So the BBB enforces rules for Nascar now?
So the BBB enforces rules for Nascar now?
Nope, that was an add-on at the end of that particular rant. Any other technicalities on the facts as presented? :twisted:
Quit yer bitchin! It's actually pretty sweet as it stands.
Ideally I was more interested in something lighter, weaker, and cheaper, but if it's under 3000 lbs and under 20k it's not so bad. The high output n/a boxer is definately a bonus in by book.
I do however doubt it will end up like that.
edit- I'm not sure what the specific weights are (curb, etc), but the weight listed in the article is less than my AE86 SR-5's weight posted on the door of the car (~3100), and it definately has more power... the only problem now is the price
P71 wrote: So the same engineering/reliability/durability that brought us Tundra camshaft failures, Tacoma frame rot, the largest recall of the year for the last 4 years running, and the EPA nightmare of Hybrid batteries and the toxic waste dump that is the Pious (on purpose) plant? The same nameplate/QC/customer service that's been busted on by the BBB for high-pressure sales tactics, fraud to the elderly, and cheating in NASCAR? The same ultralightweight as the 4,500Lb Challenger? Stop with the fanboism, it's suffocating.
Nope...the NASCAR (and WRC) cheating is the engineering part. :grin:
My supposed fanboi-ism is no less suffocating than your insistance on introducing lots of unrelated poppycock in a vain attempt to invalidate my opinion.
I don't own trucks, this thread isn't about trucks, and I am not too interested in hybrids...in fact, none of the cars we are discussing have hybrid drivetrains.
I am not aware of any Toyota models called Challenger, especially not one weighing 4500 pounds.
I have had good experiences with Toyota products and would buy Toyota cars again based on that experience. I simply think of myself as someone who knows what he likes and is a potential customer for this new car. Every Toyota I have owned, from very early 80's to mid-2000's has been remarkably reliable, even when abused....and even when purchased used with an unknown service history and then abused. I can't say the same for the Hondas, VW/Audis, Saabs, Alfa Romeos, GMs, or Subarus with which I have had more than passing experience. That isn't to say that all the other cars were garbage, or that I will buy Toyota for the rest of my life, just that the bulk of experience points to Toyota as having some of the best reliability and durabilty.
I am aware that most of the initial rumors and quotes from Toyota insiders suggesting a target of a 2200 pound car with a sub 2-liter inline four...that is the ultra-light-weight I was referencing. Toyota has built some lightweight cars in the not-too-distant past: the MR-S as well as the Echo/xA/Vitz, so while optimistic, the original target seemed more realistic for a Toyota design, whereas Subaru history points toward an Impreza-based coupe being heavier.
I also know what I don't like, and boxer engines belong on that list. Other than a lower center of gravity, I haven't yet been convinced that a flat four has any real advantages over an inline four, and to my ear they don't sound very good.
The latest rumors indicate that most of what I was looking forward to is now no longer part of the picture, so I am less excited about buying one as soon as they come out. When I buy one anyway because Toyota is involved despite not liking the basics of it and then buy Toyota badges from the Japanese-market model....then you can call me a fanboy, but until then... :omg:
Stuc wrote: edit- I'm not sure what the specific weights are (curb, etc), but the weight listed in the article is less than my AE86 SR-5's weight posted on the door of the car (~3100), and it definately has more power... the only problem now is the price
3100 is not the curb weight. Thats the loaded vehicle weight rating. Curb on that car should be more like ~2300lbs.
Yeah, its not the ideal car. But none of us are designing it. If we did, everyone on this board would run out and buy one, but none of the American public would. I'm happy to see something RWD and affordable. Curb and power are very close to the S2000, for a lot less money.
