Underpowered I can live with

It never has been. Retards try to make up excuses like "it was made to be modded" and "skinny tires were installed to let people drift" and other nonsense

Doesn't take tight turns as well as the 86

No it takes them better, it has wider tires, its heavier and has more power it can take a turn way faster than the 86

I'm sure there is another way for it to be fun. Can't they specifically design wide low-friction tires?

It doesn't, it understeers and has loose steering compared, what you have is grip and stability

>Can't they specifically design wide low-friction tires?
Sure thats easy, just use a harder rubber compound but why would you? thats a huge waste to have wide tires that have low grip

nice memes you dumb faggot. You literally prove you've never driven them

The FRS comes with shitty all-season "sports" tires, the WRX comes with slicks. It has a higher coefficient of friction which means it grips more. Higher grip = taking turns faster = understeering less. This is basic physics stop talking out your ass

The only retard here is you OP

Firstly:
>"Why would a rear engine car have wider rear tyres than a front engine car?"

Secondly if you're going to post a car with a completely different layout you could at least post one with a similar power to weight ratio.

But then, it's a subaru, you're gonna look more like a fag than in a 86

>you literally prove you've never driven them
Nice try user, don't get so worked up over nothing

>Can't they specifically design wide low-friction tires?

Specifically for the 5 other retards like yourself who want to look cool with wide tyres but still want the car to be fun? 110% delusional.
If you want a high HP wide tyre muscle machine buy one, that's not what the Ft86 is.

Tire width has nothing to do with engine layout and everything to do with drivetrain layout

>not passing inspection because you have better wheels and tires

in what shithole country is this an issue?

>not wanting to hoon
if you really hate fun off track the civic si/ford st/velosrtor n are for someone like you

>you can't drift in an FF car
>wings don't work on an FF car
literal retards

Not OP but yeah.. Relax bro

>tyre width has nothing to do with where the main concentration of weight is in the car

210% delusional.
More weight at the back = more cornering inertia on the rear wheels = needs more tyre to tame (or at least try to tame) the lift off oversteer.

the 86 has a nearly 50/50 weight distribution

Firstly how much of that is behind the rear axle? (not much)
Secondly the Porsche doesn't have 50/50 - it's rear biased.

>>>"Why would a rear engine car have wider rear tyres than a front engine car?"

Yeah why? The location of the engine only means there is more weight on the rear wheels, meaning more traction, so it's not the reason the tires are wider. The tires are wider because it is better in every way and safer for high speed cornering

only like 3% its 53r/47f

Since the doriftu maymay became the most important factor in cars, to the extent where people would foam at the mouth at the suggestion that FF or AWD has advantages.

Actually it's 53/47. A Mustamg GT is better at 52/48.

yes I said that

>more weight = more grip

You are actually retarded, that is most definitely not the case when cornering - the inertia far outweighs whatever extra friction is generated by the weight, especially on a rear engine car.

Are you too ignorant to be aware of the Porsche's reputation, and almost all other rear or mid engine cars reputation, for lift-off oversteer? Think of the MR2 for example.

weren't you autists creaming over rwd corollas? so toyota finally makes one just for you autists

And where is that 53% of rear weight on a Porsche?
(almost all behind the rear axle)
Where is that 50% of weight on an FT86? Look at where the rear wheels are in relation to the body, there's almost NO rear overhang, almost all that weight is in front of the rear axle.

Completely incomparable cars.

This is why Veeky Forums is full of retards who are experts on every car they've never driven. They have no knowledge of highschool physics and they use all this made up nonsense to justify some retarded made up conclusions.

its not. toyota put prius tires to let media reviewer slide easier making it more funer. better mpg on the sticker is a plus too.

My cement truck holds a corner like mad when it's full. You should see how wide the tires are.

step it up senpai

All this time I thought Racing Regulation bodies were adding weight to handicap cars which were too fast, but now I see they were really just making them corner better.

That's not street legal though. This isn't a thread about your track toys.

The reason I brought it up is to say that the 86 has weight distribution that's average at best, and a power to weight ratio that's horrendous. Weight alone doesn't mean much if the ratios are shit.

You know how some people turn off traction control to "have more fun"?

It's the same reasoning for their decision with tiny tires

oh boy

How many G do you even pull with this you pleb?

That thing literally shifts the timezones around when you floor it.

your mother literally uses that to feed herself

...

The frs tires are actually summer tires, but they're some of the worst when it comes to grip.

Lift off oversteer doesn't counteract the fact that rear weight biased cars have tremendous grip when set up correctly.

because their "summer tires" are all-season sports slicks, ie not an actual summer slick that comes on other cars.

The civic has real slicks, the WRX has real slicks, etc

There are summer tires that aren't slicks.
Hell, real slicks aren't every street legal

By "set up correctly" do you mean when they have massive track, camber and tyre width at the back? Because that's sorta my point.

> massive camber
I'm not really an expert, but that doesn't sound ideal

real slicks are they have a tread with grooves and a pattern. Its why "drag radials" are street legal

Because you are a faggot if you spend $40kAUD on a jumped up corolla.

Even still you don't use slicks if you want to drift. Its retarded that faggots think that "oh they're skinny for sick drifts" but they're slicks so they're designed with a softer compound for extra grip which is retarded

It has a Subaru engine though, so it helps the Australian economy.

Yeah but aren't those called "semi slicks"?

semi slicks are a special compound often called R-tyres

Go look at the back of a Porsche, way more rear camber then front. As a general rule of thumb more weight = more camber.

In contrast look at the front camber on this R32 GTR - a notoriously "Super furonto heaby" car (as Initial D put it).

No, it doesn't help the economy. The economy is beyond help. Also, it has a shit half-subaru engine.

your more of a faggot just by worrying about what you look like

Yeah but that's probably because they have a Macpherson strut setup right? A proper double wishbone setup wouldn't need that

Do you even know what the point of camber is?

Wrong.

Prove me wrong.

No you are right user. I just checked and if you run tons of camber that will help you get hektic if you have a heavy car that has too much traction because it's so heavy.

It sounds like you're just guessing though

This 962 doesn't have noticeable camber and it's mid-engine

Old wrxs came with 215, you'll live. If it's that big of a problem you can easily go 245

And it will help you win races if you have a super front heavy R32 GTR.

Why though?

It doesn't have the power to use wider tires, and using prius meme tires means they can give it that slightly higher EPA fuel mileage estimate to game the numbers.

Want wider tires for no reason? Put them on yourself. OEM tires suck 90% of the time anyways.

That's because it's a purpose built race car - It's very light and the centre of gravity is very low.
Remember I said it's a "general rule of thumb".

Sure, if your front suspension geometry is such that you need camber and caster to account for body roll, possibly bump steer, etc. in order to maintain contact patch.

Kind of like when I put crash bolts in the rear of my relatively light car because the long-travel chapman strut design made it desirable to run more camber than could be gotten stock if I wanted to really lean on the rear around corners.

I ran max camber on the rear of my MR2 and still wore the outside of the tire faster.

Do you want a prize?

>tell story about your own cars setup
>disparage someone who replies with a story about their cars setup

Well there's no need to be a cunt mate.

nigger I never said it was a good thing.
I just said why you fucking retard.

I meant a retard award or something that sort. I wasn't trying to make him feel bad about not knowing what he was talking about.

Prove me wrong.

You haven't established something to prove right or wrong. Camber is one adjustment in a complex system meant to balance a variety of factors from tire wear to when in the course of driving you prefer to have the largest contact patch.

Since a controllable slide at not crazy amounts above the speed limit make a car much more fun as a daily. Why have you accepted the notion that a daily driver needs to be boring.

Sure a truly fast car is fun on the track but you don't do most of your driving on the track so why would you buy a car that is boring at normal speeds just so it can be fun at 170Mph?

I believe this whole discussion started when I said a well set up Porsche would have lots of track, camber and tyre width at the back - which of course they do.

962 is a Porsche
Proved you wrong

In the context of this thread we were specifically talking about rear engine road going Porsches like the 911.

But hey if that's what you need to do in order to feel like you've won an argument you should never have embarked on in the first place go ahead - play that game.

I strongly suspect that the Porsche, the GTR, and the Toyobaru all have different suspension geometry, but it's not worth it to me to go look them all up and start doing MS paint diagrams and trying to write a textbook better than countless experts already have.

I was merely pointing out that the correlation between weight and rear camber is a terrible one.

I think you'll find it's a very strong correlation.

One that misses the underlying reasons for its existence.

918 and the carrera gt don't need camber either because they have a good suspension setup

What is the reason for the existence of any suspension component if not to control the cars weight and effectively transfer it through the tyres into the ground?
I think you'll find weight is at the very basis of suspension setup and design.

>mid engined Porsches

That is the reason. But there is no direct correlation between weight and camber. That'd be a bit like saying if you were to race a cement truck then you'd want the rear to have more camber if it were full of cement rather than empty.

When in reality, due to suspension design, it wouldn't matter one whit other than to reduce contact patch even if somebody were to manufacture a cement truck with adjustable rear camber.

>general
>rule of thumb
>except on this lemans winning race car

There is direct correlation.
Racing Trucks do run very high camber.

Let me provide another counterexample, elaborating on my earlier account of my car with the long-travel chapman strut rear suspension.

>add more weight in the rear
Firstly, I'd want less camber because now it's going to be compressed more on the whole, and with that suspension the more it is compressed the more negative camber you get.

But if you had put the weight on the roof rather than in the wheel well, I'd want to keep more of that negative camber because now I'm going to have to deal with a lot more body roll and I'm going to want to want to keep the tires flat with the rear swinging around rather than going straight. Of course what I really want is a stiffer anti-roll bar, and to not try to fix the problem with camber adjustments in the first place.

That's front camber, man. Of course you'd want front camber with that suspension design. Rear camber on a fixed axle? Not so much.

Firstly it's very light so it doesn't need much camber at all anyway, this is in accordance with my general rule.
Secondly the weight is distributed extremely well - notice how there's ABSOLUTELY ZERO rear overhang?
Thirdly, being a purpose built racecar, the suspension travel is extremely limited and the weight is extremely low resulting in much less roll than a regular car.

Did I not mention the context of the discussion was road going rear engine Porsches?

Front camber because that's where the weight is genius, and if he could run rear camber on that truck he would.