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-/
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?
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....
Read the specs a little more closely. It's 147 KW --> 200 HP.
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?
In reply to scardeal:
Good catch - that's much more reasonable.
I does want.
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.
If I'm thinking right, those back two seats are going to border on useless for humans.
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.
This is the non-turbo motor. How long do you think that Subaru will wait until it slaps a snail on that sucker?
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.
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...
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...
200hp is "very low"?!?
2700lbs is "too fat"?!?
What the hell is going on in here?
ProDarwin wrote: 200hp is "very low"?!? 2700lbs is "too fat"?!? What the hell is going on in here?
Ed Zachary ...san
[Gong]noise[/Gong]
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...
I don't recall that. Its no rocket, but its far from slow and fat. Also it weighs 300lbs more than this.
2700 lbs IS too fat. Just because the pony cars are topping the two-ton mark doesn't make it right.
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.
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...
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.
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
Even the 240sx was about ~2700 pounds and when has ANYONE ever called that fat?
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.
You'll need to log in to post.
