HiTempguy wrote: So, make it light and cheap, let us do the rest. Sell tons of them
All other arguments aside, if they can deliver on this I'll be very happy.
Torque, HP, and weight can all be affected after the purchase, but if it's not delivered on budget the point is moot to me.
No, I haven't missed the point. You want a RWD 2.5RS, great. I was only pointing out that it is not a "fat" powerband. You're right, it would see a bump from being RWD only vs. the graph above.
I don't want to get into a HP vs TQ argument here, but when looking at the powerband (or acceleration for that matter), HP is the important number. It's a fact. Regardless, you can see that from 2000-4500 they make similar amounts of torque. Beyond that the S2000 just makes a ton more.
If you read the thread from the beginning, I've defended this car. I think it'll be a good alternative to the other RWD coupes currently available in its target market.
I wonder if Mazda's claim of aiming for a 1700 lb miata is in response to the FRS?
Many of the magazines are listing both the Toyota/Scion and the Subaru version in the new car blurbs. 200 HP and 2700 lbs.
Taiden wrote: I wonder if Mazda's claim of aiming for a 1700 lb miata is in response to the FRS?
Think we'll see the same gnashing of teeth when (not if, but WHEN) Mazda fails that goal spectacularly?
ProDarwin wrote:HiTempguy wrote:Ok... I just did a quick search and put numbers for the two into excel. Trust me, I've been on the other side of this argument before (I used to drive a 2.5RS). Its not a great engine.ProDarwin wrote: He said like a Subaru 2.5. So... not a fatter powerband.Overlay a S2000 dyno plot with a 2.5 subie motor... I think the 2.5's powerband would be, in every meaning of the word, "fatter" ;)Guess it depends how you find fat.
This issue HiTempguy is having is this is a HP graph not a torque curve.
This brings me back to many parking lot conversations, usually sparked by some who says the (in my opinion) asinine words "Hondas don't make torque"
Honda engines equipped with VTEC make a buttload of torque, and they make it everywhere. Their torque curve is far more impressive than any 'torquey' v8.
However, there is no replacement for displacement.
Imagine if an LS1 had the same peak torque but made it over the same power band that a honda does.
Sorry for the rant
Taiden wrote: This brings me back to many parking lot conversations, usually sparked by some who says the (in my opinion) asinine words "Hondas don't make torque" Honda engines equipped with VTEC make a buttload of torque, and they make it everywhere. Their torque curve is far more impressive than any 'torquey' v8. However, there is no replacement for displacement. Imagine if an LS1 had the same peak torque but made it over the same power band that a honda does. Sorry for the rant
You've got that confused with "torque-by-gearing." 
griffin729 wrote: This issue HiTempguy is having is this is a HP graph not a torque curve.
Its only an issue if you are stupid. Anywhere they make the same power, they make the same torque. That whole area where the Honda makes more power... it makes more torque.
http://speedhunters.com/archive/2011/11/26/gallery-gt-gt-toyota-86-first-drive-preview.aspx
Toyota just held a huge event for their new sports car at Fuji Speedway in Japan and i can honestly say that there has never been a car i've been more excited about. I have a Celica, and i've always loved Supras and i respect the AE86. This car seems to be the successor to them all.
The majority of the people buying these couldn't care less which wheels drive the car and how much hp it has as long as it looks cool. Unlike the enthusuats on here.
It's RWD which is great, and around 200hp. That's good enough for me. It also looks cool, which is awesome. I don't see much wrong with the car. Even the supposed price range is appealing.
Taiden wrote: This brings me back to many parking lot conversations, usually sparked by some who says the (in my opinion) asinine words "Hondas don't make torque" Honda engines equipped with VTEC make a buttload of torque, and they make it everywhere. Their torque curve is far more impressive than any 'torquey' v8. However, there is no replacement for displacement. Imagine if an LS1 had the same peak torque but made it over the same power band that a honda does. Sorry for the rant
That's just a dopey ricer myth that honduh owners use, just look up any dyno graph & compare. Don't confuse making "buttloads" of torque with having a fairly flat torque curve, (which most k-series do).
Example, stock 1996 mustang cobra (known for not being tq 'heavy'):
waits for a HP/L argument to ensue
paul wrote: *waits for a HP/L argument to ensue*
Well no E36 M3 sherlock 
I think any Honda VTec motor is the last thing i think of when thinking about "torque."
