follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook.
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Delicious Tuning
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB > Off-Topic Discussions > Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions

Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions Discuss all other cars and automotive news here.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-25-2021, 12:53 AM   #29
Spuds
The Dictater
 
Spuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Drives: '13 Red Scion FRS
Location: MD, USA
Posts: 8,067
Thanks: 22,777
Thanked 10,295 Times in 5,176 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
If you get a dual motor Tesla AWD long range then yes, it will be heavy, but a RWD Tesla Model 3 standard range is 3,552 lbs, and a 2018 BMW 340i is listed at 3,555 lbs. Similar size, weight and performance.

Not sure I have all the right numbers here but here goes something...

2021 Model 3 standard range: 3648lb/283hp=12.7 lb/hp
2022 GR86 manual: 2815lb/228hp=12.3 lb/hp

It's notionally slower than the 2nd gen twins?

Edit, C&D stats make it seem even heavier, but I think they might be mixing up their trim levels there?
https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-3

Not to make this a model 3 thread or anything...
Spuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 02:08 AM   #30
Irace86.2.0
K Swap Everything
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 6,576
Thanks: 4,857
Thanked 5,012 Times in 2,803 Posts
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds View Post
The Model S has many times more power output than an e-golf. That chart doesn't add up.
Power = Voltage x Current. Capacity is the amount of energy it holds. A simple example would be to compare water in a tank. The capacity of the tank is simply the size of the tank, or rather, is a measure of how much water is in the tank. The size of the hole/spout and how much the tank was tipped towards the spout would determine the flow out of the tank or the power.

I'm pretty sure you are thinking of the power of the motor and not power of the battery. In this case, the power of the battery is the rate of discharge. Put that into a motor that is capable of creating a strong enough magnetic field to create a lot of torque and you have the Tesla's powerful motor. Both the motor and battery will determine the torque to the wheels. The car analogy would be like engine displacement and the fuel pump, fuel regulator and fuel injectors. It doesn't matter how big the engine is if there is only enough fuel delivery to make a fraction of the potential of the engine. Most fuel systems are proportional to the displacement of their engines, and it is the same for the EVs with their motors and batteries.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds View Post
Not sure I have all the right numbers here but here goes something...

2021 Model 3 standard range: 3648lb/283hp=12.7 lb/hp
2022 GR86 manual: 2815lb/228hp=12.3 lb/hp

It's notionally slower than the 2nd gen twins?

Edit, C&D stats make it seem even heavier, but I think they might be mixing up their trim levels there?
https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-3

Not to make this a model 3 thread or anything...
Notionally? Did you mean notably? I think the 0-60 is 5.3 seconds, which is faster than the 6.1 seconds for the new twins, but I don't really get your point because the car is a compact sedan that competes with the BMW 3-Series and not the twins. Compare the dimensions, weight, 0-60 and 5-7 year cost of ownership to the BMW 330i, and the Model 3 Standard Range Plus is not significantly heavier or different. It definitely isn't 400 lbs different.
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 04:12 PM   #31
Irace86.2.0
K Swap Everything
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 6,576
Thanks: 4,857
Thanked 5,012 Times in 2,803 Posts
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
@Spuds

Just to add to that, the Nissan Leaf was fitted with a motor in the rear. The resulting powertrain made 300hp and 500tq presumedly with the same 62kWh battery.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/electre...tric-leaf/amp/

Looking at the Tesla Model 3 Long Range Plus or Performance model, the 75kWh battery pack and dual motors make either 346hp and 376tq or 450hp and 471tq. I donít know if the extra hp/tq comes from software or hardware changes. The battery is 20% larger on the Tesla, so I donít know what the Nissan would have for power and torque with the larger battery. I donít know how the motors compare in efficiency. Either way, take it for what it is, but they achieved more torque with a smaller battery on a test vehicle.

It gets more confusing when we consider whether the quoted battery capacity is gross vs net, and it gets confusing when so much can be controlled with software. EV West sells a 500hp/800tq crate engine, but that requires a certain battery to achieve those numbers. Anything providing too much current could fry the motor too, so these things have to be sized right and have controllers. When range, recharge/discharge rate and battery longevity is all considered, what the powertrain could do and what it can do and what the manufacture allows it to do are often different things.

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/17505/...-battery-folks

__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 08:18 PM   #32
Spuds
The Dictater
 
Spuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Drives: '13 Red Scion FRS
Location: MD, USA
Posts: 8,067
Thanks: 22,777
Thanked 10,295 Times in 5,176 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
Power = Voltage x Current. Capacity is the amount of energy it holds. A simple example would be to compare water in a tank. The capacity of the tank is simply the size of the tank, or rather, is a measure of how much water is in the tank. The size of the hole/spout and how much the tank was tipped towards the spout would determine the flow out of the tank or the power.

I'm pretty sure you are thinking of the power of the motor and not power of the battery. In this case, the power of the battery is the rate of discharge. Put that into a motor that is capable of creating a strong enough magnetic field to create a lot of torque and you have the Tesla's powerful motor. Both the motor and battery will determine the torque to the wheels. The car analogy would be like engine displacement and the fuel pump, fuel regulator and fuel injectors. It doesn't matter how big the engine is if there is only enough fuel delivery to make a fraction of the potential of the engine. Most fuel systems are proportional to the displacement of their engines, and it is the same for the EVs with their motors and batteries.




Notionally? Did you mean notably? I think the 0-60 is 5.3 seconds, which is faster than the 6.1 seconds for the new twins, but I don't really get your point because the car is a compact sedan that competes with the BMW 3-Series and not the twins. Compare the dimensions, weight, 0-60 and 5-7 year cost of ownership to the BMW 330i, and the Model 3 Standard Range Plus is not significantly heavier or different. It definitely isn't 400 lbs different.
I think the problem is that your chart was confusing with it's lack of labels describing what seems to be car output, rather than maximum rated output from the battery to which you seem to be referring. I did find your lecture on basic engineering quite amusing though. Haven't heard that one since freshman year.

---

Notional:
1 : theoretical, speculative.
2 : existing in the mind only : imaginary.
3 : given to foolish or fanciful moods or ideas.

I thought the conversation was steering in the direction of lightweight sports cars, for which it seems you offered the model 3 as a reasonable alternative. I wouldn't call any of those cars sports cars or light. I do admit I got the numbers wrong. Hence the "notionally".
Spuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 08:37 PM   #33
Spuds
The Dictater
 
Spuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Drives: '13 Red Scion FRS
Location: MD, USA
Posts: 8,067
Thanks: 22,777
Thanked 10,295 Times in 5,176 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
@Spuds

Just to add to that, the Nissan Leaf was fitted with a motor in the rear. The resulting powertrain made 300hp and 500tq presumedly with the same 62kWh battery.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/electre...tric-leaf/amp/

Looking at the Tesla Model 3 Long Range Plus or Performance model, the 75kWh battery pack and dual motors make either 346hp and 376tq or 450hp and 471tq. I donít know if the extra hp/tq comes from software or hardware changes. The battery is 20% larger on the Tesla, so I donít know what the Nissan would have for power and torque with the larger battery. I donít know how the motors compare in efficiency. Either way, take it for what it is, but they achieved more torque with a smaller battery on a test vehicle.

It gets more confusing when we consider whether the quoted battery capacity is gross vs net, and it gets confusing when so much can be controlled with software. EV West sells a 500hp/800tq crate engine, but that requires a certain battery to achieve those numbers. Anything providing too much current could fry the motor too, so these things have to be sized right and have controllers. When range, recharge/discharge rate and battery longevity is all considered, what the powertrain could do and what it can do and what the manufacture allows it to do are often different things.

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/17505/...-battery-folks

Seems more like a mule than a Leaf to me.
Spuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 10:14 PM   #34
Irace86.2.0
K Swap Everything
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 6,576
Thanks: 4,857
Thanked 5,012 Times in 2,803 Posts
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds View Post
I think the problem is that your chart was confusing with it's lack of labels describing what seems to be car output, rather than maximum rated output from the battery to which you seem to be referring. I did find your lecture on basic engineering quite amusing though. Haven't heard that one since freshman year.

---

Notional:
1 : theoretical, speculative.
2 : existing in the mind only : imaginary.
3 : given to foolish or fanciful moods or ideas.

I thought the conversation was steering in the direction of lightweight sports cars, for which it seems you offered the model 3 as a reasonable alternative. I wouldn't call any of those cars sports cars or light. I do admit I got the numbers wrong. Hence the "notionally".
Well, the chart was a flow chart showing manufacturers, battery type, capacity, which is another battery thing, and so on, so I guess I figured it was more obvious than I suppose it was.

