[kyleb350]

So what do you think is going to be different in the production version? I'd imagine the side view cameras replaced with actual mirrors, smaller exhaust, no (big) front splitter, and maybe the fender vents going away.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

But the S2000 and the Miata are not 4 seaters, nor they have a decent boot.

Also, the E30 road version power started at 200PS then 218PS (both with 2.3L four banger) and finally 238PS (with the 2.5L engine version).

I can see the same trend for this Subaru...

The concept is similar in a way, but this car clearly looks focused on sporting pretenses first; its low-slung body and sportscar attributes make it more similar to an RX-8. I'm only debating Levi's proposed idea that this is more of a spiritual successor, when this car is built from the ground-up as a 2+2 sportscoupe, not a hotted-up version of a family car.

The E30 M3 wasn't as stiffly sprung as people might think, and it still retained limitations based on its chassis's origin. Its primary quality was its ability to remain balanced in corners to maximize speed and carry momentum. I'm not digging on the car—I still think it's one of the all time best collecters cars, but its legendary status garners too much hype that seems to be a product of people glorifying the past.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by TK-421

It looks like it's wearing a black sports mouthpiece.

Cannot unsee.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

The E30 M3 wasn't as stiffly sprung as people might think, and it still retained limitations based on its chassis's origin. Its primary quality was its ability to remain balanced in corners to maximize speed and carry momentum.

That's precisely this Subaru's point...

Originally Posted by Year's_End

I'm not digging on the car—I still think it's one of the all time best collecters cars, but its legendary status garners too much hype that seems to be a product of people glorifying the past.

In a way... yes.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

That's precisely this Subaru's point...

"Good handling" can be achieved multiple ways. The E30 had a lot of slack and was slow and predictable at the limit. From the looks of things, this car doesn't look like it has much "slack" and will offer superior handling through typical sportscar meat-and-potato engineering (i.e. low center of gravity, stiff controlled suspension, neutral weight balance, etc).

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

"Good handling" can be achieved multiple ways. The E30 had a lot of slack and was slow and predictable at the limit.

What the E30 achieved IS what this Subaru aims to... which is the sense of driver control:

"That the car can be very controllable during a slide. In other words, that you can be able to control precisely the weight distribution using the brake and gas, maximizing the joy out of a corner."

The differences you are assuming that will exist are only the natural consequence of twenty years of distance between now and then.

Originally Posted by Year's_End

From the looks of things, this car doesn't look like it has much "slack" and will offer superior handling through typical sportscar meat-and-potato engineering (i.e. low center of gravity, stiff controlled suspension, neutral weight balance, etc).

A boxer engine is not a typical engine... why do you think Porsche uses it in the 911 till today?! Because it lowers the height of its center of gravity which is of paramount importance when most of the car's weight is shifted to the rear, behind the rear axle. That's the reason why the 911 doesn't make any sense to me... it really looks like an 'hammer'. If it wasn't for the boxer engine, the car would be even more difficult to control in a bend than it already is despite all the gadgets that Porsche uses to make it more accessible to drive.

Also, if you think about that agressive 1M's front fat flares you'll see that they kill the vehicle's aerodynamic and that's the reason why BMW try to compensate for using the so-called 'Air Curtain System' to channel the air around the front wheels, but it only helps slightly. The 1M drag coefficient (Cd) is 0.37 and the "air curtains" drop that by about 0.01 only.

When you compare that figure to Subaru's Cd = 0.27 (a Prius is 0.25) you can clearly see how good its aerodynamic also is and without the need of any gadgets:




This car is built with very neat engineering.

[335fourdoor]

perfect example of too much chassis for the motor. where is the turbo? damn it.

[UltimateBMW]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

What the E30 achieved IS what this Subaru aims to... which is the sense of driver control:

"That the car can be very controllable during a slide. In other words, that you can be able to control precisely the weight distribution using the brake and gas, maximizing the joy out of a corner."

The differences you are assuming that will exist are only the natural consequence of twenty years of distance between now and then.




A boxer engine is not a typical engine... why do you think Porsche uses it in the 911 till today?! Because it lowers the height of its center of gravity which is of paramount importance when most of the car's weight is shifted to the rear, behind the rear axle. That's the reason why the 911 doesn't make any sense to me... it really looks like an 'hammer'. If it wasn't for the boxer engine, the car would be even more difficult to control in a bend than it already is despite all the gadgets that Porsche uses to make it more accessible to drive.

