1 2 3 ... 6
oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy HalfDork
10/31/11 11:42 a.m.

More details in the following links http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2096 http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2063 http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/Toyota-FT-86-coupe-2012-CAR-review http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2054-/

4cylndrfury
4cylndrfury SuperDork
10/31/11 11:52 a.m.

hmm...so a 2600lb, 150 hp, 2 liter, FF/RR, 30 mpg, 6 speed four seater (low spec)...consider my interest piqued...pricing is going to definitely be a factor.

MX5 has better power/weight ratio, but seats less (less utility). I wonder why the author of that spreadsheet dint include a Genesis Coupe in the equation?

JohnyHachi6
JohnyHachi6 Reader
10/31/11 12:16 p.m.

I'm all for low powered RWD entry-level sports cars (miata, ae86, etc...), but damn this thing's gonna be slow with <150 bhp. The ae86 made, what, 120 bhp and weighed 600 lbs less? And wowow those are some skinny tires on the base model.

I hope a lot of subaru engines bolt right up....

scardeal
scardeal HalfDork
10/31/11 12:21 p.m.

Read the specs a little more closely. It's 147 KW --> 200 HP.

Keith
Keith GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/31/11 12:29 p.m.
4cylndrfury wrote: hmm...so a 2600lb, 150 hp, 2 liter, FF/RR, 30 mpg, 6 speed four seater (low spec)...consider my interest piqued...pricing is going to definitely be a factor. MX5 has better power/weight ratio, but seats less (less utility). I wonder why the author of that spreadsheet dint include a Genesis Coupe in the equation?

The original's in Japanese, quite probably for the Japanese market. Is the Genesis sold there?

JohnyHachi6
JohnyHachi6 Reader
10/31/11 12:42 p.m.

In reply to scardeal:

Good catch - that's much more reasonable.

Taiden
Taiden Dork
10/31/11 12:45 p.m.

I does want.

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/31/11 12:50 p.m.

When a N/A rotary makes more torque than you, you're doing it wrong. This car is too fat, and way too under-powered.

DoctorBlade
DoctorBlade Dork
10/31/11 12:52 p.m.

If I'm thinking right, those back two seats are going to border on useless for humans.

ReverendDexter
ReverendDexter SuperDork
10/31/11 12:53 p.m.
Javelin wrote: When a N/A rotary makes more torque than you, you're doing it wrong. This car is too fat, and way too under-powered.

Since when do N/A rotaries make 200 ft-lbs? EDIT: Nvm, I actually opened my eyes. I was thinking 13B, not Renesis.

pinchvalve
pinchvalve GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/31/11 1:31 p.m.

This is the non-turbo motor. How long do you think that Subaru will wait until it slaps a snail on that sucker?

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/31/11 1:37 p.m.
pinchvalve wrote: This is the non-turbo motor. How long do you think that Subaru will wait until it slaps a snail on that sucker?

According to all of the latest news, including from Subaru direct, never. Apparently their traditional design won't fit. This engine is also all-new so none of the past stuff bolts on. Also the chassis is too tight to do it and they wanted it to be "pure" anyways. I'm sure aftermarket companies will do it, but in reality you can turbo a rotary or anything else in the class as well. Fact is, it's a very low HP/TQ engine and it's going to be slow dead stock.

4cylndrfury
4cylndrfury SuperDork
10/31/11 1:41 p.m.
pinchvalve wrote: This is the non-turbo motor. How long do you think that Subaru will wait until it slaps a snail on that sucker?

Hopefully not long...

Lets see, 200 ponies, correct wheel drive, too many gears, but the right number of pedals, subie aftermarket, TRD...

Tom Heath
Tom Heath Web Manager
10/31/11 1:41 p.m.

I'm not commenting or hoping for anything until the car finally reaches production and they're hitting showrooms. There have been so many hypothetical "leaked" specs on this car, I don't care to speculate. I hope it's awesome, but I think the target is getting smaller and smaller.

Looking at the comparison listed at the top of the thread though, I do wish for a hardtop Mazdaspeed MX-5...or MX-6 reincarnation that has a hardtop and a backseat on an MX-5 chassis...

ProDarwin
ProDarwin Dork
10/31/11 1:43 p.m.

200hp is "very low"?!?

2700lbs is "too fat"?!?

What the hell is going on in here?

4cylndrfury
4cylndrfury SuperDork
10/31/11 1:46 p.m.
ProDarwin wrote: 200hp is "very low"?!? 2700lbs is "too fat"?!? What the hell is going on in here?

Ed Zachary ...san

[Gong]noise[/Gong]

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/31/11 1:49 p.m.
ProDarwin wrote: 200hp is "very low"?!? 2700lbs is "too fat"?!? What the hell is going on in here?

I'm sorry, but like 3 days ago didn't you call the RX-8 slow and fat? It's 235HP, and weighs less than this...

ProDarwin
ProDarwin Dork
10/31/11 1:50 p.m.

I don't recall that. Its no rocket, but its far from slow and fat. Also it weighs 300lbs more than this.

Keith
Keith GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/31/11 1:54 p.m.

2700 lbs IS too fat. Just because the pony cars are topping the two-ton mark doesn't make it right.

Jay
Jay SuperDork
10/31/11 1:56 p.m.
DoctorBlade wrote: If I'm thinking right, those back two seats are going to border on useless for humans.

...and that's the way it should be.

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/31/11 1:58 p.m.

2660? Oh, that isn't that bad... never mind then. That chart's a little zany for me on a Monday morning I guess.

Price is what's going to matter though. I dunno what it should be, but lower than the RX-8 and MX-5 would be a good start.

Consider this:

2012 Ford Mustang V6, 3453Lbs, 305HP, 280TQ, 11.23Lbs/HP, $22,200...

tuna55
tuna55 SuperDork
10/31/11 1:59 p.m.
Keith wrote: 2700 lbs IS too fat. Just because the pony cars are topping the two-ton mark doesn't make it right.

yes, sir.

mad_machine
mad_machine GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/31/11 2:13 p.m.

by todays standards.. 2700 is anorexic. To give a comparsion. It is similar in weight to my 318ti, but has 60more hp.

The 318ti can do the zero to sixty dance in 8 seconds.. this is going to be a sub 7 second car. Definatly not Slow

Taiden
Taiden Dork
10/31/11 2:19 p.m.

Even the 240sx was about ~2700 pounds and when has ANYONE ever called that fat?

92CelicaHalfTrac
92CelicaHalfTrac SuperDork
10/31/11 2:21 p.m.
Javelin wrote: When a N/A rotary makes more torque than you, you're doing it wrong. This car is too fat, and way too under-powered.

Weird.

Because it makes MORE torque-per-pound than the RX8.

And is within half a point for HP-per-pound of the RX8 as well.

1 2 3 ... 6
Our Preferred Partners
I59EL8NwKX9DoM5elGlL8GxsLsRapg8HnDn1xKHPoOgzj9cPVacj0LDe1vpaUchQ