um...

tc = 160hp at 2900lbs

This car is 220hp at 2800lbs + rwd....

 

Either way, this article contradicts every other rumor we have heard about the car, even what the dev's told Moto-P when discussing the car to him(what little he was allowed to mention).
Also Triple-H makes a very good point. Plus, it is Toyota that needs a cost effective sport car in their line up as they have pretty much nothing now except a GT luxury sedan and an upcoming exotic. Subaru has the STi and the WRX, both of which are for the most part reasonably affordable.

I like the thought of it benchmarking with a honda type-r car, but I wish they would bench is closer to honda's new super hothat..sadan(:/) the Civic Type-R. And at 28000lb's, I dunno, I'm sure thats great and all but it kind of kills the enthusiasm. :/

And I still don't care for the idea of a boxter engine in this thing.

 

What do you have against boxer engines?

 

Nope. The LF-A is not the new Supra...its in a league way above the Supra. Toyota however has hinted that the FT-HS as a possible Supra replacemnet.

 

More complicated and I can't imagine it isn't heavier in 4cyl package. boxer6+'s, fine but I just don't see the point in boxer4's for cars. Hopefully I'm uninformed and the boxer4 will be brilliant and prove it's worth in all aspects with or with out manufacturer hype.

 

It is hard to tell from these pictures but some design areas concern me. RWD is great in theory but taking a traditional Subi and making it RWD is not a good idea. A forward weight bias is not only comon in a FWD car, it's actually desirable. However, in a RWD car a rear weight bias is better (even better than the supposed ideal 50:50). This car looks like the front wheels are located back towards the passenger compartment rather than towards the front bumper. That likely means the car has a good bit of its mass over the front axle. This speaks of all sorts of bad handling characteristics.
Also, dumping AWD in favor of RWD only somewhat helps the mileage front. You still have the extra weight of the propshaft and final drive. You also have the frictional losses associated with a 90 turn in the dirrection of power. This means that all else equal your mileage will still be lower than an otherwise similar FWD design.
I for one would love to see more RWD, low cost, economic cars. However, I would rather have a properly designed FWD than a poorly designed RWD car. Hopefully my pesimisim is unfounded.

 

Boxer engines are less complicated, typically lighter than cylinder counterparts, and offer lower center of gravity. They are a superior design to say an I4, but you have to have the chassis for them, as they are wider and usually cost more to make.

 

Look at the interior.

 

Good catch.

 

Word except for the less complicated part as they are basically a V engine with two cylinder heads but sits completely flat. I tripped out when I saw my first disassembled ej, it really sparked my curiousity like the rotaries. They do have the benefits of sitting a lot lower but as mentioned sits very wide. I'd say the backyarder the I4 is probably the more user friendly way to go, but where else can you find a 4 banger that sounds like it friggin means dirty, condomless business. Have you heard a modded WRX/STI vs. an EVO?