GT86 Full Autocar Road Test
Discussion
kambites said:
How on earth have you got more weight on the right-front then left-front, but more on the left-rear than right-rear? That shouldn't be possible unless your chassis is twisted or you have different effective spring rates on the different sides of the car.
Is a car symmetrical? It's a RHD car, therefore the brake master cylinder and booster are on the RHS, along with the majority of weight of the steering system.As for the rear, I don't know TVRs, but possibly the fuel tank is on the LHS?
kambites said:
How on earth have you got more weight on the right-front then left-front, but more on the left-rear than right-rear? That shouldn't be possible unless your chassis is twisted or you have different effective spring rates on the different sides of the car.
Cars always have different weights in each corner - they're not perfectly symmetrical with weight distribution. I also don't see how spring rates would effect the weight either, nor a twisted chassis? All sounds a little strange IMO.ghibbett said:
kambites said:
How on earth have you got more weight on the right-front then left-front, but more on the left-rear than right-rear? That shouldn't be possible unless your chassis is twisted or you have different effective spring rates on the different sides of the car.
Is a car symmetrical? It's a RHD car, therefore the brake master cylinder and booster are on the RHS, along with the majority of weight of the steering system.As for the rear, I don't know TVRs, but possibly the fuel tank is on the LHS?
It's only static weight distribution that matters, which can be considered as a point-mass at the CoG. Unless I've completely forgotten the mechanics I studied during my degree, which I suppose is possible.
Doesn't really matter, I was just curious because I've never seen that happen before.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 4th July 14:42
911p said:
kambites said:
How on earth have you got more weight on the right-front then left-front, but more on the left-rear than right-rear? That shouldn't be possible unless your chassis is twisted or you have different effective spring rates on the different sides of the car.
Cars always have different weights in each corner - they're not perfectly symmetrical with weight distribution. I also don't see how spring rates would effect the weight either, nor a twisted chassis? All sounds a little strange IMO.I sat in the 86 at the fos. It felt like a great place to be and not a comparable experience to any hatchback even the excellent Renault sport ones. I guess it comes down to whether you like cars or driving, both are valid views and I hope their is a place in the market for a car that focuses on the driver rather than the numbers. Mainly so cheapskates like me can pick one up after the poor predicted residuals have done their bit.
John
John
kambites said:
It's only static weight distribution that matters, which can be considered as a point-mass at the CoG. Unless I've completely forgotten the mechanics I studied during my degree, which I suppose is possible.
I'm currently failing to make your correlation between spring rates and mass distribution!?! Also I've never seen a standard production car that has matching corner masses. However I'm happy to be enlightened 
ghibbett said:
kambites said:
It's only static weight distribution that matters, which can be considered as a point-mass at the CoG. Unless I've completely forgotten the mechanics I studied during my degree, which I suppose is possible.
I'm currently failing to make your correlation between spring rates and mass distribution!?! Also I've never seen a standard production car that has matching corner masses. However I'm happy to be enlightened Imagine a completely rigid, massless, rectangular plain with an equal spring at each corner and a scale under each spring, and call an arbitrary edge the front. If you stick a 1kg weight on the front left corner and a 1kg weight on the rear right corner, all four scales will read 0.5kg, despite the fact that the weight is right over two of the scales. Now stick higher rate springs on diagonally opposite corners - the weight reading on this corners will rise and the weight reading on the other corners will fall (as you effectively unload the softer springs).
Anyway, this is a bit off topic.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 4th July 14:58
kambites said:
I'm not saying they should match; I'm saying the ratio of front-left to front-right should be the same as rear-left to rear-right.
Imagine a completely rigid, massless, rectangular plain with an equal spring at each corner and a scale under each spring, and call an arbitrary edge the front. If you stick a 1kg weight on the front left corner and a 1kg weight on the rear right corner, all four scales will read 0.5kg, despite the fact that the weight is right over two of the scales. Now stick higher rate springs on diagonally opposite corners - the weight reading on this corners will rise and the weight reading on the other corners will fall (as you effectively unload the softer springs).
