RE: Driven: Toyota GT 86

[elementad]

I've read the article again and I like it.
Thing is though I had 200bhp when I bought my first hot hatch 10 years ago, then after a few years a moved on and so forth.
I GET the car. It's a coupe version of an MX5, but BECAUSE I'm a petrol head I do enjoy the adrenaline rush of speed and acceleration. I dont think the sudeways handling will be as safe to access on british roads as all the folks on here suggest. In acceleration terms this looks to be a sheep in wolfs clothing.
I think the folks who buy one of these WILL be looking at the official modifications list without a doubt even if they say they're happy with the standard 200bhp.
Don't flame me. I like it.

[kambites]

elementad said:

I think the folks who buy one of these WILL be looking at the official modifications list without a doubt even if they say they're happy with the standard 200bhp.
Don't flame me. I like it.

If I buy one (which I may well do, albeit not new and not soon), I will not be looking at power modifications. Why can people not get their heads around that idea that some of us do not care about power?

I just don't find acceleration particularly fun any more. It took me about two years of driving to simply get bored of it.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 2nd February 08:49

[molineux1980]

I like it. For me, the 'feel' of a car is very important for it to be fun. I've owned proper Mini's, and have a mk-1 MX-5 now. Just fun. Not fast, but you can feel everything the car is doing, they don't have masses of grip, and slide progressively.

The other half has a mk5 Golf GTI, and whilst its quick, and a bloody good car, it leaves me a little cold. If I fancy a hoon, i'll take the MX-5 every time.

[fushion julz]

s m said:

Not new but similar......



23k - check
215bhp - check
rwd - check
LSD - check
Thin tyres - check


And you probably wouldn't lose too much on it perhaps?

I was reading the article and thinking much the same...

I have a (1987) E30 M3...standard it came with 200bhp, 170lb/ft and weighed around 1200kg...

So what has 25yrs of automotive development brought? Ahh...ok a better mpg and a lower torque figure at a lower (relative) price.

[elementad]

molineux1980 said:

I like it. For me, the 'feel' of a car is very important for it to be fun. I've owned proper Mini's, and have a mk-1 MX-5 now. Just fun. Not fast, but you can feel everything the car is doing, they don't have masses of grip, and slide progressively.

The other half has a mk5 Golf GTI, and whilst its quick, and a bloody good car, it leaves me a little cold. If I fancy a hoon, i'll take the MX-5 every time.

Not all cars are black and white though. It's not like car x is all power and car y is all handling. There ARE cars that mix the 2 up already, and golf GTI isn't one of them.

The reality is that for a lot of people this car in terms of performance would be a down step for a lot of owners and again being realistic their current cars handle well in the first place.

This must be marketed (mostly) to those who are entering or tempted to enter the performance car world but feel the mx5 a bit girly. It's priced for that. Folk who are ultimately hung up on handling should save a bit more and get a boxster (which HAS managed to get a balance between handling and performance).

Flame suit zipped up

[kambites]

fushion julz said:

So what has 25yrs of automotive development brought? Ahh...ok a better mpg and a lower torque figure at a lower (relative) price.

Unfortunately what 25 years of automotive development has generally brought, is a 50% increase in weight, rubbish steering and throttle response, too much grip and too sudden break-away, awful ride quality,...

What this does, as far as I can see, is put back the good bits of old cars that we've lost in modern ones.

Progress is not always a good thing.

[elementad]

kambites said:

fushion julz said:

So what has 25yrs of automotive development brought? Ahh...ok a better mpg and a lower torque figure at a lower (relative) price.

Unfortunately what 25 years of automotive development has generally brought, is a 50% increase in weight, rubbish steering and throttle response, too much grip and too sudden break-away, awful ride quality,...

What this does, as far as I can see, is put back the good bits of old cars that we've lost in modern ones.

Progress is not always a good thing.

Kambites looking at your profile you'll be coming from an Elise.
Would you not miss your Elise if swapping for this?

[kambites]

elementad said:

Kambites looking at your profile you'll be coming from an Elise.
Would you not miss your Elise if swapping for this?

I don't know, I haven't driven this have I? I can't imagine that I'd swap it unless I needed a 2+2, but if I did end up swapping for some reason it absolutely would not be the straight line speed that I missed.

I doubt this will drive as well as an Elise, but nor does anything else with four seats, in my experience.

[otolith]

fushion julz said:

So what has 25yrs of automotive development brought?

A need to revisit the past and see what has been lost along the way

[Chris71]

elementad said:

I've read the article again and I like it.
Thing is though I had 200bhp when I bought my first hot hatch 10 years ago, then after a few years a moved on and so forth.
I GET the car. It's a coupe version of an MX5, but BECAUSE I'm a petrol head I do enjoy the adrenaline rush of speed and acceleration. I dont think the sudeways handling will be as safe to access on british roads as all the folks on here suggest. In acceleration terms this looks to be a sheep in wolfs clothing.

I'm not convinced it's a sheep in wolf's clothing. The wing on the BRZ might be a little more in your face, but on the whole the GT 86 is a pretty clean design. It's not a million miles away from how you might imagine a slightly larger fixed head MX5 to turn out. And, like you say, that's basically what it is.

You don't need to be opposite locking it with a great cloud of tyre smoke to enjoy something with lower limits and better feedback. Being able to shift the balance of the car front to rear and feel it respond to your inputs is surely part of the appeal of a performance car?

As for straightline speed, well, several thoughts occur:

Giving it significantly more power would almost certainly mean wider tyres, stiffer (less forgiving) suspension and perhaps heavier unsprung components like brakes and driveshafts. Maybe that would adversely affect the handling?

It's pitched as a practical everyday coupe, maybe the customers want manageable fuel and insurance costs? Plus, the main gripe about it currently seems to be the price. That presumably wouldn't be improved if it came with a big turbo strapped to it.

0-60 isn't hugely relevant in the real world, maybe the gearing means it'll perform better at in-gear overtaking speeds that actually matter?

Even so, as mentioned before it's as quick as, say, an E30 M3 or an S-Series TVR, is that really so shoddy?

I just think there are plenty of 'serious' performance cars for people who want to spend a bit more money and there are plenty of cheap ways to cover ground very quickly if that's what they want to do (spend £2k on an old 4WD Impreza or Pulsar GTi-R and the same again on engine mods and you'll have something that chases Ferraris off the lights).

What we're lacking is a light hearted, afforadble (ish! ) fun car ... like the MX5 but a bit more practical. And that's what this car is going to be, surely? It's tapping a niche that isn't very well served, as opposed to adding another option to the 370Z/Z4M/Cayman market.

[davepoth]

Chris71 said:

Giving it significantly more power would almost certainly mean wider tyres, stiffer (less forgiving) suspension and perhaps heavier unsprung components like brakes and driveshafts. Maybe that would adversely affect the handling?

Nail on head there sir. It's not about speed, or grip, it's all about feel and balance. It always has been but it's easier to advertise numbers.

[heebeegeetee]

kambites said:

Unfortunately what 25 years of automotive development has generally brought, is a 50% increase in weight, rubbish steering and throttle response, too much grip and too sudden break-away, awful ride quality,...

What this does, as far as I can see, is put back the good bits of old cars that we've lost in modern ones.

Progress is not always a good thing.

I'd totally go with that.

Chris71 said:

What we're lacking is a light hearted, afforadble (ish! ) fun car ... like the MX5 but a bit more practical. And that's what this car is going to be, surely? It's tapping a niche that isn't very well served, as opposed to adding another option to the 370Z/Z4M/Cayman market.

And I'd totally go with that too.

I think what the market doesn't need is another heavy car with masses of grip that doesn't really 'work' until licence (and possibly liberty) losing speeds.

[otolith]

heebeegeetee said:

I think what the market doesn't need is another heavy car with masses of grip that doesn't really 'work' until licence (and possibly liberty) losing speeds.

Totally agree.

I sometimes think a lot of quick cars are bought by people who mostly use them to sit in London traffic jams counting how many other cars their car could theoretically beat round the Nurburgring and fondling their interior plastics. This one seems to be for driving.

[Chris71]

heebeegeetee said:

I think what the market doesn't need is another heavy car with masses of grip that doesn't really 'work' until licence (and possibly liberty) losing speeds.

Exactly. There are cars out there out there already that will pelt you towards the horizon at license losing speeds. But unless you count the MX5 Roadster Coupe, the 'fun at manageable speeds' option is pretty much uncatered for with a fixed head.

I just hope that the mainstream performance car buyers haven't become so accustomed to inert, over-tyred front wheel drive and four wheel drive cars that they start putting these through hedges left, right and centre.

[s m]

Chris71 said:

I just hope that the mainstream performance car buyers haven't become so accustomed to inert, over-tyred front wheel drive and four wheel drive cars that they start putting these through hedges left, right and centre.

Do you think the mainstream performance car buyers will buy them Chris?

I do hope they sell lots because these are the type of cars I looked forward to buying 25 years ago and a glut of secondhand ones will be good.

[Kawasicki]

kambites said:

fushion julz said:

So what has 25yrs of automotive development brought? Ahh...ok a better mpg and a lower torque figure at a lower (relative) price.

Unfortunately what 25 years of automotive development has generally brought, is a 50% increase in weight, rubbish steering and throttle response, too much grip and too sudden break-away, awful ride quality,...

What this does, as far as I can see, is put back the good bits of old cars that we've lost in modern ones.

Progress is not always a good thing.

I disagree with you on a couple of those points. Tyre grip has improved, but so have break-away characteristics. Modern cars have high grip, but personally I find them anything but twitchy at the limit.

[Kozy]

To everyone questioning the 'slow' 0-60 time, it runs on skinny eco tyres which probably have a friction co-efficient of around 0.6. It's more than likely that this car is severly traction limited in first gear despite it's 'embarrasing' 200bhp.

Stick the same sticky high performance tyres that all the hot hatches get from the factory and I'll bet it can do low 6s easily. Not that it matters.

[gmh23]

fushion julz said:

I was reading the article and thinking much the same...

I have a (1987) E30 M3...standard it came with 200bhp, 170lb/ft and weighed around 1200kg...

So what has 25yrs of automotive development brought? Ahh...ok a better mpg and a lower torque figure at a lower (relative) price.

So now you're comparing it to a 25 year old BMW M3 because the performance figures are about the same?

In this instance, automotive development has brought us to the current M3, because you're talking about an M3!

The earliest editions of the porsche 911 had a 130 PS, so wow, this is faster than a 911!!!!

[kambites]

Kawasicki said:

I disagree with you on a couple of those points. Tyre grip has improved, but so have break-away characteristics. Modern cars have high grip, but personally I find them anything but twitchy at the limit.

That's not my experience. For the same dimensions, they may have become more predictable; but they don't have the same dimensions.

[D200]

I would have to agree with people who are saying this car has just about enough power, as around 200bhp with 1200kg is fine. I had an E30 M3 for couple of years and it had nearly the perfect amount of power for the road. I also had an E36 M3 and it had too much power for the road, in my opinion anyway. I could use all the E30’s power nearly all the time where as in the E36 this was a lot more difficult as the speeds involved get too high for any road, esp B roads.

Saying that I would have liked a bit more power in the E30, even with 15” wheels and tyres. My was a non-evo model with 200bhp so I guess the Sport Evo with 240 [or a std one but with shrick cams etc] would have been totally perfect. The M3 engine’s would have more torque then a GT 86 so the lack of torque could be annoying [not that I have driven one but just speculating] but all in all on the power to weight ration it seems to be near spot on to have sensible fun with*

• As long as it’s not fitted with 19” rims and massively wide and grippy tyres – as lots of people will be doing - improve the looks but ruin the drive