|
Laserface posted:Subaru got jelly of Toyota hogging the limelight and dropped this. (FYI, both companies have agreed 'not to show anything until the Tokyo Motor Show' so the leaks are likely Toyota building hype) I want this now
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
Quellar posted:but I'm a big believer in making a 200bhp car into a 300bhp rather than buying a 300bhp. That's gonna be tough, at least on a budget. It's cake on a turbo motor, but will take lots of hardware and tuning for a NA motor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
But is there room for an LSx that's the question  I wonder how long it will take once they're on the market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
leica posted:But is there room for an LSx that's the question Depends on whether that company ultimateforce worked for can convince him to come back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
Maybe they'd make a "sleeper" version with a huge blower sticking out of the hood and a giant vinyl sticker down the side that says SLEEPER
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
leica posted:Maybe they'd make a "sleeper" version with a huge blower sticking out of the hood and a giant vinyl sticker down the side that says SLEEPER The huge blower is only a fake stick on cover over a little blower that sticks out
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 15:52
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Subaru is building it in their Gunma( ? ) plant. Which one, the subaru, the scion or the toyota, or all 3?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 15:56
|
|
|
All three.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
Phone posted:Subaru likes to hang their engines as far forward as possible. The boxer and drivetrain packaging that Subaru uses is pretty entrenched, they didn't adopt a oilpan axle pass-through system like BMW or Nissan, so having a 2cylinder long engine was their solution. It'd be pretty hard anyway, given their crank throws would maybe interfere with the axle. Unforunately, the forward-mount boxer design's only benefit is a lower cG, polar moments go nuts, packaging gets complicated with modern VVT cylinder heads and maintenance, and you end up following a philosophy meant for a pushrod 4boxer and lever activated 4wd. You can solve the cG problem by raising the engine above the level of the monocoque's rails, but you lose the only benefit of the design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Oh dear lord. Someone tint (or photoshop on) Subaru gold wheels for me please. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
kylej posted:Oh dear lord. Someone tint (or photoshop on) Subaru gold wheels for me please. Like'a Dis? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
thebushcommander posted:Like'a Dis? Dear lord 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
DJ Commie posted:The boxer and drivetrain packaging that Subaru uses is pretty entrenched, they didn't adopt a oilpan axle pass-through system like BMW or Nissan, so having a 2cylinder long engine was their solution. It'd be pretty hard anyway, given their crank throws would maybe interfere with the axle. Unforunately, the forward-mount boxer design's only benefit is a lower cG, polar moments go nuts, packaging gets complicated with modern VVT cylinder heads and maintenance, and you end up following a philosophy meant for a pushrod 4boxer and lever activated 4wd. You can solve the cG problem by raising the engine above the level of the monocoque's rails, but you lose the only benefit of the design. I just want to one day see a Lotus 7 or exo-type car that uses a Subaru boxer 4 in a front midships FR design that has the engine all the way behind the front axle line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
thebushcommander posted:Like'a Dis? holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
thebushcommander posted:Like'a Dis? Get rid of that obnoxious wing and that is one fantastic looking car.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
thebushcommander posted:Like'a Dis? fuuuuck i take back everything i said. Oh, also, here's an official rendering of the front end. http://rumors.automobilemag.com/finally-subaru-shows-brz-sti-concept-before-l-a-debut-84859.html  
OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Nov 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Get rid of that obnoxious wing and that is one fantastic looking car. I kinda like the wing 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
DJ Commie posted:Unforunately, the forward-mount boxer design's only benefit is a lower cG, polar moments go nuts quote:You can solve the cG problem by raising the engine above the level of the monocoque's rails, but you lose the only benefit of the design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
The wing looks good to me, one of the only acceptable wings I've seen in a long time, and is probably actually functional on top of that. But what's with the tiny mirrors? You can barely see them and it just looks kinda odd. Normal sized, body colored mirrors would look much better. The Subie looks the best so far, love the Subie blue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
leica posted:But what's with the tiny mirrors? You can barely see them and it just looks kinda odd. It's just a rallycar look. Or a racing car look in general, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
The tiny mirrors are simply because it's a concept. The rear version will have normal sized mirrors and door handles i'm sure. Otherwise, there doesn't look like there's too much on that concept that they couldn't bring to market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
DJ Commie posted:The boxer and drivetrain packaging that Subaru uses is pretty entrenched, they didn't adopt a oilpan axle pass-through system like BMW or Nissan, so having a 2cylinder long engine was their solution. It'd be pretty hard anyway, given their crank throws would maybe interfere with the axle. Unforunately, the forward-mount boxer design's only benefit is a lower cG, polar moments go nuts, packaging gets complicated with modern VVT cylinder heads and maintenance, and you end up following a philosophy meant for a pushrod 4boxer and lever activated 4wd. You can solve the cG problem by raising the engine above the level of the monocoque's rails, but you lose the only benefit of the design. Not often I disagree but mate, no. The Subie egnine's mass is even more compacted than a rotary and the apparent overhang is nothing more than the ancillaries - the main mass is quite a way back and centrallised, which is even more pronounced in the BRZ. Crank throws interfere with a RWD layout....? cG issue?!?!?! Sorry but what??? Even in the AWD which is restricted to where the driveshafts have to go, you still are further back that what it appears and all main mass is compact, better than any other production AWD - which is the fair comparision. I'm tearing down my WRX's engine and really it's quite interesting just how small it really is - and more to the point it's all so drat light and easy to actually work on. The block being smaller than a normal I4 leads to the fact that it is one of the very few engines that is noticably lighter than a rotary and that really is saying something. Where the whole polar movement thing came from was Subaru and WRC where you have two issues - one, Subaru persisted in a production block where the other teams did not and hence the other teams did a bunch of nutso modification to get an I4 as low and as far back as possible - which on a road car you can not do and b) Subaru were loving retards and designed the suspension completely wrong on the 04-05, mistakes that persisted to the 06 WRC and were not completely nutted out before they pulled out. But you might notice in the Group A days they were not complaining about that as then you needed a production block in it's production location. And when you do that - a road car - the Boxer gains some signifigant advantages over other AWD options. In the BRZ, the motor is lighter than any other 2 litre I4 option, it's much lower, it's much more compact and much further back now it doesnt have to worry about driveshafts. Whta they do for the WRX I dont know but for the BRZ a boxer is a drat good choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
I think the most amazing part of the whole thing is that the FRS looks pretty similar to the concept they put forward in 2007. I mean, I remember being excited about This article all those years ago and it's finally almost here. They didn't abandon their goal and make some bland car or go in a completely different direction. They wanted to make an interesting car, and thats what they did. I guess the turnaround time from concept to production has been a bit longer than the article states...but "all good things come to those who wait".
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
I was always partial to this particular bit of speculation
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
Billy Zane posted:I was always partial to this particular bit of speculation Ah yes, the IS-350Z Cosworth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Billy Zane posted:I was always partial to this particular bit of speculation I am somewhat disappointed that the Toyota version isn't more hatchback looking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
I'm disappointed it's not a legit hatchback or liftback. Trunks are the worst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
thebushcommander posted:Like'a Dis? That'll do it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
69sofine posted:I'm seeing Corvette in the front and Lamborghini in the back A few pages back but yes, the Cien certainly does look like the mullet of vehicles. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
Billy Zane posted:I was always partial to this particular bit of speculation Haha, its exactly like when Ford brought back the Mustang. "lets make it fatter, rounder, and bigger!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:definitely is: I don't see why it needs the stupid lift up collar - reminds me too much of a 90s Vauxhall
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
dissss posted:I don't see why it needs the stupid lift up collar - reminds me too much of a 90s Vauxhall It's just how Subaru does it these days. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:
quote:Crank throws interfere with a RWD layout....? If you put the engine in between the front wheels the width of the engine interferes with either the axles (if the front wheels are driven) or the front suspension. you can put the front diff n the oil pan and raise the engine to solve the axle problem but then your engine now sits higher which negates the advantage of the flat layout. If the front wheels aren't driven as in this case you are still limited in clearance for the front suspension. Maybe this is not such a big problem if you design the suspension around the engine but this car notably uses Macpherson strut front suspension. The ideal solution would have been to put the engine where the backseats are and make it a neu-MR2, but I suppose having back seats was important. I agree with Bob Lutz that mid-engined cars are fine from a technical standpoint but to have a really striking design and profile you need the phallic proportions of a front engined, RWD GT. Also no one is going to buy this turkey. It will be a sales disaster. Wrap it up Suba-ilures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:If you put the engine in between the front wheels the width of the engine interferes with either the axles (if the front wheels are driven) or the front suspension. you can put the front diff n the oil pan and raise the engine to solve the axle problem but then your engine now sits higher which negates the advantage of the flat layout. If the front wheels aren't driven as in this case you are still limited in clearance for the front suspension. Maybe this is not such a big problem if you design the suspension around the engine but this car notably uses Macpherson strut front suspension.. Ok. I thought when he said CoG, he meant only the vertical component, and that he would have said polar moment for the tucking in of the motor improvement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Maybe this is not such a big problem if you design the suspension around the engine but this car notably uses Macpherson strut front suspension. Exactly what is wrong with MacPherson strut again.....? I keep forgetting because apparently I'm in an alternative world where it works more than "just fine", it in fact works extremely well. And it's quite clearly not going to be an issue here either given this body has been designed from the ground up to accept a boxer engine?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 06:16
