RE: Toyota GT86 TRD - official

[s m]

Fishy Dave said:

bicycleshorts said:

Based on this, TRD have missed a trick and should have called this the GT86 M sport.

No, the last Sport M Celica was far from a styling excercise, we have had ours for 18 months now and is very different to the 190 Celica I owned before that. More power, lsd, coilovers, stiffened shell, rear brace, stiffer arbs, weight saving through less sound deadening (although mine is probably heavier with a towbar ) etc.

Toyota's version of an ITR DC2?

[peter450]

It looks nice, but more power was needed IMO, no point in making it look like a 5 sec to 60 car and leaving it with the same performance as the standard car

[veevee]

Thought this was going to be a diesel, phew!

[anonymous-user]

MC Bodge said:

Call me strange, but....

Taking the supposedly balanced, fine-handling, on adequate rims, road-driving-orientated GT86 and adding big rims, baubles & trinkets to it at the 'factory' seems to be a backward step ...
ps. A lot of people on this, and other, threads seem to like the big wheel look. Personally, I can't see the wheels whilst I'm driving a road car and prefer pneumatic cushioning.

Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 8th February 12:11

Agree 100%. This car needs nothing more and everything you add to it will f*** it up. It's not meant to be a 'grip n grunt missile' for people who can't drive - there are enough of those cars out there already; stop screwing up a nice little sports car with this adolescent crap.

Perhaps Toyota is just responding to the "track look" obsessed market. Many people confuse grip with fun and as for the track-day look heroes who prefer dynamically-pointless big bling wheels and rigid "suspensions", suggest either penile-enhancement surgery or perhaps they could buy a steam roller. Google "Porsche 911 3.0 Rally Chris Harris" for a clip which shows the ideal wheel size / arch clearance when done by rally experts who know what they're doing.

[jonasaurus]

I don't agree that there is a need for more power, if anything if it is going to be used for b-road blasting and some track work I'd be more inclined to upgrade suspension, brakes and seats.

http://www.tune86.com/toyota-86-trd-edition-upgrad...

[MC Bodge]

cidered77 said:

I should be *exactly* in the segment the base car should appeal to - and it went right to top of next car contenders list when initial concept was released. But, like so many i just cannot get past the lack of power, and a 0-60 time starting with 7.

This says more about you than it does about the car.

tommy1973s said:

Agree 100%. This car needs nothing more and everything you add to it will f*** it up. It's not meant to be a 'grip n grunt missile' for people who can't drive - there are enough of those cars out there already; stop screwing up a nice little sports car with this adolescent crap.

Perhaps Toyota is just responding to the "track look" obsessed market. Many people confuse grip with fun and as for the track-day look heroes who prefer dynamically-pointless big bling wheels and rigid "suspensions", suggest either penile-enhancement surgery or perhaps they could buy a steam roller. Google "Porsche 911 3.0 Rally Chris Harris" for a clip which shows the ideal wheel size / arch clearance when done by rally experts who know what they're doing.

The "look" (and the performance stats) is what it is all about for most people. They are more concerned about what other people think than about their own enjoyment.

As with developing anything for your own needs, it would make sense to buy the base model, use it and then take it from there, changing things if necessary. I doubt that much would require changing, although a bit of tweaking might help or be fun in some areas.

Buying an expensive, cosmetically tarted-up (at the possible expense of back-roads ride and handling)one certainly wouldn't be my ideal.

[l33lgm]

GT86 is an awsome drive and now it looks even better, yes it's a bit more money but I'm sure Toyota is running a business not a charity. There are lots of performance mods coming onto the market so why are people waiting for Toyota to do it for them, buy the car and then upgrade it how you want it.
FYI GT86 is on Top Gear BBC2 Sunday night at 8:00pm can't wait to see what they make of it.

[Gary C]

MC Bodge said:

...but how many people are actually interested in driving, beyond a few quick street-starts, planting their foot on the motorway and maybe the odd dubious overtake that's made more possible by a lot of grunt?

...Very few, I'd suggest.

Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 8th February 12:30

Quite a few I would suggest.

[ant leigh]

300bhp/ton said:

BTW - all those who moaning about the performance. The F-RS (GT86) has been clocked at 0-60mph in 6.2 seconds and 14.8 @ 94mph on the 1320. I think that's hugely respectable and bang on the money really.

Article here: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1204_20...

I think the published 0-100kmh time has always been a bit suspect. IRRC a number of tests have been in the 6.8/6.9 territory. I am guessing from the splits (needing a full 2 secs from 60 - 70) that 2nd to 3rd is between the 60mph and 100km/h split. That supports a 6.8/6.9 to 100km/h from a 6.2 60mph time.

[MC Bodge]

Gary C said:

MC Bodge said:

...but how many people are actually interested in driving, beyond a few quick street-starts, planting their foot on the motorway and maybe the odd dubious overtake that's made more possible by a lot of grunt?

...Very few, I'd suggest.

Quite a few I would suggest.

I imagine that we(?) are in a very small fraction of the world-wide driving population. Cars are sold to make money, if the populace want cars that look good, rather than (or at the expense of) driving well, then manufacturers will supply them that way.

[F1GTRUeno]

forzaminardi said:

Can you please stop messing about and just let me buy this one:

Exactly this. Looks so good.

[Gary C]

MC Bodge said:

Gary C said:

MC Bodge said:

...but how many people are actually interested in driving, beyond a few quick street-starts, planting their foot on the motorway and maybe the odd dubious overtake that's made more possible by a lot of grunt?

...Very few, I'd suggest.

Quite a few I would suggest.

I imagine that we(?) are in a very small fraction of the world-wide driving population. Cars are sold to make money, if the populace want cars that look good, rather than (or at the expense of) driving well, then manufacturers will supply them that way.

A small fraction of millions is quite a few though, but I get your point.

However Lotus have sold quite a few drivers cars in the last 10 years so there is a market for pure drivers cars, it does shrink withe the economy though.

[cidered77]

MC Bodge said:

cidered77 said:

I should be *exactly* in the segment the base car should appeal to - and it went right to top of next car contenders list when initial concept was released. But, like so many i just cannot get past the lack of power, and a 0-60 time starting with 7.

This says more about you than it does about the car.

i'm only saying what most people are thinking - great concept, just not executed quite well enough to appeal. as i'm sure the sales figures will reflect.

I think i am uniquely qualified to assess the extent of my enthusiasm for cars/driving/motorosport - being me - and if my interests are "not niche enough" for this car, then I think it will ultimately flop.

They don't make cars like theses for romance - they make them because they think an niche of buyers can be encouraged to pay for a product that delivers them a higher margin than the normal saloons/mini-cabs they chuck out. In this case, i am sure a load of people on these forums felt initially excited, then read the slightly underwhelming reviews, saw the raw stats, realised its upgrade potential is limited short of a scary looking bolt-on, and then moved on to the Megane/370z/M135i...

[cidered77]

300bhp/ton said:

cidered77 said:

I should be *exactly* in the segment the base car should appeal to - and it went right to top of next car contenders list when initial concept was released. But, like so many i just cannot get past the lack of power, and a 0-60 time starting with 7.

Not sure I really get that. It's not exactly slow and its faster than most cars on the road. Also this level of performance means it's very usable on the road without getting silly. So at least you get to drive it, while remaining at fairly sane speeds.

cidered77 said:

just make the thing a little faster - not a massive amount - just 260bhp fast, and it'll appeal. Until then stop getting my hopes up with exciting "new" models that amount to Nothing Interesting At All.

I'm sure there are hotter versions planned, infact I'm sure there has always been hotter versions planned. But with this type of car they'll often milk the market with the entry model first, for a year or two at any rate.

Also 260hp means either a different engine or forced induction. In fact 260hp n/a from a 4 pot is I think unheard of from a road going production car (maybe some kit car type exceptions). But certainly something that doesn't seem to be on the cards with current emissions and co2 legislation.

agree with that - makes the packaging choice of a flat 4 boxer a little strange for me, limits how tuneable it will be which for a lot of people thinking of forced-induction competitors and planning 5 or so track days a year is a key attraction....

and whilst you're "right" about the speed thing, of course. it matters more to people then they'll let on i reckon. we're all kids at heart - else we wouldn't care so much about cars

[s m]

cidered77 said:

I should be *exactly* in the segment the base car should appeal to - and it went right to top of next car contenders list when initial concept was released. But, like so many i just cannot get past the lack of power, and a 0-60 time starting with 7.
.

They should definitely have made the U.S. versions available over here, they seem a lot quicker whenever tested in mags......

[MC Bodge]

cidered77 said:

They don't make cars like theses for romance - they make them because they think an niche of buyers can be encouraged to pay for a product that delivers them a higher margin than the normal saloons/mini-cabs they chuck out. In this case, i am sure a load of people on these forums felt initially excited, then read the slightly underwhelming reviews, saw the raw stats, realised its upgrade potential is limited short of a scary looking bolt-on, and then moved on to the Megane/370z/M135i...

Does it all have to be about raw stats?

I personally see very few 370zs and M135i's around the Manchester area.

The Top Gear GT86 feature was fairly positive, if a bit simplistic. The wet(if that was the actual timed session and not just wet weather show-boating) Stig Lap wasn't actually too shabby, although no mention was made of the wet conditions afterwards and the time was glossed over -because the car wasn't supposed to be about lap times?

ps. I wonder how the car would handle with some Rainsports fitted?

Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 10th February 21:04

[cidered77]

MC Bodge said:

Does it all have to be about raw stats?

I personally see very few 370zs and M135i's around the Manchester area.

The Top Gear GT86 feature was fairly positive, if a bit simplistic. The wet(if that was the actual timed session and not just wet weather show-boating) Stig Lap wasn't actually too shabby, although no mention was made of the wet conditions afterwards and the time was glossed over -because the car wasn't supposed to be about lap times?

ps. I wonder how the car would handle with some Rainsports fitted?

Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 10th February 21:04

no- it definitely doesn't have to be all about ze numbers, my current car (R26 Megane) i bought because of the diff, and the reviews of it on track especially - wasn't so worried about the 0-60s, just so long as it was "quick" (and 6.2 seconds, is quick enough).

but there has to be a point where an enthusiast's car is just too slow to be valid. We all agree with this as a concept i'll bet (because if the GT86 accelerated like a Nissan Serena, nobody would buy it at all!), so now the concept is established, it's just a matter of where your personal tolerances are!

for me, the figures for this car of taking well over 7 seconds to 60 means it's about as fast in a straight line as the family car - an E250 merc. this car isn't about straight line speed, and never claimed to be - but when i replace my Megane it will be "my" car only, and i'll be driving 5k - 8k a year. Some miles will be exciting, some will be track days, but many will be boring and sometimes when on a boring but familiar drive and it's safe to do it, it's just fun to plant your foot and surge up the road to make yourself smile (the other side of the Severn bridge toll booths for perfect example!). I think i'd miss that too much to make the car appeal, may sound shallow but i'll bet i'm saying what many potential buyers are thinking...

[MC Bodge]

I wouldn't be too concerned that a lot of cars are now capable of impressive straight-line performance.

cidered77 said:

it's just fun to plant your foot and surge up the road to make yourself smile (the other side of the Severn bridge toll booths for perfect example!)

Get something very quick in a straight line like this then?

[sutats]

Why can't we have rolle caged GT86/BRZs of Japan. Are we a country of Starbucks sipping yuppies?

Edited by sutats on Sunday 10th February 22:23

[DanielSan]

sutats said:

Are we a country of Starbucks sipping yuppies?

The majority are yes. Or at least wannabe yuppies anyway. Most are just skinny jean wearing fks pretending to have friends as they look like they're constantly messaging people on their Apple products when they're really playing Tetris.