RE: Toyota GT86 facelift details
Discussion
AH33 said:
I still think it's looks like something hyundai would have knocked out in about 2003, those wheels in the top pic also aren't doing it any favours.
I get why it exists, I just think they could have done a much better job with the looks. Even the last celica was better looking than this and the supra still looks 10x better today.
Also I couldn't live with a car that looks to most people like a sports car but goes like a warm hatch.
I think it's faster than most warm hatches, but other than that I agree. The 'Primo' and 'Aero' wheels are a slight improvement, but they haven't touched the tail lights. It seems to drive well (apart from the torque dip), but I think the car lacks 'showroom appeal'. Also I think the 'Aero' wing looks ridiculous, and it's just silly Celica nostalgia. I'd save money and buy the 'Primo'.I get why it exists, I just think they could have done a much better job with the looks. Even the last celica was better looking than this and the supra still looks 10x better today.
Also I couldn't live with a car that looks to most people like a sports car but goes like a warm hatch.
dxg said:
Cheap interior is one I often hear.
It's not great but we're all missing the point again. It's probably the only petrol RWD car, along with the 2.0 Mx-5, that could tempt people from FWD warm/hot hatches. I'm glad they made it, I just wish they'd put more effort into the details.To be honest some of the criticisms of the GT86/BRZ could be made of the 370Z people recommend instead:
Cheap looking interior, engine un-refined with a bit too much road noise, slightly under-powered for the fuel economy and tax.
iloveboost said:
Cheap looking interior, engine un-refined with a bit too much road noise, slightly under-powered for the fuel economy and tax.
One could argue that these are all necessary evils if you produce a car with this sort of driver focus at this sort of price point. You could certainly say that all of those things apply to the Elise at least as much as the GT86. Cheap(ish) driver focused cars are by necessity somewhat unrefined and noisy with a poor interior and commonly have poor economy for their straight-line performance. If you spend money on improving those things, you both reduce the amount of development and production money available to make the car drive well and increase weight.
For people who value refinement above handling there's hundreds of cars on the market. People who want everything have to accept that they'll have to pay for it and buy something like a Cayman. For those for whom the chassis is THE key component of a car, the GT86 has very little competition.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 12th May 14:28
I was looking forward to this when Toyota said they were going to build it as its credit to them that they offer a RWD sports car in the first place, but I am in the its not got enough power camp, don't get me wrong I bet its good fun to thrash the life out of one on a back road but its slow for a performance car nowadays.
Its similar weight to my old S14 200sx yet that was quicker in standard form back in 1994 when it was launched plus it was easily tuned because of its Turbo if you wanted more shove, so for me I think the GT86 should be a bit quicker.
Its similar weight to my old S14 200sx yet that was quicker in standard form back in 1994 when it was launched plus it was easily tuned because of its Turbo if you wanted more shove, so for me I think the GT86 should be a bit quicker.
iloveboost said:
LordGrover said:
Wheels, lights, spoiler, etc are easily replaced if you don't like the factory options.
I'm back to standard lights after two other sets though.
Yes and I've seen some great looking LED tail lights, and head lights. It's just extra £££.I'm back to standard lights after two other sets though.
If you didn't buy one at £22,495, I doubt you would have bought one at e.g. £22,895.
xRIEx said:
And if more expensive lights were fitted as standard, the base price would be higher.
If you didn't buy one at £22,495, I doubt you would have bought one at e.g. £22,895.
Seriously?! To a manufacturer it's going to be a small difference per tail light, maybe fifty quid for a pair?! Aftermarket lights cost £££ because they're made in small volumes to unique specs, in factories used to handling huge volumes for manufacturers. Willing to be proved wrong by someone 'in the know'.If you didn't buy one at £22,495, I doubt you would have bought one at e.g. £22,895.
I sat in one at my local dealer's. They had no interest in selling it to me, I wasn't even approached in the showroom let alone being offered a test drive. I asked the guy on the service reception whether they had sold many, he looked nervously and said "we've had a few people in about them". I then fell into the trap of thinking that car dealers had any interest in the cars they sell and started going on about how Toyota should be applauded for making the car and how the lukewarm reception for it was because most people didn't really get what it was about. Still nothing, a slightly sheepish roll of the eyes acknowledgment (along the lines of "what the hell are you talking about").
For what it's worth, the interior/seating position is fantastic for what it is supposed to be, in particular, the nice round steering wheel with just the right thickness of rim, a ball shaped gear lever, perfectly placed pedals etc.
Everything else is spot on. Decent boot, rear seats for when you really need them.
If I had one, I'd ditch the wheels and stick a set of lighter OZ/Rotas or similar in the original size for not much money and perhaps lower it on a set of Eibach springs.
That is all it needs.
It must be a wonderful thing to drive and ring that engine out.
I suspect it's a bit quicker than the numbers suggest. I sense it's rather like a RWD version of my Integra DC2. Imagine what people would say about the interior of the DC2! Again, I think it's brilliant at what it is meant to do.
For what it's worth, the interior/seating position is fantastic for what it is supposed to be, in particular, the nice round steering wheel with just the right thickness of rim, a ball shaped gear lever, perfectly placed pedals etc.
Everything else is spot on. Decent boot, rear seats for when you really need them.
If I had one, I'd ditch the wheels and stick a set of lighter OZ/Rotas or similar in the original size for not much money and perhaps lower it on a set of Eibach springs.
That is all it needs.
It must be a wonderful thing to drive and ring that engine out.
I suspect it's a bit quicker than the numbers suggest. I sense it's rather like a RWD version of my Integra DC2. Imagine what people would say about the interior of the DC2! Again, I think it's brilliant at what it is meant to do.
iloveboost said:
xRIEx said:
And if more expensive lights were fitted as standard, the base price would be higher.
If you didn't buy one at £22,495, I doubt you would have bought one at e.g. £22,895.
Seriously?! To a manufacturer it's going to be a small difference per tail light, maybe fifty quid for a pair?! Aftermarket lights cost £££ because they're made in small volumes to unique specs, in factories used to handling huge volumes for manufacturers. Willing to be proved wrong by someone 'in the know'.If you didn't buy one at £22,495, I doubt you would have bought one at e.g. £22,895.
How much for the headlights/DRLs complained about? Another £50/pair? Now we're up to £10m extra project costs.
You've either wiped £10m off the profit line, or made the car more expensive (as I suggested above), and the suggestion on PH is it's too expensive already.
Thinking about it, 100k sales in about 2 years is not bad considering the MX-5 has sold about 1,000,000 in 26 years (900,000 in 2010 according to the Mazda site, so about 21 years at that stage).
Edited by xRIEx on Tuesday 12th May 15:05
LordGrover said:
forzaminardi said:
If we assume you'd have to be someone half-way interested in the act of driving to buy one anyway, it's not fancy enough / the right brand for urban trendies, it's not fast enough/comfy enough for big motorway users, and it's not cheap enough for those on a really tight budget. It suits someone who is on an OK salary but doesn't have a huge amount of cash to spend, probably lives in a suburban/rural area, and has a shortish A/B road commute - so a Northern car, rather than a Southern one, if we want to play geographic stereotypes.
Quite an accurate analysis of my buying decision. 
Except I'm between Bristol and Bath, so not very North.
A much younger friend (image conscious non-petrolhead female) said "but it's an awful car" on seeing it, and hasn't changed her mind. I must sign her up to PH.
It should be a car to inspire 20 & 30 year old guys, but image prevails and that's best served elsewhere.
cerb4.5lee said:
I was looking forward to this when Toyota said they were going to build it as its credit to them that they offer a RWD sports car in the first place, but I am in the its not got enough power camp, don't get me wrong I bet its good fun to thrash the life out of one on a back road but its slow for a performance car nowadays.
Its similar weight to my old S14 200sx yet that was quicker in standard form back in 1994 when it was launched plus it was easily tuned because of its Turbo if you wanted more shove, so for me I think the GT86 should be a bit quicker.
There have always been coupes that aren't particularly fast (or faster than hot hatches) - the 200SX was also sold without a turbo. The turbo was a lot more expensive than the GT86.Its similar weight to my old S14 200sx yet that was quicker in standard form back in 1994 when it was launched plus it was easily tuned because of its Turbo if you wanted more shove, so for me I think the GT86 should be a bit quicker.
If people can't have fun in a fun car with 160hp/ton, well, there are plenty of boring fast cars out there for them already.
But also, this car is made for modifying. If you want a fast one, buy this...
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/t...
braddo said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I was looking forward to this when Toyota said they were going to build it as its credit to them that they offer a RWD sports car in the first place, but I am in the its not got enough power camp, don't get me wrong I bet its good fun to thrash the life out of one on a back road but its slow for a performance car nowadays.
Its similar weight to my old S14 200sx yet that was quicker in standard form back in 1994 when it was launched plus it was easily tuned because of its Turbo if you wanted more shove, so for me I think the GT86 should be a bit quicker.
There have always been coupes that aren't particularly fast (or faster than hot hatches) - the 200SX was also sold without a turbo. The turbo was a lot more expensive than the GT86.Its similar weight to my old S14 200sx yet that was quicker in standard form back in 1994 when it was launched plus it was easily tuned because of its Turbo if you wanted more shove, so for me I think the GT86 should be a bit quicker.
If people can't have fun in a fun car with 160hp/ton, well, there are plenty of boring fast cars out there for them already.
But also, this car is made for modifying. If you want a fast one, buy this...
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/t...
I went to look at one of these bank holiday Monday at my local dealer (St Ives, Cambridgeshire). Popped in on the off chance for one to look round.
To add some context I currently own a lovely standard 911 (996) Twin Turbo (61k Manual Coupe). Unfortunately it needs to go as it will fund part of a house deposit. Looking to spend 16-20 on something else and a GT86 is a candidate.
I'd read a lot about them / watched the You Tube / Harris / Autocar reviews, but needed to try one In person.
Looks much better (to my eye) in the metal, lovely shape, nicely styled. Interior again was way better than I thought from the pictures. Well equipped - dual zone climate / media with Bluetooth / keyless go etc. Could even drop the rear seat (complete) to transport a bike or similar (not the point but useful none the less).
Their demo was a 64 plate red one with 6000 miles on it. I didn't abuse it to much (salesman on board and my partner sat in the back) again not that relevant but she found it much more spacious - having travelled down to Goodwood the day before in the back of the Turbo.
More importantly the driving position was easy to set up. Seat felt good / good support (even compared to the hard back sports seats in mine). Wheel and gear shift felt nice. Not a really light shift action - but direct and lovely to use on the go.
Whole car felt great to drive - similar to a rwd Integra (a good one). Felt taught / crisp and light. Quick / direct steering. Could feel how much you were leaning on it to get movement. Kept the stability fully on (has ON / half way & OFF). Again for a first drive I just wanted to get an idea of it, I need to go back for an extended drive / systems off. A few laps of a roundabout gave an indication of how feel some it is.
Engine was the weakest link. No escaping the lack of torque - used to easy / safe overtakes. GT86 overtakes need a bit of planning, but it's all relative.
However, it was very responsive, so partly masked the lack of torque to some degree, as it acted as soon as you wanted. Engine note was ok- but when revved out completely it had an odd vibration / flutter near the top (when I mentioned this the sales man said this was unusual / possibly a loose audio pipe / putting the sound into the cabin). (Apparently there are TRD options to alter the sound plumbed into the cabin / maybe a good compromise through those somehow).
Overall I really liked it. If a 2012/2013 with low miles for 17 ish (white ideally) feels as taught as that it is an option. Fun at slower speeds, ie some movement / fun / not at the speeds the Turbo will travel at / unstick at.
Servicing was a bit steep. Due annually - £169 minor then £279 major then £579 (!) major plus - due to plugs / diff oils I guess... Saying that 2012 cars will still have manufacturer warranty until 2017.
Of course they won't be for everyone. But I'd urge people to try one - really was a fun car to use.
To add some context I currently own a lovely standard 911 (996) Twin Turbo (61k Manual Coupe). Unfortunately it needs to go as it will fund part of a house deposit. Looking to spend 16-20 on something else and a GT86 is a candidate.
I'd read a lot about them / watched the You Tube / Harris / Autocar reviews, but needed to try one In person.
Looks much better (to my eye) in the metal, lovely shape, nicely styled. Interior again was way better than I thought from the pictures. Well equipped - dual zone climate / media with Bluetooth / keyless go etc. Could even drop the rear seat (complete) to transport a bike or similar (not the point but useful none the less).
Their demo was a 64 plate red one with 6000 miles on it. I didn't abuse it to much (salesman on board and my partner sat in the back) again not that relevant but she found it much more spacious - having travelled down to Goodwood the day before in the back of the Turbo.
More importantly the driving position was easy to set up. Seat felt good / good support (even compared to the hard back sports seats in mine). Wheel and gear shift felt nice. Not a really light shift action - but direct and lovely to use on the go.
Whole car felt great to drive - similar to a rwd Integra (a good one). Felt taught / crisp and light. Quick / direct steering. Could feel how much you were leaning on it to get movement. Kept the stability fully on (has ON / half way & OFF). Again for a first drive I just wanted to get an idea of it, I need to go back for an extended drive / systems off. A few laps of a roundabout gave an indication of how feel some it is.
Engine was the weakest link. No escaping the lack of torque - used to easy / safe overtakes. GT86 overtakes need a bit of planning, but it's all relative.
However, it was very responsive, so partly masked the lack of torque to some degree, as it acted as soon as you wanted. Engine note was ok- but when revved out completely it had an odd vibration / flutter near the top (when I mentioned this the sales man said this was unusual / possibly a loose audio pipe / putting the sound into the cabin). (Apparently there are TRD options to alter the sound plumbed into the cabin / maybe a good compromise through those somehow).
Overall I really liked it. If a 2012/2013 with low miles for 17 ish (white ideally) feels as taught as that it is an option. Fun at slower speeds, ie some movement / fun / not at the speeds the Turbo will travel at / unstick at.
Servicing was a bit steep. Due annually - £169 minor then £279 major then £579 (!) major plus - due to plugs / diff oils I guess... Saying that 2012 cars will still have manufacturer warranty until 2017.
Of course they won't be for everyone. But I'd urge people to try one - really was a fun car to use.
kambites said:
205/55/16 sounds like a pretty good balance for a sports car to me, a higher profile tyre than that would probably start to significant hurt turn-in.
For the power and weight it has its all the tyre it needs. The original base model 16"s as they come with in other markets are loads lighter than the bigger wheels as well and should also help with the ride on our god awful roads. Probably makes the car quicker cross country here for those reasons.I can a see a test drive coming in the future for me, I liked the 2.0 MX5 sport we had but grew to not like convertibles and wouldn't go back to one that and the fact it just didn't work on back roads due to the stupid rubber band tyre/wheel and suspension setup. This car seems to correct those issues.
As for the looks how many people have seen these cars in the flesh? Compared to 99% of the overly aggressive styling on mundane cars around today they look genuinely OK to me, not pretty but then nobody is making pretty looking cars any more which is partly why the classic car market is so hot. Much nicer looking car in the metal than in pictures.
Edited by NJH on Wednesday 13th May 07:43
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff