GT86 Full Autocar Road Test

[Captain Muppet]

Beefmeister said:

I drove it up the hill at Goodwood last week, and in all honesty - it is too slow.

Going up hills in makes cars feel slow shock.

Glad my test drive is in Norfolk.

[Andy665]

Its too slow - not exactly a well reasoned statement is it

Compared to a 458 Italia - it is slow

Compared to snail - its very quick

To me, top speed is irrelevant from 71mph onwards, 0-60 figures are for pub banter, what puts a smile on my face is communicative steering, progressive, strong brakes and a balance of power / grip that provides adjustability and fun

My GTV V6 is quicker than a GT86 but I know what has made me smile me in the last week - it ain't the Alfa, as much as I love it

Want loads of power buy a GT-R, want fun at sensible speeds then buy a GT86

[s m]

Captain Muppet said:

Beefmeister said:

I drove it up the hill at Goodwood last week, and in all honesty - it is too slow.

Going up hills in makes cars feel slow shock.

Glad my test drive is in Norfolk.

Just looking at 1987 test of E30 M3 - 200bhp - test weight 1252kg

E30 M3 - 0-100 19.0 seconds, 0-120 29.8 seconds, ss 1/4 15.7 @ 92mph
GT86 0-100 18.8 seconds, 0-120 30.7 seconds, ss 1/4 15.7 @ 91.5mph


Looks like the horses are pretty much there then

[BigTom85]

s m said:

Just looking at 1987 test of E30 M3 - 200bhp - test weight 1252kg

E30 M3 - 0-100 19.0 seconds, 0-120 29.8 seconds, ss 1/4 15.7 @ 92mph
GT86 0-100 18.8 seconds, 0-120 30.7 seconds, ss 1/4 15.7 @ 91.5mph


Looks like the horses are pretty much there then

I know 25 years have passed, but blimey I wasn't expecting that!

[Chris71]

s m said:

Captain Muppet said:

Beefmeister said:

I drove it up the hill at Goodwood last week, and in all honesty - it is too slow.

Going up hills in makes cars feel slow shock.

Glad my test drive is in Norfolk.

Just looking at 1987 test of E30 M3 - 200bhp - test weight 1252kg

E30 M3 - 0-100 19.0 seconds, 0-120 29.8 seconds, ss 1/4 15.7 @ 92mph
GT86 0-100 18.8 seconds, 0-120 30.7 seconds, ss 1/4 15.7 @ 91.5mph


Looks like the horses are pretty much there then

Indeed. The only time I've driven one was on the Hill Route at Milbrook - which, as the name implies, isn't exactly flat - and it didn't feel especially slow. Quicker in a straight line than the current MX5, I'd say. Nowhere near, say, a Megane 265, but it's not that sort of car...

Edited by Chris71 on Wednesday 4th July 16:31

[SSBB]

Looking at the paper figures, it seems perfectly judged for UK roads, with enough headroom left for a TRD/STi turbo special.

[the-photographer]

Car	Weight KG (inc driver & 90% fuel)
Atom	531
Caparo T1	689
Lotus Exige S	1010
GT86	1235k + 68kg = 1303
Audi TT 211 PS manual	1355
Megane RS 265	1388
Audi TT 272 PS 4wd/manual	1488
Cayman S	1425
SLK 350	1505
Audi TTRS	1525
BMW 135i	1530
BMW 1 Series M Coupe	1570
370z	1571
SLK 55AMG	1575
S3	1590
BMW Z4 sDrive35is	1600
BMW 335i M Sport	1600
BMW M3 Coupe	1655

This is from ages ago and really needs the addition of GT86 competitors.

Edited by the-photographer on Wednesday 4th July 16:43

Edited by the-photographer on Wednesday 4th July 16:47

[Conor D]

s m said:

The Toyota claimed weight for the car was 1275kg - this came in at 1235kg actual.

I reckon that was without driver/passenger and V-box

I have the Toyota handbook in front of me here, weight's down as 1240-1275 (minimum-maximum).

[kambites]

Conor D said:

I have the Toyota handbook in front of me here, weight's down as 1240-1275 (minimum-maximum).

Does it say whether that includes a driver?

[woots787]

The too slow thing is tricky. It should have similar straight line pace to my 330, which doesn't feel quick but is more than adequate for overtakes and fun on a roads. When is a car quick, would the owner of red victor consider a 599 to be disappointing? For me they did the right thing as more power means more weight and a higher price tag.

