[GoingTooFast]

“Yet when I meet up with rival sports car chief engineers (and we do at various times around the world), we all talk about what we call the Devil’s Cycle of ever-increasing power, speed, weight and price.

If you didn't read it yet, it's worth reading Toyobaru chief engineer Tetsuya Tada about the whole idea behind the Toyobaru conception and about future projects, namely the relationship with BMW:

“You need to remember that this car was the result of an executive board meeting at Toyota in 2007 with the sole agenda that people around the world are losing interest in cars and what Toyota was going to do about it. One suggestion on how to address this was to go back to basics with a sports car that would rekindle interest. In the past, sports cars had been repeatedly rejected as having a poor return on investment, but at this meeting it was decided that if the technology division could make something that could restart interest, then the marketing division would support it.

“I had been working in the minivan department engineering new product, but a month after the meeting I was summoned. ‘Forget about minivans,’ they said, ‘you are now working on the sports-car project.’

“I started to research the idea and the first thing that hit home to me was that all sports cars are launched to the same formula. The are very fast, with fast lap times and that was the index that was used to measure how effective the car was. Yet when I spoke to car guys around the world they universally said they didn’t want that. These guys were still repairing their old Silvas and AE86 models.

“Yet the first question from the board when I reported back was, ‘how fast is it?’ They couldn’t imagine a car which drives like a dream but isn’t that quick. I was thinking that maybe the car guys were right when they said they thought Toyota would be the hardest company to get such a high-fun, low-top-speed car past.

“Yet when I meet up with rival sports car chief engineers (and we do at various times around the world), we all talk about what we call the Devil’s Cycle of ever-increasing power, speed, weight and price. So I started to work on the packaging requirements for this different sort of sports car. It would need to be front engined and rear wheel drive, but it would also have to be ‘cool’ and by that I mean low at the front. Yet all our Toyota engines are quite high and that would mean the car would have to have a high front end to pass pedestrian safety legislation, which wouldn’t be good for the aerodynamics, the looks or the ‘cool’.

“It quickly became clear that we would need a flat-four cylinder or a rotary engine for such a ‘cool’ sports car. And by coincidence, Toyota and Subaru had just announced a collaboration deal. And although it wasn’t in the area of building a joint sports car, they did have a flat-four engine. In fact the deal was that Toyota was buying some Subaru shares back off General Motors and there was no financial benefit until we came along and suggested we talk to Subaru about their engine.

“When we first approached Subaru they couldn’t believe that our plans for a sports car wasn’t a four-wheel drive or a turbocharged engine. ‘Who is going to buy this car?’ they said. We talked for a while, but the discussions stalled and we didn’t do anything for six months. Then we built a prototype based on a Subaru Legacy and that’s when the mindset seemed to change at Subaru. We lent them that car and the Subaru management came back to us and said, ‘this is such an interesting car. Every time we lend it out, it comes back with the rear tyres worn out!’.

“So the project was on again and the initial approval was for us to take the Subaru engine as it was. This was for financial reasons. We persevered but one year into the project and both sides could see that while we had a sports car, it still needed a good power level of 100bhp per litre and also an environmental target of a maximum of 160g/km of carbon dioxide emissions. With the Subaru flat four as it was we could get one and not the other. If we wanted 160g/km we only got 60bhp per litre, which meant 120bhp in total; not enough.

“We had hit another wall. I went to our engine simulator and looked at the set up we had to give us the figures we needed. The chief engineer from the Lexus LFA came to help us and he proved that with Toyota’s D4S [direct and port] fuel-injection system and a certain bore and stroke we could hit our power and emissions targets.

“Oh dear. We then had a lot of problems with the Toyota board. We needed the company’s most advanced direct fuel-injection system, but when I said I was going to disclose the inner workings of the most modern Toyota advance to an outside company, they said, ‘Are you crazy?’.

“Our saviour turned out to be the head of engine development Shinzo Kobuki*who had also developed the engine in the AE86. He took on the task of persuading the board to allow us to use D4S. You might have thought that owning Subaru shares meant that such a move would be in both our interests, but no.

