Why would more power ruin the car??

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

The C7 achieves that in part because it's wide. Moving weight up and down isn't the only path to a lower COG. It also costs a lot more than a BRZ. So all you've really told us is that the ND and the BRZ are remarkable vehicles.



Now we're comparing the BRZ to a $375K sports car?



Yeah, the BRZ. When the BRZ first hit the market, the C6 was still the current Corvette. I recall back when I was first considering the car reading that the new BRZ was the lowest COG production car on the market at the time, lower even than the C6 Corvette.



So? The low COG is still a factor in the handling of the car, and the use of the boxer is still a factor in the low COG. Just using facts in marketing doesn't make them false. From the examples in this thread, it looks like the only ways anybody is going lower is by going topless or going wide.

Recall what got us onto this subject in the first place:

i dont think the twins had a lower cog than the c6. or the c5 or c4 for that matter. i dont know the cog of the nc miata (and neither do you) but the na, nb and nd miata have lower cogs. i dont think the twins were ever the car with the lowest cog in production. ever. cog is a factor in handling but you cant use that to explain why the twins are superior to cars with objectively better cogs. its a marketing point. why is it that subaru has used boxers for years and all of a sudden they market the cog if theres a direct relation to boxers and cars cog?

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by yurikaze

I was part of one of the original consumer research clinics for the 86 twins, back in 2009. What the market lacked and enthusiasts wanted was an inexpensive, fun to drive car that not only was easy to modify, but that enthusiasts would want to modify.
Something in the vein of S-chassis and original AE86's.
Therefore, there was room left for improvements in the car in pretty much every area.

I am an automotive designer in the aftermarket, and the 86 twins have one of the largest aftermarkets in the world, because they are one of the most modified cars out there.
Pretty much anything you want to do with the car is addressed in the aftermarket.

One of the big reasons you don't see a factory 86 twin with a higher power output is because if they did come out with one, the price would be increased to the point where you would see two major arguments against it;
1."For this much money, you could get a _______ instead."
2."For less money, you could just get a base model and install a supercharger on it."

If you don't believe me on the second one, look at how many people were saying similar things about the BRZ tS? "For less money than the tS, I could install coil-overs and better tires, and be at tS level with cash in my pocket."

The truth of the matter is that the 86 is an old design, and at this point it wouldn't make financial sense to do a major re-engineering this late into the model-cycle, only to try to sell a more expensive version to all the people on the internet that say they would buy an 86 if it had more power, when in reality 98% of them are all talk, and would still find a reason not to buy it.
It makes much more sense to address it in a new generation of the car.

Just gonna quote this so it stays on top! Brilliant info

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i dont think the twins had a lower cog than the c6. or the c5 or c4 for that matter.

You may be right. When I looked for one of the articles claiming it was, instead I find this:

LOWEST CENTER OF GRAVITY OF ANY PRODUTION CAR?

Much has been said about the car’s center of gravity, with reports even attributing Toyota engineers as claiming the car will have the lowest CoG of any production car. That, Tata san admits, is not the case, though for a good reason. In data provided by Toyota, they admitted that both the Porsche GT3 and Ferrari 360, not to mention the Lexus LFA, have a lower weight balance. Those super sports cars had a serious advantage, however, says Tata san with a ground clearance of roughly 110 mm. The FR-S, on the other hand, stands 130 mm off the ground (almost an inch higher), putting it as a serious disadvantage. Could it be lower? Certainly, but Toyota and Scion need it to be a mass production vehicle with all the daily-use needs that that entails.

So I'm not losing my memory. Toyota was saying it. Then they corrected it.

Even so, that's still comparing a sub-$30K car to cars that cost several times as much, are wider and lower and use materials too costly for the 86. The boxer still plays a huge part in that.

By the way, even Jay Leno got it wrong:

The American version of the Toyota GT86 boasts the lowest center of gravity among all the coupes on the market today, and a result it is widely regarded as being one of the best to drive both on the road and track.

[Cal3000]

Originally Posted by yurikaze

I was part of one of the original consumer research clinics for the 86 twins, back in 2009. What the market lacked and enthusiasts wanted was an inexpensive, fun to drive car that not only was easy to modify, but that enthusiasts would want to modify.
Something in the vein of S-chassis and original AE86's.
Therefore, there was room left for improvements in the car in pretty much every area.

I am an automotive designer in the aftermarket, and the 86 twins have one of the largest aftermarkets in the world, because they are one of the most modified cars out there.
Pretty much anything you want to do with the car is addressed in the aftermarket.

One of the big reasons you don't see a factory 86 twin with a higher power output is because if they did come out with one, the price would be increased to the point where you would see two major arguments against it;
1."For this much money, you could get a _______ instead."
2."For less money, you could just get a base model and install a supercharger on it."

If you don't believe me on the second one, look at how many people were saying similar things about the BRZ tS? "For less money than the tS, I could install coil-overs and better tires, and be at tS level with cash in my pocket."

The truth of the matter is that the 86 is an old design, and at this point it wouldn't make financial sense to do a major re-engineering this late into the model-cycle, only to try to sell a more expensive version to all the people on the internet that say they would buy an 86 if it had more power, when in reality 98% of them are all talk, and would still find a reason not to buy it.
It makes much more sense to address it in a new generation of the car.

How is it that a WRX, which is larger, uses more material, has a turbo charger, intercooler, ducting, an extra diff, a transfer case, stronger rods and pistons, larger wheels, can be the same price? The frs was such a bare bones car. Certainly if they can price the wrx the way they did, they could price the frs with a standard turbo for the same price and attract an even larger crowd. WRXs are at every street corner.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Cal3000

How is it that a WRX, which is larger, uses more material, has a turbo charger, intercooler, ducting, an extra diff, a transfer case, stronger rods and pistons, larger wheels, can be the same price? The frs was such a bare bones car. Certainly if they can price the wrx the way they did, they could price the frs with a standard turbo for the same price.

Volume

Volume allows you to recuperate R&D cost with slimmer margins. It's not just about the parts and materials. Those are cheap. Engineering time is expensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Cal3000

How is it that a WRX, which is larger, uses more material, has a turbo charger, intercooler, ducting, an extra diff, a transfer case, stronger rods and pistons, larger wheels, can be the same price?

Only the base model is the same price. It rapidly increases in price as you move up the trim packages. The STI sets the top of the price range and can't really go over a certain amount without starting to be too expensive for what it is. The three trim levels below it have to be pushed down to stay under the STI and keep large enough intervals between the trim levels to justify having them and take full advantage of price discrimination.

I suspect Subaru would like to price the BRZ even lower to stay "below" the base WRX but can't do it while still keeping the platform profitable. As it stands, when someone comes in to look at a BRZ but doesn't think it would be practical, the salesman can say, "Well, for the same price you could move up into a WRX instead." And then pretty soon he'd have them in a WRX Limited, spending considerably more money than they intended but okay with it because it's all financed anyway. I know when I first went to test drive the BRZ, the salesman tried pretty hard to steer me over to a WRX instead and get me into that "upgrade" game.

In fact, I kind of wonder how many base WRXs they actually sell. I'd somehow expect that they sell a lot more of the next trim level up and just use the base model to get people interested and provide a starting point for the sales pitch.

Also, there are undoubtedly some restrictions in the contracts between Toyota and Subaru regarding what can be done with the platform. Subaru surely doesn't want Toyota offering a turbo 86 that might siphon away customers from its turbo cars. If Toyota offered a turbo 86, it would also force Subaru to offer a turbo BRZ to avoid having ALL its sales go over to the Toyota version of the car. If Toyota isn't allowed to do it, they're certainly not going to let Subaru do it either. They're kind of locked into a death clinch that only allows small incremental performance upgrades.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by yurikaze

I was part of one of the original consumer research clinics for the 86 twins, back in 2009. What the market lacked and enthusiasts wanted was an inexpensive, fun to drive car that not only was easy to modify, but that enthusiasts would want to modify.

It has been stated by Subaru officials. I'll place it again ...

"Sports cars require high performance in all aspects.
There are a number of ways of increasing performance,
with engine power output probably the most recognizable.
Tyres with a high level of grip are also essential.
These items can all be modified by customers
after they have purchased a car.
Yet designing a low centre of gravity body from scratch
can only be achieved by the car's manufacturer.
And that is what we have done."

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

It does not say Toyota supplied but predominantly Toyota parts.
Toyota at least has a parts division that actually makes them. The whole point of the matter was that the car is not 98% Subaru as people like to say.

Again off topic ...

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Again off topic ...

Part of the discussion on why they will not make it more powerful revolves around the cost of manufacturing. It was proposed that Subaru could do it in their own since they make most of the parts anyway. The fact that they don't is totally relevant to the topic as part of that context.
You just stick to your little make believe land and let the grown ups talk OK?

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Part of the discussion on why they will not make it more powerful revolves around the cost of manufacturing. It was proposed that Subaru could do it in their own since they make most of the parts anyway. The fact that they don't is totally relevant to the topic as part of that context.
You just stick to your little make believe land and let the grown ups talk OK?

The question was not why Toyota or Subaru is not doing it. It was more if power can ruin the particular car. There are at least two active topics on the next generation car and you can post there your prattles if they will do it or not, if Subaru can do it alone or not and why and so on.

If I can recall you have minimal modifications on this particular car in the range of lowering springs and a catback and even these pre-installed by the dealer and certainly not any power mods. Let some others talk who have more experience in this area and if they really ruin the character of the car.

[PetrolioBenzina]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Let some others talk who have more experience in this area and if they really ruin the character of the car.

People who complain about power are in four camps, IMO.

1. They bought the wrong car, to them "performance" means speed.
2. They legit need more power for tracking the car.
3. More power, just because, always the best reason.
4. They are unable to drive the car anywhere near it's limits, regardless of power. This is the group who complains the loudest, IMO, and ignores the the cheapest upgrade advice they get here to learn to drive the car well.

IIRC, one of the interviews with Tada reported they had a specific number in mind to match the chasis to allow 9/10's fun without most of the 9/10's risk.

I'd love 300HP and more torque, but as a for-fun car not on the track that would be a waste of money around here.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Again off topic ...

"Oh boo hoo! You guys won't talk about the topics that make me feel smart!"

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Let some others talk who have more experience in this area and if they really ruin the character of the car.

LOL, look at the one with more experience in power mods.

[humfrz]