Toyota and Subaru’s New Sports Car

By George Skentzos | September 27th, 2007

Crucial details have been revealed surrounding Toyota and Subaru’s collaborative efforts in building a cheap, fuel efficient, lightweight, rear-wheel drive, coupe sports car.

Whilst these credentials may all sound mutually exclusive, the combined minds of Toyota and Subaru engineers are inching toward a design which could fulfill all these criteria.

A test mule spotted at Toyota’s test track runs a shortened version (by up to 200mm) of the AWD Subaru Legacy sourced chassis minus the front drive shafts (effectively making it RWD) and a Subaru derived SOHC two-liter flat-four.

Still in early development, the Legacy chassis was used solely for experimental purposes with the final version expected to run the Impreza 15S’s platform since its AWD drive-line can be easily modified to exclusively run as a RWD and is better suited to the smaller engine size.

Subaru’s 108 HP 1.5-liter boxer (EL15) which is slated to power the car was chosen apparently due to the rear differential’s fragility and Toyota’s aim of making the coupe as fuel efficient as possible whilst also keeping the price down.

The engine may just barely produce 100hp, however tipping the scales at just 1,100kg the featherweight coupe is expected to perform in the same way as the iconic AE86.

The ongoing focus on keeping the price below 2,000,000 yen (AU$20,000) whilst maintaining performance has been a major problem for Toyota, however if they succeed we could see the coupe make its debut as early as next year, with sales beginning later in 2008.

Source: 7Tune and BestCar

Curious

And my deposit should be sent to?
Colaboration: mechanicals/chasis by Subaru, financial backing/marketing by Toyota, should be a good mix. Only question is, who did they contract to do the styling? This looks good, too good to be styled by Toyota.
Looks like a great weekend drive.
Ken

What do you mean too good to be styled by Toyota, the front is a Toyota signature!
Myke

Good to see Toyota putting Subby to good use and not making it a whitegood outlet.
falcon

If i got one i would turbo it straight away, get a heap more power out the engine.

Hope they do bring out a modern day AE86
Curious

Ken, and the nose is the worst of the nice lines. This is way better looking than anything in the current Toyota range.
Staggers

aaah, i think thats just a rendering of what it could look like, pure speculation…
http://. Colonel Klink

Its dam well a ripper look. Back light cluster how it cuts back up side of car into rear wheelarch is real bizarre and front looks tad odd (i.e. this is a problem faced by car makers) – what do we do on front and back to not polarise people and still look unreal (in this respect not quite top notch but close 3rd in 3 horse race)….
Andrew M

did any one notice the lancer rear taillights?
the front looks like the upcoming focus cross the old celica overall not bad.
one would have to think to keep it to 1100kgs and under 20K it would have to be pretty basic
Andrew M

lets see paul say he’d prefer it in FWD now that the shoe is on the other foot
Toyota Paul

Ah yes Andrew.M I was actually going to say, before I read your comment, that it should be FWD. They want it to be cheap, fuel efficient and powerful, straight away FWD offers this over RWD. FWD is cheaper to product, its more efficient (arguably fuel efficienct) and above all it gets more power to the wheels, losing less through the drivetrain like RWD. Given that it has low power and light weight, I would have thought FWD would be best, going along the same lines as the Integras and Civic Type R with their agile FWD handling. And lets be realistic, its just the rebith of the Celica, which was FWD itself. Negatives aside, looks great… good partnership with Subaru seems to be paying dividends now.
Toyota Paul

Oh and 100HP in a 1100kg vehicle is not great at all, on paper thats a 14kg per kw power to weight ratio I believe, worse then a V6 Camry (for perspective). I assume this will be going up against the Fiesta, in which case I spose that isnt a big deal… in fact it would be quite attractive having the handling of a lightweight while not looking like a chix car like the Fiesta does.
Andrew M

paul i dont want to start a long FWD RWD argument here but i just need some one to answer my question (and im not being smart)
if FWD is far more fuel efficient and gets far more power to the ground then how come the the aurion has the same fuel efficiency and runs the same times in time trials as the falcon?

i know that the theory of FWD means more efficiency but how come it isnt reflected.

i am genuinely in terested if any one knows
http://www.importjap.com/blog ImportJap

I think this has to be turbocharged – or at least offer a turbocharged option – even if the motor needs to be smaller displacement. Toughen up the rear end mechanics and add in some boost and this would be a decent coupe.

Only suggesting turbo due to the low N/A output – which again, I think even here Toyota could do better than 108HP
Toyota Paul

I think there are other variables to consider Andrew.M… the fact is the Aurion as tested has slightly better fuel consumption. It also has only slightly more power and less torque then the Falcon. Yet it is faster or at worst equal to the Falcon in acceleration… a massive feat if you were to say RWD is better as well in acceleration! How is this possible? Maybe more power TO THE WHEELS is the answer. Achieved because being transversely mounted, the power gets from the engine to the wheels as efficiently as possible unlike a RWD which needs to pass through the rear diff, where power is lost. And fuel efficiency wise well FWDs are lighter, which helps it, and as mentioned more drivetrain efficiency also helps the cause. Maybe someone else can explain it better.
I honestly think this new vehicle should have been FWD, given its power and weight, there is absolutely no benefit in RWD, many costs. On a side note, this will no doubt be a big hit with p-platers, being the one of the only legal ‘sportscars’ they can drive.
Toyota Paul

‘ImportJap’ I agree maybe there should be two specs, one N/A to target the younger crowd (cheap, agile handling… gets through restrictions) while a turbocharged option for those who are willing to pay alittle extra for some decent performance.
http://www.forforums.com.au fordman6

Will be interesting if it does happen! Suppose Mitubishi will buy in this “new” market (for the Japanese at least).
Imagine; a 250Kw turbo, RWD, Lancer Coupe?…
Reckless1

The Celica was FWD ? Toyota Paul, you are slipping up. I’m sure it was the Toyota Celica 5 speed steel gearbox that was used in many a conversion, some years ago when we could freely modify our toys.

Too bad Toyota has buggered your view that FWD is the best thing on earth.

This car is out of the comfort zone of both companies – Subaru knows bugger all about RWD, and Toyota knows bugger all about RWD – it could finish up going round in circles
http://caradvice.com.au Steven A

HoHum, more of the same generic retro garbage from to manufaturers who are losing the plot.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/ alborz

The Celica also came in the WRX like GT4 variants, which were awesome, but of course Toyota thought otherwise.

One day, Toyota will bring a proper sports car back to its lineup, the next generation Supra should be it
Sexythang

while fwd would be better for fuel efficiency etc…..toyota has set out to make a successor for the AE86…effectively a cheap RWD. sub 30kaud is more likely though. sub20k is extremely hard even for the biggest motoring company in the world.

im looking forward for the supra replacement which they also stressed upon being ‘affordable’
Jamison

Toyota knows bugger all in terms of RWD? Please do your research. All Lexus vehicles are RWD and are world reknowned, they are designed by Toyota Engineers. I am an Engineer for Toyota and I can personally tell you that the opt for FWD is partly due to it being cheaper to produce. And all of a sudden you’ve forgotten the classic pre-2000 sports car range from Toyota that, Supra, MR2-GT, Soarer, Chaser etc are all RWD vehicles. Do not forget Toyota has become the most profitable every day car manufacturer because of how they make efficient vehicles and manufacturing too. Family and small sedans like the Camry and Corolla are FWD because they produce hundreds of thousands of them around the world, and the FWD configuration allows them to save a couple of dollars here and there, which accumulates to millions a year. People who buy those cars hardly care for FWD. Sports cars and luxury coupes/sedans are a different market, where Toyota can charge a premium price and that justifies the better performance configurations and RWD systems are just one of them.

Its funny that most of the people putting down Toyota has not even looked at the big picture. Toyota doesnt just produce cars in Australia. They produce many more models, far better engineered than any of the American and Australian RWD in Ford and Holden… there is a reason why Toyota is known for reliability and quality… its not just a marketing ploy, I can probably put up various techniques and processes but I rather not since they are confidential.
Reckless1

Lighten up Jamison. It’s not your job to defend Toyota against the comments on the forum, most of which should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

Sounds like you’ve swallowed a bit much of the corporate pie. I sold my soul to a massive International company for 15 years too – then they got too big for their own boots, and my loyalty and unpaid PR was worth jack shit.