“What’s more Subaru’s reaction was a bolt from the blue. ‘Not over my dead body,’ was their reaction. The rationale was their previous experience with direct injection and the many problems that had occurred. The chief executive officer of engine development had previously been the head of the introduction of direct injection at Subaru and was very anti the idea. Plus of course, the Subaru way is of corporate conservatism.

“So Mr Kobuki came out for us again. ‘I will convince them,’ he said. In the end he undertook to take on the warranty for all problems. What really won everyone over was when we built our first engine. You can imagine that the relationship between Toyota and Subaru at the time was very low. I admit, I was still thinking, ‘they’re never going to agree to this’. Even Mr Kobuki didn’t think that Subaru would understand the ramification of the D4S, the benefits it gave and its importance to Toyota. I was pretty low.

“Yet out of these feelings and the wall of reluctance, we made a prototype [in 2008], which had 190bhp. It started to dissolve the antipathy and marked the start of a mutual respect between Subaru and Toyota engineers. We had heard that Subaru engineering had been concerned about the potential for Toyota one-upmanship in this relationship. But after the prototype was built we all got together and felt that we were all on the same team.”

“As far as the convertible is concerned, there’s still some way to go before production. We’ve got many engineering challenges and not all of them are solved yet.
“But from the outset, when we were engineering the coupé, we had the cabrio in mind. So we knew all the hard points that would be involved when it became an open top and bore those in mind. So the indexed windows are one highlight, also the way we laid out the rear suspension to allow for the folding roof.

“Our exterior designer has already had in his mind having a cabrio version, so in his drawings he did a cut-off roof. The designer, Mr Brouchan, he likes convertibles. At the beginning of the project I wasn’t too concerned about a convertible version, but I would sneak up on him and he was always drawing a drophead. I would say, ‘you’re drawing a convertible,*again!’.

“Mass producing a sports car for a company like Toyota carries a big business risk and we’ve tried to mitigate that risk with our collaboration with Subaru. We say, ‘mitigate’ in one [easy] word, but we had to make some really tough decisions for us to realise this. Also, along the way, we investigated the possibility of a sedan [saloon] and a shooting brake.

“Actually we tried to do this secretly but the executives found us out. They said: “what are you doing? Will you please focus on the coupé.” So that was our focal point and it was only with the success of the coupé that we were able to bring out the prototype of the convertible. It would never have existed without the support from you and the customers.

“It’s just my personal dream that the GT86 could become a family like what BMW has done with the Mini family. I hope that happens. I also have five dogs myself and I would like to have them in the car, so a sports shooting break would be just right.

“Actually I am flying to Munich after the [Geneva] motor show for discussion about the future cooperation with BMW. We are already discussing what we can do and the potential results of this collaboration. One of the things we learned from our cooperation with Subaru is how to bring these two different cultures together. Something like the GT86 sports car was particularly difficult in terms of collaboration, but what we can take from it is the experience of figuring out how we can get the obstacles to us working together for us. I am hoping that we can leverage this experience when we work with BMW. So just like we bought the GT86 out of our work with Subaru, I am hoping for a synergy effect with BMW that will result in a product that none of us could have imagined; something more than anyone expects. I would like that to be something like a sports car… I would even go so far as to say that for the collaboration to work we have to bring a product which exceeds all these expectations.

“It is absolutely essential to have great connections with each other that go beyond just pure business logic. I was able to have remarkable encounters with people at Subaru and we had supporters behind us on the Toyota and the Subaru side. I’d even say these connections have to happen if the BMW collaboration is to work. If we carried along the lines of same-old, same-old, then nothing good will come out of this.

“At the moment we are struggling, because we are having this really business-like dealing with BMW and we haven’t really been able to get through that barrier so far. Perhaps I need to meet them socially and drink beer and eat sausage together. In fact the one time I felt we went beyond the business-like barrier was when we all went to Oktoberfest and drank beer. That was the one time, when we were drinking together that I thought, these are unexpectedly good people…

“I have a friend in Mazda, he is chief engineer on the MX-5 and of course they have just announced a cooperation with Alfa Romeo. Because we talk a lot, I know he is going through very tough times because he is trying to get this project rolling. In collaborative projects like we have experienced, there is always going to be a long, long time where you are in doubt about it all, asking yourself, ‘why are we doing this? Why are we in this collaboration? Wouldn’t it be quicker just to do it ourselves?’ – there’s always this period. Luckily for the collaboration on the GT86, we got to a turning point in the collaboration, where we became one team (Team 86) and that goes beyond being Japanese and German, but having a common goal and all working towards the same thing. I’m hoping that the collaboration between Toyota and BMW will at some stage reach the same thing.

“We are investigating several aspects [to this deal] and I assume that it will be much tougher than what we’ve had with the Subaru deal. One thing that makes it difficult is that we don’t have a cross shareholding relationship.”

[GoingTooFast]

(text shown in bold)

*
Supra Successor Could Arrive in 2017, Concept Later This Year

The latest speculation from Toyota City about the Toyota Supra successor suggests that the flagship car may be powered by a turbocharged 2.5-liter I-4 hybrid producing at least 400 hp. Toyota may reveal the Supra production car late in 2017, though we could see a concept version as soon as this year’s Tokyo Motor Show.

The recently signed agreement between BMW and Toyota will form the backbone to the development of the Supra successor, a coupe that will be based on the Toyota GT86 platform. One insider informs that the BMW Z4 successor will use a revised version of this platform, as well. While the Supra successor will incorporate a reinforced version of the GT86’s platform to cope with the extra horses, our source tells us that the body will be bigger than the GT86 and feature a design inspired by the FT-HS hybrid concept car that debuted at the 2007 Detroit auto show. A rendering of what a future Toyota Supra successor is shown above; the Toyota FT-HS concept hybrid is pictured at right and below.

Unlike the Scion FR-S’ Subaru-derived boxer 2.0-liter I-4, our source indicates that the most likely engine that will end up propelling the new sports car will be a Toyota-built turbocharged 2.5-liter four-cylinder hybrid generating upwards of 400 hp. Even so, a mid-mounted 3.5-liter V-6 hybrid remains a possibility.

GT86 chief engineer Tetsuya Tada – who also happens to be the head of the Supra successor project – is working to create a concept car for this year’s Tokyo Motor Show, a car with a planned debut of late 2017. As we noted in late November, Tada has admitted that Akio Toyoda has asked him to develop the car “as soon as possible.”

We are told that BMW will help with the suspension settings and handling of the new Toyota. Meanwhile, our source also tells us that BMW, which will also use a beefed up version of the GT86 platform for its Z4 update, is testing a BMW-built V-6 hybrid unit that delivers similar power to the Supra successor.

http://wot.motortrend.com/report-toy...#axzz2KbdjvB3T

[GoingTooFast]

After reading that Ferrari is developing the upcoming diesel engine for Maserati and after reading Maserati CEO Harald Wester statements I had to recover an old post of mine (second quote) :

Maserati’s first diesel engine will have impressive pedigree – it will be developed by Ferrari.

Ferrari is developing the upcoming diesel engine for*Maserati*at its Maranello headquarters.

“The new engines ... have been co-developed between the Ferrari and Maserati teams,” said Maserati CEO Harald Wester. “Both have been produced in Maranello.”

Wester said things such as direct injection and turbocharging were relevant to both diesel and petrol engines, meaning Ferrari was perfectly positioned to lead the development of the brand’s first diesel engine.

“Despite the principal differences in combustion between diesel and petrol many of the technologies ... are very similar,” he said.

The new diesel engine is expected to use about 6.0 litres per 100km in the upcoming*Ghibli sedan, which will be one of the drivers of Maserati's growth as the brand looks to substantially grow its sales.

It is also expected to get a*fake engine sound*to make it sound more appealing.*

It will also be fitted to the upcoming*Levante*and could be used in the Quattroporte large sedan.

But don’t expect to see a diesel engine in a Ferrari; the brand has previously said it is not interested in diesel engines, instead preferring the high revving V8s and V12s.

Ferrari is also working on hybrid technology, with the upcoming La Ferrari supercar set to be the first petrol-electric application for the brand.

However Wester said he doesn’t see hybrids as a solution for Maserati.

“I don’t see significant business [for a hybrid Maserati,” he said, adding that increasingly strict fuel economy targets in places like California may force the introduction of a hybrid.

“We might be forced for legal reasons to go to this technology. This would be the only reason we want to go there, because of legal restrictions.”

Wester said Maserati would “look to synergies within the [Fiat-Chrysler] group” if it was decided a hybrid would fit with the brand.

He also took a swipe at electric vehicles, saying they did not bring the big environmental benefits they were perceived to.

“All the discussions about the electric cars, zero CO2 (emissions), it’s nonsense. It’s far away from reality, we all know this,” he said.

He joins a chorus of industry experts*questioning the viability of electric cars, which are expensive and have failed to live up to early sales estimates.

Audi, along with others, believe*plug-in hybrids - which can be recharged and driven purely on electricity but have a regular engine for longer trips - are a more viable short term solution to pure electric vehicles.*

“We have to be more correct in considering the real CO2 balance. Pure electric cars, in terms of CO2, are not the answer.

“What nobody talks about is the energy mix behind the production of electricity.”

He pointed to figures that show the production of electricity for use in an electric car often produces more CO2 than burning fuel.

Wester said in Europe the average CO2 emissions to produce the electricity for an electric car amounted to 86 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre travelled, which is only slightly below some of the better performing hybrid and diesel cars.

In other countries they were worse; the United States was calculated at 110g/km and China 191g/km.

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

So, here we are... on one hand we have the best handling car that less money can buy - the Toyobaru; on the other hand we have the lightest and simultaneously the most gorgeous car that less money can buy - the Alfa 4c.

Two different approaches, two different weight distributions, the same MacPherson struts and Double wishbones - front/ rear for the Toyobaru and rear/ front for the 4c, respectively - both targeting the Cayman from different perspectives and both achieving SIMILAR but significantly better fuel consumption and emissions:

......................................... Toyobaru....................... Alfa 4c....................... Cayman S PDK................ Volkswagen Bluesport Diesel
CO2 emissions................ 159 g/km....................... 157 g/km..................... 188 g/km........................... 113 g/km
Fuel consumption............ 40.9 mpg........................ 41.5 mpg.................... 35.3 mpg........................... 50 mpg
Weight wet, with driver... 1295 kg......................... 1020 kg (est.)............. 1395 kg............................. 1254 kg
Max. Torque..................... 151 lb-ft......................... 258 lb-ft..................... 272 lb-ft............................. 258 lb-ft
Power output................... 197 bhp......................... 240 bhp..................... 320 bhp.............................. 178 bhp
Max. speed...................... 137 mph........................ 158 mph..................... 175 mph............................. 140 mph
0 - 62 mph........................ 7.6 sec........................... 4.5 sec....................... 4.7 sec............................... 6.6 sec


From the above table we can clearly see that low weight in combination with high low-end torque, say from no more than 2000 rpm, which will remain more or less constant throughout the revs will definitely yield to the best performance/consumption results, i.e. greater acceleration from taller gear ratios!

This means that only a turbocharged internal combustion engine OR an electric engine CAN provide MAX torque from the bottom part of the rev counter.

And, in the case of a turbocharged direct fuel injection engine high torque can be easily achieved from a low displacement engine favouring even further fuel consumption. This is without doubt the right formula of which the weight is the MOST critical aspect!!!

I've been defending this solution for years... and although the general public may not be yet ready, the next logical step, the one I've been waiting for since the Volkswagen Bluesport roadster appearance, is to mount a diesel engine in a car like the Alfa 4c. There will be no better way to convince the skeptics than give them a car that performs and looks as beautiful as the 4c or even as the Bluesport roadster concept which had a mid rear mounted diesel engine, 45:55 front/rear weight distribution, 1179 kg of kerb weight and 6-speed dual clutch gearbox... does it sound familiar?! The first company to risk it will be for sure on the leading edge of the industry:

[zibawal]

Is this VW is soft top?

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by zibawal

Is this VW is soft top?

[HebbNH]

Those "Hitler finds out..." videos never get old. Hilarious.

[GoingTooFast]

The Germans are clueless about what car the general public really want... so they apply the same old recipe, power and more power that nobody can fully exploit outside a racing track. Then what they do?! They have all figured out... of course, they make sure that the computer sorts it all out for you.

On the other hand, the Japaneses are too committed to the electric car solution while at the same time they want to stop their nuclear energy program which is a contradiction in terms. Let's be realistic here... by the current technology standards the electric car is NOT the answer, and probably will never be, to the Carbon footprint without SAFE nuclear energy.

