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

[shirt]

Lefty said:

Here's the rub, the Clio 182 for example is 180bhp and 1 tonne. GT86/BRZ is 200bhp and 1200kg (?) so similar-ish pwr (180 vs 170).

But the Clio feels much quicker - i'm sure it's not but the power delivery is much more exciting - and it sounds great. Maybe some cams, free flowing exhaust and a nice rorty intake would transform the boxer engine. Perhaps a lighter flywheel too, to help it rev?

I still really like the idea of the car. Just never liked the idea enough to spend 20+ grand on one.

1090 vs 1250kg so bhp/ton is much closer. I don't think it's a fair comparison though, the 182 is a much older car and a halo model of a shopping trolley not a standalone model in its own right. Looking at the cost of the clio iv cup, which would you have if you didn't need 4 doors?

[Flibble]

MarshPhantom said:

No idea why you'd spend that much on a GT86 when you get a perfectly decent MK3 MR2 for £2-3k. Unpopular cars tend to be prone to heavy depreciation.

Ours cost £2600 about a year ago. 60k, great condition, hardtop, leather, aircon. Hasn't missed a beat in the time the we've had it.

Why would you buy one? Maybe if you wanted some boot space...

[battered]

Flibble said:

MarshPhantom said:

No idea why you'd spend that much on a GT86 when you get a perfectly decent MK3 MR2 for £2-3k. Unpopular cars tend to be prone to heavy depreciation.

Ours cost £2600 about a year ago. 60k, great condition, hardtop, leather, aircon. Hasn't missed a beat in the time the we've had it.

Why would you buy one? Maybe if you wanted some boot space...

A better comparison is an unmolested Celica, if you can find one. Not RWD but it will at least do a weekend away without having to strap your toothbrush to the rear view mirror.

[s m]

battered said:

Flibble said:

MarshPhantom said:

No idea why you'd spend that much on a GT86 when you get a perfectly decent MK3 MR2 for £2-3k. Unpopular cars tend to be prone to heavy depreciation.

Ours cost £2600 about a year ago. 60k, great condition, hardtop, leather, aircon. Hasn't missed a beat in the time the we've had it.

Why would you buy one? Maybe if you wanted some boot space...

A better comparison is an unmolested Celica, if you can find one. Not RWD but it will at least do a weekend away without having to strap your toothbrush to the rear view mirror.

Even surprised a Lotus test driver

[Lefty]

shirt said:

Lefty said:

Here's the rub, the Clio 182 for example is 180bhp and 1 tonne. GT86/BRZ is 200bhp and 1200kg (?) so similar-ish pwr (180 vs 170).

But the Clio feels much quicker - i'm sure it's not but the power delivery is much more exciting - and it sounds great. Maybe some cams, free flowing exhaust and a nice rorty intake would transform the boxer engine. Perhaps a lighter flywheel too, to help it rev?

I still really like the idea of the car. Just never liked the idea enough to spend 20+ grand on one.

1090 vs 1250kg so bhp/ton is much closer. I don't think it's a fair comparison though, the 182 is a much older car and a halo model of a shopping trolley not a standalone model in its own right. Looking at the cost of the clio iv cup, which would you have if you didn't need 4 doors?

I know it's not really a fair comparison - and i wasn't trying to compare the cars as alternatives to each other - i was just trying to highlight how two cars with similar PWR's can feel so different in performance terms - due to the delivery of that power.

[Lefty]

Interestingly, iasked a mate who just bought a new fiesta ST last year if he'd considered a GT86/BRZ. he told me that he likes the idea of them but didnt even testd rive one because he thought it was too impractical.

I wouldnt have thought a 2+2 coupe (GT86/BRZ/Scirocco/TT) would really that less practical than a 3-door ST? I dont know, the ST has pretty small rear seats, the boot is maybe bigger than a GT86 though?

[ian2144]

Lefty said:

Interestingly, iasked a mate who just bought a new fiesta ST last year if he'd considered a GT86/BRZ. he told me that he likes the idea of them but didnt even testd rive one because he thought it was too impractical.

I wouldnt have thought a 2+2 coupe (GT86/BRZ/Scirocco/TT) would really that less practical than a 3-door ST? I dont know, the ST has pretty small rear seats, the boot is maybe bigger than a GT86 though?

