Do people *really* want drivers' cars?

[Mr Gear]

This picture: http://www.tune86.com/sites/default/files/pictures...

Shows it redlines at 7,500 rpm. Don't know how much to read into this (is this a production dash?), but it should help with estimates about power & torque.

[kambites]

300bhp/ton said:

Not many engines do that though. In fact do any??

Probably not, but for me that's the holy grail - a properly linear engine. Some get pretty close, with the torque curve remaining pretty much flat up to peak power.

[300bhp/ton]

Mr Gear said:

300bhp/ton said:

Erm, well the laws of physics sort of dictate that a 2.0 litre n/a motor will not be producing huge amounts of torque. And the only way to get bhp is:

HP = rpms x torque / 5252


So low torque means high rpms will be a must for power. So there is no chance in hell of it having "serious low-end kick". And seeing as Evo and others have driven a prototype version, there are likely a lot that do know.

Since we are seeing the death of high-rev engines due to emissions at present, it's not an unreasonable estimate to make. You can't make 200bhp by just pushing it higher and higher up the rev range any more. We are unlikely to ever see something like an S2000 ever again.

You can't defy physics though.


Engines are quite simple really in base terms.

Bigger bang means more torque, to get bigger bang requires more air. Make bigger bang at higher rpm and make more HP.


There are several ways to achieve this. Artificially increasing an engines displacement, or it's 'effective/dynamic displacement' by means of forced induction, i.e. at 1 bar of boost on a 2.0 litre engine you effectively forced 4 litres worth into it.

Hence why turbo motors make high torque levels, they are acting as though they are a much larger engine.

Higher revs is the next alternative, the faster the engine spins the more air you can put through it. If you can maintain the torque level at high speed then you'll make high power. This is exactly how bike engines, the S2k engine and F1 engines make high power compared to their displacement.

You might not see another S2k exactly, but that doesn't mean high reving engines are a thing of the past. Certainly not for markets like American and Japan where they have different testing to Europe.

[300bhp/ton]

Rawwr said:

300bhp/ton said:

£10,000 more than a Clio for essentially the same sort of car and performance.

Essentially the same sort of car my balls. It's nothing of the sort.

Bear with on this.. but how are they hugely different?


-Weight = about the same
-seating ability = about the same
-boot = about the same
-performance = about the same
-power = about the same
-driver focus = about the same


As far as I can see, there are only 3 main differences:

1. RWD over FWD
2. A more swoopy hatch making it a coupe rather than a hatchback
3. The FT-86 costing over 1/3rd more

[Fittster]

300bhp/ton said:

Rawwr said:

300bhp/ton said:

£10,000 more than a Clio for essentially the same sort of car and performance.

Essentially the same sort of car my balls. It's nothing of the sort.

Bear with on this.. but how are they hugely different?


-Weight = about the same
-seating ability = about the same
-boot = about the same
-performance = about the same
-power = about the same
-driver focus = about the same


As far as I can see, there are only 3 main differences:

1. RWD over FWD
2. A more swoopy hatch making it a coupe rather than a hatchback
3. The FT-86 costing over 1/3rd more

Build quality.

[captainsmelly]

Have we ruled out the possibility of an aftermarket parts catalogue being presented alongside the car?

Parts by Prodrive or TRD etc, authorised by toyota/subaru so keeping the warranty intact. Sell the car, sell some shiny spinny blowy sucky bits, a load of labour to fit them and let customers spec the car they really want? But keeping the base car within saleable tolerances of emissions, fuel use and initial outlay.

A bit like the mg rover coupe thing from a few years back, who's name I forget. Although I don't think they actually sold any..

Although for me, a peaky n/a motor in a suitably responsive rwd chassis is my very definition of a drivers car. Discreet looks, boxer burble, I really like this car.

[300bhp/ton]

Codswallop said:

I was thinking more about the s14a 200sx regarding price. It was slower and heavier than the s13, and many felt it had lost it's edge and become rather dull to drive compared to the earlier car.

The s14 certainly seemed to be more GT orientated, but I can't say the s13 was a precision instrument in the handling stakes either. It rode and drove very much like a 'normal' car. Well mine certainly did.

Also wasn't the s14 slightly quicker to 60mph and had a higher top speed? Certainly would call it slower. But the s14 does make a good test case IMO.

When launched 200hp was still pretty much unheard of in a hot hatch, so it still maintained that performance edge over most/all hot hatches.

However towards the end of the s14 production things had changed, and a lot more hatches could be had with comparable power and performance. Thus the s14 met it's demise in the wold market and specifically the European market.

Once more practical hatches could be had with the same performance but for less money, people stopped buying the 200SX.

What fortune does this perhaps tell for the FT-86?


If you look at the 4wd rally wanta-be's, they seem to tell the exact same story too. The Turbo 2000 offer huge performance over any hot hatch initially and was a success because it didn't cost much more to buy.

Now hatches can offer the same performance as an Impreza but for less money, the Impreza has declined to the level that it's amazing that it is even sold in the UK.


IMO the FT 86 needs to offer great value to be a success. Either by offering the current performance level at a very affordable price, so the people who can't afford or consider a Cayman will have something to buy instead. Or by upping the anti and offering performance way above what similar priced hot hatches can muster.

Codswallop said:

We can't judge practicality as yet with what little info we have, but I do not consider the RX8 as a practical car (what with having to check oil levels every second fuel fill, which required the removal of the engine cover for top ups).

[Baryonyx]

Quite frankly I am looking forward to trying both the Subaru and Toyota efforts one day. I've been saying for ages that manufacturers need to get back to thinking small and light. The power wars have reached a peak. If the market enjoys the new car and still wants more, Toyota or Subaru can always do wild turbo version like they did with the MR2 Turbo. But a new car, with a focus on fun and a NA engine is something worth getting excited about.

[Twincam16]

There is something I don't 'get' about the response to just about any given car on this site - pretty much everything is described as 'slow' and 'not powerful enough.'

Thing is, how many people, even with one of the few cars PH would consider 'fast' (I guess we're in 911 Turbo/Ariel Atom/Ferrari 599 territory here), really use every last ounce of that performance and speed, or how much of it is pub ammo?

Someone on here fairly recently described the '80s Lotus Esprit S3 as 'slow and gutless', but let's be honest here, if you attacked your average British A or B-road in it, you wouldn't get near the outer reaches of its performance envelope. Even on a motorway, where it's all about in-gear acceleration and cruising speeds, it's still crushingly competant.

I suspect that this whole 'gutless and slow' attitude is similar to Top Gear's fixation with quarter-mile drag races. As a test of any given car's abilities (with the exception of dragsters and muscle-cars), they're like getting Andre Previn to play 'chopsticks' on a Casio keyboard, and yet as a stark visual metaphor for performance, it looks quite definitive, even though it's massively simplistic.

I've never really understood why new-car magazines describe various modern cars as 'off the pace' either, as though they've adopted the mentality of a Nicky Hayden-lookalike No Fear T-shirt and backwards baseball cap-wearing American frat boy, where 'second place is the first loser.' At the wheel of pretty much anything designed to be fun to drive, on the right road, it can feel fast, and unles you're actually in a race, surely that's all that matters?

[otolith]

300bhp/ton said:

otolith said:

Sorry, did you just recommend a Golf derivative over a proper rear wheel drive coupe? Are you unwell? Are you even really 300bhp/ton?

It was more an example of bang per buck.

Just amused at your choice of a Golf platform car, given how much contempt you usually have for people who buy them when they could have had a sportscar.

We've always known that hot hatches are more bang per buck than dedicated sportscars and coupes - that's why the hot hatch nearly killed the genre. There will always be a minority of people who want something better, but if they want it, they're just going to have to put their hand in their pocket and pony up what it costs. If they don't, all we will get is hot hatches and restyled hot hatches claiming to be coupes.

300bhp/ton said:

In regards to the FT-86, it's actually at a performance deficit yet still charges a price premium.

Relative to what? A souped up shopping trolley? This is the same argument that pits an Evo against an Aston Martin, it's not a reasonable comparison. To put it bluntly, I don't care how much power it has, I don't want a hot hatch. This Toyota/Subaru thing looks interesting, though.

300bhp/ton said:

otolith said:

I don't get the value objections.

Money is the biggest deciding factor for almost everyone in everything they chose to buy, especially things on this scale of cost. If it's more expensive than many can afford = fail, if it costs as much as others but under performs = fail.

OK - you say it under performs - how does it under perform relative to an Audi TT 2.0 TFSI or a BMW 125i? They cost the same as AutoCar estimate (and Toyota say AutoCar overestimate). Look at the power to weight ratios. All we really know from the reviews of pre-production cars is that the handling is likely to be superb.

What do you think it should cost? Please justify your positioning with reference to the equivalent BMW 1-series coupe or Audi TT.

300bhp/ton said:

otolith said:

Do people not understand economies of scale?

Not sure this has any real relevance here. We don't know how much each unit costs or the breakdown of the costs, so we aren't in a position to say it 'had' to cost this much, only that we'd like it to cost less.

We don't know, but what we can be pretty sure of is that in order to recoup the costs of developing it and bringing it to market, Toyota/Subaru need to make more money per unit on these cars than Renault do with the Clio or VW group do with the myriad Golf platform cars.

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

900T-R said:

Do you own a private racing track perchance? On the road, an engine that has its torque and bhp pinned at the far end of the rpm range is basically useless - unless you want to combine it with a CVT and accept it running at max rpm all the time whenever you want to get a move on.

I don't understand what you mean? Why is it any harder to be in the right part of the rev range on the road than on the track? A chunk of the fun that I get from road driving, comes from knowing that if I get the gear change wrong, I'll end up going very slowly.

Being at high rpms all the time is difficult, promotes an aggressive driving style and is uneconomical.

I Love it!

But even the nutter I am accept it isn't practical all the time on the road, especially not in a daily commute either.

Something like a VVC powered Elise doesn't actually do this, the very nature of the VVC gives it a beefy low end torque curve for a 1.8 motor making this kind of power. The low weight of the Elise also means it's in gear power to weight ratio at lower rpms is still very good too, so will mask the need to keep it in the high rpms all the time.

[kambites]

Yes I agree, but that's the hole point of a "drivers' car" to my mind. It's something that compromises everything else for those times when you're just having fun.

[Rawwr]

Twincam16 said:

Thing is, how many people, even with one of the few cars PH would consider 'fast' (I guess we're in 911 Turbo/Ariel Atom/Ferrari 599 territory here), really use every last ounce of that performance and speed, or how much of it is pub ammo?

How much of it is a need for power to plaster over cracks in ability? Getting a car with few horses to get from A to B quickly is always more of a challenge. I like that challenge.

[maxxy5]

Twincam16 said:

There is something I don't 'get' about the response to just about any given car on this site - pretty much everything is described as 'slow' and 'not powerful enough.'

Thing is, how many people, even with one of the few cars PH would consider 'fast' (I guess we're in 911 Turbo/Ariel Atom/Ferrari 599 territory here), really use every last ounce of that performance and speed, or how much of it is pub ammo?

Someone on here fairly recently described the '80s Lotus Esprit S3 as 'slow and gutless', but let's be honest here, if you attacked your average British A or B-road in it, you wouldn't get near the outer reaches of its performance envelope. Even on a motorway, where it's all about in-gear acceleration and cruising speeds, it's still crushingly competant.

I suspect that this whole 'gutless and slow' attitude is similar to Top Gear's fixation with quarter-mile drag races. As a test of any given car's abilities (with the exception of dragsters and muscle-cars), they're like getting Andre Previn to play 'chopsticks' on a Casio keyboard, and yet as a stark visual metaphor for performance, it looks quite definitive, even though it's massively simplistic.

I've never really understood why new-car magazines describe various modern cars as 'off the pace' either, as though they've adopted the mentality of a Nicky Hayden-lookalike No Fear T-shirt and backwards baseball cap-wearing American frat boy, where 'second place is the first loser.' At the wheel of pretty much anything designed to be fun to drive, on the right road, it can feel fast, and unles you're actually in a race, surely that's all that matters?

It's nerdage and bhp fetishism, some people get more excited about the engine and the figures than actually driving.

[braddo]

300bhp/ton said:

Bear with on this.. but how are they hugely different?


-Weight = about the same
-seating ability = about the same
-boot = about the same
-performance = about the same
-power = about the same
-driver focus = about the same


As far as I can see, there are only 3 main differences:

1. RWD over FWD
2. A more swoopy hatch making it a coupe rather than a hatchback
3. The FT-86 costing over 1/3rd more

Due to RWD, the consequent better steering feel, a massively lower centre of gravity, a far more low slung driving position, better weight distribution and much, much greater exclusivity (at least initially), the Toyobaru will be very different indeed from any hot hatch you wish to mention.

As a result it will feel much more special to own/drive even when not going fast. It is designed to provide simple RWD driving fun so if you value that, it is literally impossible for a modern hot hatch to be as good/fun as this car.

And don't anyone try to suggest stuff like the RS Clio/Focus are exclusive. They are still versions of hatchbacks produced in their tens of thousands.

[otolith]

The power delivery is not all top end, despite the high torque peak;

AutoCar on the prototype FT86:

"It has a broad power curve - it revs to 7500 but there’s no desperate need to wind it that far past the mid-range."

AutoCar on the prototype BRZ

"In the prototype we drove the result was a joy. Subaru was claiming 210bhp at 7000rpm and a redline than starts at 7500rpm, plus maximum torque of 170lb ft at 4000rpm. However these were estimates, and are up on the projections for the identical FT-86 unit.

Regardless, it felt quick enough, and, thanks to the Toyota derived cylinder head and direct injection it speeds up faster than any other normally aspirated Subaru boxer engine. Only from 1800-3000rpm is the absence of boost slightly noticeable."

MotorTrend on the prototype BRZ

"The 2.0-liter boxer delivers healthy mid-range punch, though a little more top-end bite would be welcome. The tach is redlined at 7400 rpm, but there's little point hanging on much past 7000 as the power delivery goes flat."

AutoCar quoting the Toyota CEO's opinion on the power delivery:

"Toyota engineers say the engine produces around 200bhp, but final power, torque and fuel figures are still being derived because this Subaru-sourced engine uses a Toyota direct fuel injection system with Toyota’s own engine management.

What’s more, Toyota’s engine partner, Yamaha, has been involved in its cylinder head design. Although the car will have a sporty character, Toyota chief Akio Toyoda has decreed that this should be a docile, easy-driving engine that should live up to his company’s jealously guarded reputation for fuel efficiency and low CO2 outputs."

[ExPat2B]

braddo said:

300bhp/ton said:

Bear with on this.. but how are they hugely different?


-Weight = about the same
-seating ability = about the same
-boot = about the same
-performance = about the same
-power = about the same
-driver focus = about the same


As far as I can see, there are only 3 main differences:

1. RWD over FWD
2. A more swoopy hatch making it a coupe rather than a hatchback
3. The FT-86 costing over 1/3rd more

Due to RWD, the consequent better steering feel, a massively lower centre of gravity, a far more low slung driving position, better weight distribution and much, much greater exclusivity (at least initially), the Toyobaru will be very different indeed from any hot hatch you wish to mention.

As a result it will feel much more special to own/drive even when not going fast. It is designed to provide simple RWD driving fun so if you value that, it is literally impossible for a modern hot hatch to be as good/fun as this car.

And don't anyone try to suggest stuff like the RS Clio/Focus are exclusive. They are still versions of hatchbacks produced in their tens of thousands.

I wouldn't try and reason with 300BHP. This is the guy that thinks his Jeep Cherokee would make a great drift car.

The reason the Toybaru is going to be a great drivers car are blindingly obvious to most car enthusiasts.

[S3000]

i will consider a used Subaru version in 2013 or 2014...

[Noger]

300bhp/ton said:

Being at high rpms all the time is difficult, promotes an aggressive driving style and is uneconomical.

Why is it difficult ? I accept that high revs are maybe not all that relaxing, but why is going from 2500rpm to 5500rpm in a TDI any easier than say 6000 to 9000rpm in VTEC-yo ?

[braddo]

ExPat2B said:

The reason the Toybaru is going to be a great drivers car are blindingly obvious to most car enthusiasts.

The new mantra:

"You're not a real petrolhead unless you like the GT86"