Toyota's S-FR... rwd, around a ton, 130hp

I'd say it's pretty much dead at this point. I really don't understand Toyota. They must be sitting on a giant buttload of cash from all those beige minvans, crossovers and Camrys they sell, yet they "need" a partner like Subaru or BMW to share the development costs on their sports cars? Jeebus how tight are those bean counters squeezing?

Vracer111 said:

Jay wrote: Would like to see a front shot. Looks like there's some 2000GT in the design. Also I LOVE that yellow+black honeybee color scheme. They'd better put it into production just like that. Make the roof open up as a Targa or T-top.

More Sports 800 than 2000GT in design...

Oh man why did I have to see this.

mblommel said:

I'd say it's pretty much dead at this point. I really don't understand Toyota. They must be sitting on a giant buttload of cash from all those beige minvans, crossovers and Camrys they sell, yet they "need" a partner like Subaru or BMW to share the development costs on their sports cars? Jeebus how tight are those bean counters squeezing?

I actually can't say that I blame them too much.  Let's say you have $100 to invest in one of two options.

1) Invest $30 into a product that will improve your image and get you some good press, but will be lucky to ever break even on it.  Invest the other $70 into products that almost always double your money. Optimistically taking you from $100 to $140 in a best case scenario.

2) Cooperatively invest $15 into a product with a partner more closely associated with the niche, that will similarly improve your image, get you some good press, and should even turn a positive ROI.  Invest the other $85 into products that almost always double your money. Conservatively taking you from $100 to $190 or $195, which is only slightly lower than the $200 you could have had by putting it all into the safer bet with the virtually guaranteed higher rate of return.

Which financial option would you take to achieve an otherwise similar end result?

Hopefully Toyota didn't axe it as I still want one in a Dodge Sublime Green equivalent.

Dodge hinted one of these things too, you can guess how that went.  

mblommel said:

I'd say it's pretty much dead at this point. I really don't understand Toyota. They must be sitting on a giant buttload of cash from all those beige minvans, crossovers and Camrys they sell, yet they "need" a partner like Subaru or BMW to share the development costs on their sports cars? Jeebus how tight are those bean counters squeezing?

Driven5: "Which financial option would you take to achieve an otherwise similar end result?"

Sadly, a car company will always make more money and be more successful making things that people want- in this case, boring but reliable and cheap-to-own crossovers, because us Millennials sure as heck don't have the cash for new FR-S'es.

What is the most recent year USDM car model that weighed under a ton?   Mazda2 is at 2400.

What is the most recent RWD model that was under a ton?  91 miata is at 2100.

In reply to 8valve :

Umm, a ton is 2000 lbs.

8valve said:

What is the most recent year USDM car model that weighed under a ton?   Mazda2 is at 2400.

Nope...2018 Mitsubishi Mirage, 2073 lb.

8valve said:

What i s the most recent RWD model that was under a ton?  91 miata is at 2100.

Nope...2017 Smart Fortwo 2050 lb.

parker said:

In reply to 8valve :

Umm, a ton is 2000 lbs.

When non-US manufacturers make such a claim, as only non-US manufacturers have been able to in recent history, it's generally in reference to a metric ton.  Still, that would be 2205 lb, not the 2400+ lb that 8valve seems to think.

parker said:

In reply to 8valve :

Umm, a ton is 2000 lbs.

 

Right, point being cars one thinks of as being light are not really light.   FWD maybe 1991 CRX HF? RWD 1989 Fiat X1/9?  That seems too long ago.  There has got to be something newer that has a weight that beings with a 1 rather than a 2.

8valve said:

Right, point being cars one thinks of as being light are not really light.   FWD maybe 1991 CRX HF? RWD 1989 Fiat X1/9?  That seems too long ago.  There has got to be something newer that has a weight that beings with a 1 rather than a 2.

2016 Smart Fortwo and 2010 Lotus Elise...According to Google, both have a base curb weight of 1984 lb.

In reply to 8valve :

My ‘96 Tercel was a touch over 1900 stock. That body style lasted until ‘99. 

Edit: Driven5 beat me with newer examples

Driven5 said:

8valve said:

Right, point being cars one thinks of as being light are not really light.   FWD maybe 1991 CRX HF? RWD 1989 Fiat X1/9?  That seems too long ago.  There has got to be something newer that has a weight that beings with a 1 rather than a 2.

2016 Smart Fortwo and 2010 Lotus Elise...According to Google, both have a base curb weight of 1984 lb.

To muddy up the question, what was the last car under 2000lb that could seat four, as the S-FR theoretically could? Both your examples were only two seaters...

mith612 said:

Driven5 said:

8valve said:

Right, point being cars one thinks of as being light are not really light.   FWD maybe 1991 CRX HF? RWD 1989 Fiat X1/9?  That seems too long ago.  There has got to be something newer that has a weight that beings with a 1 rather than a 2.

2016 Smart Fortwo and 2010 Lotus Elise...According to Google, both have a base curb weight of 1984 lb.

To muddy up the question, what was the last car under 2000lb that could seat four, as the S-FR theoretically could? Both your examples were only two seaters...

Maybe a 2002 with the spare tire and jack taken out?

Edit: I'm assuming you meant RWD since the proposed S-FR was.

mith612 said:

Driven5 said:

8valve said:

Right, point being cars one thinks of as being light are not really light.   FWD maybe 1991 CRX HF? RWD 1989 Fiat X1/9?  That seems too long ago.  There has got to be something newer that has a weight that beings with a 1 rather than a 2.

2016 Smart Fortwo and 2010 Lotus Elise...According to Google, both have a base curb weight of 1984 lb.

To muddy up the question, what was the last car under 2000lb that could seat four...

The S-FR was never going to do so either, so that is entirely a moot point. It was claimed 2160 pounds...Again, under a metric ton. The 'rear seats' also looked to be little more than the designers fantasy.

It makes for fun trivia tho.  

This entire thread is like beating off for 6 days and never finishing. Moving on....

8valve said:

parker said:

In reply to 8valve :

Umm, a ton is 2000 lbs.

 

Right, point being cars one thinks of as being light are not really light.   FWD maybe 1991 CRX HF? RWD 1989 Fiat X1/9?  That seems too long ago.  There has got to be something newer that has a weight that beings with a 1 rather than a 2.

My 2001 Honda Insight is 18?? something, with a spare tire and jack.  Might actually be a "full size" spare too since the wheels on it are basically the size of space saver tires from a normal car.  Battery pack only weighs 50 pounds or so.  Aluminum chassis and skin.  

The Insight spare ( i also own an 01) is indeed a space saver and not a full size, and get this...

THE WHOLE THING WEIGHS *TWELVE* POUNDS. That is tire and wheel. TWELVE.