Anyway, this is a bit off topic.
This makes sense. Of course spring rates don't affect mass distribution (CoG), but they can affect applied pressure at the ground.Imagine a completely rigid, massless, rectangular plain with an equal spring at each corner and a scale under each spring, and call an arbitrary edge the front. If you stick a 1kg weight on the front left corner and a 1kg weight on the rear right corner, all four scales will read 0.5kg, despite the fact that the weight is right over two of the scales. Now stick higher rate springs on diagonally opposite corners - the weight reading on this corners will rise and the weight reading on the other corners will fall (as you effectively unload the softer springs).
Anyway, this is a bit off topic.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 4th July 14:58
/further off-topic
purpleliability said:
The weight is interesting, is that what Autocar actually measured or what Toyota claim? I'd like to see how it compares to things like the Audi TT, Megan etc. Measured weight, not manufacturers quoted figures.
I recently had my Cerbera weighted with half a tank of fuel, book says it should be 1100kg...
They are some diabolically poor readings on your tricycle.I recently had my Cerbera weighted with half a tank of fuel, book says it should be 1100kg...
TameRacingDriver said:
Queue lots of "its too slow" posts...
I drove it up the hill at Goodwood last week, and in all honesty - it is too slow.Under 5000 rpm there is nothing, nada, zip. Then between 5k and 7k there's adequate performance. But as the guy from Toyota sitting next to me said, if you use it in the power band all the time you'll get about 20mpg.
Plus, on a trailing or steady throttle it sounds awful. It's only when you're pressing on that the inlet noise makes itself heard and you get a fairly nice sound.
Yes it's wonderfully balanced and i really liked the handling, i really did. It's one of the sweetest drives I've had in a long time, very nice to steer and goes around corners with aplomb. But given the price tag, it needs another 50-75 bhp in my eyes. It doesn't live up to the promises the very nice looks give out.
Beefmeister said:
I drove it up the hill at Goodwood last week, and in all honesty - it is too slow.
Under 5000 rpm there is nothing, nada, zip. Then between 5k and 7k there's adequate performance. But as the guy from Toyota sitting next to me said, if you use it in the power band all the time you'll get about 20mpg.
Plus, on a trailing or steady throttle it sounds awful. It's only when you're pressing on that the inlet noise makes itself heard and you get a fairly nice sound.
Yes it's wonderfully balanced and i really liked the handling, i really did. It's one of the sweetest drives I've had in a long time, very nice to steer and goes around corners with aplomb. But given the price tag, it needs another 50-75 bhp in my eyes. It doesn't live up to the promises the very nice looks give out.
Supercharge its ass yo!Under 5000 rpm there is nothing, nada, zip. Then between 5k and 7k there's adequate performance. But as the guy from Toyota sitting next to me said, if you use it in the power band all the time you'll get about 20mpg.
Plus, on a trailing or steady throttle it sounds awful. It's only when you're pressing on that the inlet noise makes itself heard and you get a fairly nice sound.
Yes it's wonderfully balanced and i really liked the handling, i really did. It's one of the sweetest drives I've had in a long time, very nice to steer and goes around corners with aplomb. But given the price tag, it needs another 50-75 bhp in my eyes. It doesn't live up to the promises the very nice looks give out.
Beefmeister said:
I drove it up the hill at Goodwood last week, and in all honesty - it is too slow.
Under 5000 rpm there is nothing, nada, zip. Then between 5k and 7k there's adequate performance. But as the guy from Toyota sitting next to me said, if you use it in the power band all the time you'll get about 20mpg.
I wonder if these engines are 'tight' from new i.e. if they will get faster as they loosen up a bit like the old Mk2 Golf 16v?Under 5000 rpm there is nothing, nada, zip. Then between 5k and 7k there's adequate performance. But as the guy from Toyota sitting next to me said, if you use it in the power band all the time you'll get about 20mpg.
I know they aren't about standing starts etc but as it hits 60 in second gear ( according to test ) I wonder if they do put out their full power when new? Should have enough traction and a snappy gearchange
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff