RE: GT86: the next step

[Rawwr]

Kong said:

Maybe because people like the way the GT86 looks and drives but want a bit more speed? People like me for example. There seems to be an inverse performance car snobbery on these threads where it's frowned upon to to like going fast. Why should I be limited to a dull VXR or VAG turbo mobile just because I want something fast? Some of us want both..

Get a Cayman

The other options are already there.

[McSam]

Raitzi said:

McSam said:

It's meant to be a usable, cheap, fun road car.

BRZ costs about 50k€ in Finland. And Australians tested acceleration 0-60 to be 11s with two fat blokes in the car. Too much money for shopping trolley performance. Used miata or RX8 is much better bet. We do not even have bare bone spec available. And why gearing on automatic transmission is so high compared to manual? No point getting DCT for this car for this reason.

0-60mph taking 11 seconds in a 1250kg RWD car with 200bhp?

Hmmmmmmm.

When I've done it in a heavier, marginally less powerful E46 in seven seconds, I have to think somebody is full of st.

[Kong]

Rawwr said:

Kong said:

Maybe because people like the way the GT86 looks and drives but want a bit more speed? People like me for example. There seems to be an inverse performance car snobbery on these threads where it's frowned upon to to like going fast. Why should I be limited to a dull VXR or VAG turbo mobile just because I want something fast? Some of us want both..

Get a Cayman

The other options are already there.

But a factory supercharged TRD GT86 would (I think it's safe to assume) be a lot cheaper than a Cayman and have a lot more practicality.

It's like saying Lotus should have stuck with the standard 120bhp Elise and not bothered making the 111S, 111R, SC etc because there are other fast cars available..

[356Speedster]

I like the look of the orange car better than the blue one, but the overall shape still looks a little contrived.

What's surprising is the cost of the kit... bigger wheels, exhaust, interior upgrades, front bumper, brakes = £16K.... so that's a total cost of £41K for something still with 200bhp Even the die hard fans have to admit that's extracting the urine.

Good luck to Toyota / Subaru with their upgrades, but with the new pricing for the like of the Imprezza & Focus ST, as well as rave reviews on the 135i, for me it really reinforces the fact that this car is going to find the going a little tough at it's starting price point, let alone with these type of extras. Each to their own, but I couldn't contemplate spending that sort of money on one.

[Rawwr]

Kong said:

It's like saying Lotus should have stuck with the standard 120bhp Elise and not bothered making the 111S, 111R, SC etc because there are other fast cars available..

Maybe they should

[Kozy]

I think the real pisstake is those brakes, IIRC they cost £8k. Why does a 1250kg car with 200bhp need 355mm front discs and 345mm rears? It'll never get the heat into them!

The suspension changes sound good, I'm sure the standard car is utterly fantastic, but I love a bit of tinkering and tuning.

Anyone know if the ECU is easily re-programmable yet?

[SSBB]

I don't think a turbo would suit the car. It's already a bit peaky with the vvti coming on high up the rev range. Supercharger to boost mid-range torque would be my choice for when you are not screaming around at high rpm. But I'm not modding mine.

I do understand Subaru's history with turbo'd boxers and can see why they may be pushing for that harder.

[Kong]

Rawwr said:

Kong said:

It's like saying Lotus should have stuck with the standard 120bhp Elise and not bothered making the 111S, 111R, SC etc because there are other fast cars available..

Maybe they should

Why?

[urquattroGus]

Pathetic, thousands of pounds more spent on things that don't solve the main problem/demand- more power!

Why does a small light 200bhp car need massive brakes, what's the point!

[Rawwr]

Kong said:

Why?

My argument is based on need rather than want and that's all I'm arguing. I don't like the term 'underpowered'.

[Kong]

Rawwr said:

Kong said:

Why?

My argument is based on need rather than want and that's all I'm arguing. I don't like the term 'underpowered'.

I don't see how 'need' even comes into it, nobody needs a sporty car!

[Rawwr]

I think we're talking at cross purposes here.

[tommy vercetti]

Love that blue one, colour looks wicked, hope they do a mental turbo version

[DanDC5]

Kozy said:

I think the real pisstake is those brakes, IIRC they cost £8k. Why does a 1250kg car with 200bhp need 355mm front discs and 345mm rears? It'll never get the heat into them!

The suspension changes sound good, I'm sure the standard car is utterly fantastic, but I love a bit of tinkering and tuning.

Anyone know if the ECU is easily re-programmable yet?

Ecutek do a map for it already. It's the same ECU as the Impreza's apparently.

[davidcharles]

i believe Litchfield do a "cheap" upgrade already....replacement exhaust system and ecutek remap gives another 25hp....just abit more oomph to keep the power people quiet.

[Kozy]

davidcharles said:

i believe Litchfield do a "cheap" upgrade already....replacement exhaust system and ecutek remap gives another 25hp....just abit more oomph to keep the power people quiet.

You could give it another 100bhp NASP and it would not quell the disgust that the turbonutters express at having to rev it past 5000rpm to produce it.

The power people want 200bhp at 2000rpm, not 225bhp at 7800rpm!

[Raitzi]

McSam said:

0-60mph taking 11 seconds in a 1250kg RWD car with 200bhp?

Hmmmmmmm.

When I've done it in a heavier, marginally less powerful E46 in seven seconds, I have to think somebody is full of st.

video

[oj121]

If they do decide to SC it then it may well be my next car. The current model is too much of a step down from my 350 in terms of performance but an SC will handle better than my 350, perform as well and have a better MPG. Looking on with interest.

[Stu R]

Raitzi said:

McSam said:

0-60mph taking 11 seconds in a 1250kg RWD car with 200bhp?

Hmmmmmmm.

When I've done it in a heavier, marginally less powerful E46 in seven seconds, I have to think somebody is full of st.

video

So a meaningless metric, gathered by testing an automatic car at altitude, on a day approaching 40'C, in a car loaded up with fatties.

Sounds utterly relevant.

[StottyZr]

Stu R said:

Raitzi said:

McSam said:

0-60mph taking 11 seconds in a 1250kg RWD car with 200bhp?

Hmmmmmmm.

When I've done it in a heavier, marginally less powerful E46 in seven seconds, I have to think somebody is full of st.

video

So a meaningless metric, gathered by testing an automatic car at altitude, on a day approaching 40'C, in a car loaded up with fatties.

Sounds utterly relevant.

Especially when the 4.3secs to 60 Porsche takes 5.9secs.

Any car at all in the conditions they are in will be much, much slower than it should be. What a silly example.