Also, if you think about that agressive 1M's front fat flares you'll see that they kill the vehicle's aerodynamic and that's the reason why BMW try to compensate for using the so-called 'Air Curtain System' to channel the air around the front wheels, but it only helps slightly. The 1M drag coefficient (Cd) is 0.37 and the "air curtains" drop that by about 0.01 only.

When you compare that figure to Subaru's Cd = 0.27 (a Prius is 0.25) you can clearly see how good its aerodynamic also is and without the need of any gadgets:




This car is built with very neat engineering.

I find it funny that it has such a large spoiler and then also claims that the coefficient of drag is only 0.27. Spoilers typically are used for creating downforce, thus creating drag. If there is so little drag, then what is that Spoiler really doing up there sitting so high.

But, this car looks good. And I hardly am moved by most Japanese cars, from a looks/style perspective. But if that is a Concept with the intention to build, I would consider owning that car.

[UltimateBMW]

Coincidentally, I also just read that the e90 had as good as Cd = 0.26.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...ag_coefficient

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by UltimateBMW

Coincidentally, I also just read that the e90 had as good as Cd = 0.26.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...ag_coefficient

That must be a model we didn't get, as the E90 328i is listed as 0.29 and the 335i as 0.30 on www.bmwusa.com. However the F30 316d ES is listed as 0.26, but the F30 328i is still listed as 0.29 and the F30 335i is also still listed as 0.30. The E90 316d with 205 tires is listed as 0.27. Aha, the E90 320i M Sport is listed as 0.26!

[DieGrüneHölle]

Looks good

[immiketoo]

It looks more like the Mitsubishi Eclipse than anything else.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by 335fourdoor

perfect example of too much chassis for the motor. where is the turbo? damn it.

Apparently there are two different versions of these cars - one base and one uprated. You can see how they were experimenting with a rear wing in the prototype phase:





So, my conclusion is: there are two different engine specifications... the last one is more powerful.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by UltimateBMW

I find it funny that it has such a large spoiler and then also claims that the coefficient of drag is only 0.27. Spoilers typically are used for creating downforce, thus creating drag. If there is so little drag, then what is that Spoiler really doing up there sitting so high.

That figure is from its Toyota sibling but we can assume the same value for the Subaru base version (non STI).

Apparently you can improve the aerodynamics even further with several factory upgrade parts. See Toyota FT86:

[wisesoul]

Saw the BRZ STi concept and LA auto show. My god that thing is gorgeous in person.

[Davin]

Wowowowowowow!!

[GoingTooFast]

What I find most curious, despite the 1M being a bigger car than the Subaru, is that both keep the same proportion between overall length and wheelbase:

Subaru
4240/2570 (mm) = 1,65

BMW 1M
4380/2660 (mm) = 1,65


So, both have an equally short wheelbase... which in turn means that the tail of both cars will have the same will to step out.

However, the 1M is a significantly taller car than the Subaru... 1420mm against 1285mm. It means that not only you seat significantly lower in the Subaru but also that the center of gravity is again very low and the aerodynamics improved.

[NewYearsBoy]

Looks like a ugly poor mans LFA..

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

What the E30 achieved IS what this Subaru aims to... which is the sense of driver control:

The differences you are assuming that will exist are only the natural consequence of twenty years of distance between now and then.




A boxer engine is not a typical engine... why do you think Porsche uses it in the 911 till today?! Because it lowers the height of its center of gravity which is of paramount importance when most of the car's weight is shifted to the rear, behind the rear axle. That's the reason why the 911 doesn't make any sense to me... it really looks like an 'hammer'. If it wasn't for the boxer engine, the car would be even more difficult to control in a bend than it already is despite all the gadgets that Porsche uses to make it more accessible to drive.

Also, if you think about that agressive 1M's front fat flares you'll see that they kill the vehicle's aerodynamic and that's the reason why BMW try to compensate for using the so-called 'Air Curtain System' to channel the air around the front wheels, but it only helps slightly. The 1M drag coefficient (Cd) is 0.37 and the "air curtains" drop that by about 0.01 only.

When you compare that figure to Subaru's Cd = 0.27 (a Prius is 0.25) you can clearly see how good its aerodynamic also is and without the need of any gadgets.

I don't get where you're going with this; it sounds like arguing for the sake of it.

I still stand by my statement which was that this is hardly anything more of a spiritual successor to the E30 M3 than many other cars of its variety. It's very much like the cars I listed earlier. The RX-8 seats four, has limited power, and an excellent chassis with dynamics superior to a majority of cars on the road, so wouldn't that make it a spiritual successor to the E30 in your case as well?

"The differences you are assuming that will exist are only the natural consequence of twenty years of distance between now and then."
There are plenty of cars like this with easily controllable cornering behaviors that have been made over the past two decades, does that make them spiritual successors to the E30 if this is the only criteria?

I could go into why the 911 is so great, and makes so much sense to me, but that's for a day where I feel like writing a Great Wall of Text.

As for the 1M's air curtains, I believe they're largely a matter of marketing and unique design. If they wanted to decrease the Cd by a significant amount, they would've employed an aerodynamically-optimized undertray with a real diffuser, and they would've decreased the amount of intake space up front. It's pretty obvious to see that the car isn't the most aerodynamic shape in the world.

[BMW269]

Why the FT-86 could be a successor of the M3 E30 is because most of the car enthusiasts want a car LIKE the M3 E30: not very powerfull, but light and enough practical. Today such car does not exist (new). There is no more RX-8, S2000, the 1 Series M is still to heavy, the Cayman too expensive and the Lotus not very practical for daily drive. Other cars are turboed and FWD. I can't think of any other car that is similar to the M3 E30 other than the TOYOBARU. The other only rival of the FT-86 is the MX-5. Light and fun, but not that fast.

M3 E30/FT-86
Body: 2 doors + trunk/coupé
Seats: 4/2+2
Engine: N/A ~ 2l 4 cylinders, ~ 200 PS
Layout: front engine, rear drive
Weight: ~ 1200 kg

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Year's_End

"The differences you are assuming that will exist are only the natural consequence of twenty years of distance between now and then."
There are plenty of cars like this with easily controllable cornering behaviors that have been made over the past two decades, does that make them spiritual successors to the E30 if this is the only criteria?

I don't care if this Subaru is the spiritual successor to the E30 or not, honestly... that statement is not even mine.

As for your question... the answer is yes! All rwd front engined cars with easily controllable cornering behaviors are "spiritual successors to that E30's trait".

Originally Posted by Year's_End

I could go into why the 911 is so great, and makes so much sense to me, but that's for a day where I feel like writing a Great Wall of Text.

Don't take the trouble... if the 911 concept would make any sense as the pinnacle of sports/race/track car all the F1 cars in history would have been rwd rear engined cars (engine behind the rear axle)... I don't even remember a single one with that configuration but certainly you can point me one.

Originally Posted by Year's_End

As for the 1M's air curtains, I believe they're largely a matter of marketing and unique design. If they wanted to decrease the Cd by a significant amount, they would've employed an aerodynamically-optimized undertray with a real diffuser, and they would've decreased the amount of intake space up front. It's pretty obvious to see that the car isn't the most aerodynamic shape in the world.

There is one main reason for that: the car uses the M3 much wider track and wheels!

The amount of intake space up front is necessary to cool down the engine by means of bigger radiators. If you look closer you'll see that the 1M and the Z4 35is (which has the very same engine) have roughly the same amount of intake space up front because the famous double-kidney grille is much bigger on the Z4 than on the 1M.





That's the reason why the drag coefficient of the Z4 35is isn't much better than that of the 1M, despite of the fact that the Z4 is significantly lower - Cd = 0.35!

Just out of curiosity, the Subaru is even lower than the Z4, 1285mm against 1291mm!!!

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Levi

Why the FT-86 could be a successor of the M3 E30 is because most of the car enthusiasts want a car LIKE the M3 E30: not very powerfull, but light and enough practical. Today such car does not exist (new).

So very true.

Originally Posted by Levi

(...) the 1 Series M is still to heavy, the Cayman too expensive and the Lotus not very practical for daily drive. Other cars are turboed and FWD. I can't think of any other car that is similar to the M3 E30 other than the TOYOBARU.

You nailed it!

1. The 1 Series M is still too heavy;
2. The Cayman too expensive;
3. Lotus not very practical for daily drive.


The best summarized description yet.