RE: Facelifted GT86 specs and prices
Discussion
liner33 said:
Here is a stock and remapped GT86, check out the torque dip of course if you drive around at 5000+rpm all the time you can avoid it, but these busy roads that 86 owners keep going on about dont really lend themselves to that
The torque dip is easy enough to remove with a map and manifold - here's a dyno from one that's been done:-
Yeah, I loved the drive I had in one, apart from that awful torque dip. Dare I say it, a sublime balance that makes even such legends as the E30 M3, seem a little dim-witted. The torque dip is easy enough to remove with a map and manifold - here's a dyno from one that's been done:-
If the revisions remove some or all of the torque dip, it would do for me. I'd rather not have the noise / insurance / warranty headache from such mods.
As mentioned earlier, Toyobaru spent millions on removing all character from the normally distinctive flat four boxer engine, as well as crippling the unit where most time is spent. Well done!
culpz said:
Face-lifts like this with such minor updates are great because you realise how much you can save in the used market for basically exactly the same car. When they get to around 10k they will be a really good bargain. I thought they were expensive back when these were first launched and i still think they're too expensive now.
I just remember that i had a test drive booked but ended up cancelling it. I deffo want a proper drive in one so i might have to re-arrange another one. I do think a bit more power would be nice. Not loads and not anything FI as standard but just enough to crack under 7 seconds to 60 say.
Once you have swapped the tyres to something better, any middle of the range tyre is better than stock, then they normally do 0 to 60 in under 7 seconds anyway. Most used examples will be on different tyres now anyway. Agree they make a better used car than new. I'm not sure values will fall really low as they haven't sold loads of them, once they get down to £10k to £8k ish I think they will not fall much more (lots of other JDM sports cars hover around here for good examples.I just remember that i had a test drive booked but ended up cancelling it. I deffo want a proper drive in one so i might have to re-arrange another one. I do think a bit more power would be nice. Not loads and not anything FI as standard but just enough to crack under 7 seconds to 60 say.
abarber said:
As mentioned earlier, Toyobaru spent millions on removing all character from the normally distinctive flat four boxer engine, as well as crippling the unit where most time is spent. Well done!
To this day, I still can't understand how they managed to make the engine so bad. It shouldn't need a remap.I really don't care much about an engine, it's just a mean to an end for me. I am all about the chassis. But I had to sell mine because of how badly mapped/fuelled the engine is. I don't understand the point of having such purist aspirations for the rest of the car and succeeding so well to then just not bother with the engine. They literally sabotaged their own engine : why ?
RemarkLima said:
Wow, yeah, one colour they look pretty good... And without the spoiler it's looking pretty resolved I think...
Wheels were the first thing I changed on mineSpoiler delete is now a no cost option
New rear lights are a lot better looking than the old
The keyboard warriors are still harking on about the lack of power, but I loved mine. Best thing I've driven around the Nurburgring. Only reason I changed was the kids were getting too big to fit in the back.
I'll certainly be going to have a look at the facelift version
Edited by chopper602 on Monday 19th September 23:30
abarber said:
As mentioned earlier, Toyobaru spent millions on removing all character from the normally distinctive flat four boxer engine, as well as crippling the unit where most time is spent. Well done!
Subarus don't really sound like Subarus because they are flat fours, they sound like they do because they have greatly differing header lengths, alternating between short and long through the firing order. This skews the exhaust pulses at the tips you hear two bangs in quick succession, then a gap, then two bangs, and so on. On a turbocharged engine where exhaust gas scavenging isn't really possible, there is no disadvantage to this and there's obvious packaging advantages with an inline boxer four but on a naturally aspirated engine it would severely limit power. You could make an inline four sound like a Subaru if you wanted to just by changing the header design (assuming there was space, obviously).
That still doesn't explain how they ended up with that odd torque dip though. It's got to have been intentional, I can't believe they got it that bad by accident.
DeaconFrost said:
I wonder if the torque dip may be an emissions thing?
Possibly, but it would have to be a very compelling one to be worth ruining the character of the engine on this type of car, which begs the question of why other naturally aspirated two litre petrol engines don't have it?nickfrog said:
tommy1973s said:
It depends on whether you want to impress your mates with effortless overtaking manoeuvres or whether you want to, you know, have some fun by actually driving the tits off the thing.
On modern crowded speed-trap roads, a powerful car is frustrating and boring. Sure, you whizz past slower traffic (if, out of your teens, you still need to do that to feel good about yourself), but as for actual driving fun, forget it.
