Does no top and/or no H6 support break the deal for you?

[BrandonDrums]

Just seeing what the community thinks. Some of the FFR team essentially confirmed the lack of H6 support and lack of top for the new 818 'Fubaru'. It's causing some backlash, does this break the deal for you or at least soften your enthusiasm for the project?

A couple quotes from another thread:




To those who want a top I understand but if we are to meet all of our other goals, price, simplicity, and weight, it cannot be part of the initial project. I do not see this car comparable to a boxster or s2000, which while great cars compromise perfomance for daily driveability. What we are making is an elemental sports car in the spirit of a lotus 7 or Atom but with just enough more chassis and body to be comfortable driving around on the street with full size SUVs and Semis in the next lane. For us to try and squeeze a top and functional side windows into a car this price they would be more of a frustrating compromise than an actual benefit. A soft top similiar to the new roadster top is still very possible as an option, but it would likely come after the car is launched.



In all likelyhood the flat 6 boxer will not be part of our plan because any amount of extra space will be incorportated into the cockpit. 2-4 Inches may not seem like much but in terms of leg room it can be all the difference.

[BrandonDrums]

Sorry to call you guys out on this Jim and Dave, I'm just being an activist as I REALLLY want to build something like this myself but I do have some limits and I know others do as well. I understand if you are leaving out a top to meet the target price and weight for the car. I however, will pay extra and will be willing to sacrifice some weight to be able to drive it more often by having some sort of roof.

Thanks in advance for your understanding and input on the situation.

[D2W]

I want this car to be minimalist like a lotus 7, but it definately need to have some sort of simple hardtop so I can enjoy it for more than a few months a year. I don't want roll-up windows and porsche comfort but I do need some weather protection. Not everybody lives in Cali.

[PhyrraM]

Build it and they will come.

If it's not what they want, they will move on.

What I don't want is some comprimised, attempted to please everyone, crowdsourced and pleased no one failure. I don't think FFR wants that either.

I can see the the reason for no top in the intial release. A foul weather car is more than a simple top. It involves carefull underbody design and sealing, meticutous attention to the body/frame/cockpit interface, and windows -among other things. It would need alot of fairly-expensive-to-tool and pretty-hard-to-make-look-nice clamps, brackets, hinges, seals and that sort of thing.

The budget is $10K minus a fair profit margin for FFR to recoup development costs and prepare the company for the future.

I think we, as a group, need to straighten our priorities and 'get real' as to what can realistically be expected given the budget goals stated. It hardly matters if 'an idividual/s' is willing to pay more for something outside of FFRs stated goals, they are not that individual's goals to start with.

I truely hope that this debate doesn't last thoughout the development cycle. I won't say what I prefer, it's only stirring the pot at this time. The descion has been made, time to stick it out or move on.

[Benji]

There are plenty of 7 and Atom clones out there. I can see FFR wanting to get in on this but I don't think there is much in between around the 800kg mark that is an everyday car but with plenty of performance potential, I'm thinking Lotus Elise and Toyota MR-S here.

No top for what is billed to be a 'worldwide' car seems like it might be a bit of an oversight but I can also see how it will be hard to design one in given the price point.

Perhaps as an optional extra, $2000 for a roof and windows like they do for the Cobra/'33?

As for the H6? Would be a lovely thing if they could, doubt it would be a deal breaker though.

[hardmack]

I would love to see a top available but its not a deal breaker... And the availability of h4 performance parts FAR outweights the inital performance boost of a H6 also makes that arguement moot.

[Flashburn]

Yeah... we have this thing called rain around here.

It's absolutely off the table for me without a top.

[Steve91T]

Yeah... we have this thing called rain around here.

It's absolutely off the table for me without a top.

You do understand that you cannot please everyone. I agree with what they said, get the thing built and then later adapt a roof, because so many people want one.

I have a 97 Camaro that's my baby. Mostly weekend/track day car. I don't drive it in the rain. My dad's Lotus Elise has a hard top and a soft top, but he doesn't drive it in the rain. I have a motorcycle, and I don't drive it in the rain.

This is not a daily driver. I'm surprised that people can't get over that. It's going to be a fun weekend car/track day car.

Steve

[Steve91T]

With being too harsh, get over the H6. Let them do their job. The WRX turbo engine is fantastic. Makes great power, tons of tq, and a great sound. Also very easy to get close to 300 hp with just simple tuning, intake, and exhaust.

Steve

[UpstateCobraGuy]

Must have top. It should be removable and available at extra cost. I already have one limited use Roadster in the garage, don't need two!

Pat

[Rotr8]

With being too harsh, get over the H6. Let them do their job. The WRX turbo engine is fantastic. Makes great power, tons of tq, and a great sound. Also very easy to get close to 300 hp with just simple tuning, intake, and exhaust.

Steve

^^^This

[Benji]

This is not a daily driver. I'm surprised that people can't get over that. It's going to be a fun weekend car/track day car.

Steve

I don't see why it can't be a daily driver? I'm surprised that people can't get over that?

Fact of the matter is, if it's a worldwide car, there are plenty of places where it rains/is cold more often than it is not, if you didn't ride bikes in the rain over in the UK, you'd almost never ride it throughout the year.

[Jeff Kleiner]

There is a rule I cite very often in the construction industry:
"Price, quality, speed---pick 2" Put together any combination of two and it generally eliminates the third.

I can see a modification of that applied here:
"Top (with actual rollup and sealing windows), 1,800 pounds, <$10,000---pick 2"

I just don't see how it could be possible to include a weathertight removeable roof and windows and still hit the targeted weight and price points. Deal breaker for me? No... when the rumors first surfaced I was expecting an exoskeleton and was onboard with that!

Jeff

[mn_vette]

I think that it would be a great idea to have an optional top and roll up windows that will come into place after the initial launch. We realize that it will add an extra 100-200 # of weight and we are willing to accept that so we can drive the car more often. The big problem is that you need to put the basics for the add on top into the design now so it looks good with the top and not like an added on piece after the fact.

[Benji]

I don't think people are necessarily saying they wanted included in the original price otherwise it's a deal breaker, but if there is no scope for there being one at an additional charge, even if it's not long after launch, then THAT is the deal breaker.

No point in building something that to a large extent you can't use even some of the time for certain countries, do you understand what I am trying to say?

[Steve91T]

There is a rule I cite very often in the construction industry:
"Price, quality, speed---pick 2" Put together any combination of two and it generally eliminates the third.

I can see a modification of that applied here:
"Top (with actual rollup and sealing windows), 1,800 pounds, <$10,000---pick 2"

I just don't see how it could be possible to include a weathertight removeable roof and windows and still hit the targeted weight and price points. Deal breaker for me? No... when the rumors first surfaced I was expecting an exoskeleton and was onboard with that!

Jeff


Exactly. People are expecting a Lotus Elise for $15k.

Think of it this way, this car is going to be fast. There isn't much that will be faster around a race track, yet still be cheap to operate, get excellent fuel economy, and be unique.

What else can you get for $15K with this kind of performance? Look how fast the Elise is around a race track. And this car will be faster! The Elise costs twice that for a used one at best.

The guys at FFR are smart guys. They will produce a great product. I think it's great they they have given us a chance to give our opinions about design and names. We all knew that you can't make everyone happy, but I never thought that people would be upset that for now, it won't have a top.

If you don't like it, then just move one. I don't want to build a 33 because it's just not for me. Not that it isn't a beautiful car, just not my style.

Steve

[BrandonDrums]

Just to be clear, I don't care about an H6 but I just wanted to start a discussion. As a WRX owner, I know all the awesomeness that is the Ej20 and Ej257 motors and that they essentially negate any need for an H6.

However, I do care about a top. I was NOT expecting an elemental exo-skelital car. I was/am expecting something like a Lancia Stratos or a Lotus Elise which both include some sort of roof that works in the rain.

Where would I/we get such an idea?? Factory five's front page.


"Have you ever wondered what would happen if you stuffed a Subaru WRX motor into something that's mid-engined, rear-wheel-drive, and weighs less than 2,000 lbs.? Because that's the next Factory Five car - a two-seater built around inexpensive and indestructible Subaru running gear. The styling isn't finalized, but I'm imaging something that looks like Lancia Stratos. And if you don't break into a creepy serial-killer smile every time you imagine an affordable, WRX-based Stratos, then you are some kind of weirdo. The car's new wheelbase is locked in at 95" which is a little longer then an Exige."

It might be a quote from Automobile Magazine but it's STILL on the FFR news page for the car. It mentions the Lancia Stratos and the Lotus Exiege.

A roof is a must, even if it's in soft form. If I'm building a sports car on a budget, a budget dictates I probably don't have a giant truck and a trailer big enough for an actual car. If I'm going to get it to a track, that might require driving it for a few hours and spending an entire weekend with no garage....

Just re-iterating my point.

[Kc_Shane]

I vote for what they make is what I'll get.

Top that would be great.

H6 I don't think that this is going to need more power at the weight.

MY 2 cents

[Benji]

Exactly. People are expecting a Lotus Elise for $15k.

Think of it this way, this car is going to be fast. There isn't much that will be faster around a race track, yet still be cheap to operate, get excellent fuel economy, and be unique.

What else can you get for $15K with this kind of performance? Look how fast the Elise is around a race track. And this car will be faster! The Elise costs twice that for a used one at best.

The guys at FFR are smart guys. They will produce a great product. I think it's great they they have given us a chance to give our opinions about design and names. We all knew that you can't make everyone happy, but I never thought that people would be upset that for now, it won't have a top.

If you don't like it, then just move one. I don't want to build a 33 because it's just not for me. Not that it isn't a beautiful car, just not my style.

Steve

You may not be able to get an Elise for $15 but we can? Remember technically we are talking second hand and you can buy S1's for around $7500 (not great examples however) and S2's from $15000.

Sure it's not quite as black and white as I am making it out but I don't understand why it is so difficult to have a 'good' looking car which is very simplistic, lightweight and within the price bracket.

I think you are looking at it the wrong way for example, the 'base' kit roadster comes in at $12990, this kit is planning on being $3000 cheaper than that for what can be considered another 'base' kit (ie. requiring a donor vehicle).

So they need to find a way to reduce components and other costs to the sum of $3000, we don't know what they will be providing in the kit but if they reused things like the headlights and windscreen from the donor that's already something that this kit doesn't have to include that the roadster base kit does thus chipping away at that $3000.

So I say again, why would it be unreasonable to expect the kit car equivalent of a Lotus Elise?

[Someday I Suppose]

Brandon, I could see where the clip from Automoibile could muddy the waters. I have to say though, that issue of Automobile had in it a story on the new Stratos, I can't help but believe the suggestion of something Stratos like in the FFR Story was a tie back to the larger story on the new Stratos.

As I said on another thread though, be it FFR or another vendor, I have little doubt there will be a top available before just about anyone is done building.

_Scott


Just to be clear, I don't care about an H6 but I just wanted to start a discussion. As a WRX owner, I know all the awesomeness that is the Ej20 and Ej257 motors and that they essentially negate any need for an H6.

However, I do care about a top. I was NOT expecting an elemental exo-skelital car. I was/am expecting something like a Lancia Stratos or a Lotus Elise which both include some sort of roof that works in the rain.

Where would I/we get such an idea?? Factory five's front page.



It might be a quote from Automobile Magazine but it's STILL on the FFR news page for the car. It mentions the Lancia Stratos and the Lotus Exiege.

A roof is a must, even if it's in soft form. If I'm building a sports car on a budget, a budget dictates I probably don't have a giant truck and a trailer big enough for an actual car. If I'm going to get it to a track, that might require driving it for a few hours and spending an entire weekend with no garage....

Just re-iterating my point.

[BrandonDrums]

That might be fair except that quote was used in news-letters and still remains on the front page. If FFR wanted to qualify the stratos references they should have in the bulletpoints that lie below that quote.

There have been many design threads and polls on the design and roof equipment for this car. There is a resounding majority that expected that this kit will be more of an equivalent to the aforementioned vehicles and not something like a KTM X-BOW or Lotus 7...

Not to mention, the Lotus 7 has an 88 wheelbase, a Miata has a wheelbase of 89.2 and the Elise/Exige sit at 90"...this car has a 95! inch wheelbase. This car is already too big to lump into the Lotus 7 terriroty, it's smack dab in Elise/Exige world on the wheelbase dimensions alone.

That being said, a top should be designed from the get-go from FFR. The after-market tops available for the current MK_ roadsters (Cobra) are really quite horrible. We have a rare chance to have this car designed from the ground up with a removable, factory developed top that works. I'd rather rely on an after market to provide me with a targa option or working windows in this case.


Brandon, I could see where the clip from Automoibile could muddy the waters. I have to say though, that issue of Automobile had in it a story on the new Stratos, I can't help but believe the suggestion of something Stratos like in the FFR Story was a tie back to the larger story on the new Stratos.

As I said on another thread though, be it FFR or another vendor, I have little doubt there will be a top available before just about anyone is done building.

_Scott

[Benji]

That being said, a top should be designed from the get-go from FFR. The after-market tops available for the current MK_ roadsters (Cobra) are really quite horrible. We have a rare chance to have this car designed from the ground up with a removable, factory developed top that works. I'd rather rely on an after market to provide me with a targa option or working windows in this case.

This is exactly what I think I and many others are worried about.

[crackedcornish]

while I voted to make room for the 6 cylinder it's not a deal breaker...it just would be nice to have that powerplant as an option.

sixes are smoother and have a very linear power delivery, and some of us just like the simplicity of a normally aspirated engine that still delivers decent power for it's physical size and displacement

but if it came down to turbo 4 or nothing, I guess I could make do
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s147/crackedcornish/Animated%20gifs/f66b05ac-1.jpg

[Johnny Suede]

Must have top. It should be removable and available at extra cost. I already have one limited use Roadster in the garage, don't need two!

Pat

This! My mk3 is great, but it is not designed to have a top, I give alot of credit to the aftermarket tops but to me they just don't look right. this is the only reason I would even consider building another car. I'm really looking for something i'm not afraid to daily drive, with a top or removable hardtop being part of the design.

[slopoke]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but when the news of this thing broke on the forum,the term world car,more than just another toy came to mind. You can make it look like whatever you want. An open roadster is fine, but give it the ability to be more appealing to a wider range of people by giving it a bit more dare I say ... practicality? ... at LEAST roll up windows and a targa top! If the weight differential is 200(?)( I'd be surprised if it was even 100) lbs, it can be offset with some minor engine tuning. I think most of us would like to eliminate the weather as a factor when it comes to enjoying the fruits of our labors. I have confidence in the guys who are putting their designs out there for us to enjoy, that they have more than enough talent to come up with designs that incorporate these things without breaking the bank.

[Niburu]

Some sort of top is the dealbraker for me, I was hoping to drive the car all week long and take it to the track on weekends.
Like I do with my Miata, I shelled out the extra money for hardtop for that car, I'd be willing to do it with this one.
As everyone else has said, make it fit the design and let it be and add-on at extra cost.
OR
If the multiple body styles thing happens I'll wait on a coupe, even if it costs a couple grand more.

[Johnny Suede]

I don't think people are necessarily saying they wanted included in the original price otherwise it's a deal breaker, but if there is no scope for there being one at an additional charge, even if it's not long after launch, then THAT is the deal breaker.

No point in building something that to a large extent you can't use even some of the time for certain countries, do you understand what I am trying to say?

^ +1

[BoxerFanatic]

It seems that if the car is going to have a roll cage structure, it should have a targa roof option.

If the structure is going to include the roll bar anyway, why not have a panel that attaches between the windshield header and the roll bar, perhaps with an independently removable rear window/wind-blocker.

Personally, I think it should have aero fairings behind the seats, as well, as a matter of the body's design.

I am thinking something along the lines of the Porsche Carrera GT, or the Ford GTX1 modification of the GT mid-engined supercar, and the Koeniggsegg Agera and it's predecessors.

Obviously not to that opulence, but the general theme of being faired behind the cockpit, with removable roof panels attaching to that.

[BrandonDrums]

while I voted to make room for the 6 cylinder it's not a deal breaker...it just would be nice to have that powerplant as an option.

sixes are smoother and have a very linear power delivery, and some of us just like the simplicity of a normally aspirated engine that still delivers decent power for it's physical size and displacement

but if it came down to turbo 4 or nothing, I guess I could make do
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s147/crackedcornish/Animated%20gifs/f66b05ac-1.jpg


After doing some thinking, I imagine an H6 will still fit in there. From what I can gather from the FFR team's comments on the engine compartment situation, they seem to be planning to use all of the engine components including the factory cooling system. There's a good 4'' between the engine and radiator in a stock wrx, I think some clever plumbing or perhaps a split radiator design (you can buy radiators in any shape on eBay and make some aluminum brackets to mount them where ever) would allow for an H6 to pop in there. The engine mounts are the same so in this case all you have to worry about is how to re-located the cooling components to make room.

I just think FFR isn't planning on having any support from the factory for direct bolt-on support for an H6. They also don't support GM-sourced LS motors in their MK3 or Mk4 roadsters but people still have found a way.

I guess we can coin the phrase "when there's room there's a way" in regards to engine swaps.

However, having seen how difficult it is to design, mould fit and finish a car top of any kind at home since my buddy is currently toiling away on making a custom hard-top for his Mk3, I'm really afraid of the no top option as that is MUCH harder to engineer around at home without some serious expertise and is a very limiting factor for us DIY guys in comparison to the H6 announcement.

[riptide motorsport]

It was always the deal so I don't even see the need for this thread, sort of like a C0bra, you either want it or you don;t, the top issue or engine issue doesnt matter. Still going to be a great car....Steven

[Oppenheimer]

There is a difference between 'driving in the rain' and getting caught in the rain. With no top, I'd be afraid to drive the car any real distance from home, or anywhere I was going to be out for a long time. That is what has kept me away from the Roadster. I have to admit that I was under the impression that this was one of the reasons FFR was doing this car, to offer something the Roadster doesn't.

$15K could buy one heck of a SportBike. Agile handling, insane acceleration, space for two, great for trackdays, no weather protection. What advantages would an open top version of this car offer over a bike (unless the bike is off the table due to SO objections)?

A good rainsuit would probably seal as well as a Roadster style ragtop. I'm looking for something more, and I'm willing to wait until FFR releases it. But until then, no top = enthusiatic bystander.

[Niburu]

So maybe in a year after this one comes out we'll get the 819 Coupe? :D

[Jo3sh]

I'm fine with a 4-cyl barchetta. While I hope this will be at least a quasi-daily driver for me, I have a car with a roof I can drive on rainy days. And even a reasonably stock or mildly tuned WRX mill makes enough power for an 1800lb. car on he street, IMO.

[Someday I Suppose]

$15K could buy one heck of a SportBike. Agile handling, insane acceleration, space for two, great for trackdays, no weather protection. What advantages would an open top version of this car offer over a bike (unless the bike is off the table due to SO objections)?


4 wheels and a steering wheel???? :-)

[PhyrraM]

What advantages would an open top version of this car offer over a bike.

Um, totally different markets? The ability to actually survive an incident? The fact that other drivers are more likely to see you coming? No need to 'get geared up' or a helmet? Storage, even if it's the pasenger seat? totally different sounds and driving experience.

For many, bikes and cars are not even in the same league - much less the same ballpark.

[Pat Buckley]

I am good with the 4 cylinder - as for the top, my preference would be no top.

[Justen]

Honestly, I will probably build this no matter what they decide to do with the body, just the idea of an 1800lb wrx powered car is enough for me. if it starts to rain, just go fast enough so the wind keeps the water out of the cabin!

[BoxerFanatic]

After doing some thinking, I imagine an H6 will still fit in there. From what I can gather from the FFR team's comments on the engine compartment situation, they seem to be planning to use all of the engine components including the factory cooling system. There's a good 4'' between the engine and radiator in a stock wrx, I think some clever plumbing or perhaps a split radiator design (you can buy radiators in any shape on eBay and make some aluminum brackets to mount them where ever) would allow for an H6 to pop in there. The engine mounts are the same so in this case all you have to worry about is how to re-located the cooling components to make room.

Ummm.

The radiator is in the front of this car. The ENGINE is in the middle, behind the cabin. This is not the same layout as a stock WRX, even if it uses some of the parts.

The engine bay may bear almost no resemblance to an Impreza, other than the appearance of the motor itself.

IF there is no extra room between the bell housing and the firewall behind the seats, then there is no room for two additional cylinders.

I am sure there is a reason, but I am unaware of what it is... as to why there simply can't be 3-4 more inches of wheelbase to accommodate ANY Subaru engine, or even someone's preference for an alternate engine, like a longitudinal V6, with after-sale fabrication work.

Being locked into things is slightly at odds with the idea of a custom built car. I suppose that "where there is a will, there is a way" could apply to having to fab up your own solution, perhaps even extending the space frame... but it would be so much easier if there were enough engine bay room for an engine with at least three cylinder pitch lengths. Nothing but a flat 4 has only 2 cylinder pitch lengths, and a longitudinal driveline layout, unless you really want to put a motorcycle engine in the car, like a Moto-Guzzi or BMW 1200 twin, or Motus's new KMV4 V4 engine that is basically half of a small block chevy.

Without a roof, and without space for a 6-cylinder, my theoretical plans for converting a Fiero space frame for longitudinal Subaru RWD drivetrain perhaps might not be off the table, with fiberglass body modifications to re-style and stretch that with the chassis, just far enough to fit an EG33 and transaxle in there. And Fieros with roofs are weather-tight.

I was kind of hoping that this project might be a viable alternative to using a 25+ year old, corroded, and fatigued chassis.

I was hoping this project would be versatile enough to be configurable for any Subaru boxer engine, and with or without a weather-tight body.

I can wholly understand why someone might want a bare, light as possible sports car with just a windscreen and a body. Sort of like a Manx SR update, without a roof, and with the engine ahead of the rear axle.

But I can wholly identify with those who want something more along the lines of a complete car as a result, rather than a street-legal enclosed go-kart, even if a street legal go-kart would be amazingly fun.

[BrandonDrums]

I believe they were talking about leaving the radiator in the engine compartment at one point and perhaps using air ducts and scoops to funnel air in there rather than re-locate it to the front.

In the design thread, Dave even re-mentioned the ability to have a super low front end both because the OEM struts aren't being used but also because the radiator might be elsewhere.

I could be wrong though but assuming the radiator IS in the engine compartment then an H6 might still fit. Otherwise your exactly right about not having the space.


Ummm.

The radiator is in the front of this car. The ENGINE is in the middle, behind the cabin. This is not the same layout as a stock WRX, even if it uses some of the parts.

The engine bay may bear almost no resemblance to an Impreza, other than the appearance of the motor itself.

IF there is no extra room between the bell housing and the firewall behind the seats, then there is no room for two additional cylinders.

I am sure there is a reason, but I am unaware of what it is... as to why there simply can't be 3-4 more inches of wheelbase to accommodate ANY Subaru engine, or even someone's preference for an alternate engine, like a longitudinal V6, with after-sale fabrication work.

Being locked into things is slightly at odds with the idea of a custom built car. I suppose that "where there is a will, there is a way" could apply to having to fab up your own solution, perhaps even extending the space frame... but it would be so much easier if there were enough engine bay room for an engine with at least three cylinder pitch lengths. Nothing but a flat 4 has only 2 cylinder pitch lengths, and a longitudinal driveline layout, unless you really want to put a motorcycle engine in the car, like a Moto-Guzzi or BMW 1200 twin, or Motus's new KMV4 V4 engine that is basically half of a small block chevy.

Without a roof, and without space for a 6-cylinder, my theoretical plans for converting a Fiero space frame for longitudinal Subaru RWD drivetrain perhaps might not be off the table, with fiberglass body modifications to re-style and stretch that with the chassis, just far enough to fit an EG33 and transaxle in there. And Fieros with roofs are weather-tight.

I was kind of hoping that this project might be a viable alternative to using a 25+ year old, corroded, and fatigued chassis.

I was hoping this project would be versatile enough to be configurable for any Subaru boxer engine, and with or without a weather-tight body.

I can wholly understand why someone might want a bare, light as possible sports car with just a windscreen and a body. Sort of like a Manx SR update, without a roof, and with the engine ahead of the rear axle.

But I can wholly identify with those who want something more along the lines of a complete car as a result, rather than a street-legal enclosed go-kart, even if a street legal go-kart would be amazingly fun.

[BrandonDrums]

It will be a great car but many won't buy it because no top means too much sacrifice. We initially were led to believe this car was to be an "Elise Killer", if an Elise is the base-mark for this car then why is FFR suddenly telling us that it's a Lotus 7?

See the votes, I'm not the only one here that thought a top was in order...


It was always the deal so I don't even see the need for this thread, sort of like a C0bra, you either want it or you don;t, the top issue or engine issue doesnt matter. Still going to be a great car....Steven

[PhyrraM]

I believe they were talking about leaving the radiator in the engine compartment at one point and perhaps using air ducts and scoops to funnel air in there rather than re-locate it to the front.

In the design thread, Dave even re-mentioned the ability to have a super low front end both because the OEM struts aren't being used but also because the radiator might be elsewhere.

I could be wrong though but assuming the radiator IS in the engine compartment then an H6 might still fit. Otherwise your exactly right about not having the space.

Dave said that the radiator is currently in the front. However, he also clearly stated that it could be moved to accomodate a killer design.

Dave has said to not inhibit the design process. The ONLY things that are fixed are:

1) Mid engined Subaru power.
2) current track widths (educated guess)

Beyond that, everything is still open if a kick-*** design appears.

Now, in reality, there are many things that are very unlikely to change unless such an endearing design comes along. Things such as:

3) 95" wheelbase
4) 2 seats
5) 5-speed WRX gearbox
6) stock radiator, steering rack, knuckles, steering column, wiring harness, etc.

My advice to those that wish a closed car.....find that super-sweet, irresistable, knock-out-punch design. If you do, Dave has said they will modify the goals to build it. I know I'm looking, drawing, dreaming for it.

[BrandonDrums]

Ahh, thanks for the info. I was digging around to see if there was an update on that.


Dave said that the radiator is currently in the front. However, he also clearly stated that it could be moved to accomodate a killer design.

Dave has said to not inhibit the design process. The ONLY things that are fixed are:

1) Mid engined Subaru power.
2) current track widths (educated guess)

Beyond that, everything is still open if a kick-*** design appears.

Now, in reality, there are many things that are very unlikely to change unless such an endearing design comes along. Things such as:

3) 95" wheelbase
4) 2 seats
5) 5-speed WRX gearbox
6) stock radiator, steering rack, knuckles, steering column, wiring harness, etc.

My advice to those that wish a closed car.....find that super-sweet, irresistable, knock-out-punch design. If you do, Dave has said they will modify the goals to build it.

[GS guy]

I'm afraid I too will be put off by a strictly roadster design. No top = no go. Not going to drop a cool $15-20K (we all know how build costs creep up!) on a fair weather only car - already got one of those I'm building right now.
My next car build will have to be something that I can take on weekend trips, not get soaked from an unexpected downpour, something I can at least put heat into (and preferrably A/C too), with defroster, + looks and performance. I was kind of hoping for something like the Vortex GTR - even if the price point were higher.

I guess ALA we're talking about doing away with the top option, might as well do away with the doors too! Make it even lighter, less complicated to build, a complete minimalist car - that sounds like what many on this forum are interested in? In that case, the body design is already completed - it's called a Manxter...

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/jg_pics/Other%20Buggies/DSCN1967.jpg

[maaseyracer]

Lotus Elise top is the best of both worlds. It pops off easily or it can be left on. Something weather tight makes the car practical, and not just something to put on a trailer to take to the track. I am not saying it needs heat, AC or a Radio, just enough to make this thing more than just a track car.

[BrandonDrums]

Thanks for voting and your comments!! Keep 'em coming!

[MDRex]

I voted that it didn't matter to me, but the more I think about it the more I'd really want a top. Just something that can be thrown on if you get suprised by some rain. Thinking about how little I have driven past weekend toys makes me not want to get another at this point, and it I did it would be a MK4 anyway.

So I guess what I'm saying is delete one "I'm cool with the news, sign me up" and add one "No top? No thanks, that's a deal-breaker."

[BrandonDrums]

I don't think there's a way to manually make changes to the poll but thanks for the info!

[iamnottelling]

I would strongly prefer a removable hard top. Even Glass T-tops is fine with me.

I plan on using this as a daily driver in the Michigan summers. It would be fun to drive, cheap, reliable, and even get good gas mileage since you could use a bone stock boxer engine.

I look forward to seeing the final body design.

[Dirk]

I’m really unable to accurately describe how disappointed I am about on hearing that there will be no top for this new design.

I was truly excited about a kit I could afford to build, decent on gas, killer looks (I hope :) ), handling to beat the band and something I could drive for three seasons / park at work or on a trip, something my wife would not hate ( no top = bad hair, skin cancer, steal me sign and a no vote from the wife and me :( skin cancer and makes track days harder to find in my area.)

So please reconsider or at the very least make it an pay for option.

Thanks,
Dirk

[Gollum]

I was just thinking about this today, that you guys that are willing to pay a little more for a top, go buy a 33 coupe kit. :-D At 2100 pounds with a mod motor, put a SR20DET in it and you'll shave a good 200+ pounds from the car. That puts you within spitting distance of the 818 with just as much power potential (and same stock even). And we all know that the 33 coupe is a wonderful chassis and suspension design that will really kick butt.

I know it doesn't offer quite the same lure of a MR subie powered car, and most of you that aren't happy about hearing there might not be a top won't really take this post as consolation, but I just think we have to step back sometimes and wake up to reality. The 33 coupe has a well designed removable top, and if FFR doesn't offer top there will be a VERY good reason. Don't be so quick to abandon ship! ;-)

[Sails]

No top is a deal breaker, no H6 isn't.

[Oppenheimer]

I was just thinking about this today, that you guys that are willing to pay a little more for a top, go buy a 33 coupe kit. :-D At 2100 pounds with a mod motor, put a SR20DET in it and you'll shave a good 200+ pounds from the car. That puts you within spitting distance of the 818 with just as much power potential (and same stock even). And we all know that the 33 coupe is a wonderful chassis and suspension design that will really kick butt.

I know it doesn't offer quite the same lure of a MR subie powered car, and most of you that aren't happy about hearing there might not be a top won't really take this post as consolation, but I just think we have to step back sometimes and wake up to reality. The 33 coupe has a well designed removable top, and if FFR doesn't offer top there will be a VERY good reason. Don't be so quick to abandon ship! ;-)

Excellent idea. And you guys that want a Roadster, well hey, FFR already makes that too! It turns out FFR doesn't need to build the 818 at all!

I agree that if there is any way to make a top work, FFR will do it. Maybe not in the first release, too many other things to get right, but soon after. If no top ever comes, its because its just not feasible to do it right. So I'm willing to wait.

Especially since the 'top or no top' poll is currently favoring those that want it. So FFR knows how important this is to some of us. So all you guys that _don't_ care if it has a top, go fillout the poll so FFR has good info to go on. 'cause right now its looking like they need to do it sooner, rather than later. Prove us 'wannatop' guys wrong, or else realize its that maybe its you that is in the minority.

Top-penheimer

[Jack FFR1846]

I'm going to chime in and strongly express that an H6 is an option that nobody would do. There is no aftermarket support for it, I think Synaptic3 has an H6 racecar GC8, but I can't think of any other one out there. It's fighting against the current for no reason. 4 cyl turbo upgrades are so common that when you go looking for a used WRX, you'll be hard pressed to find a car that's 100% stock. On top of that, the 6 would give you lower end torque and run out of steam even lower in the RPM range than the H4. With a light car, torque becomes your enemy. Heck.....try coming out of a 90 degree from a red light with my FFR with shy of 300hp/325tq. It's a nice slidey, spinny experience. You don't need the low end torque. Saving it for the higher rpms with the turbo give you appropriate force at higher rpms.

On the top, for me, I already have the FFR with no top. I could buy a top and might. I've been thinking about it, but that would mean changing my lexan windshield to glass, fabricating wipers (I have parts saved from years back) and buying/installing a top. I guess I'd say for me, no top, no deal.

[bromikl]

Nearly 60% of voters say no top is a deal breaker. FFR wants to sell kits. They would be pretty foolish to design a car 60% of their target market wouldn't buy.

I don't think they're foolish. But I do want to re-iterate what I said on another thread:

Modular design is a good thing.

Choose the style car you want, and buy the canopy components you need to build it. Exoskeleton, Roll cage, Roadster, Coupe, or Targa. No; one car wouldn't please all of us. But if they design an Exoskeleton with optional bodywork and a bolt-on windscreen, you've got a Roadster. Bolt on a roof, and you've got a Coupe or a Targa. Then we would all have the OPTION of building the car we really want.

[Willie Z]

the top is important to me, but I'm not concerned that they're leaving it out. The MK-whatever version of the 818 will have a top, and some genius vendor here will have a 4wd capable version down the road and I'll be able to build and drive this thing during the winter. If there's one thing I've learned, if there's a market for it, there's no shortage of very intelligent people around here to come up with something to meet that market if it's cost-effective.

The way I look at it, it gives me time to continue to work on the roadster until it comes up, oh, and build more garage to house all these wonderful toys in.

[wjfawb0]

There wasn't an appropriate option for me to vote on. The lack of a top is not a deal breaker for me, but it then puts this design in league with the locosts, stalkers and westfields which I was initially investigating and researching. Kentucky weather is very unpredictable, so if the cockpit can't handle getting wet then that makes it very undesirable to me. I ride motorcycles and have had convertibles before. The temperature and threat of rain makes a topless car comfortable for about half of the year. If I can't drive it when I want to, that does make it quite a bit less desirable. I'm not a car show guy, I just like to drive/ride to interesting places. A few years ago I considered the FFR Cobra kit, but I couldn't justify that cost with all the bodywork and not being able to drive the car half the time.

[Gollum]

and some genius vendor here will have a 4wd capable version down the road and I'll be able to build and drive this thing during the winter.

I seriously doubt that will happen, even if FFR were to sell 5,000 of these kits in the next 5 years. The only way I could see doing it with a subaru trans would be to flip the motor backwards and then mount the front diff upside down, and then also make a custom bellhousing to mount the trans upside down. Then you have the trans oiling to consider, and how on earth to drain it and fill it to the right level.

In short, it'd be a 10k+ investment for a buyer, and probably a $100,000 investment to engineer and get off the ground for the seller. And in all honesty, the market just won't be there.

If you want subaru AWD in a lightweight platform, you're much better off keeping the engine in the front.

[Oppenheimer]

The only way I could see doing it with a subaru trans would be to flip the motor backwards and then mount the front diff upside down, and then also make a custom bellhousing to mount the trans upside down.

What if you flip the motor backwards (engine in back, trans in front), then recode the ECU to spin the motor backwards? Would need some engine mods, backwards starter, waterpump, cams. Interesting thought experiment, but totally impractical, for the reasons you cite.

Agree best bet would be to maintain the front engine config. Imagine a kit where there is a shortened wheelbase, stout frame, lightweight body, minimal ammenities to keep weight down. You shorten the driveshaft, but otherwise drop the WRX drivetrain in intact. Easy build, crazy AWD performance. Different kind of car than 818. Basically just a smaller, lighter WRX. The 818 would handle way better, lighter overall so better performance in everything except off-the-line or weather (or dirt).

It could look like this:

[BrandonDrums]

What if you flip the motor backwards (engine in back, trans in front), then recode the ECU to spin the motor backwards? Would need some engine mods, backwards starter, waterpump, cams. Interesting thought experiment, but totally impractical, for the reasons you cite.

Agree best bet would be to maintain the front engine config. Imagine a kit where there is a shortened wheelbase, stout frame, lightweight body, minimal ammenities to keep weight down. You shorten the driveshaft, but otherwise drop the WRX drivetrain in intact. Easy build, crazy AWD performance. Different kind of car than 818. Basically just a smaller, lighter WRX. The 818 would handle way better, lighter overall so better performance in everything except off-the-line or weather (or dirt).

It could look like this:

Actually I believe there's a conversion kit that replaces the front and rear differentials to run the Subaru 5mt driveline as a rear-engine setup. People use these for AWD VW bug conversions, old Porsche builds etc.

I'm trying to find the conversion kit info, I came across it when I was looking for the threads on how to convert the 5mt to 2wd....

I don't imagine you can reverse the engine rotation without at least replacing the crank machined to oil in reverse.

[Oppenheimer]

Actually I believe there's a conversion kit that replaces the front and rear differentials to run the Subaru 5mt driveline as a rear-engine setup. People use these for AWD VW bug conversions, old Porsche builds etc.

I'm trying to find the conversion kit info, I came across it when I was looking for the threads on how to convert the 5mt to 2wd....

I don't imagine you can reverse the engine rotation without at least replacing the crank machined to oil in reverse.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, was talking two points in one post. Point one, thought experiment, wouldn't it be cool to do a MR AWD where you spin the motor around, run it reverse rotation, yada, yada.

Point 2, wouldn't it be cool if there were a kit that left the engine in the front, same basic drivetrain, smaller, lighter, still AWD.

[Benji]

Sorry, I wasn't clear, was talking two points in one post. Point one, thought experiment, wouldn't it be cool to do a MR AWD where you spin the motor around, run it reverse rotation, yada, yada.

Point 2, wouldn't it be cool if there were a kit that left the engine in the front, same basic drivetrain, smaller, lighter, still AWD.

But neither of those would be a MID engined car using the Subaru drivetrain, the first would have the engine at the very back of the car, behind the transaxle/rear axle, but basically then you'd have a Porsche Carrera / 911.

The second it would be out front like..... well like an Impreza :D

Instead of all that faffing you describe trying to get it working in the right direction, what BrandonDrums is talking about is this:

Reverse cut Subaru gears (http://www.subarugears.com/index_files/Page388.htm)

Which as the link describes are replacement gears for the Subaru transmission that are cut in the reverse direction so everything spins the right way.

[0100]

The way the poll is designed you will not get an accurate headcount. No option for me so I didn't vote.

If this is a lotus 7 or exo car, I am out. Already plenty of options out there.

If this is a sports racer type car like a Radical, I am in.

That said, I would much rather have a car that is like the porsche 918 with a full windshield. If you look at a profile picture of a 918 (http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Porsche-918-Spyder-Concept_404.jpg), it would be very easy to add a roof panel. Something like this.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2079/2432342626_ebc8378427_z.jpg?zz=1

You don't want to end up with a design that requires an expensive, heavy curved rear glass. That is what is so nice about the 918. To be honest it seems like the perfect design for this car.


I would not bother with side windows, kinda like the old dodge viper had. Adding even roll up side windows is a lot harder and costly then you think.

My car will have a full cage and mostly be a track car. The reason I would like to see this designed to accepts a targa roof panel very easily, and still look sexy, is:

1. A roof is faster. Ask any spec miata or s2000 track rat, and he will tell you adding the roof makes the car quicker. It's been proven.

2. Lot of track day clubs now require a hard top.

3. I raced formula cars in the scca for over 5 years, and there is nothing like racing in the rain in a open wheel, open cockpit car. NOTHING! After you are done though, it's like you put all your racing gear on, and jumped into a pool. Not fun. A targa top, even without side windows, would keep you dry, except for maybe a little bit of your left arm. Maybe design some plastic side windows like the viper had, that you can roll up and stuff behind the seat. On days that it's really pouring out, reach behind the seat unroll them and snap them in.

4. A spyder type car (I hope that is what this ends up as) with a roll cage looks sexier with a top.

[PhyrraM]

....You don't want to end up with a design that requires an expensive, heavy curved rear glass.................I would not bother with side windows, kinda like the old dodge viper had. Adding even roll up side windows is a lot harder and costly then you think............................
1. A roof is faster. Ask any spec miata or s2000 track rat, and he will tell you adding the roof makes the car quicker. It's been proven.....


Yep, flat glass is the way to go for the stated reasons. But it also has to pass the 'don't look like a kit car" test. That's going to be a HUGE hurdle if the design eventually calls for side windows. I'd rather have a pure roadster than a top/side windows that looks like something made out of fiberglass in the 80s. IMHO, the GTM headlight covers have this 'kit car' look. From what I have read, GTM builders have to go through extra-ordinary measures to make the rear glass look right. That alone would severely jeopardize the $15,000 to complete goal.

As far as a roof being faster? Those two examples are unibody cars, so the roof will strengthen the whole assembly, increasing torsional rigidity. This allows the suspension to do it's job better isolated from pick-up-point deflections. However, the 818 will have a no-load-bearing body on a completely separate steel space-frame. A top is unlikely to make much of a difference unless it's a high speed track where aerodynamic forces can play a larger role.

[MikeK]

As much as I like the whole idea of this car, no top is a deal breaker, I have a beautiful 600+hp, 2400lb Roadster sitting in the garage. I don't like the look of a soft top on that car, none of them look like they belong on it, but it is a car I wanted since I was 10. The only way I part with it and start over again was if I could come in out of the rain, I will just wait for a hard top.

[Arch]

My MK3.1 Roadster has no top. I love the car and drive it all summer. I would like to have a year rounder. So for me to engage in another build it would have to have a top and usable roll up windows.
I am sure that the car will appeal to many with or without a top. Just not me.

While I understand that a top is not going to be part of the initial offering, it seems to me that designing it so an after market targa top could be easily added should not add significant cost.
Arch

[kach22i]

Yep, flat glass is the way to go for the stated reasons.

Speedglass:
http://www.percyshp.com/store/speedglass/cat_8.html

SpeedGlass is 50% - 75% lighter than glass (depending on thickness), 1/2 the weight per equal thickness


Windshields, rears, sides and quarters available for most make and models used in the racing industry.

I found this product in a Lotus Elise forum, a guy has it (windshield) on his Elise.

Link:
http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f163/sector11-polycarbonate-windshield-review-51945/

That windshield is very curved and suits my design. I think a large order could convince a supplier something custom if need be. The lesson here is don't over think things. Where there is a will - there is a way. Be creative and don't impose limits on you or your design which do not yet exist.

Have fun, and build your portfolio. Chances are you will not win, so at least have some fun and let your freak flag wave.:cool:

[crackedcornish]

I could be wrong, but I don't believe SpeedGlass is D.O.T. legal

[kach22i]

Does it have to be DOT legal for a kit car?

Point is; replacement windshields are common place, be it Speedglass or OEM spec.

Assuming it should be flat glass is self-limiting.

[Oppenheimer]

But neither of those would be a MID engined car using the Subaru drivetrain, the first would have the engine at the very back of the car, behind the transaxle/rear axle, but basically then you'd have a Porsche Carrera / 911.

The second it would be out front like..... well like an Impreza :D

Instead of all that faffing you describe trying to get it working in the right direction, what BrandonDrums is talking about is this:

Reverse cut Subaru gears (http://www.subarugears.com/index_files/Page388.htm)

Which as the link describes are replacement gears for the Subaru transmission that are cut in the reverse direction so everything spins the right way.

I was under the impression that the BrandonDrums was talking hypothetical, since its a totally impractical idea (to try and make the 818 AWD). Was just offering alternative, impractical idea.

[PhyrraM]

Not trying to be restricting, just furthering the conversation.

It's been clearly stated that the design is wide open and creativity should be flowing.

[0100]

Yep, flat glass is the way to go for the stated reasons. But it also has to pass the 'don't look like a kit car" test. That's going to be a HUGE hurdle if the design eventually calls for side windows. I'd rather have a pure roadster than a top/side windows that looks like something made out of fiberglass in the 80s. IMHO, the GTM headlight covers have this 'kit car' look. From what I have read, GTM builders have to go through extra-ordinary measures to make the rear glass look right. That alone would severely jeopardize the $15,000 to complete goal.

As far as a roof being faster? Those two examples are unibody cars, so the roof will strengthen the whole assembly, increasing torsional rigidity. This allows the suspension to do it's job better isolated from pick-up-point deflections. However, the 818 will have a no-load-bearing body on a completely separate steel space-frame. A top is unlikely to make much of a difference unless it's a high speed track where aerodynamic forces can play a larger role.

Yeah I agree I love the GTM, but overall it still looks like a kit car, especially vs the rest of the FF fleet, which looks polished. I hope they take the time and really nail the body. I think they can get away with no door or rear glass with a carrera GT and 918 style and have a targa top option and still be pretty weather tight.

I agree 100%, but I was talking more aero wise. Two spec miata both with full rollcages have the same rigidity, but the one with the top will lap faster with the same driver. I agree though the lap difference would be very little unless on a high speed track like daytona, like you said.


Speedglass:
http://www.percyshp.com/store/speedglass/cat_8.html

That windshield is very curved and suits my design. I think a large order could convince a supplier something custom if need be. The lesson here is don't over think things. Where there is a will - there is a way. Be creative and don't impose limits on you or your design which do not yet exist.



Yeah I agree, I think they should definetely go with a curved windshield. A flat windshield on a really curvy sexy body would scream kit car. Maybe once they get the design done, they could look at a bunch of cars around the same size, like the lotus elise and use that as a donor glass. That way replacement are easy, realativly cheap, real glass, and curved.

[wvoutpost]

"What we are making is an elemental sports car in the spirit of a lotus 7 or Atom but with just enough more chassis and body to be comfortable driving around on the street with full size SUVs and Semis in the next lane." I think this quote describes the car I would really want to build. However, converting this directive into specific requirements for me would include the need for a top of some sort for rain and cold weather protection. Making this an option at higher cost, and even a soft top of some sort with windows is fine with me.

If a decision is made to include a top as an option, it probably should be during the design stage since it may be easier to design in certain details of adding a top, rather than tacking them on later (mount point reinforcement areas, etc.)

[kach22i]

If a decision is made to include a top as an option, it probably should be during the design stage since it may be easier to design in certain details of adding a top, rather than tacking them on later (mount point reinforcement areas, etc.)
There is sometimes a blurry line between engineering and design. You have focused on the technical or engineering issues here. I suggest taking a step back and think in design terms first.

For instance: Does it look odd without the targa top on? Like something is perhaps missing?

Looking at your design with the top on and off is a good starting point. I hate to say it, but it will be somebody else's job to make it work.

Like in baseball don't swing like you want a home-run every time, get your man on base first and let someone else hit him in.

It will be a team effort to make this project work, just as in any sports analogy you care to choose.

[BrandonDrums]

Sorry, I wasn't clear, was talking two points in one post. Point one, thought experiment, wouldn't it be cool to do a MR AWD where you spin the motor around, run it reverse rotation, yada, yada.

Point 2, wouldn't it be cool if there were a kit that left the engine in the front, same basic drivetrain, smaller, lighter, still AWD.

Actually, there is such a kit. It's from the UK and it's called the Murtaya

http://www.murtaya.com/

Looks like a nose-heavy Miata. Pretty cool though...

[Benji]

That site is Mike's site who 'has'* a Murtaya and is on this forum.







*I think Mike knows what I mean.

[Gollum]

Everything has to be DOT legal for it to be registered here in CA, but it doesn't have to be to spec on what a new manufactured car has to meet. I can't remember the name of the organization, but it's specific to the USA, then there's another one for worldwide specs. These regulations are extremely specific, going down to where the seat belt has to be bolted to on the chassis.

But for a custom car, getting your registration in CA means passing the highway patrol's safety inspection (making sure your lights work and that it's overall "road worthy") and then pass a smog ref inspection (making sure the emissions meet the criteria of the year it's registered as).

The whole point of the SB100 here in CA is so you can go to the smog ref inspection and say "hey, it's a '65 not a 2011" and that's the emission visual testing you'll have to pass. Either way it has to comply to DOT legal specs, which is why you can't get a spec racer road legal in most states without adding the full windshield.

[PhyrraM]

To clarify, I was only suggesting flat glass as a reasonable solution for the rear glass - if the chosen design incorporates it. Front glass most definitely needs to have at least some curve to it or it won't look right on almost anything I can imagine. (much greater minds than mine exist though).

While the easy reaction would be to use the donor Subaru windshield, I don't think that is really the right choice. Anybody that has tried to remove and reuse a modern glued-in windshield will say to just buy a new one, it's not worth the hassle. So if we are going to buy a new windshield anyways, we can open up any reasonably price windshield - or even a custom one if the price is right. Something common, laid back, cheap, and likely a bit narrower than a standard car - design dependent, of course. Miata? RX-8?

I see the side glass as by far the hardest do accomplish with professional looking results. Almost any glass that will work is likely to be from something expensive, like a Lotus or Ferrari. Maybe a Audi TT? It's only in respect to the side glass, I have thoughts of "If you can't do it right, and affordably, I'd rather not do it."

Of course, it's entirely possible that custom glass (bought in bulk by FFR) is not out of the realm of reasonable for the budget goals. Especially if they can re-use more of the donor than some other FFR cars.

[Cooper Pilot]

It looks like I'm in the minority, but I'm really hoping the 818 comes out as an elemental sports car in the spirit of a Lotus 7 or Ariel Atom. I’ve looked longingly at both of those cars (Caterham for the 7), but I can’t justify the price. I am not a current Factory Five owner, nor have I built a kit car before. I figure I have a weather tight Miata if I’m going away for the weekend, and I’ve been caught in the rain on a motorcycle several times. Stuff dries. As long as you’re moving, the interior of a topless car stays reasonably dry in all but the heaviest rain storms. (Except, of course, for that one stream that will inevitably end up in your lap.) If the seats are cloth, I’ll just make sure to keep up on the Scotch Guard treatments. Yes, a car with no top is definitely a toy, but toys are fun. Many people will think I’m nuts, but the right ones will understand.

[MikeK]

There is a rule I cite very often in the construction industry:
"Price, quality, speed---pick 2" Put together any combination of two and it generally eliminates the third.

I can see a modification of that applied here:
"Top (with actual rollup and sealing windows), 1,800 pounds, <$10,000---pick 2"

I just don't see how it could be possible to include a weathertight removeable roof and windows and still hit the targeted weight and price points. Deal breaker for me? No... when the rumors first surfaced I was expecting an exoskeleton and was onboard with that!

Jeff

Jeff, it could be a 2000lb, $12000 car for all I care, but without a top and windows i will just keep my gas sucking roadster.

[Gun Bunny]

No top = no sale for me

Summer weather in South Texas = sunny, hot, humid, and (suddenly, without warning) torrential downpours. Winters can get pretty cold at night.

Would I be willing to shell out $2-3k for OEM (FFR) parts to get a targa top/hard top cabriolet (if they go with some sort of rollbar), yes.

Even with the (diminshing with gen 2's) headaches (and price) I'll buy a GTM instead, but much farther down the road...

[BrandonDrums]

Thanks for all of the comments guys! I think the FFR team has enough input at this point that I'm pretty confident that this car will have a top option. Hopefully we can wait a few months and perhaps have a real discussion (started by Dave and the gang preferably) about how they want to do a top. With all of the worries there wasn't going to be a top, I'm just glad that Dave acknowledged all of the input on the matter and at least to some extent suggests there very well could be a top option.

As I mentioned in one of the threads, I think all the designers probably have caught wind about the top talk and hopefully will be submitting designs with a top option as a result.

I'm going to leave the poll open just a little while longer and then request to have it closed. I think the buzz should start to center around the naming and design competitions and be positive as a few of the comments by Dave himself suggest we've kicked this horse a bit too long.

Cheers guys!

[Olimk2]

heard some h6 sound on youtube, definitely supercar sound with the right set up! HOPE IT WILL FIT...even if i can't buy one...(almost impossible to register a kit car in France)

[boarder2k7]

For me it absolutely NEEDS a top, hardtop preferably. It also needs to be able to fit someone who is 6' 4" with room for a helmet preferably.

If I wanted a Lotus 7 type car, I'd build a locost.


The H6 option sounds great on paper, but this thing should have enough horsepower as it is. The extra legroom plus fuel economy of the 4banger are definite pluses in my book, especially where gas prices are going.
-B

[Cooluser23]

Please, include some way of adding a top for rainy days, or in case some sanctioning bodies require a closed cockpit car.

Removable hardtop is fine (as long as I can store it somewhere in the car, in case I get surprised by rain somewhere on a road trip.)

Even removable soft-top. (Tesla Roadster, or Lotus Elise) would be okay for me and satisfy the light weight requirement. Although it would be much harder to make.

[Flashburn]

It also needs to be able to fit someone who is 6' 4" with room for a helmet preferably.
-B

Then be careful with the shape or you end up with a Cd of a brick.

[bromikl]

Then be careful with the shape or you end up with a Cd of a brick.

If the driver is almost lying down (think Lay-Z-Boy in the mid position, but much firmer) the total internal height could be as little as 3 ft from the bottom of the seat to the crown of the helmet. Mirrors would be very important in this scenario.

[Oppenheimer]

If the driver is almost lying down (think Lay-Z-Boy in the mid position, but much firmer) the total internal height could be as little as 3 ft from the bottom of the seat to the crown of the helmet. Mirrors would be very important in this scenario.

...as well as a flexible neck!

[PhyrraM]

...as well as a flexible neck!

Not to mention the insurance........;)

[ekuna]

The hardtop does not need to be included in the original design goals of 818kg and $10,000. A hardtop could be offered after the introduction. We just need that option. Please make it look integrated. For years I have wished the Roadster was available with a reasonably-priced, good-looking hardtop. I think FFR really nailed this concept on the '33 Hot Rod hardtop in both looks and price.

I have owned two Miatas. For the last ten years, mine has had a factory hardtop. Once you buy the hardtop you realize it extends the number of days per year you can enjoy the car. The Miata soft top is a well-engineered piece, but the hardtop adds torsional rigidity that I can feel and overall makes the car feel more solid. A good benchmark.

[archangel]

A hard top option is mandatory along with getting the automatic to fit.
The wife refuses to buy another stick and I'm getting a little tired of it myself (Mileage on the knees getting high).

Also, with that power to weight ratio, the neck snap on a hard shift could be debilitating, especially with a helmet on!

[BrandonDrums]

...well, we've officially hit 60%. I can't remember who it was who predicted the number would be 60% but lo and behold....

Anyone else think it's time to close the poll and move on? We should give the guys at FFR a break.

[Olimk2]

Why closing? Newcomers can post as well, we're only at the beginning...

[BrandonDrums]

Why closing? Newcomers can post as well, we're only at the beginning...

Well, it was out of respect/consideration for the FFR guys. From another thread, Dave S. called me out pretty good on being annoying. He's pretty artful though, he spun that comment into a good one. Just another reason I want to support them rather than lead a debate thats perhaps stressing them out.

I can leave it open though no problem if everyone else thinks that's okay.


... and just when I was about to get a tad annoyed at our dear friend Brandon- "raging top debate"- Drums... Wow! Thanks for the great info. Seriously, the strength, passionate and knowledgable support of the Subie aftermarket was one of the major decisions behind this running gear on the car. Perfect.

[Olimk2]

This forum was created to have customer feedback and sharing ideas/opinions, so let discuss here!! I think it's important to lesson from your potential customer...if the vast majority requires some kind of top, well don't ignore it!
Dave made the point that the final concept is still open, concern is more time oriented, SEMA not that far away...

[bbjones121]

I would never want the H6 in this car. It does not have enough actual supportive metal in the engine block to handle the power that the H4 would with a turbo. There would be absolutely no positive reason to having the extra two cylinders.

[crackedcornish]

I would never want the H6 in this car. It does not have enough actual supportive metal in the engine block to handle the power that the H4 would with a turbo. There would be absolutely no positive reason to having the extra two cylinders.

according to these guys, the 3.0l 6's are strong enough that they will make 900hp
http://www.outfrontmotorsports.com/images/3.0LR6R.jpg
http://www.outfrontmotorsports.com/600hp_setup.htm

[bbjones121]

Of course you can make lots of power out of any engine, your durability would be in question the higher you go. To most people 6 cylinders seems like the better way to go because people equate the extra two cylinders to being more capable of handling the power. In most cases this is true. I can't seem to find the threads where this was discussed, but EZ engines have significantly less structural integrity in the blocks than than any EJ or older 3.3 EG engines. The EG3.3 in the SVX would be the best engine to push a lot of power out of (it is an EJ build with two extra cylinders), but that will be hard to fit into most projects. There is a reason that the EZ3.0 egine is very close in size to a EJ2.5 and almost 100 lbs less than a EG3.3. Since the EG3.3 is just a EJ2.5 with two extra cylinders, that means that the EZ3.0 engine has 100 lbs less than what a structurally equal 6 cylinder to the EJ2.5 would have. That means less metal, which, usually, but not always, means thinner walls and less integrity. This was brought up in detail in a thread on one of the Subaru forums at one point and it was outlined that the 3.0 is weaker to push high power/high boost turbo on than the 2.5 would be, but I can't find it right now. If anyone can find those discussions it might help settle this. That is a pretty sweet setup though from outfrontmotorsports.com, but as I have read and what makes sense based on the sizes and weights of these engines, I think that the ez3.0 H6 might make people excited only because it has 2 more cylinders, not because it would be the stronger engine.


according to these guys, the 3.0l 6's are strong enough that they will make 900hp
http://www.outfrontmotorsports.com/images/3.0LR6R.jpg
http://www.outfrontmotorsports.com/600hp_setup.htm

[PhyrraM]

I have found that the more power an engine makes, the less it is actually driven. This is because it moves the from "everyday enjoyable" to "thrilling moments (in controlled conditions)".

I'd lay money the average mileage on a 250HP WRX or 300HP FFR roadster is double the average mileage for a 400HP WRX or 500HP Roadster. This tend to negate some reliability concerns.

I also believe that many asking to fit the H6s would install them at stock power, not heavily modified. Stock-for-stock many believe the H6s better suit the nature of the car.

[bbjones121]

I have found that the more power an engine makes, the less it is actually driven. This is because it moves the from "everyday enjoyable" to "thrilling moments (in controlled conditions)".

I'd lay money the average mileage on a 250HP WRX or 300HP FFR roadster is double the average mileage for a 400HP WRX or 500HP Roadster. This tend to negate some reliability concerns.

I also believe that many asking to fit the H6s would install them at stock power, not heavily modified. Stock-for-stock many believe the H6s better suit the nature of the car.



It depends on the person, I think. The more power an engine makes, the more I would be driving it for sure. There are many discussions on these two engines if anyone wants to read, here are two from a legacy forums, you will find more on outback forums as the h6 has been available on them for longer:

- http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2-5-gt-limited-vs-3-0-r-79380.html?p=2024100
- http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2-5-gt-vs-3-0r-108173p10.html

From what it sounds, stock for stock, the majority of people that drive both cars consider the 2.5l 5eat turbo to be more peppy. It obviously does not have the flat power curve, which is nice for some people, but it has more power higher in rpms and the engine weighs over 70lbs less. But the biggest reason I can think of that people consider the 2.5l turbo quicker has nothing to do with what you can gather from charts, specs, weights, etc., it is because of this simple fact; a majority of places that sell these cars are above sea level. An equally powerful NA (naturally aspirated) engine (the 3.0) will be a lot less powerful than a FI (forced induction) (the 2.5l) engine at higher elevations. than any of the rated specifications you will find on the internet. Most often, if not always, engines are rated at sea level.

[crackedcornish]

Of course you can make lots of power out of any engine, your durability would be in question the higher you go. To most people 6 cylinders seems like the better way to go because people equate the extra two cylinders to being more capable of handling the power. In most cases this is true. I can't seem to find the threads where this was discussed, but EZ engines have significantly less structural integrity in the blocks than than any EJ or older 3.3 EG engines. The EG3.3 in the SVX would be the best engine to push a lot of power out of (it is an EJ build with two extra cylinders), but that will be hard to fit into most projects. There is a reason that the EZ3.0 egine is very close in size to a EJ2.5 and almost 100 lbs less than a EG3.3. Since the EG3.3 is just a EJ2.5 with two extra cylinders, that means that the EZ3.0 engine has 100 lbs less than what a structurally equal 6 cylinder to the EJ2.5 would have. That means less metal, which, usually, but not always, means thinner walls and less integrity. This was brought up in detail in a thread on one of the Subaru forums at one point and it was outlined that the 3.0 is weaker to push high power/high boost turbo on than the 2.5 would be, but I can't find it right now. If anyone can find those discussions it might help settle this. That is a pretty sweet setup though from outfrontmotorsports.com, but as I have read and what makes sense based on the sizes and weights of these engines, I think that the ez3.0 H6 might make people excited only because it has 2 more cylinders, not because it would be the stronger engine.

the point I was trying to make is that both the 4 and the 6 are capable of making more than enough power for most people if you want to put enough money/parts into them.

the 6's advantage comes from how smooth it runs and how exotic it can be made to sound

I would say it all depends on where and how you drive the car as to which engine would best fit your power needs, if your looking for smooth power right off idle, for around town stuff, the 6 would be slightly better....if your looking for a track type/open road car, where it can get up in the revs and stay there a good bit of the time, then a hot rod turbo 4 gets the nod.

since most of my time is driving stop light to stop light, and some curvy mountain roads, for me the smoother power from a n/a engine might be preferred over a turbo engine.

[thebeerbaron]

since most of my time is driving stop light to stop light, and some curvy mountain roads, for me the smoother power from a n/a engine might be preferred over a turbo engine.

I think then that the n/a Impreza motor might be a better fit. You don't get the sound, but 165-170hp is about the same power as a current Elise, in a car that's 200lbs lighter (or maybe more with the simplified n/a motor). That's nothing to sneeze at.

I don't know what the torque curves look like on that motor, but right off idle it's not going to take too much power to motivate this car. Look at the 818kg (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?1147-What-does-818-mean) thread, there are lots of cars there with much less power that are fun to drive, if not necessarily fast.

[PhyrraM]

I think then that the n/a Impreza motor might be a better fit. You don't get the sound, but 165-170hp is about the same power as a current Elise, in a car that's 200lbs lighter (or maybe more with the simplified n/a motor). That's nothing to sneeze at.

I don't know what the torque curves look like on that motor, but right off idle it's not going to take too much power to motivate this car. Look at the 818kg (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?1147-What-does-818-mean) thread, there are lots of cars there with much less power that are fun to drive, if not necessarily fast.

Actually, you can get the sound! I agree that even the base 170ish HP motor will be tremedious fun. I can even see a spec-series race model with the N/A motor.


{wheels turning}
I wonder if you could build a N/A spec-818 for cheaper than a spec Miata?
{/wheels turning}

[Niburu]

I can even see a spec-series race model with the N/A motor.


{wheels turning}
I wonder if you could build a N/A spec-818 for cheaper than a spec Miata?
{/wheels turning}
these ideas I likey

[crobin4]

I think then that the n/a Impreza motor might be a better fit. You don't get the sound, but 165-170hp is about the same power as a current Elise, in a car that's 200lbs lighter (or maybe more with the simplified n/a motor). That's nothing to sneeze at.

I don't know what the torque curves look like on that motor, but right off idle it's not going to take too much power to motivate this car. Look at the 818kg (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?1147-What-does-818-mean) thread, there are lots of cars there with much less power that are fun to drive, if not necessarily fast.

They are quite torquey! Redline is 6200rpm. So they get everything done down low. IIRC the torque peak is 3200RPM.

[BrandonDrums]

For an autocross car, an N/A motor will probably do better. Even if it's just the 4 banger.

[crobin4]

For an autocross car, an N/A motor will probably do better. Even if it's just the 4 banger.

I disagree, I've run both in like chassis and the turbo car usually faster for me. The one exception was a poorly setup '02 WRX with a bone stock engine.

[Oppenheimer]

I disagree, I've run both in like chassis and the turbo car usually faster for me. The one exception was a poorly setup '02 WRX with a bone stock engine.

But I think BrandonDrums was anticipating the results with an 1800 lb, RWD car. You can see how one could speculate how this case could favor the N/A motor. Its less powerful (overall), but still PLENTY of power for such a light car on a tight autocross course. Still, it remains to be seen which would be better for this application.

[Six5Stang]

i have riden bikes through all kinds of weather but i still think a top would be great or at least a early viper style bra for if i park somewhere for longer than a couple hours i would love a h6 as a option especaily if i came use one from a 911 turbo but even if it's an option i'd probily stick with the wrx's 4 banger for price sake i'll probily buy the car regardless of looks or style (coupe hardtop roadster) if it meets the price and performance goals

[Gollum]

The only time I'd personally want a NA over turbo would be if the extra power from the turbo couldn't be used. That'd have to be a very tight and low speed course I think. And though it'd still be "fun" on the street, I wouldn't invest all the time and money for a NA when a turbo motor is nearly the same cost.

Just seems backwards. But if guys want to do it then by all means, leave the turbo donors for others. :-D

[Oppenheimer]

The only time I'd personally want a NA over turbo would be if the extra power from the turbo couldn't be used. That'd have to be a very tight and low speed course I think. And though it'd still be "fun" on the street, I wouldn't invest all the time and money for a NA when a turbo motor is nearly the same cost.

Just seems backwards. But if guys want to do it then by all means, leave the turbo donors for others. :-D

I agree that a turbo would be my choice here but I can see where someone would think of using a larger NA motor instead for different needs I would be using mine mostly on the street and still prefer the turbo but I can see where others could see it differently so to each his own and is it just me or is difficult to read when there is no punctuation and one long run-on sentence and its like I want to take a breath mentally but can't since there is no break and I feel like I'm going to run out of air like when someone writes in all caps and its like they are shouting

[Gollum]

BREATHE MAN BREATHE..... Was that loud enough?

[BrandonDrums]

But I think BrandonDrums was anticipating the results with an 1800 lb, RWD car. You can see how one could speculate how this case could favor the N/A motor. Its less powerful (overall), but still PLENTY of power for such a light car on a tight autocross course. Still, it remains to be seen which would be better for this application.

Yep, many FFR 65 roadster guys detune their engines for autocross. With such tight courses, a short wheelbase and RWD, it's easier to keep the rear planted with less power. In the case of the 818, having less power and a flat torque curve will be easier to keep planted around a tight course.

[bu11dogg2]

The H6 is not a great motor, at all, for this application.

It's terrifically hard to tune and the aftermarket availability is next to nil.

ever wonder why you never see built H6's?

[PhyrraM]

The H6 is not a great motor, at all, for this application.

It's terrifically hard to tune and the aftermarket availability is next to nil.

ever wonder why you never see built H6's?

But they might be perfect stock. Don't forget that many, if not most, builders will not tune past stock. Even on the 4cyls.

[bbjones121]

Don't forget the big loss in power with NA compared to FI above sea level.



The only time I'd personally want a NA over turbo would be if the extra power from the turbo couldn't be used. That'd have to be a very tight and low speed course I think. And though it'd still be "fun" on the street, I wouldn't invest all the time and money for a NA when a turbo motor is nearly the same cost.

Just seems backwards. But if guys want to do it then by all means, leave the turbo donors for others. :-D

[BrandonDrums]

The H6 is not a great motor, at all, for this application.

It's terrifically hard to tune and the aftermarket availability is next to nil.

ever wonder why you never see built H6's?

That might be the wrong question to pose for supporting your point. The fact that so many h4's are "built" is that they have to be in order to withstand high power. H6's are less popular because it's such a giant job in wiring, piping and boosting to get them to the same numbers but if Subaru made a oem boosted h6 you'd still see less 'built' iterations of it because you simply wouldn't need to for big power.

I once again cite Perrins infamous H6 sti. They spend the whole build blog boasting how the h6 is more capable of handling big power reliably.

Aside from that point. The whole logic for using an H6 in the 818 is to keep it n/a and enjoy a better power delivery. H6's are wonderful engines.

However, I will stick to my 2.5 turbo. It's just cheaper and easier power for this application.

[Nelff]

To get back to the top/windows issue. Not having the availability of a top or windows would make the car less usable than my motorcycle. But then I ride to work. If the design is meant to be a track car that you can drive to the track then fine. All you need is chassis, engine and a killer suspension. (btw, I tow a small trailer with my race tires and tools to the track behind my '96Cobra) If the car is meant to survive in the real world then it's going to need a top, designed from the start.

Bottom line for me, no top no sale.

[needsans4]

I agree that an option for the hard top is a necessity. I am hoping to use this and the motorcycle for most of the spring, summer, and fall then store it in the winter. Being from New England it’s a pretty short season without a top. With that said, I would wait and pay for the option with a top after the initial release understanding that it will be slightly heavier and more expensive. It’ll give some time for people to work out the bugs anyway. Either way I am excited to see what she looks like when all is said and done.

[BrandonDrums]

To get back to the top/windows issue. Not having the availability of a top or windows would make the car less usable than my motorcycle. But then I ride to work. If the design is meant to be a track car that you can drive to the track then fine. All you need is chassis, engine and a killer suspension. (btw, I tow a small trailer with my race tires and tools to the track behind my '96Cobra) If the car is meant to survive in the real world then it's going to need a top, designed from the start.

Bottom line for me, no top no sale.

Well, initially the car was intended to be a track-only car. However, just as you and so many have pointed out, there are very few people who actually want a track-only car. People want to be able to street this thing and that requires certain things, like a windshield, a roof and a body that looks good.

[LifeIsOnTheWire]

the idea of using an EZ30D seems really reasonable to me. i honesty dont believe FFR if they say there isn't enough room for it. i think they are just trying to underpromise, and overdeliver.

Perrin Performance installed one in a 2006 STi, and it bolts right up to the tranny, and engine mounts. and ontop of that, the motor is only 0.7" longer than an EJ25.

no need to build the motor... the stock 245hp is enough for me.

the only difficulty I can imagine, is getting a cluch and flywheel combo together for it.. the H6 was auto only. i have no idea if it has flywheel compatability with any EJ motors

[BrandonDrums]

the idea of using an EZ30D seems really reasonable to me. i honesty dont believe FFR if they say there isn't enough room for it. i think they are just trying to underpromise, and overdeliver.

Perrin Performance installed one in a 2006 STi, and it bolts right up to the tranny, and engine mounts. and ontop of that, the motor is only 0.7" longer than an EJ25.

no need to build the motor... the stock 245hp is enough for me.

the only difficulty I can imagine, is getting a cluch and flywheel combo together for it.. the H6 was auto only. i have no idea if it has flywheel compatability with any EJ motors

Humm, good thinking. I'm sure Perrin covered the clutch/flywheel delimma in their build log for the H6 STI http://www.perrinperformance.com/pages/show/32

It's still an EJ derivative, I'm about 99% certain that an EJ257 flywheel will bolt directly to it and we already know the bell housing is identical.

[Benji]

I wonder if the oil pan still fits so you can use the EJ dry sump.

To be honest I'd rather go EZ30/36 than the EJ route, if I have to be the first to do it then so be it.

Whilst electronics might be more difficult, you remove the 'complexity' of the turbo and all of the required pluming.

Maybe it will be even lighter as well?

[Olimk2]

In France the Legacy 3.0 "R " came first with auto but was available with 6speed manual a few years later..."spec B" model.

From cars101.com:
6 spd manual, spec.B only
1st 3.636
2nd 2.235
3rd 1.521
4th 1.137
5th 0.891
6th 0.707
the 07 specb 6mt is an sti tranny with taller 5th and 6th gears. this exact unit is used in thr forester sti and legacy 3.0 sti. it does not have a front lsd or dccd. contact Scott Siegal, he put a specb tranny in a 500+ whp sti. the 07 spec b has a 3.90 final drive. subaru released the wrong info on the 07. it's a well know fact in the legacy community. FSM states 3.90 as well has been confirmed by many owners, tuners etc.

[LifeIsOnTheWire]

I wonder if the oil pan still fits so you can use the EJ dry sump.

are you talking about aftermarket dry-sump kits? the EJ didn't ever have dry sump from the factory.
and I'm going to guess, no the EZ probably doesn't share oilpan compatability with the EJ. im sure its different.


In France the Legacy 3.0 "R " came first with auto but was available with 6speed manual a few years later..."spec B" model.

good to know, that means there is a part number for a EZ30 flywheel somewhere

[Benji]

are you talking about aftermarket dry-sump kits? the EJ didn't ever have dry sump from the factory.
and I'm going to guess, no the EZ probably doesn't share oilpan compatability with the EJ. im sure its different.


Yep, Cosworth etc, I figured it would be different as well just never seen the bottom of an EZ30/36 to get an idea. I'm sure ARE could fab something up?

[PhyrraM]

It's interesting to see how this conversation (not necisarily this thread) has turn the 'deal breakers' from large blanket items, like the lack of a top, to fairly minor things like a particular styling trend or what size tires it can accomodate.

As long as FFR doesn't try to please everyone, I'm sure the 818 will be a hit.

[Oppenheimer]

It's interesting to see how this conversation (not necisarily this thread) has turn the 'deal breakers' from large blanket items, like the lack of a top, to fairly minor things like a particular styling trend or what size tires it can accomodate.

As long as FFR doesn't try to please everyone, I'm sure the 818 will be a hit.

Good observation. I'd hate to see the design contest backfire, if only one design is built, then everyone that liked one of the others better could potentially see it as a dealbreaker. Its strange how that can happen, you get emotionlly tied to something, like when an eBay auction starts low, and attracts a lot of bidders, then it ends up bidding way higher than it would have otherwise. Someone started thinking they really could win that auction, and made an emotional connection to it.

That is why I'm hoping for the multiple bodies thing. Even if its not part of the initial release. They release design 1 first, then work on offering alternate body design options. I'm not sure how feasible that is, but if they could pull it off, they might just need to offer a quick-change body option, as there might be a few customers wanting to buy more than one body style!

[BrandonDrums]

Good observation. I'd hate to see the design contest backfire, if only one design is built, then everyone that liked one of the others better could potentially see it as a dealbreaker. Its strange how that can happen, you get emotionlly tied to something, like when an eBay auction starts low, and attracts a lot of bidders, then it ends up bidding way higher than it would have otherwise. Someone started thinking they really could win that auction, and made an emotional connection to it.

That is why I'm hoping for the multiple bodies thing. Even if its not part of the initial release. They release design 1 first, then work on offering alternate body design options. I'm not sure how feasible that is, but if they could pull it off, they might just need to offer a quick-change body option, as there might be a few customers wanting to buy more than one body style!

I don't think it will backfire. MOST of the designs that really get folks attention seem to be rather close in overall concept. There's lots of differentiating vents and tails and such but i think the vast majority of them are Lotus Elise derivatives. Fortunately, that's what I think most folks are looking for.

With all the designs out there, I still think Xabier's design is the most production-able and most popularly pleasing design. He clearly knows as much about the cost-complexity of producing a design as he does about drawing a good looking car.

[VF48WRX]

why in the world would anyone want an H6 in this car? Just wondering.

[PhyrraM]

why in the world would anyone want an H6 in this car? Just wondering.

Smoother, more predictable and easier to modulate power delivery. Less complex, possibly more reliable. Among others.

[Olimk2]

More exotic, smooth power delivery, 250hp+ with exhaust/intake, supercar sound!

[LifeIsOnTheWire]

It's interesting to see how this conversation (not necisarily this thread) has turn the 'deal breakers' from large blanket items, like the lack of a top, to fairly minor things like a particular styling trend or what size tires it can accomodate.

As long as FFR doesn't try to please everyone, I'm sure the 818 will be a hit.

its going to be funny to see the reduction in "whining consumer ****-talk" as soon as this thing launches.

[BrandonDrums]

its going to be funny to see the reduction in "whining consumer ****-talk" as soon as this thing launches.

Roger that! Well, as long at the car has a top...

Right at 60% flat right now. Amazing.

[crackedcornish]

Roger that! Well, as long at the car has a top...

Right at 60% flat right now. Amazing.

I wonder what percent of those 60%'ers already have a roadster and were expecting this to be a daily driver.

me...I'm looking for a simple first build to gain some experience before I move up to a roadster.. but I still don't know why adding the room for a H6 option would be a big deal..I mean I can see a top adding to the cost, but a couple inches of tubing in the chassis would be negligible to the price.

[readymix]

I wonder what percent of those 60%'ers already have a roadster and were expecting this to be a daily driver.

me...I'm looking for a simple first build to gain some experience before I move up to a roadster.. but I still don't know why adding the room for a H6 option would be a big deal..I mean I can see a top adding to the cost, but a couple inches of tubing in the chassis would be negligible to the price.

It isn't so much the price, it's the wheel base. Though, if they had placed the driver seating position forward about 6 inches or so, it likely wouldn't have been as much of an issue.

[crackedcornish]

It isn't so much the price, it's the wheel base. Though, if they had placed the driver seating position forward about 6 inches or so, it likely wouldn't have been as much of an issue.

the wheelbase is already longer than it really needs to be...there are other mid engined subaru powered kits that are 10" shorter in the wheelbase

they should just move the passenger compartment ahead by a couple of inches and be done with it...I don't know how you can expect to build a chassis before you know what the body is going to look like anyway (at least on a street car)

[readymix]

the wheelbase is already longer than it really needs to be...there are other mid engined subaru powered kits that are 10" shorter in the wheelbase

they should just move the passenger compartment ahead by a couple of inches and be done with it...I don't know how you can expect to build a chassis before you know what the body is going to look like anyway (at least on a street car)

That's what I mean. They designed the frame with no set body idea in mind. So the only way to really 'fix' the issue now would be to extend the wheel base to add in that extra 6" of space or so that would be needed.

[crackedcornish]

That's what I mean. They designed the frame with no set body idea in mind. So the only way to really 'fix' the issue now would be to extend the wheel base to add in that extra 6" of space or so that would be needed.

OK, I gotcha' now

[StatGSR]

No Suby H6 support would be a bit of a bummer for me as i have grown quite fond of them (have a EG33 swapped legacy). Now i understand that the EG33 is a huge motor for what it is so i will go ahead and agree that making space for that engine might not be reasonable (even though i already have a spare one in my garage), but as has been mentioned the new EZs are less than an inch longer than a EJ25 (not much extra space would be needed), the weight is comparable (don't forget that all the turbo piping and turbo adds weight), the stock power output could be more than acceptable to most.

Has anybody here driven a stock 2.0 wrx? the power band is worse than the B18C in my integra IMHO. the newer 2.5in the WRX/STI solves that problem, but then again its getting hard to find unmolested EJ's now that the WRX is the new Civic of its time.

Now don't think i hate turbo EJ25s, I'm just open to the idea that they are not for everyone, and if the car can have that 1 inch of flexibility in the engine bay, somebody WILL use it to put a EZ30 in this car.

Also, yes the car needs a roof or else I'm just going with an exoskeleton.

[StatGSR]

the only difficulty I can imagine, is getting a cluch and flywheel combo together for it.. the H6 was auto only. i have no idea if it has flywheel compatability with any EJ motors

No difficulty there, as with all subaru engine swaps you get the flywheel and clutch to match the transmission.

On that note, any word if there was going to be space for the STI 6-speed Manual or a 4EAT/5EAT as they are the same size as well?

[LifeIsOnTheWire]

That's what I mean. They designed the frame with no set body idea in mind. So the only way to really 'fix' the issue now would be to extend the wheel base to add in that extra 6" of space or so that would be needed.

6" is being extremely generous.

The EZ30D is only 0.7" longer than an EJ25.

[BrandonDrums]

No Suby H6 support would be a bit of a bummer for me as i have grown quite fond of them (have a EG33 swapped legacy). Now i understand that the EG33 is a huge motor for what it is so i will go ahead and agree that making space for that engine might not be reasonable (even though i already have a spare one in my garage), but as has been mentioned the new EZs are less than an inch longer than a EJ25 (not much extra space would be needed), the weight is comparable (don't forget that all the turbo piping and turbo adds weight), the stock power output could be more than acceptable to most.

Has anybody here driven a stock 2.0 wrx? the power band is worse than the B18C in my integra IMHO. the newer 2.5in the WRX/STI solves that problem, but then again its getting hard to find unmolested EJ's now that the WRX is the new Civic of its time.

Now don't think i hate turbo EJ25s, I'm just open to the idea that they are not for everyone, and if the car can have that 1 inch of flexibility in the engine bay, somebody WILL use it to put a EZ30 in this car.

Also, yes the car needs a roof or else I'm just going with an exoskeleton.

I've driven a stock 2.0 wrx. The powerband does suck. However, that's easily remedied by a basic stage 1 tune and for the 818 with full aftermarket exhaust being required in the MR configuration you can immediately do stage 2 with the stock turbo etc.

An H6 would be great though. I'm not too worried about it, if there's room theres a way in there.

[PhyrraM]

I have owned my '02 WRX since December of '01. For the two years or so I thought the powerband sucked. It finally dawned on me what I was doing wrong. I just let it rev higher. I held each gear longer. I left it in 4th on the freeway until 70-80 MPH. I finally realized it was mean to be driven in that range. I saw no milage decrease or NVH increase.

The 4K redline imposed by the orginal break-in must have conditioned my head early or something. The 'need' to have a nice low cruising RPM is just snake oil on the brain for the 2.0 motors.

Sure, it could be better. But it's hardly painful if let your habits adjust to it a bit.

[LifeIsOnTheWire]

things like powerband, and torque begin to mean less and less as your weight goes down. i'm pretty sure a stock EJ20 be pretty potent for an 1800lb car.

[BrandonDrums]

I have owned my '02 WRX since December of '01. For the two years or so I thought the powerband sucked. It finally dawned on me what I was doing wrong. I just let it rev higher. I held each gear longer. I left it in 4th on the freeway until 70-80 MPH. I finally realized it was mean to be driven in that range. I saw no milage decrease or NVH increase.

The 4K redline imposed by the orginal break-in must have conditioned my head early or something. The 'need' to have a nice low cruising RPM is just snake oil on the brain for the 2.0 motors.

Sure, it could be better. But it's hardly painful if let your habits adjust to it a bit.

True but that doesn't help for downshifts into 2nd on a tight bend when 1st isn't an option. The 5mt doesn't always put you in the right spot in the power band to just rev higher. I love the 5mt but only when the engine is tuned to get rid of that nasty oem lag.

[LifeIsOnTheWire]

True but that doesn't help for downshifts into 2nd on a tight bend when 1st isn't an option. The 5mt doesn't always put you in the right spot in the power band to just rev higher. I love the 5mt but only when the engine is tuned to get rid of that nasty oem lag.

you're right, there is alot to be gained with a simple tune. i've only ever tuned one Subaru motor before, it was an 04 STi, I tuned it with a UTEC. I'm not sure if it helped with spooling the turbo, but I was able to improve the off-boost torque by alot.

[BrandonDrums]

you're right, there is alot to be gained with a simple tune. i've only ever tuned one Subaru motor before, it was an 04 STi, I tuned it with a UTEC. I'm not sure if it helped with spooling the turbo, but I was able to improve the off-boost torque by alot.

Gotcha, I might recommend this. For about 150 bucks for the tatrix cable and this map you can fix everything without much tweaking on your end. I ran my XPT stage 2 map for about 4 years before I went protune. Even my protune didn't run quite as well as this did without some extra tweaking on my own.

http://www.xpttuning.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=60_6_1_8

[BrandonDrums]

Humm...as we approach June...Bump!

Any new votes to be had? (ignore the H6 Part)

[StatGSR]

^ im still pretty confident that there will be "accidental" space allowing for a EZ H6.... :D

[2KWIK4U]

I voted for the top also, because I had an FFR roadster and that was the only complaint was not being able to correct sudden weather changes. It wouldn"t have to be waterproof but at least keep out most of it.

[TroyLynx]

Hello all... Several friends and I have been fallowing this 818 for several months now. 3 of us now have the $12,000 each for this car. And several others are close to having their cash ready. We are looking to get 6 cars in 1 order. But we all agree that if there is no removable top option we will go elsewhere. We all like to go out of town to car shows it would be no problem to leave the top at the motel. Also we have a Auto Tech school here in our town that has shown great interest in the 818 project. They have mentioned that if removable tops are available, they would themselves purchase 2 to 3 a year for class room assemblies. With a end of the year auction on the cars.

[BrandonDrums]

I'm really glad FFR gave us this forum to sound off and have polls like this. I would imagine that the folks present on this forum are the most hardcore potential FFR clients within their initial market.

If 62% of us crazy nut-jobs want a top for a car with so little other creature comforts, I bet that number is higher when you count for the folks not hardcore enough to have found or participated in these forums to start. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong.

Luckily, It looks like the designers have heard us regardless, those entries look AMAZING!

[ScottKoschwitz]

The lack of any type of top would break the deal for me. I might as well build a Miata-based Westfield then.

The lack of H6 support doesn't mean a thing to me. At 1,800 pounds, the power-to-weight of this car will be impressive. If you do any tuning (exhaust, chip, cams), it will fly.

[TroyLynx]

FFR has the open top cobra. And the hard roof coupe. So there is the choice. And Yes there are other kits on the market. And seeing the designs submitted, I am really looking forward to this car. And would really like the option of the removable top. I am not interested in all the features of a Maybach. About the only thing that I may need is Heat on the windshield to deFrog it. And yes our group just can't wait to have a 818 procession down the street. Just the though of a line of 818s all single file runnin up and down out town streets on a hot Friday night. Did FFR say they are shipping the 818 Monday?

[Benji]

The lack of any type of top would break the deal for me. I might as well build a Miata-based Westfield then.

The lack of H6 support doesn't mean a thing to me. At 1,800 pounds, the power-to-weight of this car will be impressive. If you do any tuning (exhaust, chip, cams), it will fly.

I would imaging most of the people that want an H6 aren't shooting for more power, just a nicer power band.

As for going for a Miata based Westfield instead, maybe that's the point that FFR are trying to get into THAT market with an IMPREZA based Westfield....

[ScottKoschwitz]

As for going for a Miata based Westfield instead, maybe that's the point that FFR are trying to get into THAT market with an IMPREZA based Westfield....

That may be, but it's a tough market to break into: so many suppliers (Caterham, Westfield, Brunton, Deman, Toniq, etc.) in what I see as a very limited market. A lot of guys, not to mention their girlfriends or wives, won't put up with minimalist creature comforts. (Hell, I'm amazed by the number of guys who don't know how to drive a stick, but that's a discussion for another day.)

As for me, I think a Lotus Elise with the Touring package is too cushy. I know that all of us interested in this project are on the hardcore end, but I need at least a just-in-case roof. Otherwise, for me, that would relegate the 818 to a weekend-only toy in which I would maybe drive 1,000 miles per year. Even at FFR's target price, such a toy is expensive.

As for the 818 being a dedicated track/race car, I already have one and I don't want another one. I'm into that car for about the target cost of the 818 kit, and if I write it off after stuffing into the wall, then so be it: I built it to race and sometimes that happens in racing. I wouldn't feel the same way towards an 818.

[TroyLynx]

I did not know where to post this. Top or no Top. or in side drivers room. I think I found a car that may answer some questions. And this car has a removable top. and is about the size of the 818. 266126622663

[kach22i]

Will make a nice addition to the "Comparables" thread.

[mekeys]

Any kit car that I build will have to have an automatic transmisson,, top and windows and A/C..I want to be able to drive any time any where..I live in Southwest Louisiana,it rains a lot and it gets hot and humid..I would like to drive in comfort..

[miznitic]

Any kit car that I build will have to have an automatic transmisson,, top and windows and A/C..I want to be able to drive any time any where..[...]I would like to drive in comfort..

"Please be respectful of your fellow forum members opinions. We don't all have to agree but we be civil to each other.
Thanks

[TroyLynx]

Maybe what you are looking for is a Fino...Strip the car down to space frame, sandblast and repaint the frame. Bolt the car back together. Bolt on the new body. And have a neat car. Though not fast it is a nice car.

[Silvertop]

Maybe what you are looking for is a Fino...Strip the car down to space frame, sandblast and repaint the frame. Bolt the car back together. Bolt on the new body. And have a neat car. Though not fast it is a nice car.

Unless of course, you also opt for the small block V8 Chevy conversion kit, replacing the Fiero engine. Then it will also be fast. I wonder how good the quality control on the body is......... At 5K, the pretty much bolt-on body kit certainly doesn't cost very much.

[2KWIK4U]

Any kit car that I build will have to have an automatic transmisson,, top and windows and A/C..I want to be able to drive any time any where..I live in Southwest Louisiana,it rains a lot and it gets hot and humid..I would like to drive in comfort..

Building the car is my favorite part and I do agree with you about a certain amount of creature comforts for me also

[2KWIK4U]

Then buy a bloody toyota Camry.

I think that was uncalled for, Being able to build the car any way you want is part of the fun. Anyone can just buy a car.

[Niburu]

Then buy a bloody toyota Camry.


I think that was uncalled for, Being able to build the car any way you want is part of the fun. Anyone can just buy a car.
that's his one and only post, I think we can dismiss trollboys opinion on this one
anyone that's read this forum knows this will be a multipurpose design - a swatch watch if you will
this is America dammit, build your car any way you want
you may leave people scratching their heads as to why, but as long as you like it, who cares?

[mekeys]

Then buy a bloody toyota Camry.

I didn't know the Camry was a kit car?

MK

[miznitic]

I think that was uncalled for, Being able to build the car any way you want is part of the fun. Anyone can just buy a car.

Thats part of building a kit car. Build it the way you want, add whatever you want, but understand that as with any project car there will be compromises. The ultimate outcome is dependent upon builder skill. Demanding such things from the manufacturer when the price point is so low, is rather silly.

[Niburu]

Thats part of building a kit car. Build it the way you want, add whatever you want, but understand that as with any project car there will be compromises. The ultimate outcome is dependent upon builder skill. Demanding such things from the manufacturer when the price point is so low, is rather silly.
and your initial comment was out of line

[miznitic]

and your initial comment was out of line

So sorry you're easily offended.

[Niburu]

So sorry you're easily offended.
hardly

if you had bothered to read some of this forum
you'd have seen all the things mekeys mentioned wanting to put in his build
have been discussed in several threads and are all real possibilties to be
included in an 818 build

in stead of offerering any useful advice, like in your second post, you told him to "go buy a Camry"
again I see it as being out of line, especially it being your first post here

[David Hodgkins]

Let's move on, shall we?

Not everyone who joins the forum reads all of the back posts before posting, so new guys will occasionally make posts that others will see as ignorant (another word for "uninformed"...). Our role as veteran members of the site are to help these folks along. I've pounced on a first post myself, so it's something we all need to work on and remind ourselves of from time to time...

:)

[BrandonDrums]

And lets remember this particular thread is really old and about the top or no top debate LONG before the design contest even started. Arguing about camry's or whatever is particularly irrelevant.

Thanks for voting though!

[kach22i]

Maybe what you are looking for is a Fino...

At least from this thread update I learned what a "Fino" is by doing a Google search on the term.

They vary from a pint sized GT-40 to an open top, to something a even little odder in my opinion. Odder, is that a word?

V-8 Archie -- Pontiac Fiero V-8 Kits and Kit Cars (http://www.v8archie.com/v8Archie/home.htm)
http://www.v8archie.com/v8Archie/Kits/GT4T/GT4T1.gif

A totally accurate Mark I body mounted to a specially modified Fiero chassis

V-8 Archie -- Pontiac Fiero V-8 Kits and Kit Cars (http://www.v8archie.com/v8Archie/home.htm)
http://www.v8archie.com/v8Archie/Kits/Roadster/Roadster1.gif

Of note is that when you remove the roof from the Fiero chassis, you will need to reinforce the chassis for stiffness.

Fino
http://www.v8archie.com/v8Archie/home.htm

[Silvertop]

Any kit car that I build will have to have an automatic transmisson,, top and windows and A/C..I want to be able to drive any time any where..I live in Southwest Louisiana,it rains a lot and it gets hot and humid..I would like to drive in comfort..

Assuming that FFR makes available a top and window system on at least one of the 818 variations - and it's a safe bet that they will -- It occurs to me that due to the use of the donor car concept, all of the things one may want -- Auto Trans, A/C, heating system, a stereo -- will almost certainly be achievable, even if FFR doesn't provide support for them. All of these things would (or could) already be present on the donor car. If unsupported, the tricky part might be plumbing heating and cooling vents into the passenger compartment. Or setting up a linkage for an automatic transmission. But I'm betting these things can be done.

[mekeys]

My guess is that you are right about the A/C Etc..However in the street rod world there are power windows and A/C units that look like they would be easy to adapt to any kit car..

[Admiral Doom]

I think that Factory Five is spot-on for originally releasing the 818 as a roadster. The roadster will be the easiest to design for the weight and cost goals. However, I think they ABSOLUTELY NEED to design it to accept a hard and soft top. They don't need to release the tops initially or ever include it in a base kit but they need to have the foresight to realize that many, even most customers will want a top at some point (whether for rain protection or aerodynamics). Designing it to accept a hard/soft top initially will save them the "oh crap" moment when they try to throw together a soft/hard top that doesn't fit the car (a la Mk4). Factory Five has a chance to fill a niche for a simple and affordable targa/roadster available to the masses and I don't want them to screw themselves in the long run. A modular design will allow them to expand their market and recognition with the eco-818 as well. I guess my dream would be switching bodies within a few hours/Saturday afternoon and have a completely new car from week to week. Hardtop eco-coupe body for the rainy weeks and sexy roadster for the nice summer days.

[Driven]

top or no sale. Of course, it can be extra but it definitely cannot be a loose, ragtop, add-on pos. it has to be designed in.
I used to have a 914 and I have always wanted to get another until I saw this project come up. I live in CA most of the time, so I *could* drive it anyway, but the sun is a little much. I have a huge sunroof on my car that is left closed due to sun intensity.
I have always wondered what all the fuss about convertibles was. Lots of people have them in LA but I usually don't see the tops down, except at night.

[Admiral Doom]

And I also think that it NEEDS both a soft and hard top - a soft top (storable in the car) for emergencies and a hard-top for storing in a garage. Sorry to ramble, just trying to give my 2c

[thebeerbaron]

Just to remind everyone who hasn't read or searched - Dave has stated that there will be a top. Beyond that, we don't know anything about it, and it will likely depend on the body design.

[Admiral Doom]

I read that it would have a top...i'm just worried that it'll be a total afterthought like the Cobra.

[Oppenheimer]

I read that it would have a top...i'm just worried that it'll be a total afterthought like the Cobra.

This has been discussed to death in other threads (and in this one). The benefits of designing in the top now, even if its not built till later, etc. I think I share most of your concerns, and these have been voiced here repeatedly, and Dave has heard us. I think they know and fully understand everyones desires.

The plan now is they are working on clay models of their 3 designs (Roadster, Coupe & Track), and they have said they'll show them to us, and let us weigh in with our thoughts. Can't wait.

[thebeerbaron]

The plan now is they are working on clay models of their 3 designs (Roadster, Coupe & Track), and they have said they'll show them to us, and let us weigh in with our thoughts. Can't wait.

I know they were working on several clay models, I don't recall if they were all for the initial Roadster or if they were for all three designs. I'd have to search to find the answer, anyone remember (and can cite) what the verdict might be? Knowing that the contest winners are not necessarily getting clay'd and that some other designs are, I'd hope/assume (because I have faith in FFR and RISD doing the right thing) that they're making several candidates for the initial body. Better to have a few designs to choose from in 3D than build "the best" paper drawing in 3D and decide it sucks...

[Silvertop]

I know they were working on several clay models, I don't recall if they were all for the initial Roadster or if they were for all three designs. I'd have to search to find the answer, anyone remember (and can cite) what the verdict might be? Knowing that the contest winners are not necessarily getting clay'd and that some other designs are, I'd hope/assume (because I have faith in FFR and RISD doing the right thing) that they're making several candidates for the initial body. Better to have a few designs to choose from in 3D than build "the best" paper drawing in 3D and decide it sucks...

Beerbaron: This may be what you were looking for. The quote below is taken from Post #8 by Dave Smith in the 818 Updates Thread:

"The next big stage/challenge is where we are right now. While there are a thousand smaller challenges (like the name of the car which you guys have done an exceptional job with!), the real big next stage is to select and make the body shape for the first car. The first car will HAVE to be the value priced roadster body as a build-it-yourself $9,900 kit with a completion target cost of sub $15,000. THESE ARE NOT FAIRY TALE PREDICTIONS, BUT RATHER SERIOUS AND WELL-CONSIDERED NUMBERS. Still, with 16 design winners and maybe 100 great designs, we need to see the cars in some real form before thinking that a concept car/drawing will translate perfectly into full size.

This next stage is BODY DESIGN. We will probably launch one car first and then follow up that launch with the other two models. Still there is no reason NOT to select the body shapes for all three distinct models based on 1/4 scale models. That is where we are now.

We are currently working on building the scale models and then will bring them to you guys here on-line for open debate. There is no path for all three cars that inlcudes a timeline. "

[thebeerbaron]

Cool. Not sure if he just means they'll use 1/4 scale models for all bodies in the future, or if they plan to use these scale models for all bodies. No statement of how many models are being built. Anyhow, Dave knows the answer but is too swamped to clear it up. I still believe from my chats at the open house that there will be multiple models per body style. We'll see the models soon enough.

Thanks for clearing this up. (as best it can be without Dave).

[D2W]

Beerbaron I asked that question and never got an answer as to how many designs they were doing initially or for what car(s). If I remember right (and I may not) Dave did say they were doing 4 clay models. Of what I don't know.

[Silvertop]

Beerbaron I asked that question and never got an answer as to how many designs they were doing initially or for what car(s). If I remember right (and I may not) Dave did say they were doing 4 clay models. Of what I don't know.

Taken from The 818 Updates Thread, Post #11, by Dave Smith:

"The only scale models I will admit to is Xabiers car (3rd place) and the winner as hardtop (but there are currently 4). Still, IF we can refine the modeling process we will have more designs that we can build at smaller scale to put to you guys for opinions. Regardless of the number and designs (vintage replica or original designs x 3) the process will then go to surface scanning, scaling and milling the final body in full size, thereby greatly accclerating the body/molding timetable. 2012 is still within reach, but we will NOT make a date prediction that we don't have planning, capability, or resources to meet."

My personal speculation is that one of the four cars being done is Xabier's 818-R the Track Car, and that the other three are the First and Second Place winners PLUS Xabier's Street Version. However, that is PURE speculation on my part, possibly influenced by wishful thinking. OLPRO: Does that count as giddy teenage schoolgirl whining?

[thebeerbaron]

My personal speculation is that one of the four cars being done is Xabier's 818-R the Track Car, and that the other three are the First and Second Place winners PLUS Xabier's Street Version. However, that is PURE speculation on my part, possibly influenced by wishful thinking.

Given some off-hand remarks at the Open House and general feel of things, my guess is that the two cars named are the only ones from the top three. I'm so-so on whether they did any more award winners or not. I think I've mentioned it before, but my gut sense is that the contest winners and the top body designs are two different things.

Thanks for finding those details!

[Silvertop]

Given some off-hand remarks at the Open House and general feel of things, my guess is that the two cars named are the only ones from the top three. I'm so-so on whether they did any more award winners or not. I think I've mentioned it before, but my gut sense is that the contest winners and the top body designs are two different things.

Thanks for finding those details!

I can't resist throwing in one last tidbit from Dave Smith, taken from Post #29 from the "Updates?" thread started by GUNS (Dave subsequently started his own Updates thread):

“There were a ton of amazing designs. Xabiers track model 818R has been BURNED in my mind as the car I personally want to build and terrorize corvettes with on the track... Still, the street version is very pretty as well ………."

I guess we can make what we want of that. Poor Dave. Everything he says will get turned upside down, inside out, placed under a microscope and then transformed into stubborn rumor. Sure is fun, though.

[kach22i]

I could be wrong, but in my mind work being done involves...........

1. First place winner is being turned into a hardtop coupe.

2. X's 3rd place winner is being mocked up "as is", and Dave loves the track version.

I think a 3rd scheme was hinted at, but I forget now what it was.

No word on the 4th scheme, I suspect this is an in-house design outside of competition influences - at least this is what I would do.

[Justen]

I think that Factory Five is spot-on for originally releasing the 818 as a roadster. The roadster will be the easiest to design for the weight and cost goals. However, I think they ABSOLUTELY NEED to design it to accept a hard and soft top. They don't need to release the tops initially or ever include it in a base kit but they need to have the foresight to realize that many, even most customers will want a top at some point (whether for rain protection or aerodynamics). Designing it to accept a hard/soft top initially will save them the "oh crap" moment when they try to throw together a soft/hard top that doesn't fit the car (a la Mk4). Factory Five has a chance to fill a niche for a simple and affordable targa/roadster available to the masses and I don't want them to screw themselves in the long run. A modular design will allow them to expand their market and recognition with the eco-818 as well. I guess my dream would be switching bodies within a few hours/Saturday afternoon and have a completely new car from week to week. Hardtop eco-coupe body for the rainy weeks and sexy roadster for the nice summer days.

My thoughts exactly, I would love to be able to swap bodies depending on the weather!

[Silvertop]

I could be wrong, but in my mind work being done involves...........

1. First place winner is being turned into a hardtop coupe.

2. X's 3rd place winner is being mocked up "as is", and Dave loves the track version.

I think a 3rd scheme was hinted at, but I forget now what it was.

No word on the 4th scheme, I suspect this is an in-house design outside of competition influences - at least this is what I would do.

I think that's a pretty good summary.

Dave Smith has pretty much said that a 1/4 scale model based on the winner's car is being prepared in a hardtop version. I wonder if that will be a hardtop in the strictest sense of the word, or a removable targa-type top.

Dave has also admitted to preparing a version of Xabier's car -- almost certainly the track version.

I have looked through all the posts, but haven't picked up any hints on the third scheme either, or the fourth. But your speculation that one of them may be an in-house FFR design is fascinating. Makes sense to me.......

Like most people on this forum, I have my clear favorite(s), based on designs that I have seen, though I don't really know if my favorites will even be among those selected for production at the end of the day. One thing is clear -- given the fact that there will be at least three designs to choose from (and potentially, variations available within the three), it is about a lead-pipe cinch that at least one of them will be attractive enough to me that I will want to build it. The real problem may turn out to be choosing which one to build!

To be safe, I will not start shopping in earnest for my donor car until the choices become clearer. But I absolutely believe that I WILL be shopping......... Can't wait for the unveiling of the 1/4 scale models.