So, these bring us back to the Volkswagen Bluesport... the ALMOST perfect roadster! And I say ALMOST, because in order to be perfect it just misses the only available boxer diesel engine on the market today :






Why Volkswagen didn't give it green light is completely beyond my comprehension, but it was and it still is a HUGE mistake! I would have bought one without a blink of the eye... what about you?!

[GoingTooFast]

But let's concentrate on what is available to us, driver's car lovers, today... BEAUTIFUL :

[Red Bread]

Love it. The Launch Edition really looks good, even if it has questionable value. I'm still scared about US pricing/availability though.

[Zeros and ones]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

SAFE nuclear energy.

Safe nuclear energy should never be used in the same sentence.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Zeros and ones

Safe nuclear energy should never be used in the same sentence.

It's 'Safe nuclear energy' and 'Hitler' that should never be used in consecutive posts...

Now, on a more serious note... I'm an optimistic and I believe that the human kind doesn't have alternative to the nuclear energy. Just look at the Sun...

And, since I'm an optimistic I also believe that one day we'll be able to safely master it.

[Zeros and ones]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

It's 'Safe nuclear energy' and 'Hitler' that should never be used in consecutive posts...

Now, on a more serious note... I'm an optimistic and I believe that the human kind doesn't have alternative to the nuclear energy. Just look at the Sun...

And, since I'm an optimistic I also believe that one day we'll be able to safely master it.

the sun is naturally occurring and you can not compare the sun to a controlled nuclear reaction that happens in a plant.

The waste that is created before creating the yellow cake is just as bad as oil and the waste that gets created after the rod is used is even worse. In each state of creating a nuclear rod can you say that it is safe. But that is enough thread high-jacking.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Zeros and ones

the sun is naturally occurring and you can not compare the sun to a controlled nuclear reaction that happens in a plant.

The waste that is created before creating the yellow cake is just as bad as oil and the waste that gets created after the rod is used is even worse. In each state of creating a nuclear rod can you say that it is safe. But that is enough thread high-jacking.

I agree that the nuclear waste is the main concern but, then again, we are talking about current technology and nuclear fission, as opposed to nuclear fusion which is the nuclear reaction that naturally occurs within the Sun. Man still wasn't able to recreate that nuclear fusion reaction in a controlled and economically viable way. That's what I'm optimistic about... we will.

Nevertheless, just to give you an example of what can be accomplished today with old and current nuclear energy technology for civil purposes, France presently supplies 70% of its electric power needs from nuclear energy and there's no reason whatsoever for them no to go 100%. They are the ones in the best position to fully embrace the electric car solution.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

I agree that the nuclear waste is the main concern but, then again, we are talking about current technology and nuclear fission, as opposed to nuclear fusion which is the nuclear reaction that naturally occurs within the Sun. Man still wasn't able to recreate that nuclear fusion reaction in a controlled and economically viable way. That's what I'm optimistic about... we will.

Nevertheless, just to give you an example of what can be accomplished today with old and current nuclear energy technology for civil purposes, France presently supplies 70% of its electric power needs from nuclear energy and there's no reason whatsoever for them no to go 100%. They are the ones in the best position to fully embrace the electric car solution.

Not under current government that wants to reduce the number of nuclear energy plants.

[GoingTooFast]

Originally Posted by Levi

Not under current government that wants to reduce the number of nuclear energy plants.

You are wrong I'm afraid... .

• France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
• France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
• France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
• It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.
• About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.

Nuclear Power in France
(Updated 11 March 2013)

[Red Bread]

Will you stop hijacking your already hijacked thread into hijacked hell?

[GoingTooFast]

I don't see a better way to hijack a thread about what makes for a great driver's car and the technological/economical context for its viability than someone who bought and drives a X1 posting on that same thread...

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by GoingTooFast

I don't see a better way to hijack a thread about what makes for a great driver's car and the technological/economical context for its viability than someone who bought and drives a X1 posting on that same thread...

Okay, Kobi. Keep digging.

