Tetsuya Tada: Behind-the-scenes story on how Toyota and Subaru created the GT86 / BRZ

[czar07]

Originally Posted by Dezoris

I dont understand with all the resources Toyota has why they would go through the trouble of having to co design and have another company manufacture a car that was completely their own concept and design. Toyota has always been an engine manufacturer, they have some of the most advanced composites divisions in the world. They had the largest budget in F1 history etc. Etc.

Why put such an important project to them in the hands of another company that never really saw eye to eye?

Because:

They wanted a sporty look = low front end. Now due to pedestrian safety regulations, the bonnet needs to sit a certain distance above the engine (so the pedestrian has space to slow down). Toyota had no engine low enough to help them comply with the safety regs & look sleek and sexy..therefore they thought of a boxer engine...

They didnt develop their own boxer engine because thats just too expensive (im talking 100s of millions in R&D)

[czar07]

The Mercedes SL-Class is a perfect example of the effect Safety Regs have had on a shape of a car:

2005


2009


2013

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

Keep in mind that discussion probably happened 5+ years ago. Subaru had been trying to develop DI technology on their own and had been having trouble with it at that time, but they now have their own DI on the new Forester XT and soon to be next WRX engine. Also with Toyota handing over their already proved D4S system, and arguably more at stake financially, I'm not too worried about it.

See that's the thing that bugs me about this car. It's been 5+ years and the engineers was testing a bunch of them and they never saw the issues that people complain about? In that span of time I would think the engine should've been very/ultra reliable as a lot of other cars takes less than 2 years to make without extensive testing.

[alan.chalkley]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

See that's the thing that bugs me about this car. It's been 5+ years and the engineers was testing a bunch of them and they never saw the issues that people complain about? In that span of time I would think the engine should've been very/ultra reliable as a lot of other cars takes less than 2 years to make without extensive testing.

No matter how well a car is designed , there are always production faults in the first year.
That is why I ordered mine from the second production year.

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

See that's the thing that bugs me about this car. It's been 5+ years and the engineers was testing a bunch of them and they never saw the issues that people complain about? In that span of time I would think the engine should've been very/ultra reliable as a lot of other cars takes less than 2 years to make without extensive testing.

you will be surprise on how things actually worked in engineering.

take 787 for example. the concept kicked off was at 2005, flight test production began at 2007, first flight at 2009, enter into service in 2011, yet in 2013 the entire fleet is grounded due to battery failure.

the thing about product development testing is that you can only test to a set known conditions plus margins. Those known conditions were set based on engineering assumptions prior to detail design. However, often time in a complex system, failure typically occurs outside of your initial assumptions. Thus those failures condition were never anticipated as a part of the initial fault tree analysis.

As a result, most major system integrators often utilize repair and overhaul shops to gather reliability data to be used as a feedback mechanism for the design team to refine the product.

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by Dezoris

That does not add up as they are going to use this platform for, a convertible and possibly the Supra/xxx. The S2000 was a huge success for Honda in the first 3 years, they moved over 40,000 units and was a reason why they ran production for 8 years. They also already had the Insight and NSX made in the same factory so it was easy for them to slot in another model, as there were many shared parts.

I do get your point on the engine development, etc. But long term seems very hard to get things done, making engineering changes require twice the work, implementing manufacturing improvements can't be as simple because it has to filter through more red tape. Support in general seems to be more problematic. It really is "Toyota's" car.

here is my take on the topic at hand.

Toyota’s business model has always been design for manufacturing. Thus their primary margin driver is accomplished by minimizing production variations plus high volumes with high repeatability. On the other hand, for Toyota to incorporate the production of GT86, it would disrupt their robust manufacturing flow. Since the production number will be low, the entire concept will not fit well into their general manufacturing plan. Even though they have small volume manufacturing capability, making GT86 on the low volume assembly line would not make a business sense. This is due to the low sticker price of this car; the relative return would be extremely low. In addition, by entering into manufacturing co-op with Subaru, Toyota has effectively lower disbursed both the financial and technical risk of development. In an overall business perspective, offering GT86 is not about making huge profit, it’s about rebranding Toyota. The aim of this car is to capture the heats of younger generations. Toyota wants the younger crowd to view Toyota as an auto manufacture to be more than a company that pumps out econo box for soccer moms and old farts.

