>Ae86 weighs as much as a miata
>has a solid roof and rear seats
HOW IN THE FUCK DID THIS HAPPEN?
the 80s was a magic time
>>14470525
I thought cabs usually turned out heavier as they need some reinforcement to compensate for the lack of roof.
>>14470525
>what is advanced safety technology
Is this even a real question
>>14470653
Also this is a factor
>>14470525
And you can bet the apex or whatever the top trim line was called was the heaviest in the weight range given on that page
>>14470659
>miata
>Safety technology
is this b8?
>>14470525
convertibles are heavier you dumbfuck
>>14470525
The base model with a 4AC was light.
The GTS was not near as light.
>>14470992
>no roof
>no rear seats
>heavier
this is gonna be good
>>14471011
yeah a whole 400lb heavier
gee, not even close
>>14471016
pls go
>>14471022
400lbs more puts it over the weight of an NA miata
>>14471016
look up a base model vs a convertible on any car. wow what do you know, they are heavier because the chassis needs to be stiffened to meet safety regulations
>>14471031
>it needs to be stiffened
>it needs the equivalent of a rear room and roof to be stiffened
lmaoing at your life
/o/ is such a great board isn't it
>>14471016
No it's not, because everyone knows that motor + shit ton of reinforcement makes the vehicle heavy.
I saw my first Trueno in downtown today and geeked the fuck out. I tried slipping through traffic so I could pull up next to him and give a thumbs up, but he got away.
>>14470525
this is why i hate miatas
>yfw if mazda wasn't so fucking autistic and stupid we could have a miata that weighs same as CRX stock
>>14470525
A GTR xu-1 Torana also weighs the same as an mx-5 while making the same power and handling better.
Your move miata fags.
>>14471145
>Muscle car making as much as power as a stock miata
I thought the whole point of a muscle car is power and torque
>>14471168
uuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh
the fuck?
>>14471168
You mean american muscle cars can only go fast in straight lines?
Australian muscle cars all have small block v8's, some inline 6's so that they do not under steer.
>>14470525
mazda guys are basically hacks in any year
>LIVE
>REAR
>AXLE
>>14471168
it comes with anything between a 1.2l 4 cylinder to a 3.6l 6 cylinder
it's an economy car from th4 60's and 70's
>>14471048
>>14471016
>mfw a vertfag thought his convertible was lighter near me
>>14471235
mine is. soft tops are lighter unless your car has a shitty chassis that requires additional bracing.
putting a roof on a roadster and chopping the roof off a coupe/hatch are two very different things.
>>14470525
convertibles are always heavier lol. The convertible e46 M3 is a full .7 seconds slower on the quarter mile for example.
>>14471997
m roadster is 70 pounds lighter than the m coupe.
checkmate faggot
>>14471986
>this idiot just confused "convertible" and "roadster"
>>14472081
>this idiot just confused a miata with a convertible
nice try to save face tho, but no.
>inb4 i meant to post off topic rants
>>14471016
Convertibles require more bracing to remain even remotely rigid. Regular roofs don't weigh very much. Convertibles will almost always be heavier than their hardtop counterparts, if both versions of the car exist. Also the live rear axle assembly is going to weigh less than an IRS setup, as is the more simplistic front suspension.
>>14472102
Your car is not a convertible, it's a roadster, so why were you replying to a post that was talking about convertibles? You're so dumb you don't even know where you went wrong.
>>14472120
Because the OP is about a roadster. You replying hurr convertibles are heavier either means you are a mouth breathing fool or i called you on your bullshit and are backtracking.
So are you stupid or do you just post off topic rants.
>why is miata heavier
>convertibles are always heavier
fuck off samefag you are so dumb it hurts me inside
>>14472139
>samefag
wrong
dumbass
>>14470525
a 3g fwd civic wagon weighs less than the miata lmao, 20lbs more than the 86's lowest possible weight
>>14472147
guess there are two dumbasses then.
OP is about a roadster. If your justification is convertibles are heavier we are far past arguing what is/isn't a convertible. You are replying to roadster posts. Either you are dumb, or you are off topic.
>>14470659
>made 2 years later
>suddenly millions of regulations
lol
>>14470525
But there could be many reasons. Thicker metal used. Heavier wheels. More features. Extra bracing from having a convertible. The convertible top and parts probably weigh more than a thin metal roof on a tiny car. Pretty common sense stuff.
>>14471986
>thinks there are any convertibles exist that don't use bracing on the bottom to compensate for the roof not providing rigidity
>thinks cars that don't have bracing are "good"
LOL
>>14472162
Or... because they are two wholly different cars and chassis? Thats like asking why a mustang weighs more than a camaro. Its pointless.
In many vehicles glass and sheet metal are heavier than a soft top and motor even with a glass rear window, so not even all drop tops are heavier than their roofed brothers.
>>14472171
>implying the bmw z4 chassis wasn't already stiff as fuck and that adding a roof didn't add additional weight vs the soft top
sorry your mfg can't into chassis rigidity
>>14472180
only cars that the convertible version is lighter are body on frame.
>>14472171
also sorry they didn't remove bracing to make the car less rigid when they added a roof. they just made one of the stiffest chassis to ever be mfg for a street car.
>>14472188
wrong. bmw m coupe vs roadster. unibody.
>inb4 convertibles have to have a back seat
>>14472180
I would say 95% of convertibles are heavier than their hard top counter. Idiot.
>>14470525
Can't dupe the coupe
>>14472201
I would say 95% doesn't mean all, and that most certainly >>14472188 is wrong.
In general yes, but it sure as hell isn't the gospel y'all are spewing.
>>14472197
>>14472180
So....your argument is that they added bracing....Then when they made the coupe.....They decided it wasn't worth the money.....So they left the bracing....And that means that ALL convertibles are lighter and that they don't add bracing for verts????
>"unless your car has a shitty chassis that requires additional bracing."
>>14472209
Except were clearly discussing cars that were coupes then turned in to convertibles. Not hte other way around. Because the coupes don't NEED the bracing, but they leave it because the chassis is already built. Also, stop being a pedantic faggot you assburgers.
>>14470982
miatas were considered to be safe for their time
>>14472222
No the point was they didn't "add" bracing, thats the car as designed, and they didn't cuck the chassis when making the coupe by making it sloppier.
You act like designing a car and removing the roof and adding bracing is some organic process. It isn't. BMW would have wound up with the same chassis whether it was coupe to vert or vert to coupe. Not everyone cuts corners, their aim was to make the stiffest car possible, period.
>>14472233
BMW would have made the exact same chassis for the coupe even if the vert never existed. Not everyone plays games of corner cutting. If the coupe or vert could be any stiffer they would have made them that way.
Also that is a drop top that is lighter than the coupe with no "additional" chassis reinforcement.
Good day. Only pedantic one is you after being proven your generalization is in fact not as solid as you though.
>>14472197
>z4 2008
>coupe
3,020
>convertible
3,020
And considering they LEFT the additional bracing on the hard top.....
>>14472249
You are a dumb mother fucker
>hurrrrrr since the car was a convertible first they didn't "add" bracing
Please get a trip so everyone can ignore you.
>>14471168
It has a 202 CID I6
which means its just a tuned up production engine in a light ass car which isn't a muscle car
Liberals and muh safety and muh smog
>>14472255
le cuck cars.
M Roadster is lighter than the M coupe. Period. Even if the coupe came first the chassis would have been the same. There was no "additional" bracing, this was the best design they could attain.
Is it so hard to believe no compromise was the aim from the start?
>>14472265
Wouldn't have matter if there wasn't a vert you nigger. Their goal from the start was to make the stiffest chassis they ever made. They only made the coupe to make it stiffer. Even without the drop top they would have had the same chassis for the coupe.
Sorry you can't into nice cars or no compromise designs. I'm out weebs.
>>14472277
You are officially the dumbest person on /o/. Signed a person who has been here for 7 years.
>>14472265
Your point is only valid if you admit every mfg makes shit cars with massive rooms for improvement in chassis design and when they make the drop top their shit chassis flex so much they are forced to go back to the drawing board. My point is the Z4 does not follow that design premise. It never was intended to. And even if you pulled out the strut bars and the lower subframe reinforcement (assuming this would make the coupe as rigid as the vert) it likely would still weigh more. Every car is different. The end.
>>14470525
>>14470532
You realize that's fairly impressive. The miata manages to weigh the same or less than a hardtop hatch that came out 6 years earlier. Convertibles usually weigh more.
>>14472295
Waaaah the chassis wasn't so sloppy it required additional reinforcement when the roof is absent.
Waaaah glass and steel is heavier than a soft top and motor (as proven by the z4)
The point is there is no chassis reinforcement you idiot. The chassis is stiff as fuck period.
Sorry you can't accept not every car follows what you believe to be the transition to a drop top. Verts can be lighter unless you have a sloppy chassis. The end.
>>14472298
LOL
>BMW is hte only company that strives to make good chassis over profit
LOL so stupid.
>>14472322
>they set out with a goal of creating the stiffest chassis possible
>they did
sorry not all verts are heavier senpai. most are, but not all. also I said the e85 project exclusively. are all you miatafags this delusional?
>>14472320
>they literally reinforced it from the factory.....because that's the ONLY WAY to design a convertible
>you clearly don't know what chassis reinforcement means
>you are fucking retarded
>hurrr if it was made that way it means it was not reinforced
LOLOLLOL, so stupid. Please keep responding to people so I can keep laughing. Also take the BMW dick out of your mouth.
>>14472333
>they set out with a goal of creating the stiffest chassis possible
>If I just say shit, it makes it true
>implying they weren't just making it stiff because verts are ALWAYS more flexible than coupes
>can't into science
>>14472347
No, what part do you not understand? The vert and hartop were designed in parallel. The coupe was released later per tradition. The chassis was "reinforced" aka by design because that was their goal. The vert wasn't "beefed up" and the coupe wasn't "cucked." If you have to add "reinforcements" to a car when you remove the roof your coupe was far from as rigid as it could be. And thats that. This car was never designed to have the coupe be a compromise that the vert has to compensate for with additional chassis components. And this car proves beyond a doubt that a fully power soft top with glass rear window can be lighter than a fixed roof. Cause they have the same chassis you idiot. No extra fancy parts because they are all top tier. I know driving a mazda you don't understand the concept but just play with me.
>>14472357
Designed at same time. You know nothing of the goal of the e85/86. Sorry you can't into reading. The stiffest chassis attainable was their goal you idiot. The e85 is one of the stiffest verts ever and I do not know a car for its time stiffer than the e86 you millennial.
>>14471022
400lbs is a lot in terms of power to weight,
Especially whens theres not much power to be had.
>>14472393
It's funny when people are buttmad AND dumb.
>>14472454
drop top lighter than hard top
no additional reinforcement on the roadster. not at all. car was designed to not suck from the get go. there aren't even parts to remove if you wanted to sugar tits.
sorry you are dumb and drive poverty people cars.
>>14472024
Roadsters are typically designed from the getgo to not have a roof. That allows some freedom of design to stiffen before hand.
In the case of the z3 Mcoupe, its pretty obvious roof was an after thought.
>>14472249
>. Not everyone cuts corners, their aim was to make the stiffest car possible, period.
they didn't do that with the E30, or E36, both of those are floppy compared to the coupe/sedan.
I Own an E30 vert and can attest to how flimsy it is without aftermarket bracing.
>>14472481
agreed, however I mean distinctly z4. the z4 was designed to be a coupe/roadster from the get go after such success with the z3 coupe. the z4 coupe was only released 3 years later with the introduction of the M for financial purposes.
>>14472500
I solely mean e85/e86 z4. Cutting corners applies to every other BMW ever in this regard. Even the e36 M3 vert had better chassis reinforcement up front than the M3 coupe.
>>14472255
>How much does sheet of metal and piece of glass weights?
>how much does few layers of fabric, metal frame that holds it, electrical engine and mechanism that put it up and down, piece of glass and rollover protection cage with retraction system weight
>is trolling hard
>>14472579
coupe is at least 33lb heavier
no bracing to remove even if you wanted to.
the end
>>14472299
No, convertibles with mechanical lifts weigh more.
>>14472747
Fact. However, even then the Z4 with a power roof and glass rear window plus roll hoops is 33lb less than the fixed roof.
>>14472579
It's okay to admit you are wrong dude. It's even healthy.
>>14472763
Sounds like some heavy duty pillars.
>20 valve engine
>live axle
>hard angles
If it were produced in massive numbers it would have truly been a god machine
>>14470525
What is safety
>>14471145
>while making the same power
MORE power
>>14470525
becayse toyota actually makes good cars?