[GoingTooFast]

The issue here is... I would rather prefer a Toyobaru with the same Subaru boxer engine but being this time an oil burner with much increased low end torque and fuel economy (hence much lower emissions) than this:

Hotter Toyota GT86 could go hybrid


That's the reason why the Volkswagen Bluesport is so relevant and why the Japaneses being so committed to the electric car option, mainly Toyota, makes that ideal solution so unlikely... but if you are shortsighted it's hard to realize this.

[GoingTooFast]

Just compare these figures...

......................................... Toyobaru....................... Volkswagen Bluesport Diesel
CO2 emissions................ 159 g/km....................... 113 g/km
Fuel consumption............ 40.9 mpg........................ 50 mpg
Weight wet, with driver... 1295 kg......................... 1254 kg
Max. Torque..................... 151 lb-ft......................... 258 lb-ft
Power output................... 197 bhp......................... 178 bhp
Max. speed...................... 137 mph........................ 140 mph
0 - 62 mph........................ 7.6 sec........................... 6.6 sec



The Volkswagen Bluesport has practically the same weight as the Toyobaru, it has lower power and yet it's 1 full second faster than the Toyobaru from 0-62 mph for the same top speed (even slightly higher) with MUCH improved fuel consumption and emissions... THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!!!

What about you?!

[GoingTooFast]

And, before you start talking about how the Toyobaru's precious weight distribution could be seriously compromised by the normally heavier diesel engine when compared to the same displacement turbocharged petrol engine just hold your horses...

The main configuration of the new engine is based on the conventional boxer diesel.

The benefit of the boxer engine is that it enables a compact, lightweight and highly rigid design compared with an inline four-cylinder unit. It also offers excellent NVH behavior, engine performance, and fuel economy. To extend the stroke, but keep the overall width of the engine equivalent to that of a four-cylinder boxer petrol engine, the boxer diesel employs a diagonally split connecting rod and a different method of assembly. This has minimized the increase in the cylinder block deck height.

Furthermore, the piston height is kept compact by employing high-strength aluminum alloy pistons. The cylinder head comprises four valves and center injection. Employing proprietary fuel spray injectors with short overall length, the cylinder-head height is lower than in the boxer petrol, successfully maintaining the engine overall width equivalent to that of the petrol.

In general, diesel engines are much heavier than their petrol counterparts. To minimize the increase in weight, the overall length of the boxer diesel engine is shorter than that of the boxer petrol. The bore pitch was shortened by 14.6mm compared with the boxer petrol, giving an overall length of 353.5mm, which is 61.3mm shorter than the boxer petrol. In total, the boxer diesel achieved a weight reduction of 10kg compared with a typical 2-liter four-cylinder diesel powertrain, through the compactness of short overall length and width, combined with the balancer shaft-less structure coming from the good noise and vibration characteristics and the weight reduction of various parts.

The turbocharger is of a variable nozzle type, which controls the vane opening around the exhaust turbine according to the operating range, giving highly efficient supercharging in all ranges. The turbocharger is located under the engine to ensure good exhaust gas conversion and give a low center of gravity.The characteristic dynamic performance of the Subaru is realized through the lowered center of gravity and enhanced supercharging response. The oxidation catalyst and the DPF are located directly downstream of the turbocharger. This layout enables the catalyst to warm up more quickly, securing the exhaust gas conversion performance in a wide operating range.

350 Nm equates to the same 258 lb-ft of torque from the Volkswagen Bluesport engine.




Under the hood of Subaru's 2nd generation Boxer Diesel

[GoingTooFast]

Subaru Boxer Diesel engine specs and dimensions:




Weight.........:173 kgs......380 lbs (the catalytic converter can be removed, safe +/- 5--6 kgs)
Height...........600 mm......23 5/8"
Depth............470 mm .....18 1/2" (front to back)
Width............820 mm......32 1/4"





Ok, the boxer diesel engine is a little on the heavy side when compared to the Toyobaru's current petrol engine...

BUT... if chief engineer Tetsuya Tada says that it's easy to take 100kg out of the Toyobaru's kerb weight then it will be MUCH easier to accomodate up to 40-50kg of extra engine weight:

Our TRD tuning department has found it easy to take 100kg out of the kerbweight, and have developed certain underbody fins and plates that can be employed to alter the dynamic balance of the car, to increase or reduce oversteer at medium and high speeds. They have quite a pronounced effect