RE: Toyota Shows Off FT-86 'II'

[Ryvita]

Kozy said:

Also, if they sell a low powered version with excellent emissions figures as standard, then sell all the go faster bits afterwards as factory upgrades, can everyone build the car how they want afterwithout the EU sticking their nose in?

They sell a car with 150g/km which pleases the eco-Nazis, but then if the buyers tune them up to produce 300g/km, well thats not Toyotas fault is it?

Given that this is marketed at my age group, who usually like tinkering with their cars, it doesn't seem like an unrealistic gameplan.

Agreed. but don't expect that process to be cheap 7th Gen Celica Supercharging kit, giving 240 bhp/180NM = £5274!

http://www.fensport.co.uk/Parts/Model_16/Category_...

[Kozy]

But if they marketed this at £20k with 160bhp, then you could imagine a factory 240bhp supercharged one would easily be £25k+. Yes it is expensive, but I'd rather be given the option of doing it rather than it being there already making the base model more expensive.

That engine is already massively tuneable, if people really bothered about it being slow, its not exactly going to be a tough thing to turbocharge it to 300bhp should you be so inclined.

[otolith]

Clivey said:

I think we're talking cross purposes here. I don't care about rear seats - I just want a conventionally-engined (petrol) RWD coupé, with a boot that can take the weekly shopping, that weighs less than 1,500Kg. This would enable to to have decent performance from a 200BHP 2.0 (or thereabouts) engine.

Which is fine - I think the niche you are looking at is the niche the 200SX used to occupy, not the one that the RX-8 addresses. The point of the RX-8 is that it's as practical as a four seat saloon car, but it drives and looks like a front mid-engined coupe. If you don't need the practicality, you don't want an RX-8 with a piston engine, what you want is a conventional coupe - like this Toyota!

[hornetrider]

otolith said:

hornetrider said:

Why would I need to? The 8 and 6 aren't vastly different in size. The 6 has staid styling, the 8 looks great. I see no reason why as a design concept that an 8 could be slightly redesigned to have enough room under the front for a 6 engine. Or, to take the example more extreme, why a 6 could not look like an 8 from the A-pillar back.

It's not a slight redesign, you'd have to completely change the proportions of the car. The best you could do is to carry over the styling cues, which Mazda have already done to everything they build.

The RX-8 does what it does and is what it is because the tiny engine allows it to be. If you redesigned it around a conventional engine, you'd get something very much like a BMW 3-series coupe in architecture. Which is a fine thing, but you want one of those, BMW already make one.

It's like thinking that the 535D is brilliant, but would be better with a naturally aspirated petrol engine so you could have the fuel economy and torque and a nice noise - you can't have everything.

A driveshaft is a driveshaft connected to the rear wheels. All you'd need was a bit more room in the front and slightly stiffer suspension to cope with the small increase in weight. However, we'll agree to differ as you're clearly very protective over the 8.

[otolith]

hornetrider said:

A driveshaft is a driveshaft connected to the rear wheels. All you'd need was a bit more room in the front and slightly stiffer suspension to cope with the small increase in weight.

You would have to move the engine forwards in the chassis and to considerably raise the bonnet line of the car - that would feed back into raising the entire shoulder line of the car, so you've immediately lost the proportions. You've also lost the drama of the front arches, because the bonnet is too high. If you don't believe me, compare the side profile of a 3'er coupe and an RX-8, look how much higher the base of the windscreen would have to be. OK, so it doesn't look like an RX-8 any more.

You would have shifted a big chunk of additional weight away from the centre of the car, out over the front wheels and higher above the ground - so you have fked the weight distribution, and it doesn't handle like an RX-8 any more.

You've fitted a four pot engine, so it isn't refined like an RX-8 any more.

So if it doesn't drive like one or look like one, what's left that you liked about the RX-8 in the first place?

hornetrider said:

However, we'll agree to differ as you're clearly very protective over the 8.

I think it's just completely misunderstood by people who don't get it, that's all - all the things about it that are special are enabled by the compact dimensions of the engine. You can't change the engine and keep the things about it that are good.

[Black S2K]

Think you're flogging a dead Horse there Oto.

Not the RX-8 (a brilliant car that makes economic sense to those who can see beyond the false economy of MPG obsessives) but in arguing with those who have zero comprehension of automotive architecture or anti-Darwin safety legislation.

Still, there were those who thought putting a Ford sex-toy V4 in an NSU Ro80 was somehow a good idea...

[Clivey]

otolith said:

Which is fine - I think the niche you are looking at is the niche the 200SX used to occupy, not the one that the RX-8 addresses. The point of the RX-8 is that it's as practical as a four seat saloon car, but it drives and looks like a front mid-engined coupe. If you don't need the practicality, you don't want an RX-8 with a piston engine, what you want is a conventional coupe - like this Toyota!

- Which is what I was saying in the first place.

(I'd love Nissan to make a new 200SX, too!)

[rvttim]

Lets hope Toyota build this for all of us. Great shape, I think most people agree. So whats wrong in Toyota putting a 1.4, 1.6, 2.0 and lets say a 2.5 turbo. Price range from £15K to 25k. This will then let us choose dependent on our finances and I think Toyota will sell all models across the range IMHO

[KM666]

isnt the idea that it should be modified like the skylines can handle way more power so will these its upto you how much bhp you want

[PKLD]

rvttim said:

Lets hope Toyota build this for all of us. Great shape, I think most people agree. So whats wrong in Toyota putting a 1.4, 1.6, 2.0 and lets say a 2.5 turbo. Price range from £15K to 25k. This will then let us choose dependent on our finances and I think Toyota will sell all models across the range IMHO

+1

Why can't it have a boggo clean 1.6 base model (I'm thinking Hyundai coupe rival) then a warmed up boxer engine as planned, a diesel model to increase numbers therefore keep the whole range prices lower and then a limited edition full on turbo nutter version?!

I'm looking forward to this so much to replace our TT hopefully - same power and mpg as the 2.0t would do nicely but add in RWD and it'd be job done!

[otolith]

PKLD said:

Why can't it have a boggo clean 1.6 base model (I'm thinking Hyundai coupe rival) then a warmed up boxer engine as planned, a diesel model to increase numbers therefore keep the whole range prices lower and then a limited edition full on turbo nutter version?!

I'm loathe to talk any further about engine choices, packaging and vehicle architecture, but I think the use of a boxer engine is pretty key to this car. Subaru does have diesel and smaller capacity boxer engines, though. Toyota have been helping to develop the unit this car is getting, so a pure Subaru engine might be unlikely.

[clarkey328is]

Ryvita said:

Agreed. but don't expect that process to be cheap 7th Gen Celica Supercharging kit, giving 240 bhp/180NM = £5274!

http://www.fensport.co.uk/Parts/Model_16/Category_...

They could do something like they did with mine and fit comedy sized inlet manifolds and a special needs ecu map to keep the power low.

[thewheelman]

I hope it has a decent amount of power & not a pretend sports car like the last generation Celica was.