More power = less fun. There simply aren't the roads available to really thrash a powerful car on. Your typical turbo / 4WD / wide-tyred / over-powered dullard has you surging down the straights on a wall of torque that your granny could access (ooh impressive, look at my bragging-rights overtake that a monkey with a brick on the throttle could have done), before you have to back off and brake for the corners - which you go round with no sensation, no movement, no fuss, such is the ridiculous amount of grip and traction available from the tyres and 4WD. By contrast, in a RWD NA car with a positive manual box and modest power, you have to thrash it, commit to the corner and carry speed through it and use all your skill to adjust the car's line throughout.
Generally, the cries for "more power" are in inverse proportion to the driving experience of the driver.
As this reviewer puts it:
"This is a car you never have to hold back — you never have to search for a road where you can open it up because you can open it up almost anywhere. The BRZ is fun at 60 and 70 mph the way a supercar is approaching 150." See:
http://jalopnik.com/what-nobody-understands-about-...
Or as this bloke puts it:
“Driving a slow car fast is more fun than driving a fast car slow,”; it’s a tired old saw, but not without merit. I’d change it to, “driving a fun car fast is more fun than driving a fast car fast.” Whether or not a car is enjoyable to drive is almost entirely divorced from its performance prowess.
The MX-5 takes a lot of stick for being a “girly” car. It projects none of the be-louvered aggression of other sports-cars, and certainly doesn’t produce anywhere near the numbers.
But it’s not a car that’s about bragging rights, not a car for peacock strutting or posturing. It is, in short, not a car you drive for other people. It’s a car you drive for yourself. And that’s what makes for a truly great machine, no matter what the numbers might say."
See: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/the-unimp...
Any insecure fool, high on his own puffed-up social importance, can bulldoze past slower cars using his 300+ bhp difference; and most fools do. Hurray for you, we're all impressed (not).
In the real world, away from tracks, more power = less fun, folks. You'll understand when you grow up.
More extreme binary thinking. Not sure who is insecure and need to grow up here.On modern crowded speed-trap roads, a powerful car is frustrating and boring. Sure, you whizz past slower traffic (if, out of your teens, you still need to do that to feel good about yourself), but as for actual driving fun, forget it.
More power = less fun. There simply aren't the roads available to really thrash a powerful car on. Your typical turbo / 4WD / wide-tyred / over-powered dullard has you surging down the straights on a wall of torque that your granny could access (ooh impressive, look at my bragging-rights overtake that a monkey with a brick on the throttle could have done), before you have to back off and brake for the corners - which you go round with no sensation, no movement, no fuss, such is the ridiculous amount of grip and traction available from the tyres and 4WD. By contrast, in a RWD NA car with a positive manual box and modest power, you have to thrash it, commit to the corner and carry speed through it and use all your skill to adjust the car's line throughout.
Generally, the cries for "more power" are in inverse proportion to the driving experience of the driver.
As this reviewer puts it:
"This is a car you never have to hold back — you never have to search for a road where you can open it up because you can open it up almost anywhere. The BRZ is fun at 60 and 70 mph the way a supercar is approaching 150." See:
http://jalopnik.com/what-nobody-understands-about-...
Or as this bloke puts it:
“Driving a slow car fast is more fun than driving a fast car slow,”; it’s a tired old saw, but not without merit. I’d change it to, “driving a fun car fast is more fun than driving a fast car fast.” Whether or not a car is enjoyable to drive is almost entirely divorced from its performance prowess.
The MX-5 takes a lot of stick for being a “girly” car. It projects none of the be-louvered aggression of other sports-cars, and certainly doesn’t produce anywhere near the numbers.
But it’s not a car that’s about bragging rights, not a car for peacock strutting or posturing. It is, in short, not a car you drive for other people. It’s a car you drive for yourself. And that’s what makes for a truly great machine, no matter what the numbers might say."
See: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/the-unimp...
Any insecure fool, high on his own puffed-up social importance, can bulldoze past slower cars using his 300+ bhp difference; and most fools do. Hurray for you, we're all impressed (not).
In the real world, away from tracks, more power = less fun, folks. You'll understand when you grow up.
But I agree, 200 peaky horse power are enough to have fun, even on track. But the GT86 doesn't supply that.
The idea that more power necessarily means less fun is rather bizarre.
Awful things.
[quote=kambite
That still doesn't explain how they ended up with that odd torque dip though. It's got to have been intentional, I can't believe they got it that bad by accident.
[/quote]
I think It is intentional and familiar from other toyota n/a performance engines. Around 3000-4000 rpm engine is in somekind of eco-mode and so power delivery is not a linear at that point. Upside is that you get a great mpg in real world (and small legal emissions) and still you can have a happy high end power band. Stock exhaust manifold is cheap and restrictive, but good quality units costs so much that they can't use them because of money. Remap and high quality manifold solve these problems, but they get worse emissions and little bit worse mpg in highway, although combined mpg doesn't get any worse.
I have a n/a Supra and with stock engine same story here althought it is faster with worse mpg. I remapped my car which did make a huge difference in mid range torque. Again, little bit worse mpg in highway and worse emissions. Then i did order a new exhaust which is dyno proven to get almost 10% more power even with stock ecu. It is expensive tho...
When my car was stock, combined mpg was around 33. Now it is 31. I don't drive that much in city tho. Anyway, quite good mpg from old warhorse with reasonable performance.
That still doesn't explain how they ended up with that odd torque dip though. It's got to have been intentional, I can't believe they got it that bad by accident.
[/quote]
I think It is intentional and familiar from other toyota n/a performance engines. Around 3000-4000 rpm engine is in somekind of eco-mode and so power delivery is not a linear at that point. Upside is that you get a great mpg in real world (and small legal emissions) and still you can have a happy high end power band. Stock exhaust manifold is cheap and restrictive, but good quality units costs so much that they can't use them because of money. Remap and high quality manifold solve these problems, but they get worse emissions and little bit worse mpg in highway, although combined mpg doesn't get any worse.
I have a n/a Supra and with stock engine same story here althought it is faster with worse mpg. I remapped my car which did make a huge difference in mid range torque. Again, little bit worse mpg in highway and worse emissions. Then i did order a new exhaust which is dyno proven to get almost 10% more power even with stock ecu. It is expensive tho...
When my car was stock, combined mpg was around 33. Now it is 31. I don't drive that much in city tho. Anyway, quite good mpg from old warhorse with reasonable performance.
Edited by LasseV on Tuesday 20th September 11:14
kambites said:
Subarus don't really sound like Subarus because they are flat fours, they sound like they do because they have greatly differing header lengths, alternating between short and long through the firing order. This skews the exhaust pulses at the tips you hear two bangs in quick succession, then a gap, then two bangs, and so on. On a turbocharged engine where exhaust gas scavenging isn't really possible, there is no disadvantage to this and there's obvious packaging advantages with an inline boxer four but on a naturally aspirated engine it would severely limit power.
You could make an inline four sound like a Subaru if you wanted to just by changing the header design (assuming there was space, obviously).
That still doesn't explain how they ended up with that odd torque dip though. It's got to have been intentional, I can't believe they got it that bad by accident.
I realise that! Have you heard any unequal length exhausts on the GT86 yourself? They still don't have that traditional Scooby sound. You could make an inline four sound like a Subaru if you wanted to just by changing the header design (assuming there was space, obviously).
That still doesn't explain how they ended up with that odd torque dip though. It's got to have been intentional, I can't believe they got it that bad by accident.
There are loadsd of UEL manifolds on the market..
VonSenger said:
The lovers of this "sports" car have truly swallowed the marketing puff, it's almost laughable.
What marketing puff? I don't remember the car being marketed as anything other than a coupe with an emphasis on dynamics and driving pleasure over outright power. I bought mine under no illusion that it was not that powerful. I still have it and I'm looking to keep it for several more years...a judgement I've made after living with the car for three years already and enjoying the dynamics, lack of power included. If I didn't like it, I'd have moved on. How is that swallowing marketing puff? It sounds like you're too arrogant to accept that other people might enjoy the car you hate and so brush off any opinions contrary to yours as "laughable". VonSenger said:
Awful things.
Edited by Conscript on Tuesday 20th September 14:02
GroundEffect said:
DeaconFrost said:
I wonder if the torque dip may be an emissions thing?
NEDC doesn't go anywhere near that level of pedal demand. It can be completed with about 20BHP IIRC.The manifold is probably restrictive for various reasons, likely cost, heat management, sound etc. Also largely emissions reasons with big cat in its design.
abarber said:
kambites said:
Subarus don't really sound like Subarus because they are flat fours, they sound like they do because they have greatly differing header lengths, alternating between short and long through the firing order. This skews the exhaust pulses at the tips you hear two bangs in quick succession, then a gap, then two bangs, and so on. On a turbocharged engine where exhaust gas scavenging isn't really possible, there is no disadvantage to this and there's obvious packaging advantages with an inline boxer four but on a naturally aspirated engine it would severely limit power.
You could make an inline four sound like a Subaru if you wanted to just by changing the header design (assuming there was space, obviously).
That still doesn't explain how they ended up with that odd torque dip though. It's got to have been intentional, I can't believe they got it that bad by accident.
I realise that! Have you heard any unequal length exhausts on the GT86 yourself? They still don't have that traditional Scooby sound. You could make an inline four sound like a Subaru if you wanted to just by changing the header design (assuming there was space, obviously).
That still doesn't explain how they ended up with that odd torque dip though. It's got to have been intentional, I can't believe they got it that bad by accident.
There are loadsd of UEL manifolds on the market..
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff