FT86 as a 2-seat sports car

[bfrank1972]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I don't think 50/50 should feel less stable necessarily. My 987.2 2.9Cayman didn't feel more twitchy at the track with 45f/55r weight distribution. And less twitchy on the highway! I still like my BRZ better tho...

Yup tons of other things obviously make a difference - just saying that it's one thing that front bias can help with vs. rear bias, and might actually be part of the design considerations. Tons of other factors outside of weight distribution (50/50 or otherwise) cumulatively can make a much bigger difference overall.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by bfrank1972

Yup tons of other things obviously make a difference - just saying that it's one thing that front bias can help with vs. rear bias, and might actually be part of the design considerations. Tons of other factors outside of weight distribution (50/50 or otherwise) cumulatively can make a much bigger difference overall.

I think they did a great (incredible, really) job of balancing all considerations, including 2+2 utility, weight, handling dynamics, price, etc. I don't think they *chose* 55/45 front-biased weight distribution, but rather to make the best compromise of a lot of competing requirements, that's where they wound up. As it is, at 55/45, it's still my favorite car on the market at the moment. I just wish they'd make a short-wheelbase 2-seat version closer to 50/50

[Irace86.2.0]

Here is my photoshop using a weak photoshop-like tool, but I elongated the hood and smoothed out some lines.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Here is my photoshop using a weak photoshop-like tool, but I elongated the hood and smoothed out some lines.

You're a lot better at this than I am, that's for sure!
For *me*, I'd rather have the shorter wheelbase than the longer hood. However, if a 500hp powerplant is going in, this ^^^ is the way to go...

[HKz]

start saving up for a f-type?

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by HKz

start saving up for a f-type?

F-type looks GREAT! Love it! If they made a ~3000 lb. rwd version I'd be very interested.

[Irace86.2.0]

I’m more a fan of the looks more than the reliability and interior. Weight and no manual at all anymore and no manual on the V8. This ties into what I was saying in the other thread about the manual transmissions going:

https://carbuzz.com/news/now-is-the-...-jaguar-f-type

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by bfrank1972

All 100% true - I think, however, the moderate front weight bias also contributes to the overall excellent and approachable handling characteristics of 86. Not optimized for ideal performance under braking or putting power down, but you can really explore the limits of these cars without a sphincter workout.

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

My Cayman felt considerably more twitchy than my S2000 (to me at least).

But that's not a straight F/R weight distribution comparison. The Cayman has a very low polar moment of inertia since the mass is centralized.

Thinking about this a bit more, and "twitchiness" vs. "responsiveness"...
For sure if you just move the rear wheels forward 10" with no other changes, the car will be more responsive and less understeery. Shorter wheelbase, lower polar moment, more turn rate for given steering angle, front tires less overloaded. I don't think that would make the car unstable, but for sure it would make it more *responsive*, which could be perceived as twitchiness. This could be mitigated with a slower steering rack to give same rate of turn per steering wheel input. The AP1 S2000 has plenty quick steering with a 13.9:1 rack, vs. FT86 13:1. If you ratio by wheelbase they should have the same turn rate per steering wheel input.

Leaving spring rates and sway bar rates the same (front-stiffness biased for 55/45) for the 50/50 2-seater would "correct" to some degree the change in under/oversteer balance at the limit from the improved weight distribution.
Could also go with some tire stagger. Keeping the same average 215 tire width they could go with AP1 stagger at 205F/225R. IMO not necessary but it's another knob to tweak if desired.

Anyway, I've never found *responsiveness* to be an issue with lightweight/low-polar-moment cars as long as the suspension geometry is good (AP1 shortcoming). The best-handling car I've ever driven was a tiny 600-lb. Formula 440 at Road Atlanta years ago. I had only a few track events in my 240Z under my belt at the time, and I found the F440 to be *sweet* to drive. Very pointable, but also very easy to recover.

Starting to think maybe I buy a 2nd-gen in a couple of years and do some cutting and welding on the '17 PP...

[Cephas]

Originally Posted by ZDan

F-type looks GREAT! Love it! If they made a ~3000 lb. rwd version I'd be very interested.

Also if it cost half as much and was made in Japan...

I love those 'chops, btw. I don't mind the 2+2, but I would adore a true 2-seater. Especially if it had a fastback and a liftgate like my dad's old Mustang... We can dream, right?

[sato]

I say it looks cute AF. Don't have much use for the rear seats other than cargo room, so I guess Z-car interior proportions would be fine by me.

[gravitylover]

In some states you'd get dinged pretty good on insurance rates for a two seater. The shorter wheelbase on a car this light would probably make the ride suck for a daily driver. I agree with the F Type sentiment, that car is so damned hot...

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Did great job on photochopped. But it won't be THAT short in the rear. iirc when I was talking with Tada-san, about what if kinda thing and he said if 86 was 2 seater, it would of been fraction shorter in front & rear.

With the understanding that this whole topic is based upon theories and wishes there was probably no way they could make the rear much shorter even if it was only a two seater. North American crash standards have a minimum crumple distance for both front and rear which can be difficult to meet. Sure they can pull it off with the right platform but there are probably very good reasons that this platform just couldn't do it without a full redesign. A full new design will just mean compromises elsewhere which would end up with a car that has totally difference characteristics than the 2+2. The changes could be good or they could be really really bad.

[LimitedSlip]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

A full new design . . .

I think we are fortunate that Toyobaru brought the 2 + 2 chassis to market.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by LimitedSlip

I think we are fortunate that Toyobaru brought the 2 + 2 chassis to market.

I for one would not have bought if a two seater. The rear seats may not be great but at least they are there when needed.