Official: Toyota FT-1 Concept / First New Supra Prototype Spotted!

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

What? Adding power and keeping it with the MSM is pretty easy. Flying miata makes multiple kits. I thought the couple msm I drove were really decent.

Adding power is pretty easy, agreed. But the stock setup leaves a lot to be desired IMO.

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Adding power is pretty easy, agreed. But the stock setup leaves a lot to be desired IMO.

Stock they're peaky, but I felt it was just expanding on the normal miatas powerband. Idk, probably the miata I would want.

Wouldn't mind a sky redline either.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

If the marketing people really thought more hp would sell a lot more cars, you'd have more compromise. If they could sell the car for a lot more profit, you'd have more compromise. With the MX5, we'll see if more hp sells a lot more cars. I doubt it will in the longer term even with a very short term bump. They have to pay for any major redesign so you need either significantly more volume and/or profits (i.e., higher prices). It's easy to say compromise on what you or I might like, but doing it for the masses is far different. I would have paid a lot more for a GT version with more insulation, more comfortable and adjustable seats, and a modern, 8-10 speed DCT transmission. I doubt that most people here want that. I'll bet the Supra will have most of that, however.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by rvoll

If the marketing people really thought more hp would sell a lot more cars, you'd have more compromise. If they could sell the car for a lot more profit, you'd have more compromise. With the MX5, we'll see if more hp sells a lot more cars. I doubt it will in the longer term even with a very short term bump. They have to pay for any major redesign so you need either significantly more volume and/or profits (i.e., higher prices). It's easy to say compromise on what you or I might like, but doing it for the masses is far different. I would have paid a lot more for a GT version with more insulation, more comfortable and adjustable seats, and a modern, 8-10 speed DCT transmission. I doubt that most people here want that. I'll bet the Supra will have most of that, however.

I was really just referring to your case where you had to compromise handling for power.

[m.box.design]

Originally Posted by rvoll

If you look at sports cars that have a base model and higher levels, like Porsche and Corvette, you'll see the base model is configured as the best daily driver with very few compromises. As you move up the ladder, you get performance upgrades which makes the car faster, but not a better daily driver. The very high end cars are basically track machines. From everything I've read, the base 6 cylinder Supra will come with an automatic transmission and be the base daily driver. There may also be some high end track oriented variants as well selling for over $100k. From a marketing perspective, having a low cost, 4 cyl, stripped down version will hurt the Supra brand in terms of being able to charge a premium for a low volume car. That doesn't mean that from a manufacturing perspective there may be another sports car produced on the Supra line that has a 4 cyl and a manual transmission. In order for there to be a base model 4 cyl Supra brand, the car still has to be able to produce as good as a daily driving experience, in terms of comfort and handling, and thus the price of that car will not be significantly less than the 6 cyl version. Otherwise, advertising will be very difficult from a brand perspective because you don't have a common driving experience. That said, this is a complex decision based upon the specific products, pricing, concept/product fit, and consumer testing. Without seeing the final products and pricing, there is no way for any of us to determine how this will enter the market.

The 4 cyl version is aimed at people who can't afford to finance the 6 cyl version. Even the MK4 had a non turbo and base model SE models to accommodate a lower price bracket. The GT86 outside of the US also had a stripped down RC model intended for tracking/modifications.

If a race team or privateer decides they want to utilize the platform for motorsports and want to drop a different motor in or exchange paint with other cars, it'd be a no-brainer to start with the cheaper of the 2 options. Right?

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

FA20: 102.5 HP/liter
MX-5: 90 HP/liter

The higher this number, the more NOx gasses the engine will produce, making it tougher to pass emissions.

Some reason I was thinking about the compression ratio as opposed to the amount of NOx the engine outputs.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Wise

We don’t really know what Tada meant by “needing a different chassis”, the key word being different, if that is truly what he said. A different chassis might not be necessary to go get the groceries, but it may be needed to justify the price of a more expensive car and to hit the track with more power. Unlike the Miata that was mentioned previously, they probably would prefer to not just add parts to a platform that wasn’t designed for such things. They probably want to build a better complete car. So what needs to be changed on the 86 platform for more power?

Lots right?

-The transmission isn’t that strong so that might need to go and a bigger one might require a chassis change to widen the tunnel.
-A larger engine or FI system would add more weight to the front for a chassis that is already front heavy, so rebalancing the chassis and engine configuration would be ideal.

There are two issues. There are probably lots more issues that arise when building a car for longevity with more power.

[HKz]

Originally Posted by Rampage

I just read somewhere in the last week that only 2% of cars sold in NA have manual transmissions. Most people do not want them. You get better gas mileage and performance from the new automatics and dual clutch cars. It just does not make sense for the auto makers to continue to manufacture cars with manual from an economic stand point.

Even most modern race cars no longer have a third pedal. I was a diehard manual driver for 50 years and taught all 4 of my kids to drive a standard shift but even I have to accept that the manual is a dinosaur and will soon become extinct.

2010 - 6.7% of cars sold in US with manual
2017 - 3% of cars sold in US with manual
2018 - first half of model year only 2% of cars sold in US with manual.

Soon, in order to get manual shift you will have to buy used.

I still see plenty of folks in the US who continue to cling onto the past by riding horse & buggy, I doubt manuals will become "extinct" very limited, sure, but there are still enough enthusiasts to cry loud enough

[DaJo]

Good read.


"the car will shape itself, as we put in the equipment where it needs to go." - This quote here; this is the reason why German cars such as BMW and Mercedes are such a pain in the a** to work on. They just throw parts together to make it all work, not thinking about how it would be a nightmare to work on. Lol

[ermax]

Originally Posted by HKz

I still see plenty of folks in the US who continue to cling onto the past by riding horse & buggy, I doubt manuals will become "extinct" very limited, sure, but there are still enough enthusiasts to cry loud enough

He posted all those stats but forgot to post the stats for all the cars that were being discussed. The Twins are sold in manuals at 75%. The S2000 was only in a manual. The Civic Type-R is manual only. Focus ST/RS are manual only. The Mustang and Cameron sell more in manual than auto. All these kids clinging on to those older platform like the 240SX and RX7 is good for the future of the MT because they are learning to drive manuals (without the help of their parents) and will probably continue to drive MT as long as possible.

It isn’t about technical superiority. It’s about personal preference and typically people buying cars in this segment prefer a manual. Hence my statement above that we need to keep cars like these around for the survival of the MT. This segment as a whole probably doesn’t make a lot of sense statistically yet we still have it.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

FA20: 102.5 HP/liter
MX-5: 90 HP/liter

The higher this number, the more NOx gasses the engine will produce, making it tougher to pass emissions.

Once you get beyond basic fuel efficiency requirements, how EPA and CAFE ratings/regulations work in this country confounds me. I think partially because I have a difficult time locating the proper information online. So this question might seem naive, or dripping with ignorance.

But how is now that, from basically 2010 onward, low displacement engines no longer rev high (above 7500) with reason given as emissions. But, at the same time high performance (larger displacement) engines from Ford, Porsche, Ferrari, Lambo, etc are more prolific than ever, and are revving higher than ever.

This is something I don't understand.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Once you get beyond basic fuel efficiency requirements, how EPA and CAFE ratings/regulations work in this country confounds me. I think partially because I have a difficult time locating the proper information online. So this question might seem naive, or dripping with ignorance.



But how is now that, from basically 2010 onward, low displacement engines no longer rev high (above 7500) with reason given as emissions. But, at the same time high performance (larger displacement) engines from Ford, Porsche, Ferrari, Lambo, etc are more prolific than ever, and are revving higher than ever.



This is something I don't understand.

Lots of low production run cars get exemptions, that's one way. The other reason is that low disp engines make more power than ever, and burn much hotter, which is good for fuel efficiency but bad for NOx emissions. So even if they don't rev as high they will make the power and thus produce the pollutants. There's no free lunch basically.

[WolfpackS2k]

Hmm, I see. I would agree that low displacement engines make more power than ever, but only for FI engines. For NA 4 cylinder engines basically only the FA20 is hitting 100hp/liter (unless I'm mistaken). Also can't you eliminate a lot of the NOx emissions by forgoing direct injection altogether? I know DI by itself isn't responsible for NOx, but that DI's advantage is being able to run leaner and higher CR's - conditions that lead to higher NOx.

Exemption doesn't really explain the Ford Coyote engine. Mass produced and taps out at 7400 or 7500 rpm. Voodoo goes up to 8250, but that might fall under the low production run category?

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I was really just referring to your case where you had to compromise handling for power.

I'm not totally sure about this depending on context. If you just add 80hp without also changing suspension, tires, etc., then aren't you compromising handling for power? Don't you need something to handle the greater power? Might you need a better clutch? If you're just adding 20 hp as in the MX5, then your compromise statement may be more accurate IMO.