The 86 rear seats are only suitable for very short journey, boot space is superb for a Coupe or if you fold down the seat, you've almost doubled the amount of room.

[Alex]

The rear seats are very tight in my BRZ. 3 adults can squeeze in, but the seat behind the driver is only really usable if the driver is short.

The boot is large for a coupe, and with the rear seats folded down, a full Costco trolley load will fit!

[Martin_Hx]

I saw one of these in white the other day and it looked fantastic, only thing as people have said is the engine (or the gearing) isnt very good. Now im not talking about power im talking out the engine. I have an EP3 and its only got 200hp but its a fantastic engine/gearbox which makes the drive fun.

I think this car should have had a 230-240 2.2/2.3 N/A out of the box with a high top end, im sure there must be something in the range they could have shoved in it? The car should have been built around the engine/gearbox, which should be its main talking point, for the right reasons!

Sorry i'm not massively up to speed on these cars but is this same engine in any other car currently on sale? MX-5?

Also I've never driven one, but apart from being RWD i think i would prefer my Civic from what i have read on the tinternet

[gashead1105]

Lefty said:

Interestingly, iasked a mate who just bought a new fiesta ST last year if he'd considered a GT86/BRZ. he told me that he likes the idea of them but didnt even testd rive one because he thought it was too impractical.

I wouldnt have thought a 2+2 coupe (GT86/BRZ/Scirocco/TT) would really that less practical than a 3-door ST? I dont know, the ST has pretty small rear seats, the boot is maybe bigger than a GT86 though?

The ST has a lot more leg room in the rear. I have been tempted to inflict a Gt86 on my children, who are 5 and 3, (even made a cheeky offer to a dealer just before Xmas but it was too far from what they could accept) but I know they would not enjoy be happy in the back for more than a short journey. Whereas they are fine in the fiesta.

[nickfrog]

DoubleD said:

RobM77 said:

Lefty said:

Here's the rub, the Clio 182 for example is 180bhp and 1 tonne. GT86/BRZ is 200bhp and 1200kg (?) so similar-ish pwr (180 vs 170).

But the Clio feels much quicker - i'm sure it's not but the power delivery is much more exciting - and it sounds great. Maybe some cams, free flowing exhaust and a nice rorty intake would transform the boxer engine. Perhaps a lighter flywheel too, to help it rev?

I still really like the idea of the car. Just never liked the idea enough to spend 20+ grand on one.

Some of it will be the engine characteristics, but in my experience, front wheel drive cars usually do feel quicker than RWD ones, purely due to the fact they're a less than ideal tool for doing the job of going fast - i.e. they cope with everything better. It's like hearing a singer at the edge of their range: it always sounds more raw and cuts through the air more than a singer who's comfortably well within what they're capable of.

Yeah i agree, some FWD cars are more exciting to drive than some RWD cars, must be something to do with being less than ideal i guess.

Exactly - a Meg RS for instance is quite significantly more exciting than say, a 320d, DBW throttle lag notwithstanding

Less than ideal : just use a bit of trail braking + a decent diff and you're away. This is not 1979.

[RobM77]

nickfrog said:

DoubleD said:

RobM77 said:

Lefty said:

Here's the rub, the Clio 182 for example is 180bhp and 1 tonne. GT86/BRZ is 200bhp and 1200kg (?) so similar-ish pwr (180 vs 170).

But the Clio feels much quicker - i'm sure it's not but the power delivery is much more exciting - and it sounds great. Maybe some cams, free flowing exhaust and a nice rorty intake would transform the boxer engine. Perhaps a lighter flywheel too, to help it rev?

I still really like the idea of the car. Just never liked the idea enough to spend 20+ grand on one.

Some of it will be the engine characteristics, but in my experience, front wheel drive cars usually do feel quicker than RWD ones, purely due to the fact they're a less than ideal tool for doing the job of going fast - i.e. they cope with everything better. It's like hearing a singer at the edge of their range: it always sounds more raw and cuts through the air more than a singer who's comfortably well within what they're capable of.

Yeah i agree, some FWD cars are more exciting to drive than some RWD cars, must be something to do with being less than ideal i guess.

Exactly - a Meg RS for instance is quite significantly more exciting than say, a 320d, DBW throttle lag notwithstanding

Less than ideal : just use a bit of trail braking + a decent diff and you're away. This is not 1979.

If you want 'exciting', you might be right. Personally I like different things in a car, such as inherent balance, which a 3 series has in spades but a Megane, or any other FE/FWD car, doesn't. Trail braking works beautifully on track to get around this problem, but on the road you can't commit to corners in the same way (unless you drive unsafely).

[nickfrog]

RobM77 said:

If you want 'exciting', you might be right. Personally I like different things in a car, such as inherent balance, which a 3 series has in spades but a Megane, or any other FE/FWD car, doesn't. Trail braking works beautifully on track to get around this problem, but on the road you can't commit to corners in the same way (unless you drive unsafely).

Agreed, hence how boring I find road driving irrespective of the car although turning on the brakes can often be safely achieved on the road. The Megane is far more balanced and neutral than any road going BMW I have owned/driven and irrespective of static weight distribution.

[s m]

battered said:

A better comparison is an unmolested Celica, if you can find one. Not RWD but it will at least do a weekend away without having to strap your toothbrush to the rear view mirror.

Looks like tastes changed for a Toyota badged £20000 plus ( Celica inflation adjusted ) sports coupe with a naturally aspirated engine from 2007-2012

UK sales figures from Toyota ( maybe a cheaper 140/150 version, like the Celica had, would have bolstered GT86 sales ( it didn't say what proportion of Celicas were 190s ))

Year	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	<...>	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Celica	4377	6171	5314	5370	4318	2788	1549	2
GT86										1435	1772	1042	775	681

[RobM77]

nickfrog said:

RobM77 said:

If you want 'exciting', you might be right. Personally I like different things in a car, such as inherent balance, which a 3 series has in spades but a Megane, or any other FE/FWD car, doesn't. Trail braking works beautifully on track to get around this problem, but on the road you can't commit to corners in the same way (unless you drive unsafely).

Agreed, hence how boring I find road driving irrespective of the car although turning on the brakes can often be safely achieved on the road. The Megane is far more balanced and neutral than any road going BMW I have owned/driven and irrespective of static weight distribution.

We'll have to agree to differ on that one!

[Flibble]

gashead1105 said:

Lefty said:

Interestingly, iasked a mate who just bought a new fiesta ST last year if he'd considered a GT86/BRZ. he told me that he likes the idea of them but didnt even testd rive one because he thought it was too impractical.

I wouldnt have thought a 2+2 coupe (GT86/BRZ/Scirocco/TT) would really that less practical than a 3-door ST? I dont know, the ST has pretty small rear seats, the boot is maybe bigger than a GT86 though?

The ST has a lot more leg room in the rear. I have been tempted to inflict a Gt86 on my children, who are 5 and 3, (even made a cheeky offer to a dealer just before Xmas but it was too far from what they could accept) but I know they would not enjoy be happy in the back for more than a short journey. Whereas they are fine in the fiesta.

The other issue is that the boot opening is quite small on the GT86, whereas the ST has a huge hatchback. Makes carrying large single item loads a right faff.

[LasseV]

Flibble said:

The other issue is that the boot opening is quite small on the GT86, whereas the ST has a huge hatchback. Makes carrying large single item loads a right faff.

ST is an essentially fiesta which is designed to be a cheap hast back... Of course it is more roomier. Nevertheless, I would never take it to road trip over gt86. Or as a weekend car.

[gashead1105]

LasseV said:

ST is an essentially fiesta which is designed to be a cheap hast back... Of course it is more roomier. Nevertheless, I would never take it to road trip over gt86. Or as a weekend car.

But I didn't think the issue here is about whether the Fiesta or the GT86 is a weekend or road trip car. I was looking at a GT86 in the context of a daily driver, I have a Lotus for the weekend/road trips etc etc.

[Andyhb]

Has anyone seen actual real world bhp reading from the gt86. I'm sure I read somewhere that it only put out approximately 170, far from the 197 advertised.

[LasseV]

Andyhb said:

Has anyone seen actual real world bhp reading from the gt86. I'm sure I read somewhere that it only put out approximately 170, far from the 197 advertised.

From wheels 170.