Subaru-Toyota RWD Coupe Put on Hold

Who cares...

Damn, that sucks.

A few million people losing their jobs and homes may be a small price to pay if the crappy economy kills the rice-rocket and fart-can tuner industry and future Fast & Furious movies...

@Chmilz:

You're right, who wants a reliable, fast, good handling, good fuel economy car. I'd rather stick with a big gas guzzling over weight V8.

That's a damn shame. Two new rwd cars on the market is a good thing. Especially when they're performance based.

I woulda bought one.

All you guys that are talking shit about this "Rice Rocket" and saying who cares are stupid. I currently own a 2002 Mustang GT. I run about 13.7-14.0. I thought i was the shit until I got overtaken and pulled on by a Cobalt SS 3 weeks ago on this pretty looking canyon. I dont get more than 18 MPG combined. My car breaks my bank account every week since i fill up about 2 to 3 times. This guy says he gets about 30mpg. My car is great in a straight line and thats about it. = So a 2600 pound with 220hp that is RWD that will most likely get 30 mpg, that will run times that are pretty close to my current Mustang and probably take any other sports compact on the market around a track. And cost under 20k. Believe me when i say alot of people care

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"begins crying..."

DAMN YOU crappy ass greedy American economy and it's ripple effects.

"daydreams of 22b coupes of the past..."

just buy a cobalt ss like i did - you'll get used to the repair bills and the smirks from your friends and family eventually

Cobalt SS might be good fun, but it is FWD.... not a small RWD, which the market largely lacks. The Honda S2000 comes to mind, but it is being canceled, so...

It would have filled a void that very few cars hold. It's a damn shame.

I don't know why you call them rice rockets.... I'm sure you all thought the Mustangs back in the old day were awesome... wasn't that a small (compared to today's terms) RWD sports coupe? Don't see the difference, except that it is made by the Japanese.

It's a loss.

A little bit of me just died. I so would've bought one if I was looking for a new car around the time this came out.

I agree it's a loss but to all those who think just because a car has a V8 in it, that it gets terrible gas milage, do some research first before opening your piehole. Take for example the latest corvette. They get 28mph highway, 26 if you opt for the Z06. And that's 400 to 505hp NA power on tap too. These engines respond well to mods as well. So yes you can have it all, rwd, great gas economy, and a car that doesn't sound like an elongated fart (most modded 4 bangers).

This is disappointing, an enjoyable car for the masses, looks like we'll be stuck with more junk mustangs and over priced (but nice) retro coupes from GM/Chrysler. The price point of this thing would have been great, a 2wd wrx for maybe 22k....I'd buy it. This also would have been a great base for a nice rag top, looks like the lame-o miata sits pretty with no competition again.

Why was totyota involved in this, did they donate some legacy RWD tech from the supra....seems like subaru could have done this on their own. I'd back GM's bailout if they came in saved this project.

This car would not have sounded like a rice rocket. Have any of you heard a Subaru Boxer engine with exhaust? The base is there with that engine and stick a cat-back on there and it just growls. Almost perfect in my book.

to thetruth:

Toyato has entered a partnership with subaru a few years back and own something like 10-15% of subaru.

Too bad, this would have been the only true competitor to the new turbo genesis coupe. No other cars have rwd and a turbo 4.

My heart just skipped a few beats. Tears are welling up in my eyes =(, I was hoping to get this car when time comes...but i guess ill have to save up more money and get a more expensive sports car

@ Mathew:

Ummm, do you seriously think that the same people that would buy a $75,000 corvette would be comparing it to one of these for fuel economy?

Perhaps it's a little insensitive to put this way, but if you can afford the vette, you can afford the gas (even if it does get decent mileage).

I believe this car would have been priced just about 1/3rd of the price of a 'base' Z06. Not exactly the same buying demographic.

So speaking of doing some research before opening ones piehole, perhaps you should have considered the rather large price differential, and what that would do to the 'typical' customer loking to buy one..

This car was on my short list as I'll be looking to buy a car between 2011 and 2012. In a perfect world the project would be restarted and they'd be able to deliver the car by it's original date but it's not so my list just got shorter and I'll probably end up going with the new MS3, a Subaru Impreza, Lancer Ralliart or something similar.

Today is certainly a sad day.

75k would be for the z06. A regular vette retails for 40k. but that's beside the point. The point was v8 doesn't necessarly mean terrible gas milage. Any LSX engine, if thrown in a car that doesn't weigh so much will give you great gas milage (like any 4th gen camaro, firebird, etc). These cars are much more affordable. I know many of who own them and get high 20s as their mpg if they choose to drive them normally. Infact a lot of these hot-rod 4 bangers (evo, sti, srt, etc) get the same or WORST gas milage as these v8). Seriously, go compare. I used to think the same thing as you. Big v8, inefficent, bad gas milage, etc. Ignorant. I know better now after years of being in the hobby. Go to ls1tech and subey forums and see for yourself. I have no reason to lie here, I've already said this is a lost, I wanted to see this as well. I just saw that ignorant comment and couldn't believe that ppl still believe that. It's useless I know, ppl have to find out for themselves as I did.

Hey I wasn't bashing the vette. I know it gets decent fuel economy for an engine that size. I think you're overstating how fuel efficient the actual vette engine is. Since an engine is basically an air pump, enough fuel has to be added to make the incoming air combustible. More air equals more fuel. You can play with fuel/air ratio's some, and you can deactivate cylinders, to reduce the effective amount of air to add fuel to, and lower the RPM's of the engine, so less air is pumped per minute through the engine but the fact is more displacement means more gas required to make power.

It's the combination of the engine, tranny and ultra low 6th gear ratio's that give the vette it's EPA fuel economy. I don't know a single vette owner that gets close to high 20's gas mileage, unless they are trying to get fuel economy out of the beast.

My best friend has a Z06 that he drives on the roads as well as the track that figures he gets closer to 13/21 mpg driving the car like a sports car, but not being a moron. On the track, he figures he gets closer to 10/18 trying to win, and keeping the engine at full song.

EPA numbers are easy to fudge, as the conditions for the testing are well documented so they can be repeated. Manufacturer's religiously follow changes to testing, and quite often select gear ratio's and fuel maps to help fuel economy, not performance.

To use the vette as an example (and like I said, EVERY MANUFACTURER does this to some degree, I'm not picking on the Vette):

While the tranny is 6 gears, it's really 5 properly spaced gears, and a 6th overdrive gear, rather than 6 properly spaced ratio's.

Check the ratio's yourself if you feel like doing the math.

Sorry for the book, but I get sick of the half truth of the EPA fuel economy figures being used to say that a large displacement engine can be as efficient as a smaller enigne. Regardless of size, engines must still follow the same laws of physics and chemistry. The only way that you can make a larger engine 'more fuel efficient' is through reducing the amount of incoming air per unit time, which lowers power, and GASP - effectively turns it into a smaller engine!

Please petition your members of Congress for a Subaru-Toyota bailout so they can proceed with this project.

It's also the amount of useable torque at such a low rpm that allows chevy to throw such a low 6th gear allowing it to sit an near idle rpms at freeway speeds so I can just baby sip on gas. This is something most small ohc engines sorely lack. There's also the car's drag coeffiecent which the vette does well where a mustang for example does horribly.

You're right manufactures do manipulate the hell out of those figures, I usually go by people's testimony via forums and try and get an avg. To put my current situation in perspective, my 04 rustang GT gets about 20-22 mixed driving, where as my girl friend's scion TC gets about 23-25. Now add in fun factor from the hp differences from my car to hers and you can see how I the small mpg gain hardly justifies the power loss. These lsx engines get even better mpg overall than my crappy 4.6 sohc. They also don't weigh that much and have a small ass footprint, allowing you to stuff these engines in engine bays made for 4 bangers. Such as the infamous ls1 equipped mx-5 miata (and older rx-7s). Infact the miata's retain their 50/50 weight distribution even after the swap.

Back to 4 /w forced induction. check out their stats. They're gas milage isn't all that stellar,especially when you cain it. Probably simular to what your friend says with his Z06 on the track.

Amen on the fun factor piece. I have a 62 vette convertible that I definately do not drive for it's fuel economy even though it does pretty good for a 4+ decade old engine.

the forced induction 4 bangers are usually subsantially worse than their NA counterparts, as a substantial saftey margin is built into their fuel maps. I've dyno'ed 3rd gen RX-7's that had parts of their maps at 10:1 or less, rather than 14.7:1. When I had my subie, parts of the map were 12:1. easy enough to retune for more power with no real change in fuel economy, but at the potential of a catastrophic failure if I wen't too close to the edge.

There are two LS7 equipped RX-7's around where I live... deadly fast.

There's also a methanol burning twin engined hyundai someone decided to build after reading about one in Sport Compact Car a couple of years back. The damn thing cuts a sub 10s quarter mile on crap tires, and embarases super bikes for entertainment.

That's true, they probably do run those pig rich since there's less tolerance for pre-ignition on forced induction.

For the affordable sports car for the masses. It's all bout striking a balance of style, performance and fuel economy.

At the end of the day I could care less how much power per liter my car makes (which is a ricers favorite thing to rip on affordable VBs). If the end result is I'm making good power, it's affordable, gets decent gas milage, who cares bout hp per liter. If the turbo 4s are making simular numbers to their v8 counterparts, I will probably choose the v8. But I know this is personal choice because o just can't stand the sound most 4 bangers make. Sounds like a public bathroom near a burrito joint. Now if those turbo 4s got 10+ more mpg than a v8, then maaaybe I'd swing the other way. I'd just have to drive with ear plugs or something lol. ;)

None of you can outgun my 1987 Mustang GT convertable.

Toyota finally draws something worth looking at, and then they can it.... Bummer!

my 93 Corolla will......................

not. :-P

This would have been a great car tho

i hope GM Toyota and Honda go under during this Depression. They all killed the only fun things they had,

We will al drive sporty Hyundias 15 years from now

This is a really smart move at least for now. The market is going to be tight for 25 and under club even if it made a splash. Older drivers are going to want more and that arena is already crowded.

@Paul

I think you misrepresented yourself in your first post. Making a given amount of power regardless of engine size is roughly the same. In other words making say 400hp in 6 liter engine is going to be roughly the same a make the same power in 2 liter engine. Yes there will be differences based on how efficient the engine is and more cylinders will generate more loss. However the pumping loss and friction loss actually make the large displacement engine slightly more efficient in the real world. Throwing in boosting and you can achieve similar results to certain point without sacrificing too much drivability.

How is using a tall gear cheating the on EPA numbers? Certainly they chose 6th so that it would be the most efficient rpm for cruising that’s the goal not cheating. The fact is you can’t do that with a low displacement engine and maintain acceptable throttle response without going to diesel. Also tell me what other production car is capable of going 0-175 mph in one gear why getting 24 mpg and making 500 hp. The Z06 will do a 5th gear start while only slipping the clutch to about 5 mph with no trouble. Watch the top gear Z06 video on youtube if you don’t believe me.

I do understand where you’re coming from though at least with the old EPA method. The new EPA standards are much better at reflecting real world numbers and all cars took a big hit as a result.

I agree that shoving a big engine is not the best way to achieve fuel economy. Given the choice at 400+ in a street car I’ll take big displacement over a boosted engine any day. High revving DOHC cam engines are even better but take up loads space, have a higher center of gravity and don’t come cheap.

Hyundai is grinning ear to ear over this news.
The Genesis Coupe now has 1 less competitor.

These companies are extremely short-sighted. They aren't on the brink of collapse like GM is, so they can afford to continue R/D. Most economists are saying the economy will start growing again in 2010, so releasing a car at the end of 2011 doesn't sound that stupid. Cancelling a project just to restart it 18 months later is stupid, hopefully it isn't dead forever.

Crud. That was an interesting project.

Guess a lot of things are going on the back burners for a while.

"Ricer" is such a derogatory term... It is similar to what Hispanics are referred to by racists. Think about it...