Next Gen BRZ thoughts

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Then why did they not make a 2800 lb Supra if it is so easy?

Because it's primarily a BMW convertible with a fixed roof?

[Opie]

Originally Posted by soundman98

what reason do you have to suspect they'll be going to 5x114.3? i haven't seen anything about that yet

More durable knuckle & bearing, same reason the STI changed to this in 2005 and almost every other Subaru & Toyota models are now using it. Just seems logical and economical to use a common parts stream.

[Opie]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is hard to look at the Subaru platform and see how a RWD car could work, not because of the rear end, but because of the front end. As you can see, the engine bay is designed for Subaru's Symmetrical AWD platform, with the transaxles inline with the front wheels and strut towers, which are butted up agains the firewall. Compare that to the 86, which has the engine inline with the strut towers, and the firewall moved back, it would seem like the platform just wouldn't work.

The fact is that Subaru and Toyota made Subaru's platform work for the 86 when all Subaru was producing was FWD and AWD cars. In fact, if we compare the engine bays of a 2013 WRX to a 2013 86, it would also seem that the architecture wouldn't be compatible.

But that is the great thing about the Subaru Global Platform, the architecture can be modified to fit whatever the designers and engineers are building. It can be shortened, widened, lengthened, etc. this is why the same platform on the Ascent is now used on the Crosstrek, Impreza and Forester. So shortening the overall length, moving the firewall and changing the front geometry is not a drastic thing to do…just as it wasn’t on the first gen. And the first gen chassis was praised for its strength and handling characteristics.

Another thing to consider is whatever chassis, drivetrain, etc. that is coming on the 2nd gen has already been designed and engineered. If it wasn’t the car wouldn’t already have a Summer 2021 planned release date.

That and the TNGA doesn't look like it was ever planned to accomadate RWD

[gtengr]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I did.

Then why did you ask me why they didn't make a 2800 lb Supra if it's so easy? I already said even the BRZ wouldn't be able to weigh 2800 lbs if they increased hp. Are you just dense or?

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Meaningless comparisons to other vehicles are meaningless.

Why am I not surprised that you'd suggest examples that prove the point are meaningless.

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

Which route we going? Affordable or expensive?


Expensive: Not much really, just use lighter higher cost materials to keep weight down where it can be. Overall cost to the end consumer would probably price it out of any competitive range though.



Affordable: Everything gets bigger. If we were to say a baseline 270hp, a ~26% bump in overall power over the previous generation, then yes you can expect some girth. Bigger brakes all around, half-shafts, driveshaft, beefed up transmission, beefed up suspension, beefed up rear differential, and then further reinforcements to the chassis to handle the increased total weight and power. Then finally you have either
A) The bigger engine
B) A longblock that weighs nearly the same as the outgoing engine, but has the weight additions of then entirety of the new turbo system.



It's a lot of little somethings that adds hundreds of pounds to the final curb weight.


On their first try (the current gen) they could barely muster a hair under 2800lbs on a car utilizing 200hp. Honestly, I was kinda surprised by that number when it was first released before realizing that with modern NHTSA standards, there's a lot of added crap enthusiast drivers don't want or need that the manufacturers simply can't get around, especially at its initial ~$25k MSRP offering point, where using the more expensive lighter materials is simply not an option.


This is sort of a moot point though, as the rumors of the next gen car using a different chassis platform haven't been confirmed or denied. If they end up using a completely different platform, instead of modifying the current one, then we're basically back at scratch figuring out what the final weight would be.

Yeah I more or less agree with all that. Again though, we're looking at a couple of hundred pounds. Not 500-600 lbs. I never said it could be done without gaining weight or without beefing up supporting parts.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Opie

More durable knuckle & bearing, same reason the STI changed to this in 2005 and almost every other Subaru & Toyota models are now using it. Just seems logical and economical to use a common parts stream.

This would be nice. I have gone through 2 right front hubs and 1 left front. I need to order two more so I have a spare.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gtengr

Then why did you ask me why they didn't make a 2800 lb Supra if it's so easy? I already said even the BRZ wouldn't be able to weigh 2800 lbs if they increased hp. Are you just dense or?



Why am I not surprised that you'd suggest examples that prove the point are meaningless.



Yeah I more or less agree with all that. Again though, we're looking at a couple of hundred pounds. Not 500-600 lbs. I never said it could be done without gaining weight or without beefing up supporting parts.

Your examples are econobox platforms with some upgrades thrown at them and therefore meaningless when compared to a complete ground up design.


Insulting me does not in anyway make your argument stronger.


I will rephrase the question. What causes the Supra to weigh so much more than an 86 when dimensionally it is very close?

[Tcoat]

@Opie I can't quote you.


I am not sure how even the auto "journalists" can not grasp the difference between a platform and a chassis. As you point out (and I have about 200 times) they are not the same thing.
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=253

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Opie

But that is the great thing about the Subaru Global Platform, the architecture can be modified to fit whatever the designers and engineers are building. It can be shortened, widened, lengthened, etc. this is why the same platform on the Ascent is now used on the Crosstrek, Impreza and Forester. So shortening the overall length, moving the firewall and changing the front geometry is not a drastic thing to do…just as it wasn’t on the first gen. And the first gen chassis was praised for its strength and handling characteristics.

Another thing to consider is whatever chassis, drivetrain, etc. that is coming on the 2nd gen has already been designed and engineered. If it wasn’t the car wouldn’t already have a Summer 2021 planned release date.

That and the TNGA doesn't look like it was ever planned to accomadate RWD.

All I’m saying is the old platform might have been more accommodating. All those vehicles have near identical powertrains.

TNGA is also used on FR Lexus vehicles, so we know what it can accommodate.

[Ernest72]

They make no money on these cars. My 2016 was 1 of about 4600 sold I think. These are just to promote the brand and hopefully get someone excited to buy other subies/yotas. Why spend a ton more engineering and development costs to make no money. It’s not like a turbo will sell double of these things. They are completely impractical, which is by design as it is a sports car. The market is pretty good now, when it slows demand for these thing will drop. Used prices could be good for those sitting with some cash.

[Broseph]

Originally Posted by Ernest72

It’s not like a turbo will sell double of these things.

Disagree. Lack of power has been the #1 complaint of the twins since release.
Hear it over and over again. It’s exactly the reason I and others I know don’t own one.
Add a turbo and I’ll add it to my garage, which has been a LONG list of turbocharged AWD and RWD cars.
They’d sell a shit-ton if they do it right.

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by Broseph

Disagree. Lack of power has been the #1 complaint of the twins since release.
Hear it over and over again. It’s exactly the reason I and others I know don’t own one.
Add a turbo and I’ll add it to my garage, which has been a LONG list of turbocharged AWD and RWD cars.
They’d sell a shit-ton if they do it right.

I'm open to the concept of a turbocharged twin. But I'd rather they stick with the 2.0L if they do it. I think 250hp would be just right for the twins. Hell, even 225 so long as it's open to being ringed out. I just don't want what I've heard about the WRX motor falling on it's face after 6k rpm.

[Tcoat]

When will it be understood that they have no desire to sell a "shit ton" of these cars? It was designed and built to what a large group of people asked for. If it isn't what some want or need then too bad just move on to something else since they don't give a crap what you want. There are plenty of high HP coupes to chose from so why obsess on changing this one when there are many many satisfied owners?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by weederr33

I'm open to the concept of a turbocharged twin. But I'd rather they stick with the 2.0L if they do it. I think 250hp would be just right for the twins. Hell, even 225 so long as it's open to being ringed out. I just don't want what I've heard about the WRX motor falling on it's face after 6k rpm.

A 225 WHP car would probably be a great mid point for the two warring groups. It would shave something around a second off the 0 to 60 which would place it well into the mid tier "fast" cars instead of the bottom where it is now. On the other hand it would keep it still manageable for the average Joe that just wants a nice sporty coupe and isn't worried about beating every other car on the road from a stoplight.
Both my Toyota and Subaru dealers have said they lose a pile of sales because Joe or Jane takes it out on a test drive, kicks the rear out by accident and doesn't buy because it is "to powerful". Then you have the internet where every critic is obviously a professional race car driver that has nothing but open roads that they drive every day that complain it needs more power. These guys are just going to mod for even more power no matter what it comes with stock because that is just the way their heads work.
Anybody that is driving these cars on public roads at more than about 6/10s of its abilities is just an asshat anyway.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Broseph

Disagree. Lack of power has been the #1 complaint of the twins since release.
Hear it over and over again. It’s exactly the reason I and others I know don’t own one.
Add a turbo and I’ll add it to my garage, which has been a LONG list of turbocharged AWD and RWD cars.
They’d sell a shit-ton if they do it right.

#1 Complaint by enthusiasts and magazine writers/youtubers.

The vast majority of twins I see on the road are bone stock. Right down to the crappy Primacy's. Have you ever considered a very large group of people buy this car because it is a good commuter?