RE: Chris Harris video: GT86 vs 370Z vs Cayman

RE: Chris Harris video: GT86 vs 370Z vs Cayman

Author
Discussion

bicycleshorts

1,936 posts

119 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
Alex said:
otolith said:
More words - packaging, weight distribution, centre of gravity.
I don't see that the GT86 Boxer engine is significantly better on those criteria.
EFA wink

otolith

42,192 posts

162 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
Alex said:
otolith said:
Look how tall it is. And how long. Think about how much lower a Boxer sits in the chassis.
Your point being?
Packaging, weight distribution, centre of gravity.

caraddict

1,069 posts

102 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
Steve vRS said:
3 years ago in Japan....

"Hello, Mr. Honda, this is Mr. Toyota. Please can we have a S2000 engine to use in a new car?"

"No." <click>


Steve
IIRC McLaren called Honda first for requesting an engine for the F1, and Honda turned them down.

Gotta love Honda smile

Alex

9,968 posts

242 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
otolith said:
Packaging, weight distribution, centre of gravity.
GT86 weight distribution front/rear: 53:47
S2000 weight distribution front/rear: 50:50

Packaging and CoG differences will be insignificant.

braddo

7,117 posts

146 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
caraddict said:
cmoose said:
You probably need a certain amount of space around the engine these days to reduce hard points. That, I think, explains the increasingly bulbous front ends you see these days.

Using the Honda I4 may mean the nose would have to be longer and taller as the lump itself is longer and taller.
I see your point and it's valid, but having difficulties with imagining that engines of todays new cars are designed with that in mind...
You need to read more - EU pedestrian impact regulations....

LordGrover

31,478 posts

170 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
Alex said:
otolith said:
Look how tall it is. And how long. Think about how much lower a Boxer sits in the chassis.
Your point being?
Dunno about his point, but THE point is, it won't fit.

caraddict

1,069 posts

102 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
I agree, I probably should!

Captain Muppet

8,537 posts

223 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
caraddict said:
Captain Muppet said:
Another three: pedestrian impact regulations.
What does pedestrian impact regulations have to do with what's under the bonnet?
The regulations have quite a lot to do with what under the bonnet. A few years ago the engine and bonnet could be almost touching, with just dynamic clearance so it wouldn't clunk all the time.

With new cars you can't have any hard points within a certain distance of the bonnet (75mm?) which forces you to either have big bulbous ugly cars, or nice low engines, or explosive hinges to pop the bonnet up when you hit a pedestrian.

kambites

59,907 posts

179 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
Alex said:
otolith said:
Packaging, weight distribution, centre of gravity.
GT86 weight distribution front/rear: 53:47
S2000 weight distribution front/rear: 50:50

Packaging and CoG differences will be insignificant.
Now what's the difference in the heights of their centres of gravity (bearing in mind that the S2000 should be lower since it has no fixed roof)?

Plus, as people have said above, I don't think the S2000 engine would fit with enough bonnet clearance to conform to modern regulations. And I'm not sure about emissions regs either.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 29th August 11:46

otolith

42,192 posts

162 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
Alex said:
GT86 weight distribution front/rear: 53:47
S2000 weight distribution front/rear: 50:50

Packaging and CoG differences will be insignificant.
Both dumbells have a 50:50 weight distribution:



You will also notice that the S2000 has no rear seats - it's an engine and a pair of seats, which is what you end up with if you try to package a longitudinal engine with a great weight distribution.

The GT86 has a lower centre of gravity than the S2000. You can say that these things are insignificant, but subjectively the car that the GT86 feels most like to me is the RX-8 - which also has a small, short engine mounted low in the chassis.

otolith

42,192 posts

162 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
Besides, most of the whining about the car is about the shape of the torque curve, the S2000 engine is just as bad in that respect.

xRIEx

8,180 posts

106 months

Wednesday 29th August 2012
quotequote all
otolith said:
The GT86 has a lower centre of gravity than the S2000. You can say that these things are insignificant,
Just to back this point up, I believe the Boxster has a superior skidpad performance to the Cayman simply because the CoG is lower. I would imagine the engine's lower CoG would similarly improve handling.

370ZTheWorx

3 posts

97 months

Friday 14th September 2012
quotequote all
Great vid. Love the GT86, very tempted by one just for the fun factor. Cayman will never appeal I'm afraid - vowed never to own a Porsche! Love my 370z at the moment though...

Sewa

1 posts

97 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
Great discussion; I read all of it, began yesterday...

Here are my 2c: I test-drove both the BRZ and the GT86. They do not drive the same. What is being said about their suspension setup seemed very distinguishable to me. While, the BRZ has heavy and precise steering (it drives like a kart really) the GT86 dances around a bit. Whether you like it or not depends or your definition of fun. At a motorway exit (that I happen to know) it all did not feel very confidence inspiring, something I got used to in my BMW and I also found in the BRZ.

So it would be the BRZ for me...

...or perhaps not. Other things, like engine sound and the interior left me a bit wondering. Right after driving the GT 86 I sat in my e93 330i. Someone earlier said that his car would feel like Bentley after the GT86. I can say pretty much the same. Engine note, sound insulation, interior, all these things are simply lacking on in Toyotabaru and I think I'd miss them. That very thought had me terrified as, after all, I wasn't perhaps the kind of petrol-head I thought redface

Anyway, I still may consider the BRZ if the dealer makes a good offer for my beemer. We have two cars so I can live with BRZ compromises (BTW I test drove it with my 2 year old daughter in the back). I love its steering, the seats, driving position and the unique look. Subaru dealership is also light years ahead of BMW customer care who seem to be primarily concerned with fleet clients these days. As for power, I find it adequate north of 5000rpm.

However, if I can't trade in my beemer at acceptable conditions, then at some point it will be a 2.7 Boxster for me smile

Edited by Sewa on Thursday 20th September 22:35

Unreal1066

30 posts

100 months

Monday 27th May 2013
quotequote all
When Chris talks about yaw in a rear wheel drive car, Toyota has a history of this in their great MK2 MR2 it wasn't particually fast (170+ BHP It was modded) but you could feel the car move around and that made it thrilling at lower speeds needed on British A and B roads. Yaw is thrilling!