As far as a convertible variant, it also makes sense for Toyota to allow Subaru to inherit majority of the risk revolving technical development. Since the convertible offering would only be a sub category of the total GT86 sales, and the total revenue generated from GT86 would only be a small fraction of total revenue. It makes perfect sense to allow Subaru to absorb all the cost associated with production variations of this convertible variant.

According to creditable sources, Toyota has teamed up with BMW for their next high end sports car offering based off of the BMW 6 series platform. In addition, there are no future plans to reuse this platform as a base for another higher class variant. This is not to say that the lessons learn from GT86 would not be transfer onto future developments.

Last there are data that suggest an auto manufacture need to make 30 million cars per year or more in order to be profitable. Thus for the S2000’s 40K over 8 years is nothing but the tip of an iceberg. Even though it’s a huge success in a technical stand point, the sales data during those times can never support a continuing business case.

[Dezoris]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

here is my take on the topic at hand.

Toyota’s business model has always been design for manufacturing. Thus their primary margin driver is accomplished by minimizing production variations plus high volumes with high repeatability. On the other hand, for Toyota to incorporate the production of GT86, it would disrupt their robust manufacturing flow. Since the production number will be low, the entire concept will not fit well into their general manufacturing plan. Even though they have small volume manufacturing capability, making GT86 on the low volume assembly line would not make a business sense. This is due to the low sticker price of this car; the relative return would be extremely low. In addition, by entering into manufacturing co-op with Subaru, Toyota has effectively lower disbursed both the financial and technical risk of development. In an overall business perspective, offering GT86 is not about making huge profit, it’s about rebranding Toyota. The aim of this car is to capture the heats of younger generations. Toyota wants the younger crowd to view Toyota as an auto manufacture to be more than a company that pumps out econo box for soccer moms and old farts.

As far as a convertible variant, it also makes sense for Toyota to allow Subaru to inherit majority of the risk revolving technical development. Since the convertible offering would only be a sub category of the total GT86 sales, and the total revenue generated from GT86 would only be a small fraction of total revenue. It makes perfect sense to allow Subaru to absorb all the cost associated with production variations of this convertible variant.

According to creditable sources, Toyota has teamed up with BMW for their next high end sports car offering based off of the BMW 6 series platform. In addition, there are no future plans to reuse this platform as a base for another higher class variant. This is not to say that the lessons learn from GT86 would not be transfer onto future developments.

Last there are data that suggest an auto manufacture need to make 30 million cars per year or more in order to be profitable. Thus for the S2000’s 40K over 8 years is nothing but the tip of an iceberg. Even though it’s a huge success in a technical stand point, the sales data during those times can never support a continuing business case.

To clarify it was about 100k of sales over 8 years of the S2000. Plenty to more than turn a profit.

I get what you are saying and it makes sense. I would venture to say you are right as well. On my part without being on the inside its all back seat opinions.

[Fizz]

Originally Posted by Dezoris

I dont understand with all the resources Toyota has why they would go through the trouble of having to co design and have another company manufacture a car that was completely their own concept and design. Toyota has always been an engine manufacturer, they have some of the most advanced composites divisions in the world. They had the largest budget in F1 history etc. Etc.

Yes Toyota probably has the money to do it alone if they really wanted to, and even develop a totally new engine with lower CG etc etc, but why do that when there is already a product out there (boxer engine) which fits what they wanted (low front end). Instead of spending millions in R&D, all they had to do was convince Subaru to join the party.

If Toyota did it all on their own, then the sticker price for the car would be nowhere near what it is now. Look at the price for the S2000 for example.