RE: Toyota GT86 Aero: Review
Discussion
s m said:
I don't think, by the mid 80s that either the Capri or Manta had a particularly cool image as I remember it - they were seen as a bit past it, last of the dinosaurs as stuff like the 16v Golf, RS Turbo and 205GTi were the cutting edge stuff. They soldiered on but were seen as old-fashioned rwd cars and went out of production a couple of years later. They'd both been basically updated cars from decades before.
There was indeed an Audi Coupe out back then - I wouldn't personally have classed it like the old Manta or AE86 though. It had a more mature image - generally bought by older people
Ah, apologies. Got my timings wrong when they slipped into uncoolness, was just a nipper in my defence!There was indeed an Audi Coupe out back then - I wouldn't personally have classed it like the old Manta or AE86 though. It had a more mature image - generally bought by older people
chrispj said:
If that's not a typo, the 340 driver was doing well! I doubt the car was OEM spec... On the other hand, what were the TVR drivers doing, finishing their coffee before they set off?
No idea on either front sorry!The Volvo is in the 1.6-2.0 class but could have any number of mods done.
The TVR's - who knows - maybe they've only run in the wet or the drivers didn't want to risk their pride and joys? (Or maybe it was that coffee!)
That's the problem with just looking at the 'figures' I guess - doesn't account for any one of a number of other factors that could affect performance and means comparing one set of book figures against another is little more than pub talk.
had ham said:
Makes me laugh too. All the apologists trying to defend it. It's way too expensive for what it is, and it's nowhere near being the 'great drive' it's meant to be. There is a reason why no-one is buying it, it's because it's not very good..
Are you surprised? You're quite obviously in the minority with this opinion; pretty much everyone else praises the car for that very quality. And just a couple of pages ago, you stated that you found it poor but that everyone should have their own opinons.A bit arrogant don't you think, to then try and take such an opinion, ignore all the experiences to the contrary and then use it to make a blanket statement like "it's not very good".
DeaconFrost said:
chrispj said:
If that's not a typo, the 340 driver was doing well! I doubt the car was OEM spec... On the other hand, what were the TVR drivers doing, finishing their coffee before they set off?
No idea on either front sorry!The Volvo is in the 1.6-2.0 class but could have any number of mods done.
The TVR's - who knows - maybe they've only run in the wet or the drivers didn't want to risk their pride and joys? (Or maybe it was that coffee!)
That's the problem with just looking at the 'figures' I guess - doesn't account for any one of a number of other factors that could affect performance and means comparing one set of book figures against another is little more than pub talk.
Ref the laptimes unless the cars are driven by the same drivers and the same skill level the times need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
dukebox9reg said:
Thats the thing with the 340. Its lightweight ignoring the whole image of being a tank. They also share Renault engines so a popular mod is the clio williams/megane 2.0 16V on ITBs. Oh RWD aswell.
Ref the laptimes unless the cars are driven by the same drivers and the same skill level the times need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Considering the huge disparities in the times on that list it needs a box of salt. Ref the laptimes unless the cars are driven by the same drivers and the same skill level the times need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Conscript said:
Are you surprised? You're quite obviously in the minority with this opinion; pretty much everyone else praises the car for that very quality. And just a couple of pages ago, you stated that you found it poor but that everyone should have their own opinons.
A bit arrogant don't you think, to then try and take such an opinion, ignore all the experiences to the contrary and then use it to make a blanket statement like "it's not very good".
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as long as it's mine". A bit arrogant don't you think, to then try and take such an opinion, ignore all the experiences to the contrary and then use it to make a blanket statement like "it's not very good".
ant leigh said:
Considering the huge disparities in the times on that list it needs a box of salt.
But isn't that the point? When people get caught up on just looking at book figures - unless all the cars are driven by the same driver in the same conditions - they're all nonsense anyway!DeaconFrost said:
ant leigh said:
Considering the huge disparities in the times on that list it needs a box of salt.
But isn't that the point? When people get caught up on just looking at book figures - unless all the cars are driven by the same driver in the same conditions - they're all nonsense anyway!Although I have only had the benefit of a test drive I would say the GT-86 is a good car. Driving position is great, steering and handling are good and there is adequate performance (although as I have said before a diet wouldn't go amiss)
To me however it's a good, maybe even very good, but not a great car. Unfairly maligned for sure and sometimes excessively praised. Just my opinion.
For comparison I test drove an M135i, handed the keys back and half way home realised I hadn't once looked back at it. With the GT-86 I spent plenty time to walk around and even sat back in it again after the drive. (that's my personal rating system
) I wasn't posting the track times as an indicator of performance more as an indicator of the meaninglessness of figures. There are cars on there that are much, much quicker than the GT86 but, for whatever reason, they weren't quicker than the GT86. I could also post the times of the cars that were quicker than the GT86 and, again, on figures alone some of them shouldn't have been.
The need for more power in this car is all in the mind tbh because we live in a time when the average hot hatch has circa 300bhp. People's egos get in the way of their desire for a pure, back to basics driving experience. Sorry, but it's missing the point. You either 'get' this car or you don't. That said, I imagine it's sweet spot may be to keep it naturally aspirated but give it around 230-240bhp, thus allowing it to perform with the standard brake/tyre/suspension set up IF you must have more power......................
Jimbo
Jimbo
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff