FT-86 v.s. MX-5

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

...
Heh heh...Corolla GT-S not a sports-car? The definition of 'sports car' is as objective and someones opinion on why French fries are better with ketchup instead of BBQ sauce. It goes both ways honestly....to me it is, (a main reason being the 86 chassis is different than the actual econo-box corolla's of the same era).

I picked three different cars that had less than X number of HP because it isn't the amount of HP that makes it sporty. If more sport cars were lighter they wouldn't need nearly as much HP as a muscle car to be fast.

[Chokonen888]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Why does it have a wing... -.-?

It's RWD and probably was tracked from the look of it. I seriously wanted one of these things for awhile...and then I moved to Tokyo where the cost of parking is your left nut and first born...Then I decided to wait until the FT-86 was released.

[4agze]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

Heh heh...Corolla GT-S not a sports-car? The definition of 'sports car' is as objective and someones opinion on why French fries are better with ketchup instead of BBQ sauce. It goes both ways honestly....to me it is, (a main reason being the 86 chassis is different than the actual econo-box corolla's of the same era).

thats the biggest misconception on AE86, poeple who dont know much about toyota or the AE86 was not or never consider as a sports car, it maybe sporty, RWD or light weight but its still a econo box.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by 4agze

thats the biggest misconception on AE86, poeple who dont know much about toyota or the AE86 was not or never consider as a sports car, it maybe sporty, RWD or light weight but its still a econo box.

Most cars just before the era of the 86 were rwd.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by 4agze

thats the biggest misconception on AE86, poeple who dont know much about toyota or the AE86 was not or never consider as a sports car, it maybe sporty, RWD or light weight but its still a econo box.

Technically a "sports car" is a two door, two seater, RWD car. I probably should not have included the AE86 but it was sporty enough so I figured it was good enough to make a point. I'm "meh" about whether it is a "sports car" or not. It really depends on personal opinion. For example Blur doesn't consider anything below a 180HP a sports car. That is his opinion.

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

Most cars just before the era of the 86 were rwd.

Exactly. The Celica went FWD in '84/'85. Before that time period, RWD was not special because most cars had it but as FE was being pushed more and more things changed.

[spin9k]

. .

[old greg]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Most new cars in the US have less than 180HP, Blur. -.\

Originally Posted by blur

None of them sport cars though...

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

A MX-5 isn't a sports car? Lotus Elise isn't a sports car? Corolla GT-S isn't a sportscar? Surely, you jest.

Given that you stipulated new cars, I'd say yes, anything called a Corolla is not a sportscar.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Technically a "sports car" is a two door, two seater, RWD car.

There's no international court that decides the definition of "sports car".

The most practical definition is one that the individual owner enjoys as a hobby, or sport. Another take on it is, any car designed with the intention of being fun or exciting.

[Gardus@Supersprint]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

I rented a Fiat 500 once. Fun ride (but the short wheelbase makes for a lot of jostling around on uneven surfaces) and pleasing interior. I'd try the Abarth over any FWD subcompact (Yaris, Fit, base Mini)... its specs blows past the competition. The next size up from the 500 is the Fiat Sedici (sedici = 16 in Italian = 4x4 = rebadged version of my SX4 AWD). The wheelbase is more livable on that one.

I agree, the 500 in base forum is more appealing that any other base model subcompact, but in Abarth form it struggles to keep up with a Cooper S.

[spin9k]

Originally Posted by Gardus

I agree, the 500 in base forum is more appealing that any other base model subcompact, but in Abarth form it struggles to keep up with a Cooper S.

Well, if it can't keep up with a Cooper S, that's saying a lot, and nothing good. In my experience, a Cooper S poses no competition whatsoever to (even) an RX-8.

[Snoopyalien24]

Originally Posted by Chokonen888

no....that looks like a small viper, this looks like a tiny viper

no.. that's a car, this is a tiny viper

[blur]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

A MX-5 isn't a sports car? Lotus Elise isn't a sports car? Corolla GT-S isn't a sportscar? Surely, you jest.

Elise and Miata both weigh much less than the FR-S ever intended to weigh, so the p/w ratio would have made the FR-S a sore loser in every comparison test if it was to have less than 200 hp. You can see how important the p/w ratio was in the design process, where it was a set goal for them. Obviously they set it at a place where it could be competitive with the lightweights (Miata) despite it's added weight.

In terms of new car sales, Elise has 600 lbs LESS than the FR-S, and the Miata has 200 lbs LESS than the FR-S... so it's quite obvious that they can cut back on HP without losing a good p/w ratio. Can you name any other sports car that weighs 2700 lbs or more and has less than 200 hp? Sold today of course.

[spin9k]

So ...Here's what I don't get... ok so they made the FR-S, like the MX-5, to be just at the tipping point between ok and outstanding (in + to all other things we don't know being aligned). Happy day, another fun to drive underpowered sports car. I'm sure I haven't paid enough attention, but why is there not a 2.5L NA engine anyway? I often wonder what the marketing/engineering meetings were like?

"Absolutely not, we've set the p/w goal, and when we said it wasn't a HP car, we meant it. Even if we could drop in a 2.5NA, we're not going to do it! Make do with the 2.0 NA, non turbo engine only."

"Yes, we could drop another 100lbs, but that would be $XXX increase in materials cost, and we're aiming to keep cost low, regardless of the benefits. If you're looking for uncompromising, look elsewhere."

Sometimes when you weigh the costs against the benefits it makes sense to pay a bit more and get a lot more. Then the car would create (more of) a sensation. Just saying. Mazda did something similar with the RX-8, and so... look where that got us. The MX-5 is similar but a softtop so different really. The Elise is what - gone (?) I'm not sure. History repeating itself?

[blur]

Originally Posted by spin9k

"uncompromising"

Impossible. If a 2.5l was dropped in, the RPM guys would be upset from limited rev range, if it was turbo'ed, the NA guys would complain, if it was lighter and was a two seater, average joe would complain about practicality, if it had 300 hp, the affordable camp would complain. Everything is a compromise.