[wackojacko]

I did think about buying one.


That thought was immdeiately scrapped when I found I can have a 130i for 8 grand.

[Beefmeister]

Okay, 'too slow' may be misleading.

What surely no-one can deny is that it has an engine with poor performance in most of the rev range, with most of it up top.

If you were going along 4th at 40mph you'd need to drop 2 gears for an overtake IMO, when a drop to 3rd would normally be required.

People only seem to see the negatives in what i've said - i really liked the car in every respect other than the engine responsiveness and power band.

The performance would be adequate if it were £19-20k, not £25k.

Captain Muppet said:

Beefmeister said:

I drove it up the hill at Goodwood last week, and in all honesty - it is too slow.

Going up hills in makes cars feel slow shock.

Glad my test drive is in Norfolk.

I hope you intentionally missed off a smiley there. There are bits other than hills on the Goodwood track...

[otolith]

Beefmeister said:

If you were going along 4th at 40mph you'd need to drop 2 gears for an overtake IMO, when a drop to 3rd would normally be required.

I used to have to do that in the Civic Type-R and RX-8 (both about the same power to weight ratio as this, both engines that need revs). It's not a problem.

I'm pretty sure that if I wanted to I could get a GT86 into three figures on the back roads round here - how fast do you really want to go?

[Bezza1969]

s m said:

Just looking at 1987 test of E30 M3 - 200bhp - test weight 1252kg

E30 M3 - 0-100 19.0 seconds, 0-120 29.8 seconds, ss 1/4 15.7 @ 92mph
GT86 0-100 18.8 seconds, 0-120 30.7 seconds, ss 1/4 15.7 @ 91.5mph


Looks like the horses are pretty much there then

I'd agree, but what I dont understand is why it is 2+ seconds slower to 100 MPH than the Ep3 Civic Type R which also had 197 BHP, similar torque and weighed only 31KG less.

Now if the GT86 had the Civic Type R power plant I think it would be perfect!

anyway, who is right people, EVO or AUTOCAR? !!

[kambites]

Beefmeister said:

The performance would be adequate if it were £19-20k, not £25k.

For the same money, what offers a chassis as accomplished as the GT86 does and more performance?

In fact for 25k; what mass produced car offers a chassis as accomplished as the GT86 at all?

[ghibbett]

Bezza1969 said:

I'd agree, but what I dont understand is why it is 2+ seconds slower to 100 MPH than the Ep3 Civic Type R which also had 197 BHP, similar torque and weighed only 31KG less.

Gearing perhaps?

[braddo]

s m said:

Just looking at 1987 test of E30 M3 - 200bhp - test weight 1252kg

E30 M3 - 0-100 19.0 seconds, 0-120 29.8 seconds, ss 1/4 15.7 @ 92mph
GT86 0-100 18.8 seconds, 0-120 30.7 seconds, ss 1/4 15.7 @ 91.5mph


Looks like the horses are pretty much there then

That is striking.

[Captain Muppet]

Beefmeister said:

Captain Muppet said:

Beefmeister said:

I drove it up the hill at Goodwood last week, and in all honesty - it is too slow.

Going up hills in makes cars feel slow shock.

Glad my test drive is in Norfolk.

I hope you intentionally missed off a smiley there. There are bits other than hills on the Goodwood track...

I've driven the hill climb. It all goes up hill, even the bit past the house (it's about 1 degree as far as I can remember - it's been a long time since I saw a gradient plot of the track). If you drove it somewhere else other than "up the hill" it would have been nice to say so in your post.

[s m]

Conor D said:

s m said:

The Toyota claimed weight for the car was 1275kg - this came in at 1235kg actual.

I reckon that was without driver/passenger and V-box

I have the Toyota handbook in front of me here, weight's down as 1240-1275 (minimum-maximum).

I'm just quoting the Autocar test chap - looks like they've used the max claimed figure.

Anyway, I'm sure they'll be some tolerance built into the Millbrook scales - perhaps the high figure is autobox???

[otolith]

I drove it up the hill with a Toyota bod in the passenger seat and my mrs in the back.

Unfortunately, it was fast enough to very quickly catch up with the sodding diesel Volvo in front of me.