- The riddle pf the Toyota GT86- the car for purist drivers.
Discussion
Flibble said:
V8RX7 said:
But as stated as you can't use the seats in the back the GT86 isn't the practical family car - it's the fun one.
To me a fun car has to be convertible
You can use them to carry loads inside the cabin though, which makes it more practical than an MX5.To me a fun car has to be convertible
MartynVRS said:
IMO it doesn't. If I wanted open top as it were I'd buy a bike, which I did. I have no interest in an open top car whatsoever. I've had people in the back of an 86. It's a squeeze no doubt but fine for a short journey. My brother always leaves his seats flat most of the time but they can be used.
If the OP was why DO people buy a GT86 you'd have a point.I agree with the posters that like the car for what it is.
It is a little unfair saying the engine has no character. Some one else said most modern engines for non supercars lack character.
This is true most cars need sound upgrades to release character anyway. Whether that be exhaust or intake noise or even both is up to you.
It is a little unfair saying the engine has no character. Some one else said most modern engines for non supercars lack character.
This is true most cars need sound upgrades to release character anyway. Whether that be exhaust or intake noise or even both is up to you.
I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if I'm just rehashing things.
Two years ago I whittled my list of possible next cars down to two. A new or lightly used GT86, or a (lightly) used 987 Cayman.
I ended up with the Cayman because it was faster and, unless the engine blows up, cheaper in the long run. (so far, so good)
There were some other reasons, but those were the main ones.
And when people ask you what car you drive, you can say "a Porsche, it's red" to which they reply "cool". As opposed to "a Toyota GT86" to which they reply "a Toyota what?". At which point you start rambling on about eighties japanese hatchbacks, ideal weight distribution and throttle response and such. And they start to slowly back away while carefully maintaining eye contact.
While I really like the GT86, its biggest issue to me is that it doesn't offer anything new compared to similar older cars. It's oldschool to a fault. Mostly that's not a bad thing because it gets the basics so very right. The seating position, pedal and shifter placement are great, the engine is in the right place, the correct wheels are driven, there's some actual steering feel compared to modern cars, etc.
But it just feels needlessly old in some ways. Sometimes by design, like they actively tried to make a fantastic car for the year 1999.
The interior was dated before it hit the market, it has the same amount of grip as any random 1999 performance car, the available automatic transmission seems to be of the same vintage, and the engine feels and sounds worse than said 1999 car. A 2.0NA with 200hp is completely fine for me, but the way this delivers it is just so ... meh. "I'll give you 200hp but I won't like it and neither should you, so I'll hesitate a bit halfway down the rev range. Just long enough to cast lingering doubt whether or not anything's wrong."
The option of getting a convertible would've been nice for a lot of people as well. And the option of getting a turbo would've been fantastic. I get the ethos behind the NA version and would probably still get that one if a turbo was available, but would it kill Toyota to give us some options? It's not like a turbo would take anything away from the base NA model if both were available.
Toyota and Subaru have managed to create a car that really appeals solely to people who buy used cars and let someone else take the depreciation hit. Probably not the soundest of business models.
Two years ago I whittled my list of possible next cars down to two. A new or lightly used GT86, or a (lightly) used 987 Cayman.
I ended up with the Cayman because it was faster and, unless the engine blows up, cheaper in the long run. (so far, so good)
There were some other reasons, but those were the main ones.
And when people ask you what car you drive, you can say "a Porsche, it's red" to which they reply "cool". As opposed to "a Toyota GT86" to which they reply "a Toyota what?". At which point you start rambling on about eighties japanese hatchbacks, ideal weight distribution and throttle response and such. And they start to slowly back away while carefully maintaining eye contact.
While I really like the GT86, its biggest issue to me is that it doesn't offer anything new compared to similar older cars. It's oldschool to a fault. Mostly that's not a bad thing because it gets the basics so very right. The seating position, pedal and shifter placement are great, the engine is in the right place, the correct wheels are driven, there's some actual steering feel compared to modern cars, etc.
But it just feels needlessly old in some ways. Sometimes by design, like they actively tried to make a fantastic car for the year 1999.
