FT-86 / FR-S size dimensions compared to Genesis, Civic, Sction tC, etc

[AaronCompNetSys]

Can you do one animated like mine? Or send me your PSD/XCF and I'll make one.

[Aki]

Never did animations in photoshop till now, here it is

[Dimman]

A couple problems with this, Aki. The wheels don't line up (wheelbase is the same), and the Mk I's wheels were 225/40R19 (dia. 26.09"), so in the rears the diameter would be an inch bigger, more in the front. Mk II is 215/40R18 (dia. 24.77") front and 225/40R18 (dia. 25.09") rear.

[Aki]

Originally Posted by Dimman

A couple problems with this, Aki. The wheels don't line up (wheelbase is the same), and the Mk I's wheels were 225/40R19 (dia. 26.09"), so in the rears the diameter would be an inch bigger, more in the front. Mk II is 215/40R18 (dia. 24.77") front and 225/40R18 (dia. 25.09") rear.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the wheelbase is to scale. I resize these images using the overall length as reference, not wheel size. The reason I use overall length is that it's a bigger number, so percentages of bigger numbers don't round up or down so much.

If I were to resize and make the wheelbase equal lengths, the MKII's 18" wheels end up becoming the same size as the MK I's 19" wheels. That's clearly not the correct scale, which means I can't use the wheelbase to resize these images to scale. This could mean a couple things:

1) The MKII is on a shorter wheelbase.
2) Something's wrong with either the MKI image or the MKII image, which is throwing something out of proportion.
3) Photoshop somehow fails at scaling.

In addition, the 18" wheels on the MKII look to scale with the 19" to the MK I as it stands, so I think the scaling is pretty close.

[Dimman]

Doesn't look like it's lined up right or something, just looks 'off'. On pages 16 and 17 of this thread is our discussion of how to sort out the GT-R/FT86 comparison.

[Jordo!]

All I know is, after seeing the two superimposed like that, I definitely like the vers 2 better. Much sleeker, more "muscular", better lines overall.

Although the first version was beautiful, this new one is definitely an improvement IMO.

[Ashybone]

WWWOOOOOOOOOOO got through all 20 pages of this thread. lol. No one ever did post a comparison with the a DSM though. My work computer sucks so i can't see the tC or the IS either. But seeing how a tC is about the size of a DSM and reading everyones reaction to the way the tC was matched up against th 86 I'm guessing it will be huge compared to it. So what I got from this thread is the 86 is going to be about the size of a s2k/370z?

[Kage]

this thread made me like the car that much more. Especially the comparison to the celica(my current ride). Basically what I've wanted this whole time was for my celica to be rwd and that's basically what I'm getting with this car....That and a much sexier shape

[Jordo!]

Can someone do a new one of the FT86 II with a 370Z?

[Franisco]

I realize its not the same, but until someone gets to it

'FT86 II'
Wheelbase: 101.2 in.
Length: 166.7 in.
Width: 70.7 in
Height: 50 in.

Nissan 370z
Wheelbase: 100.4 in.
Length: 167.1
Width: 72.8 in.
Height: 51.6 in.

[Aki]

Since both images are handy on me:


Hood profile is much higher, as is the top of the A-pillar for the 370z. Better visibility for the FT86ii it seems, and the sloping rear is surprisingly similar.

[Jordo!]

^^^^ Thanks guys!

Yeah, this is shaping up to be a slightly snazzier looking 370Z with about 500 lbs less weight.

I like it!

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

^^^^ Thanks guys!

Yeah, this is shaping up to be a slightly snazzier looking 370Z with about 500 lbs less weight.

I like it!

And 100 less horsepower. And a COMPLETELY different driving experience. And rear seats.

Basically, it's going to be a slightly lighter, slightly less powerful RX-8, minus the rotary engine and half-doors.

I'd expect the performance figures of the car to match up quite nicely with the RX-8. The car has less horsepower, but more torque (if the 200hp boxer-4 engine is indeed accurate), so it will have a bit less top end but be easier to launch, resulting in very similar 0-60 times.

An intake/exhaust treatment and maybe a tune and you're looking at a low-14s car in the 1/4 mile. So it's not going to be SLOW. It's just not going to be jaw-droppingly fast like one of the new 5.0 mustangs. It's also not going to have a chance in hell of beating one around a track (MAYBE a very tight autocross track, but even then, the new stangs handle...)....though it will probably be more fun to flick around in real world conditions.

Definitely still interested in this car....though the price is going to be a big issue for me. If this thing costs any more than my current car (a GTI), I'm not interested. With all the options I got, I paid 25k out the door. I better be able to get this car for that or no deal. If they offer a turbo model I'd consider breaking 27k....But frankly, if I can go get an AWD WRX with the turbo boxer for 25k, I think I should be able to do the same with this car. 265hp would make this much more palatable to me. Not because of the power, but because of how much easier it is to make MORE power from a turbo mill. My 2010 GTI has just over $1000 invested in mods and is putting down 253 to the wheels....compared with a stock 200 at the crank. Turbos are just nice like that.

Hope it's not a Scion....they put really horrible sounding audio systems in their cars.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Maxim

And 100 less horsepower. And a COMPLETELY different driving experience. And rear seats.

Basically, it's going to be a slightly lighter, slightly less powerful RX-8, minus the rotary engine and half-doors.

I'd expect the performance figures of the car to match up quite nicely with the RX-8. The car has less horsepower, but more torque (if the 200hp boxer-4 engine is indeed accurate), so it will have a bit less top end but be easier to launch, resulting in very similar 0-60 times.

An intake/exhaust treatment and maybe a tune and you're looking at a low-14s car in the 1/4 mile. So it's not going to be SLOW. It's just not going to be jaw-droppingly fast like one of the new 5.0 mustangs. It's also not going to have a chance in hell of beating one around a track (MAYBE a very tight autocross track, but even then, the new stangs handle...)....though it will probably be more fun to flick around in real world conditions.

Definitely still interested in this car....though the price is going to be a big issue for me. If this thing costs any more than my current car (a GTI), I'm not interested. With all the options I got, I paid 25k out the door. I better be able to get this car for that or no deal. If they offer a turbo model I'd consider breaking 27k....But frankly, if I can go get an AWD WRX with the turbo boxer for 25k, I think I should be able to do the same with this car. 265hp would make this much more palatable to me. Not because of the power, but because of how much easier it is to make MORE power from a turbo mill. My 2010 GTI has just over $1000 invested in mods and is putting down 253 to the wheels....compared with a stock 200 at the crank. Turbos are just nice like that.

Hope it's not a Scion....they put really horrible sounding audio systems in their cars.

Sorry where you got that idea? I don't remember Subie making engine that is setup for RWD layout.

Yes, I do agree and hope for that... but still it's a speculation.