Gotcha. I honestly have never heard or have read the word notionally that I can recall. Learn something new every day.

I was responding to this comment:

Quote:
It almost seems like an EV equipped car is roughly 400 lbs more than its ICE counterpart.
I was providing an example of the best apples to apples comparison I could come up with to refute that statement. We donít really have a lot of cars to compare. We have a pretty old Tesla Roadster. What other electric sports car has there been that wasnít some Rimac-Evija-style hypercar?
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Irace86.2.0 For This Useful Post:
Spuds (09-25-2021)
Old 09-25-2021, 11:26 PM   #35
Spuds
The Dictater
 
Spuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Drives: '13 Red Scion FRS
Location: MD, USA
Posts: 8,067
Thanks: 22,777
Thanked 10,295 Times in 5,176 Posts
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
Well, the chart was a flow chart showing manufacturers, battery type, capacity, which is another battery thing, and so on, so I guess I figured it was more obvious than I suppose it was.
The chart actually started with the car model, not the manufacturer. So I assumed it was talking about the cars, which happen to have battery packs as part of the system, and not battery packs themselves. I didn't think manufacturers would publish maximum safe power output of the battery pack.
Spuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2021, 12:02 AM   #36
Irace86.2.0
K Swap Everything
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 6,576
Thanks: 4,857
Thanked 5,012 Times in 2,803 Posts
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds View Post
Seems more like a mule than a Leaf to me.
Seems like what they say it is: same battery, 2nd motor and inverter and an AWD computer to control the system.

Quote:
The test car uses the same 62-kwh air-cooled battery as the Leaf Plus.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news...e-and-traction
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2021, 12:24 AM   #37
Irace86.2.0
K Swap Everything
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 6,576
Thanks: 4,857
Thanked 5,012 Times in 2,803 Posts
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds View Post
The chart actually started with the car model, not the manufacturer. So I assumed it was talking about the cars, which happen to have battery packs as part of the system, and not battery packs themselves. I didn't think manufacturers would publish maximum safe power output of the battery pack.
I made a point to say manufacturers instead of make and model because I believe they were highlighting different manufacturers for a reason, even though they could have made a list with multiple models from one manufacturer. For instance, Tesla varies the battery chemistry of its models depending on the model and the country.

I didnít find it surprising. Iíve seen stuff like this though:

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/...rthamerica.pdf
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2021, 12:37 AM   #38
Captain Snooze
Because compromise ģ
 
Captain Snooze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Red Herring
Location: australia
Posts: 7,276
Thanks: 3,683
Thanked 8,337 Times in 3,778 Posts
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LimitedSlip View Post
Ah, but let us not forget: The early bird gets the worm
I've never understood this proverb: the early worm gets eaten.
__________________
My car is completely stock except for all the mods.

Captain Snooze is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Captain Snooze For This Useful Post:
Irace86.2.0 (09-26-2021), NoHaveMSG (09-27-2021)
Old 09-26-2021, 10:15 AM   #39
serialk11r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Drives: '06 AM V8V Coupe
Location: United States of America
Posts: 5,279
Thanks: 285
Thanked 1,074 Times in 759 Posts
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k View Post
lightweight (by today's standards)

Gaining at least 600 lb and higher trim models will be AWD.
https://rennlist.com/forums/718-gts-...l#post16683176

The lightest 718 configurable from the factory is 3200lbs lol (that guy has PCCBs and bucket seats, -80lbs between the two). Pretty sure most 718s on the road are closer to 3300, so it's not a big difference to get to 3600.

The lightest water cooled Porsche ever was I think the 987 Boxster Spyder at 2850ish actual (2700 claimed).

EDIT: I'm wrong, the Boxster Spyder M/T is apparently 100lbs less, and the normal Cayman is a little over 3100lbs.

Last edited by serialk11r; 09-27-2021 at 01:12 AM.
serialk11r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2021, 11:19 AM   #40
nikitopo
Senior Member
 
nikitopo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Drives: '15 BRZ RA
Location: Greece
Posts: 3,769
Thanks: 2,382
Thanked 1,920 Times in 1,252 Posts
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r View Post
https://rennlist.com/forums/718-gts-...l#post16683176

The lightest 718 configurable from the factory is 3200lbs lol (that guy has PCCBs and bucket seats, -80lbs between the two). Pretty sure most 718s on the road are closer to 3300, so it's not a big difference to get to 3600.