I think it has potential as an enthusiast car. For as much as folks like the miata and the s2000, the big problem for the average joe when trying to get involved in grassroots type of motorsports are those cars lack a roll bar. They then have to add one....yadda yadda. Many folks wish that mazda built the coupe, and that honda should have done the same. People are excited by the bmw 1 series. This car fills the same niche for less $$. It will be a good reliable car, perfect for the weekend warrior. It only makes sense that driveline and suspension bits be from existing platforms. New development means a larger price tag....and they are smart enough to know that the price is the key factor. It isn't going to be a family car. Its going to be a weekend toy for those with disposable income and it will be the daily driver for young single folk. The one thing I'd hate to see is a macpherson strut setup in the front....and I'm afraid that might be necessary with the amount of room the boxer engine uses. It will only be a matter of time before people transplant the turbo motor in.....then look out. As far as weight goes....lightweight cars are a thing of the past. You can blame many things, including safety, emmisions and consumer demand for creature comforts. I'm sure they could make a stripped version, with next to no interior comforts etc.....but they probably wouldn't sell more than a dozen of them.
They tried to make a small, light, good looking car and churned out another fat ugly cow on wheels. Oh well, maybe next time...
Ok, it's realease is still 3 years off. The genesis coupe will be out sooner and cost less. I just hope the suyota says under 3k#.
That's the only picture I've seen and I like it. I've often wondered what the ITR and RSX, Celica etc, would have been if they had just turned the engine and made them RWD. I realize these all have their own following, but you could reach another whole segment just by making it rwd. A midmarket "halo" car for the drift/drag crowd. Imagine the tuning possibilities with the subaru boxer four. I've had a wrx wagon for 6 years with no problems. I've got no issue with the boxer vs inline though I'd be interested in exactly why Ae86 guy does. I'll consider this car if/when it actually happens.
It still is hard to believe how heavy these things are now. I guess the safety stuff combined with the comfort stuff we all demand (name the last new car sold with A/c as an "option") really adds the poundage.
I see a lot of performance potential in this. An e30 325i, for example, weighs in at over 2800#, and its not exactly a motorsports failure...
If you want to lower the cost and weight, take out everything you don't want in it, and make it a 2400# car yourself. then you sell it all, and get back a couple grand. There, now its everything you were asking for. Seriously, its not that unrealistic. My friend has an Impreza that he took about 300# out of, and its still a hell of a lot more civilized than a lot of all of your "pinnacle of automotive design" 80's coupes.
I'm not picking at any one person's opinions, but I think a lot of people need to consider that they are in the 5% minority in what they want in a car, and if they want their dream car built, its not going to be done for them by any factory.
For now, just be happy this car will exist for you to buy used in 10 years, and know that this car is a step in the right direction, instead of another Tiburon.
As it stands, i think it's ugly and i won't buy it... but i hope it does well.
Jamesc2123 wrote: I see a lot of performance potential in this. An e30 325i, for example, weighs in at over 2800#, and its not exactly a motorsports failure...
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!
Brust wrote: TI've had a wrx wagon for 6 years with no problems. I've got no issue with the boxer vs inline though I'd be interested in exactly why Ae86 guy does.
Personal preference, mostly. I really like the driving experience (challenge?) of a high-revving engine which makes you work for the meat of the powerband and provides a singing soundtrack while doing so. I love the 4A-GE and 3S-GE, likewise the B16/B18, and many other Honda engines. I like the Suzuki 16-valve 1.3 and the Cosworth BD series. I haven't driven one, but I imagine a BMW S14 is pretty tasty also. When I've driven them, I don't like the character or the sound of the N/A Subarus as much.
I'd be interested if someone can correct me, but the best of my understanding, flat fours are a difficult layout for optimal header/intake runner design...probably part of the reason for the popularity of forced induction. As far as I know, the funky firing order makes pulse/resonance tuning more difficult than for an inline four.
Once again, I'd love to hear a well-constructed argument for the boxer, but it just seems ridiculous to me to take a four cylinder engine and feel that there is good reason for splitting it into two banks of cylinders. With eight cylinders or more, I can really begin to see how physical packaging limitations make a great case for two banks of cylinders rather than a long line, but how often is an inline four just too long to fit? I know it is silly to get hung up on theory when practice proves otherwise, but slightly shorter and a lower center of gravity seems like a poor argument for the added complexity/potential for problems with double the heads, double the headgaskets, double the camshafts and associated timing mechanisms, the aforementioned intake and exhaust routing challenges...and even more so when you consider how wide the thing is. Sure, it might be short and low, but I bet the engineers in charge of designing and developing the front suspension and steering had some design compromises they would have been happy to get rid of by going to an inline engine.
Meh, I'll still be happy to consider one when they come out, but I'm just saying that it on paper it doesn't seem like my ideal, or a contemporary take on the AE86 GT-S. Some "new versions" of old cars do a great job of keeping in touch with the spirit and character of the original, and others don't. For example, a Mustang GT does a better job than a New Beetle. I'm not talking styling here, but gut-feeling, seat-of-the-pants, behind-the-wheel stuff. You aren't likely to sell a die-hard 2002 fanatic on the idea that a new V-8 M3 is a contemporary take on his beloved car. 510 guys aren't rushing out to buy Versas or Altimas by the boatload, and most turbo AWD DSM nuts would laugh at the idea that a FWD V-6 Eclipse is a newer version of their cars. The jury may be divided on the Mini vs. MINI debate, but most car guys seem to agree that a new Corvette is definitely still a Corvette, or that an Elise or Exige is the real deal as far as the core values of Lotus is concerned.
Not to single anyone out on this board, I just wish the blogs, car gossip rags, and internet buzz would stop calling this car a "new AE86" because it isn't. So far on paper it doesn't look like a flyweight, torqueless screamer with surprising handling given simple roots...it is more of a Genesis coupe/V-6 Mustang competitor, or a cheaper 350Z alternative.
ae86andkp61 wrote: I'd be interested if someone can correct me, but the best of my understanding, flat fours are a difficult layout for optimal header/intake runner design...probably part of the reason for the popularity of forced induction. As far as I know, the funky firing order makes pulse/resonance tuning more difficult than for an inline four.
Actually, the flat 4 gives superior intake/exhaust routing. Take a look under the cowling of ANY private general aviation aircraft from the past, oh, 60 years? Look under the bonnet on a Porsche 911? That flat-6 will know your socks off!
You are correct on the added cost/complexity (double heads/valvetrain) but most flat-4's are naturally balanced making them smoother engines (same is true with inline-6's).
The exhaust routing is pretty good, but the scavenging doesn't work very well because the firing order used to make it balanced results in each collector seeing fire, fire, wait, wait...rather than the fire, wait, fire, wait of an inline four which allows the type of exhaust tuning which results in good exhaust scavenging (minimal turbulence with great flow) with the end result being real sweet spots in the powerband.
Here's an interesting picture of an amateur attempt at an equal-length pulse-scavenging boxer exhaust system, with the front cylinders paired, and the rears paired, rather than each bank paired:
As far as I know, the only place a flat four is perfectly balanced is in the advertising literature of certain car companies. 
There is a rotational imbalance because when viewed from above, one bank is offset slightly forward of the other (can't connect two rods to the exact same place on the crank!) Granted, it is a little bit less of an imbalance than the vertical second-order imbalance of an inline four, but with either the boxer or the inline four, the engine is smooth enough to be fine for a cheap car.
ae86andkp61 wrote: can't connect two rods to the exact same place on the crank!
Oh yes you can!!!
Well, I guess you can attach two rods to the same crank pin, like in a V engine, but that still isn't exactly the same place, because the cylinders end up offset from each other, so the imbalance is still present, is it not?
ae86andkp61 wrote: Well, I guess you can attach two rods to the same crank pin, like in a V engine, but that still isn't exactly the same place, because the cylinders end up offset from each other, so the imbalance is still present, is it not?
Again, yes, you can:
I'm guessing that nine con rod monstrosity is for an airplane? 
Radial
Cars aren't the only things with engines. Some diesels do use the master/articulated setup in automotive applications.
and just like that, they get pics- http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/04/spy-shots-toyota-subaru-coupe-caught-in-the-wild/
ok, first, lets forget the whole no awd-in-a-subie for a second. It is rear wheel drive, and japanese. This means lots of aftermarket support. What was the last rwd platform for 20k? And if you really dont want a rwd Subaru, import the jdm toyota badging. I know I would. And yes, "fanboism" is dumb. Get past it, and look at what a bargain this could be. Or might not be... point is we're arguing about a car that may or may not exist.
and you make your first post on reviving one that has been down for 3 weeks? But I do agree with your last point of it may not make it here.
Spy photos are up here: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/coupes/spy-shots-first-images-of-toyota-and-subarus-joint-sports-car/
Meh.
You'll need to log in to post.
