RE: The Toyota GT86 is more relevant than ever: TMIW

[monzaxjr]

jameswsb said:

monzaxjr said:

I'm one of the people who "don't get it". Felt very underpowered, wheezy and sounded awful. The gearchange wasn't up to much as mentioned by another poster. The interior was crap. Admittedly it had nice steering but the chassis never felt anything special. S2000, mx5, any Boxster hold far more allure than this for me.

I havnt driven one admittedly but I always loved the idea of the GT86. But I really do think it needs more power to appeal. There was one at a recent trackday at Oulton and I couldn't believe how slow it was down the straights, my 182 murdered it and I am no racing driver, I was quite shocked actually. A conversation with the driver later in the day revealed that he was absolutely flat out and he looked a little disappointed to say the least. I know its not all about power, I totally get that but these things are utterly gutless from what I have seen!

I'm no power junkie either. I've tried a new gen MX5 2.0 and thought it was an absolute riot to drive, it was keen to rev, the throttle response was instant. Great gearchange. I can usually tell within 5 minutes whether I can gel with a car or not. A 182 in rude health is a blast as well. I just wish my M135i had the steering from the Mazda or the Toyota though as it has the worst steering fitted to any car ever. It's comically bad.

[CABC]

havoc said:

The core issue seems to be the asthmatic engine that doesn't enjoy revs,

important to correct this - it loves to rev 4.5-7.5
below that there's little torque, exacerbated by the emissions dip and it sounds coarse.

[MarshPhantom]

havoc said:

I keep telling myself I need to drive one, but can I point something out to the critics...

The core issue seems to be the asthmatic engine that doesn't enjoy revs, and isn't as quick as the rest of the car should be, mounted in an exemplary chassis that 'just works' (albeit is perhaps a little oversteery at the back - geo / rubber changes, surely???).

Isn't that very similar to the original Mk1/2 MX5 - the PH "answer to everything"?!?
- The 1.8 feels like a hatchback engine in a sports car (1.6 more free-revving but barely enough power)
- The car feels like it needs more grip to be driven at pace on trafficked, give-and-take roads.




So if everyone on here rates the older MX-5s, why the criticism of the GT86???

Why are comparing cheap cars with expensive ones. The MX 5 may be great, but I wouldn't spend 15 Grand on one.

Cheap thrills.

[havoc]

CABC said:

... it sounds coarse.

Is this a big part of the problem?

(Old) Type-Rs were always n/a 4-pots with +/- 200bhp, and whilst they were often called-out for lacking torque, plenty of people "got them" and the powertrains are lauded as among the best 4-pots you can get.

Conversely, the old Celica VVTi-L never quite hit the same spot, and neither does this.

Is it as simple as sound/character?!?

[AW111]

How do the sales in other markets compare with the UK?
I see quite a few in my part of Aus.

[DevonPaul]

We looked at one, tried one (eventually, getting a drive wasn't easy) and took one on a Thruxton skidpan course.

At the time we had a mk3 MR2.

There were plenty of alternatives for the circa 20k budget, Z4, boxster/Cayman, Nissan 350/370 and the GT was fun to drive with our limited abilities.

In the end the practicality lost out to long term financial gain, and we got the Z4MC. We could probably swap it for a new GT these days

[anonymous-user]

I used to own one of the last RWD Cosworth Sapphires, 220BHP out of the box and that wasn't enough even back then, so had a nice tractable 360BHP update. That was about the sweet spot for a RWD car of the kind of weight the GT86/BRZ carries.

I now drive a 500BHP/lbft STi as a daily driver, I would love a BRZ as the next car, but not with that kind of power/weight, its garbage.

If they brought out a 330BHP STi version, they couldn't make them fast enough.

[anonymous-user]

culpz said:

Both of your comments prove that you don't actually fully understand the fundamentals of a sports car.

Cripes, harsh. Funny how i run an extremely successful business as a consultant on sports and high performance vehicles to the OEMs............

[anonymous-user]

havoc said:

So if everyone on here rates the older MX-5s, why the criticism of the GT86???

I think the Mx5 is a more successful low cost / low performance sports car for the following reasons:


1) It has a better fundamental layout (the GT-86 suffers from it's engine location (as a result of it's width and high CofG) so to put back in a "'Pointy' feel to the car (something the Mx-5 has from it's natural architecture) they needed to make the rear suspension include significant kinematic tuning, which can make the car feel nervous in-extremis

2) The Mx5 isn't really marketed as a performance sports car, so it doesn't need to try so hard, and is therefore judged less harshly

3) The Mx5 is a convertible. A significant 'feel good' advantage for an everyday sports car where you can't hoon around like your trousers are on fire all the time.

4) The Engine. Despite the MX5 engine being no ball of fire, i think it is a better match for it's target audience. The Gt-86 feels very much like a sports car pinning for a better engine to me. A 4cyl normally aspirated Boxer engine is always going to be a bit of a boat anchor.

[culpz]

Max_Torque said:

Cripes, harsh. Funny how i run an extremely successful business as a consultant on sports and high performance vehicles to the OEMs............

Not really. That just makes you look more of a plonker in my eyes. It's all an opinion and a subjective matter at the end of the day. I just struggle to see how enthusiasts can't seem to find any appeal in this car at all.

[WCZ]

NJ72 said:

Whilst I'm not saying it wasn't down to the car, I've seen people spin very mundane and stable cars at very innocuous places on race tracks because of driver error.

As said, I'm not saying it was or wasn't down to the car, but it doesn't prove anything that a chap managed to spin it. Probably just had a go at the moves in the PH video above lol

possibly so! but since then whenever I've been behind one on track I've been really paranoid that they are going to spin ! overtake with care

[anonymous-user]

culpz said:

Not really. That just makes you look more of a plonker in my eyes.

Fair enough, i'll take you off my christmas card list then.... ;-)

culpz said:

It's all an opinion and a subjective matter at the end of the day.

Not really no. There is plenty of solid engineering reasons as to why the GT-86 isn't a very good sports car.

culpz said:

I just struggle to see how enthusiasts can't seem to find any appeal in this car at all.

So, YOU are struggling to understand something, and that makes me an idiot / plonker?


Let me try again:

You have, lets say around £30k to spend.

You want an 'exciting' and fast' car, but need real world practicality. Do you buy that Golf R or the GT-86. Despite you being not able to understand it, the real world has voted with their wallets, and hence you see a lot of GolfR's and very, very few GT-86s, and the reasons for that are, imo, really pretty simple to understand........

[GTEYE]

Max_Torque said:

culpz said:

Not really. That just makes you look more of a plonker in my eyes.

Fair enough, i'll take you off my christmas card list then.... ;-)

culpz said:

It's all an opinion and a subjective matter at the end of the day.

Not really no. There is plenty of solid engineering reasons as to why the GT-86 isn't a very good sports car.

culpz said:

I just struggle to see how enthusiasts can't seem to find any appeal in this car at all.

So, YOU are struggling to understand something, and that makes me an idiot / plonker?


Let me try again:

You have, lets say around £30k to spend.

You want an 'exciting' and fast' car, but need real world practicality. Do you buy that Golf R or the GT-86. Despite you being not able to understand it, the real world has voted with their wallets, and hence you see a lot of GolfR's and very, very few GT-86s, and the reasons for that are, imo, really pretty simple to understand........

+1 Golf R every time.

Whilst the Golf does a lot of things better than the GT-86, the GT-86 does very few if any things better than the Golf.

The majority of buyers are buying either of these as their main driver, hence the Golf wins the sales race hands down.

[CABC]

havoc said:

CABC said:

... it sounds coarse.

Is this a big part of the problem?

(Old) Type-Rs were always n/a 4-pots with +/- 200bhp, and whilst they were often called-out for lacking torque, plenty of people "got them" and the powertrains are lauded as among the best 4-pots you can get.

Conversely, the old Celica VVTi-L never quite hit the same spot, and neither does this.

Is it as simple as sound/character?!?

i should have been clearer stating that it sounds much better, and quite different over 4.5 too.
But yes, in 2017 a car with no torque, harsh noise and what can only be described as a difficult drivetrain ('box is great, but clutch is tricky and imperfect changes are more jerky than most cars). You have to be dedicated to find the joy of an 86, it doesn't come at you in traffic.
It certainly won't be for many, and it doesn't do everything for sure but the hate is typical forum narrow-mindedness.
I 'get' the hatchback thing that Max likes (because he's following the money with his business) and i would happily own one if i had horrible commutes, kids, motorway mix. The numbness and weight is a compromise i don't have to make for practicality. Someone above said the 86 is not special enough for a fun car and yet not practical enough for a daily, which is a fair assessment, though it still leaves a market niche.
Thank god it exists and we have choice.

[anonymous-user]

CABC said:

havoc said:

The core issue seems to be the asthmatic engine that doesn't enjoy revs,

important to correct this - it loves to rev 4.5-7.5
below that there's little torque, exacerbated by the emissions dip and it sounds coarse.

OK, i don't know the provenance of this curve or the correction factors applied:



but it's hardly a rev monster, with a terrible dip at 4krpm (just where you want it to come on well when tipping in, due to the fundamental lack of exhaust tuning from the boxer layout) and torque starts to fall at just 6400rpm. Sure it'll rev to 7.5k, but there's not a lot of point (other than when in 1st gear).

And with just 140lb.ft (190Nm) you're toast at low rpm the moment those pesky TDi get on boost (which these days is about 1600rpm......) So in the real world, sitting at 5krpm, in 2nd gear, hoping some overtaking gap might just open up in the train of follow-my-leader commuter sheep, quickly becomes an effort with little reward......

[E65Ross]

MarshPhantom said:

Why not buy an old car you like rather than a new one you don't.

Some people might not want an old car that others have sat and farted in for the last 20 years? Or they want something with a warranty? They want something they can spec themselves? Many reasons why.

[anonymous-user]

CABC said:

I 'get' the hatchback thing that Max likes

Who says i like GolfR's etc?? I have explained (and can understand) why they are so popular, but that doesn't make me like them in the slightest. I wouldn't drive one even if you paid me too....... ;-)

[Toyoda]

I know there are plenty differences, but who'd want a new Toyota coupe with practically the same performance stats as the equivalent Toyota coupe from 18 years ago (which you could also say had a more characterful engine).

[Tuvra]

It's funny when the GT86 owners try and argue in its defence, It always ends with "you don't get sports cars"

[The_Doc_]

You're not wrong...but for the money why not have a supercharged mk1 or mk2 mx5? Linear power, proper driver focus, little depreciation, great community. Tell me I'm wronger.