The other thing to keep in mind with the 2.0/2.5 thing is that the JDM 2.0 engine was much, much sturdier than the USDM 2.5 turbo. Kind of makes sense that you'd go with the more robust engine when you have a small car that doesn't need a ton of torque the way a comparatively porky STI would.
What I still don't get is why they didn't use a toyota engine, allowing room for a better front suspension.
ProDarwin wrote: What I still don't get is why they didn't use a Toyota engine, allowing room for a better front suspension.
If they got rid of the midgets-only rear seats they could have pushed the motor in back of the front wheels, getting excellent weight distribution and leaving ample room for the front suspension. seems like a big compromise just to claim 2+2 status.
I don't know if anyone has covered this yet...but when did Honda start putting V4s in CR-Zs? And when did Wankel rotarys become "Wenkels"
The small errors like that in this official "spec sheet" lead me to believe it's SHENANIGANS!
In reply to kreb:
Considering their target audience is young people, they might be thinking that insurance on a car with a backseat is probably cheaper than a 2 seat model.
kreb wrote:ProDarwin wrote: What I still don't get is why they didn't use a Toyota engine, allowing room for a better front suspension.If they got rid of the midgets-only rear seats they could have pushed the motor in back of the front wheels, getting excellent weight distribution and leaving ample room for the front suspension. seems like a big compromise just to claim 2+2 status.
Argh... You're missing the point. YOU CAN ALREADY BUY THAT. Some of us would like a Miata, but with a hardtop and backseats. Or a MINI that wasn't wrong-wheel drive.
ReverendDexter wrote: Some of us would like a Miata, but with a hardtop and backseats.
You can already buy that! It also comes with oil burning and crappy gas mileage 
ProDarwin wrote:ReverendDexter wrote: Some of us would like a Miata, but with a hardtop and backseats.You can already buy that! It also comes with oil burning and crappy gas mileage
Touche... that was the second version of my post (Nibbles ate the first one where I mentioned "RWD, 2+2, 4-cylinder" which invalidates your answer 
)
DirtyBird222 wrote: I don't know if anyone has covered this yet...but when did Honda start putting V4s in CR-Zs? And when did Wankel rotarys become "Wenkels" The small errors like that in this official "spec sheet" lead me to believe it's SHENANIGANS!
I think that the spec sheet we're seeing was translated from the Japanese version by some dude on the Internet. So it might have some translation issues.
V and I in the world of automotive engines is pretty distinguishable between language barriers. V engines are V shaped, I engines are I shaped lol. It just seems like a high school kid made that for some reason.
DirtyBird222 wrote: V and I in the world of automotive engines is pretty distinguishable between language barriers. V engines are V shaped, I engines are I shaped lol. It just seems like a high school kid made that for some reason.
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen an e36 described as having a V6......
ReverendDexter wrote:kreb wrote:Argh... You're missing the point. YOU CAN ALREADY BUY THAT. Some of us would like a Miata, but with a hardtop and backseats. Or a MINI that wasn't wrong-wheel drive.ProDarwin wrote: What I still don't get is why they didn't use a Toyota engine, allowing room for a better front suspension.If they got rid of the midgets-only rear seats they could have pushed the motor in back of the front wheels, getting excellent weight distribution and leaving ample room for the front suspension. seems like a big compromise just to claim 2+2 status.
I often hear the back seats of my mini referred to as clown seats. I'm 6 "2 and I fit back there fine.Tons of head room and i can spread my legs out to straddle the front seat if there is a larger person in front of me. I really wonder how functional this cars back seats will be.
I want a miata with a roof. I want an RX8 with a different engine. I want a mini with RWD. I want a dodge razor that went into production.
If this car is done right it could be about as close a new car to any of these requirements that i could hope to receive.
and i want a Dodge viper ACR to tow said car to the track with. :P
edit: Yes i know of the Cayman. Its out of my price range.
Some say Subarus have bad weight distribution. On paper they are front heavy, but front to rear weight ratio does not decribe center of gravity. You can feel the low center of gravity in a Subaru and it is sublime.
The magazines seem to have more info on the Subaru than the Toyota. With such a short engine ,it doesn't have to set very far back..
In reply to Taiden:
lol, what Subarus have you been driving?
Early Impreza wagons.
kreb wrote: If they got rid of the midgets-only rear seats they could have pushed the motor in back of the front wheels, getting excellent weight distribution and leaving ample room for the front suspension. seems like a big compromise just to claim 2+2 status.
"Insurance reducer" rear seats are a big deal for young customers...
I'll consider the FR-S. It's barely affordable and light enough for me to consider...I mean at 2700lbs you can barely get away with calling it "light"...but it's compact, RWD, manual, and the specs are pretty decent all-around.
I'm really not digging those rims though, ugh. They had some nice rims on the concepts, too bad they couldn't keep those.
I think I'll wait to see if they make the big brake + clutch LSD version. First mods would be TC switch, ABS switch, black box delete, maybe coilovers & megasquirt.
DirtyBird222 wrote: I don't know if anyone has covered this yet...but when did Honda start putting V4s in CR-Zs? And when did Wankel rotarys become "Wenkels" The small errors like that in this official "spec sheet" lead me to believe it's SHENANIGANS!
wasnt this taken from japanese media or fanbois or something?
oddball "errors" = lost in translation?
EDIT: Note to self - read the rest of a thread before I post...
There's a great interview with the lead designer of this new gem @ FT86club.com. (I'm a new member here & don't know how to add links yet, sorry.) It will have the lowest center of gravity ever. The dash was supposedly designed for non-interference roll cage installation. It's a truly inspired new sports car and a welcome return to sports cars for Toyota. I'm pretty sure the aftermarket will be extremely willing to support it too.
Motor Trend drove a BRZ. 
Javelin wrote:oldeskewltoy wrote: The "Customize Grade" at the bottom is interesting: the "customize grade" bare bones model is 1190 kg !! Unpainted bumper 16 steelies (says ornament-included, guessing it includes the logo) plastic steering wheel NO A/C (only a heater) Power door locks Sunvisor (no vanity mirror) No speakersIf true (and $22K), this would be incredible. Based on the fanboi source, and Hyundai's success with R-Spec GC's, I'm not holding my breath.
Hmmmm, this????
Yeah, but will we get that in the US?
@ Javelin
Hyundai is selling 8,000 Genesis Sedans/Coupes per month. I can't see how that bodes poorly for the FT86.
DaewooOfDeath wrote: @ Javelin Hyundai is selling 8,000 Genesis Sedans/Coupes per month. I can't see how that bodes poorly for the FT86.
Genesis Coupe R-SPEC man. We're talking about the stripped tuner versions! Also, Hyundai's breakdown is something ridiculous, like 80% Genesis sedans and 20% Coupes.
You'll need to log in to post.
