine?


You heard it here first: The weak part of this car is going to be the engine. I have spoken.

[CyberFormula]

unless there is another engine layout i'm not aware of...

Boxer engine is the only engine that is capable of being placed low to the ground.

If you swap the engine, you may gain power but you lost balance.

[tranzformer]

Originally Posted by CyberFormula

unless there is another engine layout i'm not aware of...

Boxer engine is the only engine that is capable of being placed low to the ground.

If you swap the engine, you may gain power but you lost balance.

If you want more power than stock (and assuming stock engine can't be tuned/worked on which is just speculation at this point) you could drop in a EJ207 engine and retain much of the same balance with just some added weight from the turbo and piping. That assumes engine mounts are the same as Moto has lead us to believe.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Marrk

Is it just me or does anyone else get nervous when they hear "the flat-4 engine design allows us to place the engine low in the chassis" over and over again? Is that the best that they can say about it? Does the engine have no other notable features?

How about: "The engine mounts will be positioned so that engine swaps will be easy." Has Toyota already decided that many buyers will be dissatisfied with the stock engine and will want to do a swap? And, if so, are they not putting maximum effort into the design and manufacture of the stock engine?


You heard it here first: The weak part of this car is going to be the engine. I have spoken.

Not to be rude to Tada-san, but he is from Toyota side so expect him to know a lot about boxer engine might be too much.

[ft86Fan]

Thanks ichitaka05 for the translation. It was helpful.

[Aki]

Originally Posted by Marrk

How about: "The engine mounts will be positioned so that engine swaps will be easy."

Uh, why would they actively market that the stock engine sucks? That makes no sense.

Low center of gravity has *always* been marketed for Subaru Boxer engines. I mean, it's even in the Subaru WRX STI brochures. Guess that means STI engines suck too, and should be swapped? Talk about reading too much into things.

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by Aki

Why would they actively market that the stock engine sucks? That makes no sense.

To save money and time.

Why would Toyota, who have a history of making great 4-cylinder engines (not to mention that sweet Camry V6 that is in the Lotus Evora) go to Subaru for an engine?

[Aki]

Originally Posted by Marrk

Why would Toyota, who have a history of making great 4-cylinder engines (not to mention that sweet Camry V6 that is in the Lotus Evora) go to Subaru for an engine?

Why would that mean the Subaru engine sucks? You're still not making sense here.

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by Aki

Low center of gravity has *always* been marketed for Subaru Boxer engines. I mean, it's even in the Subaru WRX STI brochures. Guess that means STI engines suck too, and should be swapped? Talk about reading too much into things.

But the "low center of gravity" is all they ever talk about, it seems.

I don't know anything about STI engines, but there seems to be a comment or two on this forum that they sometimes, um, break.

You may be right. I may be reading too much into things.