RE: Chris Harris video: Toyota GT 86

[kambites]

MC Bodge said:

Would it really need bigger brakes though?

Well if they were fading on the track, then presumably yes if you want to track it. However, I suspect most cars sold in the UK will never see a track, at least under their original ownership.

[kambites]

jon- said:

and the S2000 isn't what you'd call quick.

It's what the vast majority of people, myself included, would call quick.

[rajkohli81]

jon- said:

I still can't get over the lack of power. I thought maybe it's ultra light weight but...

GT86 197bhp @ 1180kg = 167bhp / ton
S2000 239bhp @ 1250kg = 191bhp / ton
350z 306bhp @ 1600kg = 191bhp / ton
370z 331bhp @ 1,466kg = 226bhp / ton

and the S2000 isn't what you'd call quick.

Wow, I was beginning to believe all that lightweight hype...but that's a poor show

[StormLoaded]

TRD are doing two different brake packages, with larger discs and Brembo 6-pot up front and 4-pot rears as the higher spec/package on offer.
Not yet confirmed (afaik) if they will fit under the std 17s, or if you'll need the TRD 18s.

[jon-]

kambites said:

jon- said:

and the S2000 isn't what you'd call quick.

It's what the vast majority of people, myself included, would call quick.

I wish they were, but they're really not. My MR2 was quick (300bhp @ 1150kgs), quick enough to make passengers take note / scream / cry. I've had all manor of people in the s2000, from 18 year old girls to my parents and not once has anyone commented on the speed, just "is reving that high good for the engine?"

They're brisk, and to me at least nicely balanced, but it's not in your face quick when the average VAG diesel can keep up until the higher speeds.

And the GT86 is going to be slower than "not quick".

[Stuart]

rajkohli81 said:

jon- said:

I still can't get over the lack of power. I thought maybe it's ultra light weight but...

GT86 197bhp @ 1180kg = 167bhp / ton
S2000 239bhp @ 1250kg = 191bhp / ton
350z 306bhp @ 1600kg = 191bhp / ton
370z 331bhp @ 1,466kg = 226bhp / ton

and the S2000 isn't what you'd call quick.

Wow, I was beginning to believe all that lightweight hype...but that's a poor show

MX-5 is 145bhp per tonne unmolested, so I guess from that perspective, and again looking at new only, it fits right in. GT 86 is only 10kg heavier than the MX too, so it probably says more about how light the S2000 is amongst that company than how heavy the GT86 is.

When you factor in the implications for VED, company car tax and insurance (one hopes) from the lower output, then you can start to see where they're coming from. At least I can.

[ewenm]

jon- said:

I still can't get over the lack of power. I thought maybe it's ultra light weight but...

GT86 197bhp @ 1180kg = 167bhp / ton
S2000 239bhp @ 1250kg = 191bhp / ton
350z 306bhp @ 1600kg = 191bhp / ton
370z 331bhp @ 1,466kg = 226bhp / ton

and the S2000 isn't what you'd call quick.

Plenty of people won't be able to look past the power figure. I find the 177PS in our Volvo V50 adequate for real-world driving and that barge is significantly heavier than the GT86. On UK roads I reckon it won't feel slow, especially as every kg saved impacts more than the straight line performance (handling, braking, agility all improved by having less mass to control).

[kambites]

jon- said:

I wish they were, but they're really not.

Each to their own - to me anything over about 130bhp/tonne is "quick" in so far as it's faster than most other cars on the road. Beyond 200bhp/tonne I just don't see the point on the road and will often actually prefer the slower car. What has "the average diesel VAG keeping up with you" got to do with anything? Why on earth would you care whether you're faster or slower than the other cars around you?

This is not a car for power freaks and was never intended to be. There are lots and lots of cheap powerful cars out there if you want one; some of us don't.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 9th February 13:59

[Jurgen]

But the S2000 is pretty quick, it just doesn't feel like it. My slighted modded Fiat Coupe 20vt had a similar power to weight ratio, but felt a lot quicker due to the turbo shove. In real life though they're equal in a straight line.

I'm sure the GT86 won't impress many people with it's straight line speed, but as said before that's not the point of the car is it? As for the comments on the brakes not being huge, i'm sure they will be absolutely fine on the road and with some better pads probably great on track too. The S2000 has a similar setup and with some decent pads it works fine on the track. That's the advantage of lower weight (not saying it's light).

[Fittster]

rajkohli81 said:

jon- said:

I still can't get over the lack of power. I thought maybe it's ultra light weight but...

GT86 197bhp @ 1180kg = 167bhp / ton
S2000 239bhp @ 1250kg = 191bhp / ton
350z 306bhp @ 1600kg = 191bhp / ton
370z 331bhp @ 1,466kg = 226bhp / ton

and the S2000 isn't what you'd call quick.

Wow, I was beginning to believe all that lightweight hype...but that's a poor show

Maybe you should start comparing like with like.

MX-5 124bhp @1155KG = 108bhp / ton
VW Golf GTTDI 140 138bhp @ 1451kg = 97bhp / ton
Renaultsport Clio 197 187bhp @ 1240Kg = 161bhp / ton
Mazda RX-8 228 bhp @ 1394kg = 166bhp / ton
Porsche 944 S2 211bhp @ 1312Kg = 163bhp / ton.
Honda Integra Type-R (DC2) 187bhp @ 1101 Kg = 187bhp / ton
Lotus Elise S 134 bhp @ 860KG = 158 bhp / ton.

[jon-]

kambites said:

Beyond 200bhp/tonne I just don't see the point on the road and will often actually prefer the slower car.

I think you need to sit down and have a long hard think about what you just said


On a serious note I know exactly what you mean. In my (worthless) opinion this car with 240/250 NA BHP would be just about interesting enough to work for me as a daily, instead I'd much rather spend my money on a used 370z with the change left over for the increased running costs.

I'm sure there will be loads on tyre launches in the future so I might eat my words, much as I did about the 135i which I thought I'd hate but was stunning (though 302bhp @ 1560kgs = 193bhp / ton again)

[kambites]

jon- said:

kambites said:

Beyond 200bhp/tonne I just don't see the point on the road and will often actually prefer the slower car.

I think you need to sit down and have a long hard think about what you just said


On a serious note I know exactly what you mean. In my (worthless) opinion this car with 240/250 NA BHP would be just about interesting enough to work for me as a daily, instead I'd much rather spend my money on a used 370z with the change left over for the increased running costs.

I'm sure there will be loads on tyre launches in the future so I might eat my words, much as I did about the 135i which I thought I'd hate but was stunning (though 302bhp @ 1560kgs = 193bhp / ton again)

Give me a decent back-road on a nice sunny day and I'll probably have more fun in my MGB (which has about 100bhp/tonne) than my Elise (which has 200). A rather different kind of fun, admittedly.

[jon-]

kambites said:

Give me a decent back-road on a nice sunny day and I'll probably have more fun in my MGB (which has about 100bhp/tonne) than my Elise (which has 200).

Out of interest, what rubber does the MGB run?

[LouD86]

deviant said:

In my end of the world anyway...there is a lack of GOOD tyre choice in 16-17s and an 18in sticky tyre is stupid expensive.

All the good tyres are in the 13-15 range.

Not looking for sticky tyres!! Its running the same as the Prius, low rolling resistance, hence its so flexible with the 200bhp its been blessed with!!

[kambites]

jon- said:

kambites said:

Give me a decent back-road on a nice sunny day and I'll probably have more fun in my MGB (which has about 100bhp/tonne) than my Elise (which has 200).

Out of interest, what rubber does the MGB run?

Well at the moment none because it's broken and hence hasn't been used for five years so the tyres on it will need replacing. It was on early 90s Michelins last time I drove it.

[Fittster]

jon- said:

S2000 239bhp @ 1250kg = 191bhp / ton

and the S2000 isn't what you'd call quick.

In 2005 the S2000 cost 26K, adjusted for inflation that 31K today. If your argument is that a car that costs almost 25% more has a better power to weight ratio you hava a point.

The only sensible comparison to the GT86 are current hot hatches, Coupes based on hatch back platforms and to some extent the MX-5.

Aging sports cars will give you better looking power / price figures but you aren't really comparing like with like.

[elementad]

Stuart said:

rajkohli81 said:

jon- said:

I still can't get over the lack of power. I thought maybe it's ultra light weight but...

GT86 197bhp @ 1180kg = 167bhp / ton
S2000 239bhp @ 1250kg = 191bhp / ton
350z 306bhp @ 1600kg = 191bhp / ton
370z 331bhp @ 1,466kg = 226bhp / ton

and the S2000 isn't what you'd call quick.

Wow, I was beginning to believe all that lightweight hype...but that's a poor show

MX-5 is 145bhp per tonne unmolested, so I guess from that perspective, and again looking at new only, it fits right in. GT 86 is only 10kg heavier than the MX too, so it probably says more about how light the S2000 is amongst that company than how heavy the GT86 is.

When you factor in the implications for VED, company car tax and insurance (one hopes) from the lower output, then you can start to see where they're coming from. At least I can.

The S2000 had a true 50/50 weight distribution also due to the long bonnet and engine being shoved towards the back of the bonet

[kambites]

elementad said:

The S2000 had a true 50/50 weight distribution also due to the long bonnet and engine being shoved towards the back of the bonet

Much higher CoG though.

[Xaero]

I loved the video, this car is at the top of the list for me. I don't give a monkeys that its not the fastest. As long as its the most fun then that'll do me.

There are plenty of things in life which aren't the 'best' on spec sheets. That doesn't make them bad, you just have to 'get' them.

[otolith]

kambites said:

jon- said:

and the S2000 isn't what you'd call quick.

It's what the vast majority of people, myself included, would call quick.

That's the problem, isn't it? If people are going to define "quick" in terms that an S2000 doesn't match up to, is it reasonable to expect an entry level 25k sporting coupe to be "quick"?

It has roughly the same sort of power to weight ratio as an Audi TT 2.0 TFSI, RX-8, Scirocco TSI, entry level Elise, Civic Type-R, Focus ST, Clio 200, Golf GTi, etc. If that's not quick enough, what should it be benchmarked against? Do people expect Cayman pace for 25k? (if they do, that heavily discounted 370Z awaits them, but not much else).