One day you might be employed as an engineer for Ford – what will you say then?
Toyota Paul

Yeah I was gonna say how stupid that comment was, I would honestly say Toyota has more experience producing performance RWDs then Holden and Ford Australia put together.

Reckless… yes the most common Celicas you will see on the road are FWD. Alborz touched on other variants, but they are nowhere near as common. As for the FWD thing, no, this car has crap all power… as a result you need the configuration which gets more of it to the wheels. There is absoultely no benefit in RWD on streets, your never going to get oversteer and have some fun unless you hit corners at 100km/h. I know this from experience with similar powered vehicles with less road holding capability!
As for this car, Im thinking there HAS to be a turbo variant (or at the very least be tuned to pump out alot more power). As I thought about this more, 108HP even in a car weighing 1 tonne is crap, I know from a friend that a car like a Suzuki Baleno has similar power at similar weight, through FWD (more power to the wheels), its a snail.
Flying High

Toyota produces great looking cars – I can’t see how you would question that. With respect to FWD – having owned 3 Celicas 73, 2000 Auto and 2000 Manual versions – I can assure you in the later models being FWD was their biggest downfall – aside from the fact you had to rev the pistons virtually thru the block to get any performance whatsoever. Now a Suby driver I am happy they will have the engine right – albeit somewhat underpowered by the sepcs here – and body by Toyota is absolutely a positive. Given the fugly new Impreza WRX Suby should get body work designed by Toyota for their entire line up – now that would be an execellent match!! At any rate, Toyota going RWD? Def. a step in the right direction.
Andrew M

paul you havent answered my question.

so what is the big winner? lets break it down

the falcon has 10kw less and another 100kgs or so more. when the falcon is tested with the 6sp box as with the aurion the falcon is marginally quicker (bugger all so lets call it the same for round figures)

so falcon has 100kgs more and 10kw less and also a larger capacity motor yet they run the same times and use the same amount of fuel. yes the falcon has more torque to help out too (but remember you say the falcon doesnt have a big torque difference) {im just having a go with that dont worry}
so i still dont see a remarkable difference. and we must use the official fuel test figures. we cant go saying “but in real world it does better” cause i know in real world the falcon does better too.
i think extra weight and larger capacity motor cancels out the .3L more consumption from the falcon and the extra weight and less power balances the extra torque

so the way i see it is ….well i dont see remarkable efficiency from a FWD aurion

dont tell me the drive train theory as i know it but i want to know why the FWD example i gave doesnt fit that theory
Toyota Paul

Mate Im sure there are other variables which provide the reason behind it… all you need to know for this argument is that FWD is more efficient, that is a fact. Anyway I think this is getting off topic.
Andrew M

paul dont just assume.
you must agree with me to some extent that there is no real showing of that theory in practical terms

the topic came out when you said that FWD benefits from greater power to wheels and fuel efficiency.

i just got curious as to why in comparible cars it doesnt show
Toyota Paul

Well if you want to continue, I would say the fact that the Aurion can keep up with the Falcon is evidence enough of the efficiency in terms of power from engine to wheels. Yes its lighter… but the Falcon has more then enough torque to make up for this, the Aurion produces its power + torque higher up AND if you go off your RWD camp, its RWD set up helps its traction! Yet it still does the 100 at the same time. Then in terms of fuel efficiency, power is the enemy of fuel efficiency. Yet the Aurion engine produces more power with the same if not a tiny bit less fuel consumption. Happy? Lol Im going to ASSUME not!
Andrew M

yes maybe it is the torque that counts for a lot. but that means a hell of a lot but fair enough. dont forget that when i used torque in an argument to favour the falcon you said it wouldnt count for much.

now you are fishing for answers
power isnt the enemy for fuel consumption. you only have to have a look at the power VS efficiency in the commy to see that means nothing. a lot of the time more power can mean more efficiency.
throw some extractors on a car and you get more power and better efficiency.

yes rev range might be one of the key things too good point.
but now i look at the TRD VS XR6T and see an equal power rating at comparible revs yet TRD wont beat XR6T. that has to be torque for sure there.

ok so would you say the falcon has a much greater torque advantage and that torque counts for a bit?