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Also no one is going to buy this turkey. It will be a sales disaster. Wrap it up Suba-ilures. Part of me thinks you're right. There are a ton of car people all over the internet that are complaining that this car just doesn't have the horsepower to compel them to buy it. But, then I look at the Miata, somehow it succeeded despite having such low horsepower numbers and a terrible reputation as a gay car. It even managed to outlive the technically superior S2000. Maybe the fact that it doesn't appeal to car people will be what makes it succeed. There are a lot of people, especially in the 40-50 sports car buying age, that don't care about horsepower. They care about things like good looks, reliability and gas mileage. This thing will certainly have all of those qualities. This is certainly a car I could see my mom rolling around in. I've always seen Subaru as a cheaper, more reliable competitor to Audi. They just don't market their cars the same way the other Asian manufactures do, they tend to emphasize pragmatism in their marketing. When you look at the BRZ against the Audi TT, everything makes more sense. The TT sells pretty well, but the BRZ has it beat in every category except for badge. I can make a solid case for both predictions, honestly. So I think this will just have to be a wait-and-see thing. I do hope it succeeds, if it doesn't, then that is solid evidence that there just is not a market for a cheap pure sports car anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
One thing that is good news coming out of all this hype is that Toyota and Subaru agreed to release the initial cars with the same body, engine and specs at the same time, but after that, they are each companys own hands and they can do whatever they want with them. Subaru has mentioned that the wheel base can be extended quite a bit, so it could see use for other platforms. Heres hoping that after the first year STi release a turbo model.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Not often I disagree but mate, no. The Subie egnine's mass is even more compacted than a rotary and the apparent overhang is nothing more than the ancillaries - the main mass is quite a way back and centrallised, which is even more pronounced in the BRZ. The crank centerline of a normal transverse-mounted engine is not more than a few inches forward of the axle center-line (the ring gear diameter plus the drive gear off the output shaft plus the distance from the input shaft to output shaft), where in the Boxer the flywheel, clutch and entire crank length is forward of the axle, nearly a foot from the axles to the front of the heads, plus ancillaries. It somewhat related to why Subaru wasn't competitive in WRC. There were lot of reasons before their inability to meet the new requirements, but one was (I heard it from a prodrive article) that they were unable to move the engine backwards in any sort of reasonable regard, where Ford and Citroen WRC engines are canted back at like 50degrees to help the polar moment. The heads were basically over the axle centerlines. I suppose you could install an integral driveshaft in the oilpan like BMW/Nissan did with their longitudinal AWD cars, but I think the Subaru engine is placed too far down in the bay to make it workable, I've never seen it tried with a boxer. The boxer is a compromise of an old design decision (or legacy of design) to solve a problem that doesn't exist on this car, being the front axles. I haven't the slightest idea why Toyota went with such a silly design idea, though they don't have any current sporty engines at all and maybe the FB could tune up nicely, though Subaru isn't know for its N/A engines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 08:09
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:Part of me thinks you're right. There are a ton of car people all over the internet that are complaining that this car just doesn't have the horsepower to compel them to buy it. But, then I look at the Miata, somehow it succeeded despite having such low horsepower numbers and a terrible reputation as a gay car. It even managed to outlive the technically superior S2000. The MX-5 suceeded because it's a drat good thing to drive in every single way you can think of, which appeals to a lot more than just self proclaimed car people. As in it is still after 20 years an experience that basically nothing else replicates - and the people who are so hung up on power call themselves "car people" .... well they arent, they are bench racing wankers. The BRZ has more hp than a MX5, it's also currently lighter. It's being made to blatantly replicate another fantastic drivers car, the Sprinter (which has much less power but there's a drat good reasons why it the tofu delivery machine of choice). If this thing handles as well as initial reports says it does then gently caress the hp wankers -I WANT THIS CAR because I love throwing small light cars into corners at ridiculous speeds! If it doesnt handle then it can go to hell. DJ - the BRZ is not a AWD. There is no driveshafts to gently caress with the layout, which is why the boxer is a godawful way back. I don't understand why you arent seeing this - the WRX will be a different kettle of fish and then you need to compare apples with apples, almost all AWD layouts likewise have their engines further forward (but they are also bigger engines as well), but the BRZ is not AWD and the engine is well back and behind the axle line - in a position and CoG than no I4 can match. CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Nov 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 08:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
aww man. I want to buy it already but shouldn't. I guess I don't go to the toyota dealership anymore for my free alignments
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 08:47
|
|
