GT86 Release party/Trim Index and more!

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Kids Heart

I like them with the Modellista kit but on the stock body, no.

Except those are not the Modellista wheels.

[DIG1992]

More RC spec

[Zaku]

oh... yes... Red GT86 will help you get all the chicks XD.... I kinda like how this picture matches with my avatar and signature theme LOL

[Jayvelliott]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

lol oh man...TRD BBK is $11,300 USD

but theres one TRD part still missing that iv been waiting to see since its leaked inception...

TRD 4 pod gauge center console is still absent.

i know this doesn't answer your question but i thought you would appreciate this video

[u2b]8BRqggIcuWQ[/u2b]

[Godzpeed]

looks like the GT trim would be the best deal. the only thing the Limited adds is a ugly spoiler and leather seats.

I hope AC is still optional on the RC. but that car is too striped out for road use. and hate the fact that toyota cheapen it out so much that they made a cheaper instrument without the digital speedo. The BRZ Type RA would be a better deal, at least it still have painted bumpers and the digital speedo.

[serialk11r]

That was nifty music at the beginning

[Levi]

Originally Posted by Hanzo

This is the creator of RX-7/9, miata, wonder why he is invited at the opening gala for the 86:

He will surely make the new MX-5 even lighter. If the MX-5 was a Coupé I'd skip the GT86, because I don't need space. The Mazda has better weight distribution but the Toyota has lower center of gravity. Hard choice. Maybe swap a Cosworth Boxer engine in the Mazda to get the best of both worlds.

[serialk11r]

Seeing that the battery is sitting in the front and quite high, perhaps you could consider moving the battery to under the rear seats? (assuming the fuel tank isn't completely occupying that space) Even lower CoG, will change weight distribution quite a bit, even if you change the battery to an AGM or Li-ion to cut overall weight.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Seeing that the battery is sitting in the front and quite high, perhaps you could consider moving the battery to under the rear seats? (assuming the fuel tank isn't completely occupying that space) Even lower CoG, will change weight distribution quite a bit, even if you change the battery to an AGM or Li-ion to cut overall weight.

+1,000,000

I was always thinking that from the get go. That battery is too high and in the wrong place.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Seeing that the battery is sitting in the front and quite high, perhaps you could consider moving the battery to under the rear seats? (assuming the fuel tank isn't completely occupying that space) Even lower CoG, will change weight distribution quite a bit, even if you change the battery to an AGM or Li-ion to cut overall weight.

It's behind the axle though. Really won't make a noticeable difference. Same place as integras have the battery and I've never noticed when they get moved, except when one broke it's new mount and flew around the cabin. For that reason I never waste the time relocating mine and won't waste the time on the brz either.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

+1,000,000

I was always thinking that from the get go. That battery is too high and in the wrong place.

No on either end of the car (ie by the headlights or back of the trunk) are the wrong places. Between the axles is the best spot. It's on the passenger side to help weight balance a bit too.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

No on either end of the car (ie by the headlights or back of the trunk) are the wrong places. Between the axles is the best spot. It's on the passenger side to help weight balance a bit too.

But the car is too frontward bias as it is. If it is 53/47 then I think moving the batteries rearward would be closer to 52/48. Even if it is behind the front axle it still rests on the front end. He was saying to put the batteries where the back seats are and not behind the rear axle. Another automaker does this.

[serialk11r]

Sure it's behind the axle, but remember the axles have some distance between them. They advertise a low polar moment of inertia, which suggests the mass is on average distributed close to the center of mass, aka between the axles.

If it's moved to an equal horizontal distance to the rear axle as it originally was from the front axle, then it won't affect the moment of inertia much, and if the moment is say, 0.5MR^2, (linearly distributing the mass along the axis perpendicular to both axles), then the weight distribution should actually change from 53 47 to like 51 49, if the battery is 50 pounds.

Now my eyeball figures and pulled out of thin air mass distribution may be wrong, but I would be surprised if it didn't at least move it to 52 48.

Sidenote: Using an AGM battery of similar capacity would allow you to do slightly creative things with the alternator, freeing up some extra power on the track. This would be even more effective if all accessories were electric drive...can anyone guess what I'm thinking?

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

But the car is too frontward bias as it is. If it is 53/47 then I think moving the batteries rearward would be closer to 52/48. Even if it is behind the front axle it still rests on the front end. He was saying to put the batteries where the back seats are and not behind the rear axle. Another automaker does this.

That is where the tank is.