As a matter of fact, even though nothing makes me pity people more than stupid arguments about why a buttload of torque at idle is better than sliced bread, my LEAST favorite motor on the fact of the planet is the B16.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I think any Honda VTec motor is the last thing i think of when thinking about "torque." As a matter of fact, even though nothing makes me pity people more than stupid arguments about why a buttload of torque at idle is better than sliced bread, my LEAST favorite motor on the fact of the planet is the B16.
I bet you the b16 stock for stock makes more torque than any other 1.6L engine on the planet aside from the sr16ve n1
Taiden wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I think any Honda VTec motor is the last thing i think of when thinking about "torque." As a matter of fact, even though nothing makes me pity people more than stupid arguments about why a buttload of torque at idle is better than sliced bread, my LEAST favorite motor on the fact of the planet is the B16.I bet you the b16 stock for stock makes more torque than any other 1.6L engine on the planet aside from the sr16ve n1
On paper or to the wheels?
Even if it did, (and it doesn't.) it doesn't really matter, that wasn't the point to be honest.
The point is that it's just numbers to some people (118tq out of the best B16 ever made at 7300rpms can't really be qualified as "torquey."), and it's a feeling to others. A B16 never feels torquey. A flat torque curve is awesome, but it won't feel torquey unless it actually.... makes torque. 
The B16 is 100% gutless unless you're revving it's nuts off of. And that's fine. It's the nature of small n/a motors. Nothing wrong with that.
Either way, it's a dumb argument, and i'm excited for the FT86. 
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
I'm glad you steered back onto the FT86 rails.
iceracer wrote: The majority of the people buying these couldn't care less which wheels drive the car and how much hp it has as long as it looks cool. Unlike the enthusuats on here.
You just described every car ever made with that statement. I like the FT86 a little more every day.
Taiden wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I think any Honda VTec motor is the last thing i think of when thinking about "torque." As a matter of fact, even though nothing makes me pity people more than stupid arguments about why a buttload of torque at idle is better than sliced bread, my LEAST favorite motor on the fact of the planet is the B16.I bet you the b16 stock for stock makes more torque than any other 1.6L engine on the planet aside from the sr16ve n1
bwahahahahahahahahahahah!!! oH my...tell me more jokes. No?
New Accent 1.6 138hp@6300, 123tq@4850 compared to the b16 in the 99-00 Si that made 160hp@8000 and 111tq@7000. Now, I'm no math major here, but last time I checked 123 was more than 111... and it actually comes in at a reasonable rpm range... one that 90% of people use every day.
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
Ah, but it will be a Toyota engine once it is released.
EdenPrime wrote: http://speedhunters.com/archive/2011/11/26/gallery-gt-gt-toyota-86-first-drive-preview.aspx Toyota just held a huge event for their new sports car at Fuji Speedway in Japan and i can honestly say that there has never been a car i've been more excited about. I have a Celica, and i've always loved Supras and i respect the AE86. This car seems to be the successor to them all.
One quote from thereplies on the speedhunters site:
"...Some of you would find something to complain about if Jessica Alba showed up naked at your front door..."
Seemed appropriate to this thread also.
What the heck is not to like on this thing that can't be put to right by a depreciation curve and the aftermarket?
Toyota even spells it out for the dimwitted: They left lots of room for the enthusiast to modify the cat. That US!
The lack of a price is driving me nuts. I am not looking forward to going through what I did to buy a Miata in 1990. That was just rude. It must be under 30k in the driveway, ot it is not going to taste right.
If I can keep myself entertained with a FWD, 165 HP, 2400 lb car( CooperS), then this thing ought to be every bit as much (or more) fun since it's RWD and a similar power to weight ratio. I'm with Tom on this one though,what's the price?.
This might be the answer to my constant day dreaming about Miata coupes.
NOHOME wrote: "...Some of you would find something to complain about if Jessica Alba showed up naked at your front door..."
I would. My wife would be pissed and my kids would be all confused. Plus, I am not sure who that is or what she looks like, so I'd probably just guess she had the wrong house or something.
tuna55 wrote:NOHOME wrote: "...Some of you would find something to complain about if Jessica Alba showed up naked at your front door..."I would. My wife would be pissed and my kids would be all confused. Plus, I am not sure who that is or what she looks like, so I'd probably just guess she had the wrong house or something.
No kids... but the wife would be super pissed. "I swear honey, she got the wrong address. No, I did not enjoy looking at her at all. It was very yucky."
You'll need to log in to post.