The interior was dated before it hit the market, it has the same amount of grip as any random 1999 performance car, the available automatic transmission seems to be of the same vintage, and the engine feels and sounds worse than said 1999 car. A 2.0NA with 200hp is completely fine for me, but the way this delivers it is just so ... meh. "I'll give you 200hp but I won't like it and neither should you, so I'll hesitate a bit halfway down the rev range. Just long enough to cast lingering doubt whether or not anything's wrong."
The option of getting a convertible would've been nice for a lot of people as well. And the option of getting a turbo would've been fantastic. I get the ethos behind the NA version and would probably still get that one if a turbo was available, but would it kill Toyota to give us some options? It's not like a turbo would take anything away from the base NA model if both were available.
Toyota and Subaru have managed to create a car that really appeals solely to people who buy used cars and let someone else take the depreciation hit. Probably not the soundest of business models.
If you feel the need to buy a car you enhance people's perceptions of you, there's something lacking somewhere.
Additionally, the majority of normal non car bore people will see the Cayman as not a proper Porche or a poor man's Porsche. They'll have a pity chuckle behind your back at the thought of a "Coxster".
Additionally, the majority of normal non car bore people will see the Cayman as not a proper Porche or a poor man's Porsche. They'll have a pity chuckle behind your back at the thought of a "Coxster".
McFarnsworth said:
I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if I'm just rehashing things.
Two years ago I whittled my list of possible next cars down to two. A new or lightly used GT86, or a (lightly) used 987 Cayman.
I ended up with the Cayman because it was faster and, unless the engine blows up, cheaper in the long run. (so far, so good)
There were some other reasons, but those were the main ones.
And when people ask you what car you drive, you can say "a Porsche, it's red" to which they reply "cool". As opposed to "a Toyota GT86" to which they reply "a Toyota what?". At which point you start rambling on about eighties japanese hatchbacks, ideal weight distribution and throttle response and such. And they start to slowly back away while carefully maintaining eye contact.
While I really like the GT86, its biggest issue to me is that it doesn't offer anything new compared to similar older cars. It's oldschool to a fault. Mostly that's not a bad thing because it gets the basics so very right. The seating position, pedal and shifter placement are great, the engine is in the right place, the correct wheels are driven, there's some actual steering feel compared to modern cars, etc.
But it just feels needlessly old in some ways. Sometimes by design, like they actively tried to make a fantastic car for the year 1999.
The interior was dated before it hit the market, it has the same amount of grip as any random 1999 performance car, the available automatic transmission seems to be of the same vintage, and the engine feels and sounds worse than said 1999 car. A 2.0NA with 200hp is completely fine for me, but the way this delivers it is just so ... meh. "I'll give you 200hp but I won't like it and neither should you, so I'll hesitate a bit halfway down the rev range. Just long enough to cast lingering doubt whether or not anything's wrong."
The option of getting a convertible would've been nice for a lot of people as well. And the option of getting a turbo would've been fantastic. I get the ethos behind the NA version and would probably still get that one if a turbo was available, but would it kill Toyota to give us some options? It's not like a turbo would take anything away from the base NA model if both were available.
Toyota and Subaru have managed to create a car that really appeals solely to people who buy used cars and let someone else take the depreciation hit. Probably not the soundest of business models.
Two years ago I whittled my list of possible next cars down to two. A new or lightly used GT86, or a (lightly) used 987 Cayman.
I ended up with the Cayman because it was faster and, unless the engine blows up, cheaper in the long run. (so far, so good)
There were some other reasons, but those were the main ones.
And when people ask you what car you drive, you can say "a Porsche, it's red" to which they reply "cool". As opposed to "a Toyota GT86" to which they reply "a Toyota what?". At which point you start rambling on about eighties japanese hatchbacks, ideal weight distribution and throttle response and such. And they start to slowly back away while carefully maintaining eye contact.
While I really like the GT86, its biggest issue to me is that it doesn't offer anything new compared to similar older cars. It's oldschool to a fault. Mostly that's not a bad thing because it gets the basics so very right. The seating position, pedal and shifter placement are great, the engine is in the right place, the correct wheels are driven, there's some actual steering feel compared to modern cars, etc.
But it just feels needlessly old in some ways. Sometimes by design, like they actively tried to make a fantastic car for the year 1999.
The interior was dated before it hit the market, it has the same amount of grip as any random 1999 performance car, the available automatic transmission seems to be of the same vintage, and the engine feels and sounds worse than said 1999 car. A 2.0NA with 200hp is completely fine for me, but the way this delivers it is just so ... meh. "I'll give you 200hp but I won't like it and neither should you, so I'll hesitate a bit halfway down the rev range. Just long enough to cast lingering doubt whether or not anything's wrong."
The option of getting a convertible would've been nice for a lot of people as well. And the option of getting a turbo would've been fantastic. I get the ethos behind the NA version and would probably still get that one if a turbo was available, but would it kill Toyota to give us some options? It's not like a turbo would take anything away from the base NA model if both were available.
Toyota and Subaru have managed to create a car that really appeals solely to people who buy used cars and let someone else take the depreciation hit. Probably not the soundest of business models.
Squadrone Rosso said:
If you feel the need to buy a car you enhance people's perceptions of you, there's something lacking somewhere.
Additionally, the majority of normal non car bore people will see the Cayman as not a proper Porche or a poor man's Porsche. They'll have a pity chuckle behind your back at the thought of a "Coxster".
Sorry if it came across as such, wasn't my intention. I could've bought an mx5 and said to people when asked what I drive "a mazda mx5, it's a tiny convertible, it's really fun" and they'd say "cool". A GT86 seems to be a car that you really have to explain what it is and why you bought it. Non-car people just don't seem to 'get' it.Additionally, the majority of normal non car bore people will see the Cayman as not a proper Porche or a poor man's Porsche. They'll have a pity chuckle behind your back at the thought of a "Coxster".
And of course it's a poor man's Porsche, if they know or care enough about cars to ask further questions it's usually the second thing I mention. And my mates laugh in my face about it (even the one with a diesel Peugeot), as is only fitting and proper, so no need for chuckling behind my back. Doesn't stop it being a brilliant car and me liking my car any less though.
DoubleD said:
I disagree with the above. A non car bore will just see a porsche badge on a Cayman. They will just see it as some flash sports car. They wont even know what a 911 is.
I think you're both right. I've had the "not a real Porsche" comments but I've also had people thinking I drive a Ferrari, because it's red I guess. DoubleD said:
I disagree with the above. A non car bore will just see a porsche badge on a Cayman. They will just see it as some flash sports car. They wont even know what a 911 is.
This. Same with BMW. Most people can't tell a 3 from a 5 without looking at the boot and if yo say F10 they won't have a clue what you mean.SidewaysSi said:
Have they really got much feel compared to a 90s car like an E36 for instance?
Yes one of the best things about them is the steering feel.E36 is a very poor example of feel they were mostly crap ( previously owned various 323,325i,328 sport and M3 Evo they were all numb).
Squadrone Rosso said:
If you feel the need to buy a car you enhance people's perceptions of you, there's something lacking somewhere.
Additionally, the majority of normal non car bore people will see the Cayman as not a proper Porche or a poor man's Porsche. They'll have a pity chuckle behind your back at the thought of a
No they won't. They'll see a Porsche badge and think flash sports car. Additionally, the majority of normal non car bore people will see the Cayman as not a proper Porche or a poor man's Porsche. They'll have a pity chuckle behind your back at the thought of a
The majority of people won't even know what a Cayman is. The only people who will think that are t
ts.Ironically it's the same kind of thinking that you are refering too in your first paragraph.
V8RX7 said:
You're not listening - if it isn't practical ENOUGH it really doesn't matter that it's MORE practical than another car that also wasn't being considered.
It might not work for you, perhaps you're simply too tall, but it does work as a small 2+2. Of course it can't match a 3 series (or a RX8, but that's always been an exception), but saying the rear seats are useless is plain wrong.
The vast majority of 2+2s over the years only fit kids, or adults at a squeeze if the front occupants are willing the bring their seats forward a bit.
braddo said:
It might not work for you, perhaps you're simply too tall, but it does work as a small 2+2. Of course it can't match a 3 series (or a RX8, but that's always been an exception), but saying the rear seats are useless is plain wrong.
The vast majority of 2+2s over the years only fit kids, or adults at a squeeze if the front occupants are willing the bring their seats forward a bit.
That looks comfy The vast majority of 2+2s over the years only fit kids, or adults at a squeeze if the front occupants are willing the bring their seats forward a bit.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff