So you want to build a BRZ/FRS Competitor

You're doing it wrong

Autoblog said: Coincidentally, rumors say the new plan is to use the Juke platform. Inside the company the project is being called the "Mini-Z," despite the fact it would almost certainly be front-wheel or all-wheel drive. That would help differentiate it from the BRZ/FR-S, but would certainly turn off those of us with sportier intentions. Nissan's 190-horsepower, 1.6-liter turbo was underhood in the concept, and if used in the production car, would have fewer horses but a wider torque band than its competitors from Toyota and Subaru.

Source

Needs less Juke and more 240SX.

The0retical wrote: all-wheel drive. Nissan's 190-horsepower, 1.6-liter turbo

Anyone?

Ummm, if I flatten the edges down a bit...

It kinda looks like...

Thanks, but we already have one of those Nissan.

Why do I think the perfect competitor for the brz/frs is this

yamaha wrote: Why do I think the perfect competitor for the brz/frs is this

+1 infinity!

I think when they say Mini-Z, they're referring more to the 370Z than the Frisbee twins.

Kind of reminds me of the Sport Concept from 2005. Not really a bad idea, especially if the 4WD were tuned with more rear bias than front, but not really a competitor to the FRS. But it certainly is an improvement over the Versa.

As long as it's fun to drive and affordable, I don't really care what wheels push it. (or pull for that matter.)

I dig it.

If it was rwd I'd be so happy. I've always wanted a true hatchback that was rear drive.

Look at how competitive the Mazda 2 is, and its one of the cheapest new cars out there. It has four doors.

Ditch the doors, give it RWD, skip the fancy interior, and keep it at the same price.

It'd sell like hotcakes.

That's what gets me. Why does a RWD vehicle sudden require upscale interior and all this fancy schmancy stuff when I really want is a fuel efficient rwd car.

lol @ Frisbee twins

All I really need is an AWD Focus ST. It's not FWD that I don't like, it's torque steer. Get rid of that and I don't care.

That's what gets me. Why does a RWD vehicle sudden require upscale interior and all this fancy schmancy stuff when I really want is a fuel efficient rwd car.

RWD platforms are more expensive to build and RWD drivetrains are more lossy so the question is why would a manufacturer TRY to build a low-buck, high economy car with RWD vs FWD?

gimpstang wrote:

yamaha wrote: Why do I think the perfect competitor for the brz/frs is this

+1 infinity!

Yes please. I will take one in that blue color. But they would never sell to automotive enthusiast in North America: I checked and they were not under 20k new nor sold used from the factory.

As to the original post, if it is FWD, it aint a sports car. It is a Toaster. It is not fun. Like kissing your sister. It might get the job done, but who would want to?

PHeller wrote: That's what gets me. Why does a RWD vehicle sudden require upscale interior and all this fancy schmancy stuff when I really want is a fuel efficient rwd car.

Because a RWD chassis = a whole new car platform. It's super easy (and super cheap) to take an existing bread-and-butter FWD platform and make a hot car out of it (Golf > GTI, Focus > ST, Taurus > SHO, Civic > Si, Elantra > Veloster, etc, etc) because the engineering, tooling, and production costs are already being amortized by the thousands. Without a ready RWD chassis in the stable already, you have to design one from the ground-up (which is why the Frisbee is such a big deal, it's the first bespoke RWD sports car in a looooong time). These ground-up cars have to make up for the cost by being stupidly expensive (hello Viper, Corvette, et all)

For the last ~20 years manufacturers have made their sporty RWD cars based off of another car, usually a luxury sedan. (G35/G37 > 350Z/370Z, Genesis > Genesis Coupe, Holden Commodore/Pontiac G8 > Camaro, etc). Mazda was pretty much the only solo game in town, and their RWD platform was used for the Miata and the RX-8. Ford's Mustang has been bespoke since 05, but there's lots of clatter over making the next one as some sort of sedan as well to justify the price.

So, yeah, I'm with you 1,000,000%. I really, really want a new, cheap, RWD car that's simple. The "Mazda2" of the sports car world. It's way easier to justify a warrantied $14K play car than a $25K play car, etc. The global manufacturing right now just isn't showing it.

bravenrace wrote: All I really need is an AWD Focus ST. It's not FWD that I don't like, it's torque steer. Get rid of that and I don't care.

I know, right? Evan the Revo-Knuckle from the current FWD RS would be fine! Why can't Ford make a Super-ST that uses that?

Vigo wrote: RWD drivetrains are more lossy

Really? Still holding on to that assumption, are you?

Javelin wrote:

Vigo wrote: RWD drivetrains are more lossy

Really? Still holding on to that assumption, are you?

More moving parts, farther distance traveled... All things being equal, they are more lossy.

Comes down to the same subject that i challenged about a year ago about why drivetrain loss shouldn't be a percentage, and should instead be a fixed value.

I was wrong, and this ties into why.

In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:

You assume RWD = FR.

Also, it (FR, MR, RR) does not necessarily have more moving parts, a farther distance, etc than an FF setup. Every platform/drivetrain is different. We've gone into some FWD's having a ring & pinion differential before as well, etc, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Mazda2 of the sports car world a Miata?

ptmeyer84 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Mazda2 of the sports car world a Miata?

Yep, wrong. Miata starts at $9,000 more than the Mazda2. (about 61% more money in other words)

Javelin wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: You assume RWD = FR. Also, it (FR, MR, RR) does not necessarily have more moving parts, a farther distance, etc than an FF setup. Every platform/drivetrain is different. We've gone into some FWD's having a ring & pinion differential before as well, etc, etc.

Ok, well... would you agree that MOST RWD cars are FR, and it's typical for a typical FR car to have more loss than a typical FF car? That's all that was really being implied i would think.

I don't see too many MR econocars...

Javelin wrote:

ptmeyer84 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Mazda2 of the sports car world a Miata?

Yep, wrong. Miata starts at $9,000 more than the Mazda2. (about 61% more money in other words)

Well, using that logic, there's no Mazda2 of the sports car world. (Which at the core, is something i'd agree with)

jstein77 wrote: I think when they say Mini-Z, they're referring more to the 370Z than the Frisbee twins. Kind of reminds me of the Sport Concept from 2005. Not really a bad idea, especially if the 4WD were tuned with more rear bias than front, but not really a competitor to the FRS. But it certainly is an improvement over the Versa.

The full article suggests that the 240sx successor was killed off due to the poor economy and that Nissan is moving to make a light weight sports car (possibly the lightened up Z car we've heard rumors about) on the Juke chassis. I'd like a light, fun, cheap, RWD or AWD RWD biased hot hatch a lot, and the Juke is actually quite a bit lighter than I thought it was but honestly it looks like the Juke and Velostar had a rowdy night at a frat party and it's produced a car with all the aesthetics of an Anglerfish.

Javelin wrote:

ptmeyer84 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Mazda2 of the sports car world a Miata?

Yep, wrong. Miata starts at $9,000 more than the Mazda2. (about 61% more money in other words)

Sorry, reading comprehension fail. Yes, at the price point of a new Mazda2 there is no new competitor. But there is a quick fix for this, reduce the price of a new Miata by $9000.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I don't see too many MR econocars...

Excepting of course the MR2

Just pointing out that it's drivetrain engineering that makes a car fuel efficient or not, driven wheels (and in some cases, layout) has not much to do with it.

In fact, funnily enough, a lot of the new electric designs coming down the pike are RWD platforms in part to make the nose narrower (and smaller front tires, etc) for better aero, which = more MPGe.