RE: Toyota GT-86 Convertible: Revealed (sort of)
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
MT also clocked the 86 at 6.2sec 0-60mph and 14.8 @ 94mph over the 1/4 mile. That's pretty much Escort Cosworth pace.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1204_20...
I think it's that they actually drive the cars properly over there and spend much time testing them.
Interestingly, that same "Yeehah! Burn Rubber! Squeal Like A Piggy!" testing approach yields a 6.1s 0-60 time from the latest MX-5. Quicker than the GT86. Who'd have thought it?http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1204_20...
I think it's that they actually drive the cars properly over there and spend much time testing them.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1305_20...
nonuts said:
Interesting they managed so much faster than the manufacturer is quoting.
Toyota claim 7.6 0-62mphhttp://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_...
But no idea on what surface or how hard it was being driven.
Even assuming 0-60mph with no gear changes would make this stat much better. If there's a gear change needed to get from 60-62mph, then that could be an easy 0.5 difference.
Combine the two and I see no reason why it isn't possible.
I think what is more telling is the 1/4 mile time and the 0-100mph.
In fact the 0-100mph is almost identical to the EP3 Civic Type R, a car with about the same hp and weight. So it would seem to tally up quite well.
300bhp/ton said:
budgie smuggler said:
Looks good. If only the rear seats were usable 
Usable for what though? suspect they are no smaller or less useful than the rear seats in a something like a MINI or a Fiat 500.excel monkey said:
Interestingly, that same "Yeehah! Burn Rubber! Squeal Like A Piggy!" testing approach yields a 6.1s 0-60 time from the latest MX-5. Quicker than the GT86. Who'd have thought it?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1305_20...
Can you get that spec/engine MX-5 in the UK? If so I hadn't realised.http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1305_20...
300bhp/ton said:
excel monkey said:
300bhp/ton said:
MT also clocked the 86 at 6.2sec 0-60mph and 14.8 @ 94mph over the 1/4 mile. That's pretty much Escort Cosworth pace.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1204_20...
Most of the UK magazines clock the GT86 at around 7.5s for 0-60.http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1204_20...
What makes it worse is these figures are often 0-60mph which then get republished as 0-60mph. This really pisses me off and is one of the reasons I think most of the UK motoring press are a complete and utter joke.
excel monkey said:
I've noticed this before with Motor Trend performance figures. Do they have a special downhill test track? Or are Toyota US better at fettling their press cars than Toyota UK?
I think it's that they actually drive the cars properly over there and spend much time testing them. Usually there's a vid on YouTube of them doing it too.Surface grip can and will vary this, and I think they normally do it on a good surface. But at least that makes for consistent results.
Also numpty mags in the UK will often do 0-60mph with 2 people, lots of fuel and maybe even luggage or some other s
t. No idea why as it would only seem to pollute and create false figures compared to what the car is capable of.300bhp/ton said:
nonuts said:
Interesting they managed so much faster than the manufacturer is quoting.
Toyota claim 7.6 0-62mphhttp://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_...
But no idea on what surface or how hard it was being driven.
Even assuming 0-60mph with no gear changes would make this stat much better. If there's a gear change needed to get from 60-62mph, then that could be an easy 0.5 difference.
Combine the two and I see no reason why it isn't possible.
300bhp/ton said:
excel monkey said:
Interestingly, that same "Yeehah! Burn Rubber! Squeal Like A Piggy!" testing approach yields a 6.1s 0-60 time from the latest MX-5. Quicker than the GT86. Who'd have thought it?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1305_20...
Can you get that spec/engine MX-5 in the UK? If so I hadn't realised.http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1305_20...
I also noticed that test referred to the new (305bhp) 3.7 Mustang as a "secretary Mustang". Old cliches take a long time to die.
I'm a big fan of the GT86, but I think everyone's agreed it's a car that people buy for its chassis not its performance numbers.
Edited by excel monkey on Friday 1st March 11:51
I'm 5'9" and I've sat in the rear seat of a GT86. Passenger side only unless the driver is short. It was fine.
The leg room in the back is better than the Supra, which is also a 2+2 made by Toyota but for some reason isn't plagued by people whining about rear leg room on the internet.
The leg room in the back is better than the Supra, which is also a 2+2 made by Toyota but for some reason isn't plagued by people whining about rear leg room on the internet.
Looks very nice, but when will Toyota learn? They seem to be shifting very few of the hardtop and I think I know the reason. Its too slow, too cheap and not great on the inside.
For the love of god, please can they bolt on a Turbo, get it up to 250 HP, add £5000 to the price and have a range of models... They should have made it like that in the 1st place and order books would be fatter.. then they should have introduced the N/A version after for those on a tighter budget. A quick Turbo version would have cast a halo round the model.
Instead this is the car everyone likes and agrees its a good car, but why are they not buying? Well for the same money you have great choice of much faster hot hatchbacks and there is just not a big enough market for RWD purists who will sacrifice power just for a little bit of tail out fun!
For the love of god, please can they bolt on a Turbo, get it up to 250 HP, add £5000 to the price and have a range of models... They should have made it like that in the 1st place and order books would be fatter.. then they should have introduced the N/A version after for those on a tighter budget. A quick Turbo version would have cast a halo round the model.
Instead this is the car everyone likes and agrees its a good car, but why are they not buying? Well for the same money you have great choice of much faster hot hatchbacks and there is just not a big enough market for RWD purists who will sacrifice power just for a little bit of tail out fun!
BadBanshee said:
hornetrider said:
Roof up pics or gtfo.
Should also just be a two seater.
Why? Are you just thinking of saving a few kilos for performance reasons? Cuz financially, a 2+2 drop top sports car is pretty much totally unique in the market...Should also just be a two seater.
By keeping the rear seats I would wager Toyota will also have to impinge on boot space to get the roof mechanism/stowage packaged properly. Therefore the car, if you ask me, might be quite a bit compromised overall. You also make a good point about the extra weight of the roof gubbins.
So, all in all I would pitch this directly at the MX5 and bin the rear seats. Arrange the roof mechanism so it doesn't compromise the luggage space. Lose a bit of weight.
Just my opinion, like.
£30k, normally i would say there will be mugs who will buy it, but i think Toyota used all those mugs up selling them the hardtop.
A good idea when it was muted years back, good PR and press, but ultimately the GT86 is a let down and thats mainly due to two things, the price and the engine.
A good idea when it was muted years back, good PR and press, but ultimately the GT86 is a let down and thats mainly due to two things, the price and the engine.
300bhp/ton said:
hornetrider said:
It's a great car but there is no way on gods green earth it'll do that sprint in 6.2.
so people who actually spend time doing so with proper timing gear and a good location (and usually a video of them doing it) are evidently wrong. Yet you are right? ok....
kambites said:
Isn't it the standard 2.0?
I certainly don't believe a standard 2.0 MX5 will even get close to 6 seconds.
Then how did they do it?I certainly don't believe a standard 2.0 MX5 will even get close to 6 seconds.
I admit I don't know if that includes or excludes rollout or not. And I suspect being Yanks they'd have been power shifting (something most UK mags don't do).
But 0-60mph is about grip off the line.
The article says 167hp and 1128kg (although I guess it could be a ringer).
Something like an old MGB V8 had only 137hp (on a very good day) and weighed 1084kg. Yet even on crappy narrow tyres was a mid 7's to 60mph car.
So pretty similar weight, 30hp more and a lot more grip. I can certainly believe it easily being 1 second quicker than the old MG to 60mph. On this premise 6.1 while quite amazing, doesn't seem quite so unobtainable.
Also isn't the MX-5 making around 148bhp/tonne. An early S1 Elise is only 156bhp/tonne, so pretty similar and plenty of places claimed high 5.x 0-60mph times for them. (Carfolio says 5.5 http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/...
So assuming you could attain similar traction/grip (right surface) then I see no reason why only 8bhp/tonne less wouldn't be in the low 6's.
F.F.S. 
S.T.F.U. about 0-60 times ... 
BadBanshee said:
And since peak torque is so high up in the rev range in the GT86 (6600rpm), the difference changing gear just before the limiter makes is probably enhanced.
eh???PEAK torque is simply the highest torque output in the rev range, this has ZERO bearing on how much torque it makes elsewhere in the rev range.
I admit it does seem to do some weirdness in the mid range (likely due to how they are extracting such high output from it).
But the low end torque is as strong as the PEAK torque pretty much. If the after marker could solve that big dip in the mid range it'd be pretty beefy.
But that aside, 2500-3000rpm it makes as much torque as any other na 2.0 does.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff