- The riddle pf the Toyota GT86- the car for purist drivers.

[C.A.R.]

It sounds as though the much-touted Boxer engine at the heart of the GT86/BRZ which was a main talking point during conception due to 'lowering COG' is actually the biggest let-down?

Almost as though they could have put any other inline 4-cylinder in there and made it cheaper and it would have been more successful. In fact, if the architecture was just around a typical i4 it would have made turbocharging easier and probably have worked wonders for the economy of the engine.

What a failure. Could the platform be further developed to accommodate a normal i4 engine though?

[RobM77]

C.A.R. said:

It sounds as though the much-touted Boxer engine at the heart of the GT86/BRZ which was a main talking point during conception due to 'lowering COG' is actually the biggest let-down?

Almost as though they could have put any other inline 4-cylinder in there and made it cheaper and it would have been more successful. In fact, if the architecture was just around a typical i4 it would have made turbocharging easier and probably have worked wonders for the economy of the engine.

What a failure. Could the platform be further developed to accommodate a normal i4 engine though?

I thought they used that engine purely because the car was jointly developed with Subaru?

I have no idea if this is true or not, but someone on here a while ago said that the Subaru Boxer engine's CofG was actually higher than a typical inline 4. Can anyone confirm or deny this with links to the figures?

[MarshPhantom]

jamoor said:

MarshPhantom said:

I'd have thought a lot of that success must have been down to Clarkson saying how great it was on Top Gear. If, as I keep hearing, nobody is interested in driver's cars, why haven't BMW, Mercedes gone FWD only?

Is that a serious question?

They have models that are 200bhp+ and the all important AMG/M models that will only work on a RWD platform

I know, I keep seeing "people aren't into driver's cars anymore" but this proves that isn't the case.

[CABC]

C.A.R. said:

It sounds as though the much-touted Boxer engine at the heart of the GT86/BRZ which was a main talking point during conception due to 'lowering COG' is actually the biggest let-down?

Almost as though they could have put any other inline 4-cylinder in there and made it cheaper and it would have been more successful. In fact, if the architecture was just around a typical i4 it would have made turbocharging easier and probably have worked wonders for the economy of the engine.

What a failure. Could the platform be further developed to accommodate a normal i4 engine though?

the low CoG is really worth experiencing though, You can definitely feel it (if you care about that sort of thing).

The engine issues can be fixed with a manifold, exhaust and remap. even add a revised final drive to liven things up. These will improve power, sound and feel. I wouldn't go FI, misses the point of the car. SC possibly...
All that costs money for sure, and many will want a car 'out of the box' with a warranty. so it will be become a secondhand tuning favourite. All cars have compromises, and this one is a great package waiting to be released. I don't think new + those mods is a bad price for what it would be, but certainly a 15k s/h one with 5k of mods would be a driving dream.

Toyota don't seem to be difficult on warranty if you do properly fitted mods either. It's not a case of "you changed the exhaust so the whole warranty is void"

[RobM77]

MarshPhantom said:

jamoor said:

MarshPhantom said:

I'd have thought a lot of that success must have been down to Clarkson saying how great it was on Top Gear. If, as I keep hearing, nobody is interested in driver's cars, why haven't BMW, Mercedes gone FWD only?

Is that a serious question?

They have models that are 200bhp+ and the all important AMG/M models that will only work on a RWD platform

I know, I keep seeing "people aren't into driver's cars anymore" but this proves that isn't the case.

Those more powerful cars would work with 4WD, in fact for FE/RWD with the sort of power both companies are now generating from their top engines, both M cars and AMG cars may be better with 4WD. I read an interview with the head of BMW's M Division recently who said that 4WD M cars aren't too far off.

[e21Mark]

I hope not.

[Flibble]

TameRacingDriver said:

Straight line speed is overrated. Unless you have a LOT of power, you get used it pretty quick. My most powerful cars were around 300 BHP and in all honesty, because of their weight not that exciting.

Handling on the other hand never seems to get dull. I enjoy my sweet handling low powered cars more than the over-tyred, overweight cars any day. Not only is the handling an utter joy, but you can happily thrash the nuts off them a lot more often and for me the noise and rawness more than makes up for sheer speed unless you can have both. Most modern cars have had that engineered out of them, so fast they may be but they are too competent and dull for them to appeal to me.

Another way to look at it is a faster car gets your journey done in less time. As a petrolhead, I'd rather savour the journey than have it over and done with more quickly?

I agree with this sentiment. My previous car was a fast german hatchback (Audi S3, so basically a tweaked version of the Golf R that every loves). My GT86 is much better for driving, despite not being able to beat diesel hatchbacks off the lights. The speed really did get boring quickly, and really, gunning off a set of lights and beating a diesel every couple of weeks is a poor reason to own a car. It was absolutely a competent car, but not exciting.

C.A.R. said:

It sounds as though the much-touted Boxer engine at the heart of the GT86/BRZ which was a main talking point during conception due to 'lowering COG' is actually the biggest let-down?

Almost as though they could have put any other inline 4-cylinder in there and made it cheaper and it would have been more successful. In fact, if the architecture was just around a typical i4 it would have made turbocharging easier and probably have worked wonders for the economy of the engine.

What a failure. Could the platform be further developed to accommodate a normal i4 engine though?

You can turbocharge boxer engines just fine, Subaru have made a number of them, so that wouldn't be a reason for doing i4. Turbo-lagged raw power is not what it's about though. I wouldn't say the engine is a let down; it's a little hobbled by its exhaust manifold though, for emissions reasons. Fitting an aftermarket manifold makes it much better (probably closer to the old 90s engines which had fewer restrictions there).

As for fuel economy, it's actually not that bad, real world. Comparing it with the above 300 bhp hatch, on paper the hatch looks better. Real world, I'm getting maybe 20% better economy in my GT86, since it actually gets the quoted figures rather than the fantasy-land VAG numbers. My best every consumption with the S3 was 40 mpg sitting at a solid 50 in traffic for an hour. I can get 42 mpg at gps 70 on the motorway in my GT86. Less weight, no 4WD system sucking power and better aero really make a difference.

RobM77 said:

I have no idea if this is true or not, but someone on here a while ago said that the Subaru Boxer engine's CofG was actually higher than a typical inline 4. Can anyone confirm or deny this with links to the figures?

I have no idea on numbers, but it seems very unlikely given how lower the engine sits in the bay and how low the COG feels in the car.

[Freds]

RobM77 said:

C.A.R. said:

It sounds as though the much-touted Boxer engine at the heart of the GT86/BRZ which was a main talking point during conception due to 'lowering COG' is actually the biggest let-down?

Almost as though they could have put any other inline 4-cylinder in there and made it cheaper and it would have been more successful. In fact, if the architecture was just around a typical i4 it would have made turbocharging easier and probably have worked wonders for the economy of the engine.

What a failure. Could the platform be further developed to accommodate a normal i4 engine though?

I thought they used that engine purely because the car was jointly developed with Subaru?

I have no idea if this is true or not, but someone on here a while ago said that the Subaru Boxer engine's CofG was actually higher than a typical inline 4. Can anyone confirm or deny this with links to the figures?

C of G is 460mm.

[RobM77]

e21Mark said:

I hope not.

Me too!

As I said on the previous page, BMWs are becoming FWD from the bottom of the range upwards, and 4WD now sells well for them across the range, in the UK at least. This is consistent with what I still think is the case: most buyers don't care; they either want a family wagon or something that looks subtle but flashy and has loads of horsepower. People who care about the sort of things Lotus do with their cars are a very rare breed (just ask Lotus' accountants!).

[gavsdavs]

Are there any V6 gt86s/brzs in the UK yet ?

[Dubmaster77]

The GT86 for me is compromised by the fact it is not very practical. The original was a fully useable normal car with exceptional handling and a cracking engine. Much like the original 3 series in that you could own just one car with a nod to genuine useabillity economy etc but still have some fun on your own.
Im a single guy but wouldn't consider a two seater car as my only car, I often find i need at least four seats.

[RDMcG]

RobM77 said:

Me too!

As I said on the previous page, BMWs are becoming FWD from the bottom of the range upwards, and 4WD now sells well for them across the range, in the UK at least. This is consistent with what I still think is the case: most buyers don't care; they either want a family wagon or something that looks subtle but flashy and has loads of horsepower. People who care about the sort of things Lotus do with their cars are a very rare breed (just ask Lotus' accountants!).

I think that is true. At least in North America we are seeing the depopulation of the country areas as young people continue to move to cities which are becoming densely populated. They are moving to smaller accommodations often too. Cities are becoming less car friendly. Add to this the prevalence of WhatsApp and all the other social media environments and a car of any kind is becoming less necessary, so people are getting their drivers permits much later than previously. The minority who what sports cars are shrinking even faster. Thus, it seems to me that the future of the Driver's car is not sunny at least on this side of the pond.

[underphil]

Freds said:

RobM77 said:

C.A.R. said:

It sounds as though the much-touted Boxer engine at the heart of the GT86/BRZ which was a main talking point during conception due to 'lowering COG' is actually the biggest let-down?

Almost as though they could have put any other inline 4-cylinder in there and made it cheaper and it would have been more successful. In fact, if the architecture was just around a typical i4 it would have made turbocharging easier and probably have worked wonders for the economy of the engine.

What a failure. Could the platform be further developed to accommodate a normal i4 engine though?

I thought they used that engine purely because the car was jointly developed with Subaru?

I have no idea if this is true or not, but someone on here a while ago said that the Subaru Boxer engine's CofG was actually higher than a typical inline 4. Can anyone confirm or deny this with links to the figures?

C of G is 460mm.

maybe the issue is that the boxer 4 weighs quite a lot more than comparable inline 4s (2.0 Skyactiv), so that although the engine's COG is lower it's contribution the the car's COG may not be any better

[Richyvrlimited]

RobM77 said:

I thought they used that engine purely because the car was jointly developed with Subaru?

I have no idea if this is true or not, but someone on here a while ago said that the Subaru Boxer engine's CofG was actually higher than a typical inline 4. Can anyone confirm or deny this with links to the figures?

I don't see how that would be possible, the flat 4 is so low in comparison to an inline 4

To put it into perspective, note that pretty much everything above the height of the crank pulley is plastic, (i.e. the intake manifold) the engine is barely any higher than the height of the tyres...

Edited by Richyvrlimited on Monday 16th January 12:24

[BrettMRC]

My GFat the time ordered one new, and whilst it wasn't a bad car - it was never as nice as it should have been for the money.

The lasting impression it gave me was of how unpleasant the headrests were..like leaning on the corner of a brick.

Performance wise it was fine, never a match for most things in a straight line, but it flet quite fast die to the total lack of sound deadening.

Overall I prefered the Mk1 Mx5 1.6 I had at the time to her GT86.

For not a lot more money the 370Z was an option...

[RobM77]

Richyvrlimited said:

RobM77 said:

I thought they used that engine purely because the car was jointly developed with Subaru?

I have no idea if this is true or not, but someone on here a while ago said that the Subaru Boxer engine's CofG was actually higher than a typical inline 4. Can anyone confirm or deny this with links to the figures?

I don't see how that would be possible, the flat 4 is so low in comparison to an inline 4

That's what I thought. This guy was quite sure though and his explanation sounded plausible and was backed up by others. I can't remember the details sadly.

[e21Mark]

I can imagine these becoming more popular as used prices drop. They make fun rally cars but they're not very quick. They are going to be an alternative to the Escorts etc at club level though. Unfortunately they're simply not special enough to justify their price tag when new!

Saw the development car at Rally Prep last year and sounded awesome with carbon airbox and free flow exhaust.

[Lefty]

I think the whole point of the boxer 4 is the inherent balance of 2 banks of two opposing cylinders and the low CoG compared to an IL4.


My beef with the BRZ86 was the lack of character of that engine. I had a v10 rs6 then a v8 m3 and decided I wanted something smaller and a more direct driving experience. I tried a BRZ and liked the ride/handling, liked the steering, liked the interior and the driving position and the gear shift. It was practical enough, it was decent looking and it seemed reasonable value (nearly new around 20k at the time).

It wasn't the lack of power that bothered me, just that the engine felt a bit asthmatic, a bit reluctant to rev, a bit coarse even. Just a bit unwilling. I really think it needed either a feisty, revvy, characterful engine or even some light forced induction - just to give it some character. Perhaps even both, the original jdm (and P1) EJ20 revved very keenly and strongly to 8000rpm and had great midrange - this would have been a great engine for the BRZ if the emissions could have been kept under control. Fair enough, throttle response might suffer a bit with a turbo but the throttle response on the new 2.0 engine is pretty poor anyway.

I ended up with a bog standard s1 elise with 120 bhp. The k-series, reliability aside, is a great example of the type of engine that would have suited the BRZ. Admittedly in a 700kg elise it had an easy life and absolutely wouldn't suit a 1200kg coupe but the characteristics of that engine in an elise transposed into a BRZ/GT86 and with around 200bhp would be ideal. By that i mean an engine that revved freely and willingly, nice enthusiastic power band, sounded nice and delivered 170bhp/tonne.

[MarkRSi]

nickfrog said:

Slight issue with the GT86 : the engine is utterly st. Not because of the power (it's not supposed to be powerful, it's supposed to be light and low COG) but because of its delivery.

I found the same when I test drove one a few years back, in that it just didn't seem to "enjoy" being revved in a same manner as a Civic Type R (K20) or even a 2.0 MX-5. That and overly long gearing (60mph in 2nd and nearly 90 in 3rd IIRC?) seem to blunt the performance, or at least the feeling of any performance.

[Lefty]

MarkRSi said:

nickfrog said:

Slight issue with the GT86 : the engine is utterly st. Not because of the power (it's not supposed to be powerful, it's supposed to be light and low COG) but because of its delivery.

I found the same when I test drove one a few years back, in that it just didn't seem to "enjoy" being revved in a same manner as a Civic Type R (K20) or even a 2.0 MX-5. That and overly long gearing (60mph in 2nd and nearly 90 in 3rd IIRC?) seem to blunt the performance, or at least the feeling of any performance.

100% - you both summed up my feelings about the engine perfectly.