RE: Toyota GT86 Aero: Review

[Robert Elise]

Conscript said:

M@1975 said:

Personally I think the whole argument comes dowmn to the 86 vs MX5, the 5 is cheaper and more engaging, the 86 is no more practical really, overpriced and pretending to be something it isn't.

Hello,
As someone who went from an MX5 to a GT86, I disagree with parts of your statement.
The MX5 was a fine car, but the GT86 is slightly faster, more engaging and is definitely more practical.
The only thing I miss is being able to drop the roof. But then, during the cold dark days of winter when I'm commuting along a motorway, I'm thankful for the hard top.

Edited by Conscript on Friday 13th March 09:49

I have both, they're similar but different. Indeed for those who don't know what a GT is you could accurately say 'an MX5 with a roof'. Conscript points out some differences. The GT is more of a cruiser when needed and those rear seats have been used by adults (just!). My enjoyment is in lighter, good handling cars that I drive and not the computer, so i like owning a variety in this segment.

As for the diesel bravado, get on track and you'll see what weight means. Where is the forum for those who enjoy the practice of driving fast?

And, the wing is a joke and an odd move from a manufacturer. If the car isn't about power why chav it up like a teenager's Suburu? I wonder whether it's intended to be 'real' factory aero for those who intend to FI?

[Rawwr]

Until someone invents an object measure of fun to print on to Top Trumps cards, the GT86 is never going to win.

Until people start caring more about their own driving experience than that of drivers in other cars, the GT86 is never going to win.

[ant leigh]

GravelBen said:

If 7.7s to 60mph isn't quick enough for you then just read the American tests instead, they clocked 6.4

I thought only one US magazine reported that figure because they hit 60mph in 2nd, whereas all the other tests where well on the limiter before 60?
There was therefore some suspicion that this test car was well 'prepared'

I believe 6.8/6.9 to 60mph was a more typical figure across the pond but would be interested to know if anyone can confirm that?

[dukebox9reg]

Robert Elise said:

I have both, they're similar but different. Indeed for those who don't know what a GT is you could accurately say 'an MX5 with a roof'. Conscript points out some differences. The GT is more of a cruiser when needed and those rear seats have been used by adults (just!). My enjoyment is in lighter, good handling cars that I drive and not the computer, so i like owning a variety in this segment.

As for the diesel bravado, get on track and you'll see what weight means. Where is the forum for those who enjoy the practice of driving fast?

And, the wing is a joke and an odd move from a manufacturer. If the car isn't about power why chav it up like a teenager's Suburu? I wonder whether it's intended to be 'real' factory aero for those who intend to FI?

That was a question in my first post that no one has picked up on, does the aero actually do anything? Or is it bolt on slap?

[neil1jnr]

Stu08 said:

How has 200 BHP become seriously underpowered? Has anyone seen the power and torque curves on a dyno plot (genuinely interested as I haven't)?

It weighs 1275 KG's with 200 BHP; the EP3 Civic Type R had 197 BHP with 1204 KG's to pull. I know that is a lower power to weight ratio; but not by a country mile. I never heard of the Civic Type R being described as underpowered.

No, not under powered but under torqued. In my mind I think times have changed, driving involvement and experience aside, heres why I changed from running a Celica GT daily to a diesel hatch and now a Fiesta ST MP215. Let the numbers speak, specifically torque to weight...

GT86 1240KG, 197bhp, 151 lbs ft
158 bhp/tonne
121 lbs ft/tonne

Celica GT 1145KG, 190bhp, 133 lbs ft
165 bhp/tonne
116 lbs ft/tonne

Golf GTD 1377KG, 181bhp, 280 lbs ft
131 bhp/tonne
203 lbs ft/tonne

Fiesta ST MP215 1160KG, 215bhp, 236 lbs ft
185 bhp/tonne
203 lbs ft/tonne

From whats just on paper, you can see why the GT86 just isn't an appealing prospect for a daily, it's not just about power, it's about flexibility. Yes the Celica and GT86 will be fun when thrashed but in 2015 they are seriously lacking torque. Both the GTD and Fiesta have bags of torque from under 2000rpm, with the Fiesta pulling hard to past 6000rpm. However, both the GT86 and Celica's peak torque comes in at 6500rpm! I haven't driven a GT86 but I did get tired of the lack of pulling power with the Celica, it was a slow car unless you you went up past 6200rpm where the cams changed.