The lightest water cooled Porsche ever was I think the 987 Boxster Spyder at 2850ish actual (2700 claimed).
It says 718 GT4. I would say it is the other way around, meaning it is the heavier 718 model (6-cyl vs. 4-cyl).
nikitopo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2021, 12:38 PM   #41
cjd
Senior Member
 
cjd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Drives: 2017 BRZ
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,118
Thanks: 1,147
Thanked 2,697 Times in 1,597 Posts
Mentioned: 55 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
I think the 0-60 is 5.3 seconds, which is faster than the 6.1 seconds for the new twins, but I don't really get your point because the car is a compact sedan that competes with the BMW 3-Series and not the twins. Compare the dimensions, weight, 0-60 and 5-7 year cost of ownership to the BMW 330i, and the Model 3 Standard Range Plus is not significantly heavier or different. It definitely isn't 400 lbs different.

This illustrates the difficulties comparing; the torque output and lack of shifting in a BEV (even if it could be increased with a higher output battery...) just makes them FEEL so different, even with the added weight. Heck, our Volt just moves in a way the BRZ does not. Peak number comparisons just don't tell the story.

I'm not sold on pouch design batters being an overall net weight gain. They're still heavy, but not at all structural; Additionally, they may require a heavier and more costly approach to heat management. The way Tesla is going structural with their batteries I wouldn't be surprised if they end up being lighter. Of course, if you just put them in a box in the trunk (so to speak) then that changes things... but now the design is just trying to be cheap by not requiring as many design/approach/production line changes.
As for developing nations - that's a very slippery slope. IF they have infrastructure for petrol, it might be cheaper to stay that way... but solar is so very portable and can go places with no infra of any kind (even mars!) and has lower maintenance costs... so I'd argue BEV is a better option.
We often wish we'd just gone straight electric rather than the Volt. There are a few road-trips we typically take in the winter where it's good to have (I don't change the brakes on the BRZ so it's emergency-only in the winter... but also wife doesn't know how to drive it). It'd probably turn into an overnight, or plan to add a 15-20min pause to a 3hr drive out (drive back is at night). Right now it's annoying because the car is insisting on emptying the gas tank. 99% of the rest of its driving is straight electric.
__________________
Second chance build... or whatever it is.
cjd is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cjd For This Useful Post:
Irace86.2.0 (09-26-2021)
Old 09-26-2021, 12:38 PM   #42
EAGLE5
Dismember
 
EAGLE5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Drives: 2013 Red Scion FR-S
Location: Castro Valley
Posts: 5,494
Thanks: 2,129
Thanked 3,965 Times in 2,137 Posts
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Garage
I love lightweight sports cars. Hence, owning an FRS. However, in day to day driving, a BEV is superior in almost every way. Weekend driving? The only thing ICE has over BEV is engine sound, and if you want to, you can simulate it. I don't buy cars for the engine sound. Hence, owning an FRS.

For BEV:
More efficient
Faster acceleration
Lower fuel costs
Lower COG
Better packaging/interior space
Never have to go to a gas station - refuels overnight in the garage
Vastly better for the environment
Lower maintenance costs

For ICE:
Faster refueling.
A real engine sound? Only matters in a Ferrari or McLaren, I'd say.
Good for apartment dwellers in a time of poor charging infrastructure
Good for people who regularly drive 400+ miles a day and don't take lunch or pee breaks.
Still good for track driving when the infrastructure is such ass.

Plugin Hybrids:
A stopgap measure when you don't have enough batteries.

I've owned 4 BEVs (currently 2) and 8 ICEs. If I ever buy another ICE, it will be some especially interesting ICE vehicle. GT3, McLaren, Ferrari, and similar. The only one I'd ponder new right now is a GR Yaris, and we can't get them. 20+ years from now when we can, there will be little EV runabouts that will be more fun and perform better.

As for fun, the Fiat 500e is easily as fun as the FRS.
EAGLE5 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to EAGLE5 For This Useful Post:
cjd (09-26-2021), Irace86.2.0 (09-26-2021)
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Porsche Cayman S misooscar Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions 46 09-12-2014 05:15 AM
Car and Driver: Porsche Cayman S vs. Scion FRS wrxgoose FR-S / BRZ vs.... 30 09-25-2012 03:50 PM
FRS/brz VS Porsche Cayman jurjurson FR-S / BRZ vs.... 22 08-15-2012 04:14 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.