[Martin_Hx]

Yeah i hate having to drive my Civic every day since 2007, its so under-torqued

I think these cars look brilliant, that wing is a shocker though.

[dukebox9reg]

neil1jnr said:

Stu08 said:

How has 200 BHP become seriously underpowered? Has anyone seen the power and torque curves on a dyno plot (genuinely interested as I haven't)?

It weighs 1275 KG's with 200 BHP; the EP3 Civic Type R had 197 BHP with 1204 KG's to pull. I know that is a lower power to weight ratio; but not by a country mile. I never heard of the Civic Type R being described as underpowered.

No, not under powered but under torqued. In my mind I think times have changed, driving involvement and experience aside, heres why I changed from running a Celica GT daily to a diesel hatch and now a Fiesta ST MP215. Let the numbers speak, specifically torque to weight...

GT86 1240KG, 197bhp, 151 lbs ft
158 bhp/tonne
121 lbs ft/tonne

Celica GT 1145KG, 190bhp, 133 lbs ft
165 bhp/tonne
116 lbs ft/tonne

Golf GTD 1377KG, 181bhp, 280 lbs ft
131 bhp/tonne
203 lbs ft/tonne

Fiesta ST MP215 1160KG, 215bhp, 236 lbs ft
185 bhp/tonne
203 lbs ft/tonne

From whats just on paper, you can see why the GT86 just isn't an appealing prospect for a daily, it's not just about power, it's about flexibility. Yes the Celica and GT86 will be fun when thrashed but in 2015 they are seriously lacking torque. Both the GTD and Fiesta have bags of torque from under 2000rpm, with the Fiesta pulling hard to past 6000rpm. However, both the GT86 and Celica's peak torque comes in at 6500rpm! I haven't driven a GT86 but I did get tired of the lack of pulling power with the Celica, it was a slow car unless you you went up past 6200rpm where the cams changed.

That shows to me that the GT86 should be lighter aswell. The Celica was a bigger car and lighter by the tune of nearly 100kg. I know the whole thing of cars getting heavier etc due to safety issues but the Golf GTD which again is bigger, has a great big lump of a turbo diesel engine, more spec, more seats, more airbags etc is only a considerable fat bloke heavier.

Why if the GT86 is a back to basics sports car do it weigh more than the fiesta?

I dunno, maybe I'm the kind of person who wants to see the rebirth of the 180/200SX rather than a AE86/Corolla

Edited by dukebox9reg on Friday 13th March 11:25

[Actus Reus]

No doubt has been said earlier on, but the new MX5 is what, £8k cheaper than this? Or a nice 1994 Mk.1 can be had for £2k. That's what I'd do (and just did in fact).

[ant leigh]

dukebox9reg said:

That shows to me that the GT86 should be lighter aswell. The Celica was a bigger car and lighter buy the tune of nearly 100kg. I know the whole thing of cars getting heavier etc due to safety issues but the Golf GTD which again is bigger, has a great big lump of a turbo diesel engine, more spec, more seats, more airbags etc is only a considerable fat bloke heavier.

Why if the GT86 is a back to basics sports car do it weigh more than the fiesta?

I dunno, maybe I'm the kind of person who wants to see the rebirth of the 180/200SX rather than a AE86/Corolla

I agree with this comment.
The GT-86 isn't heavy but IMO not heavy is not the same thing as light.

[Alex]

dukebox9reg said:

That shows to me that the GT86 should be lighter aswell. The Celica was a bigger car and lighter by the tune of nearly 100kg. I know the whole thing of cars getting heavier etc due to safety issues but the Golf GTD which again is bigger, has a great big lump of a turbo diesel engine, more spec, more seats, more airbags etc is only a considerable fat bloke heavier.

More airbags? The GT86/BRZ has seven. How many does a Golf GTD have?

[neil1jnr]

ant leigh said:

dukebox9reg said:

That shows to me that the GT86 should be lighter aswell. The Celica was a bigger car and lighter buy the tune of nearly 100kg. I know the whole thing of cars getting heavier etc due to safety issues but the Golf GTD which again is bigger, has a great big lump of a turbo diesel engine, more spec, more seats, more airbags etc is only a considerable fat bloke heavier.

Why if the GT86 is a back to basics sports car do it weigh more than the fiesta?

I dunno, maybe I'm the kind of person who wants to see the rebirth of the 180/200SX rather than a AE86/Corolla

I agree with this comment.
The GT-86 isn't heavy but IMO not heavy is not the same thing as light.

I'd say so too, the game has moved on, when a Fiesta is more powerful, has more torque and is lighter than a 'light weight sports car' then that's not good news. Saying that, I can guarantee that I'd thouroughly enjoy thrashing a GT86 around some B roads but as an everyday prospect I couldn't go back to relatively torqueless car.

[STA5H]

Im just wondering if the engine complete with turbo from an impreza will bolt straight in or have they made the job difficult to discourage this ?

[Alex]

STA5H said:

Im just wondering if the engine complete with turbo from an impreza will bolt straight in or have they made the job difficult to discourage this ?

I've said it before, but having owned an Impreza P1 and now a BRZ, a turbo would ruin the BRZ. The GT86/BRZ engine is unfairly maligned. It is smooth, economical, revvy and, most importantly, has superb throttle response.

[STA5H]

neil1jnr said:

I have to say, I like that aero kit, but I am partial to a Toyota with a body kit, reminds me of my old Celica GT...





And for comparison



I loved the celica with it's on off power, no torque then a hit of high lift cam. I the GT86 is like that or similar to Honda's VTEC then it should be fun, the lack of torque though was a bit tiresome with the Celica although Stage 2 cams sorted that out a bit.

Still think the Celica looks better and dare i say it more modern .

[Robert Elise]

Alex said:

has superb throttle response.

you'll need to explain that on here.

[dufunk]

All the torque in the world wont make you move any faster thats not how it works you need the bhp to be on par for it to be fast unlike so many diesels. Line fast diesels up against these N/A's and see the results the torque will only help up a hill. In the 90s know one cared about having to rev a car above 4k to get it to work now people have got to lazy with these low revving diesels.

Edited by dufunk on Friday 13th March 12:26

[Alex]

This is spot on:

evo said:

Ask yourself this. What do I really need from a car in order to be able to enjoy it on the road? If the answer is leather seats and a good sound system, then the GT86 isn’t for you.

If however all that matters to you is three pedals, great steering and a sorted chassis, the GT86 is the answer.

[Herman Toothrot]

dukebox9reg said:

That shows to me that the GT86 should be lighter aswell. The Celica was a bigger car and lighter by the tune of nearly 100kg. I know the whole thing of cars getting heavier etc due to safety issues but the Golf GTD which again is bigger, has a great big lump of a turbo diesel engine, more spec, more seats, more airbags etc is only a considerable fat bloke heavier.

Why if the GT86 is a back to basics sports car do it weigh more than the fiesta?

I dunno, maybe I'm the kind of person who wants to see the rebirth of the 180/200SX rather than a AE86/Corolla

Edited by dukebox9reg on Friday 13th March 11:25

Remember to make a front engined rear drive you need a diff at the back and a propshaft to join it to the gearbox big heavy items.

[AngryPartsBloke]

Robert Elise said:

you'll need to explain that on here.

Throttle response or vehicle responsiveness is a measure of how quickly a vehicle's prime mover, such as an internal combustion engine, can increase its power output in response to a driver's request for acceleration. Throttles are not used in diesel engines, but the term throttle can be used to refer to any input that modulates the power output of a vehicle's prime mover. Throttle response is often confused with increased power but is more accurately described as time rate of change of power levels.

[Scottie - NW]

I am staggered and had to check this is Pistonheads, where torque matters more than driving experience?

I have four cars, and spend almost every weekend in Snowdonia.

1250kg RWD 398bhp petrol 2.0 turbo coupe
1475kg FWD 185bhp 2.2 TD estate
1500kg RWD 170bhp 2.2 TD coupe
1350kg RWD 170bhp petrol 2 seater roadster

And which car do I gain most enjoyment from driving...the lowest powered, lowest torque one

A GT 86 would be perfect for me as it would replace the 4th car and give rear seats for my 7 year old to come along as well.

I can't wait for another year or so to change for a 3 year old GT86. Driving round those roads the feel and experience is what makes it, having too much power can ruin it.

So please PH, keep moaning about the GT86, like everyone did about the RX8, I had a PZ version and it was great all rounder, and lets drive the residuals into the floor