RE: Driven: Toyota GT 86
Discussion
Just found this video on Speedhunters. Seems like 200bhp is enough to keep it sideways anyway 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAHFQnyX0C0&fea...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAHFQnyX0C0&fea...
I'm excited by this car - perhaps the first, true, do-everything daily driver? A car you can cruise to work in, and use on trackdays or learn to drift in at the weekends?
In essence, an RX-8 with a better engine, as everyone but the rotary zealots thought the RX-8 should have been?
Don't confuse changes within a marketplace with automotive development. 25 years of "automotive development" (as you put it) brought you a luxury V8 M3 that does <20mpg and weighs ~1700kg, but which loses out (apparently; I've driven neither) to an E30 M3 in the driving stakes. You can make that same basic point about Golfs, 911s, etc. - take your pick of the many cars which have suffered due to "development".
Now, thankfully, things are moving forwards to where they were before - only the cars will be safer, cleaner, and pleasanter to be in than their equivalents from 25 years before.
Plus, I expect than an original E30 M3 cost a fair bit more than £25k, adjusted for inflation?
In essence, an RX-8 with a better engine, as everyone but the rotary zealots thought the RX-8 should have been?
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.
No, no, no.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.
Don't confuse changes within a marketplace with automotive development. 25 years of "automotive development" (as you put it) brought you a luxury V8 M3 that does <20mpg and weighs ~1700kg, but which loses out (apparently; I've driven neither) to an E30 M3 in the driving stakes. You can make that same basic point about Golfs, 911s, etc. - take your pick of the many cars which have suffered due to "development".
Now, thankfully, things are moving forwards to where they were before - only the cars will be safer, cleaner, and pleasanter to be in than their equivalents from 25 years before.
Plus, I expect than an original E30 M3 cost a fair bit more than £25k, adjusted for inflation?
[quote=jetpilot]
What i did say to be clear in discussion to your point that car prices have increased (not talking performance), is, Mazda have managed to keep their base model Mx5 very similar over a 22 year period, so in essence, prices havent or dont necessarily have to change and as you rightly say, even though the £ has dropped massively against the yen its even more impressive of Mazda to be close with their base model prices under those circumstances, yes?
Agree with pretty much everything you say there, (including the bits I deleted, RX8, yes please), however, I have one question (as I genuinely don't know) is where is the MX5 built? If it's in the UK / Europe then exchange rates have little or no bearing on the cost. The Toyoburu will (for the time being) only be built here so exchange rates will have a huge influence on the price. Am impressed that Mazda have regardless kept the base price so steady for so long mind you.
What i did say to be clear in discussion to your point that car prices have increased (not talking performance), is, Mazda have managed to keep their base model Mx5 very similar over a 22 year period, so in essence, prices havent or dont necessarily have to change and as you rightly say, even though the £ has dropped massively against the yen its even more impressive of Mazda to be close with their base model prices under those circumstances, yes?
Agree with pretty much everything you say there, (including the bits I deleted, RX8, yes please), however, I have one question (as I genuinely don't know) is where is the MX5 built? If it's in the UK / Europe then exchange rates have little or no bearing on the cost. The Toyoburu will (for the time being) only be built here so exchange rates will have a huge influence on the price. Am impressed that Mazda have regardless kept the base price so steady for so long mind you.
mft said:
In essence, an RX-8 with a better engine, as everyone but the rotary zealots thought the RX-8 should have been?
I'd dispute "better" , but yes, I would see this as what you get if you build something like an RX-8 without a rotary. Lose rear seats and mechanical refinement and some weight distribution benefit, gain fuel economy. jetpilot said:
Why are you talking about comparison between the twos performance?
What i did say to be clear in discussion to your point that car prices have increased (not talking performance), is, Mazda have managed to keep their base model Mx5 very similar over a 22 year period, so in essence, prices havent or dont necessarily have to change and as you rightly say, even though the £ has dropped massively against the yen its even more impressive of Mazda to be close with their base model prices under those circumstances, yes?
Im sure the Gt86 is and will be a very good car and appeal to those who want a back to basics lightweight, rear wheel drive car! However, is there anything special about a 200 na hp engine, no, Honda have been doing it for years and with dc5 in your id i am sure you well know that, is there anything special about a well set up chassis, no, Mazda have been doing it for years with the Mx5 (just as examples). Should that accumulate to what is in essence a quite a costly car for what your getting imho, no!
Its not an argument, just a point of view
Personally i would be buying an Rx8 for £4k ish with a rebuild and two years unlimited mileage warranty and put the other £20k away for rebuilds However, i know there is no comparison between what you can buy 2nd hand for new money
Nothing special about equalling Honda's bhp/litre? Even though the K20 has supposedly been dropped due to the more stringent emissions tests? What i did say to be clear in discussion to your point that car prices have increased (not talking performance), is, Mazda have managed to keep their base model Mx5 very similar over a 22 year period, so in essence, prices havent or dont necessarily have to change and as you rightly say, even though the £ has dropped massively against the yen its even more impressive of Mazda to be close with their base model prices under those circumstances, yes?
Im sure the Gt86 is and will be a very good car and appeal to those who want a back to basics lightweight, rear wheel drive car! However, is there anything special about a 200 na hp engine, no, Honda have been doing it for years and with dc5 in your id i am sure you well know that, is there anything special about a well set up chassis, no, Mazda have been doing it for years with the Mx5 (just as examples). Should that accumulate to what is in essence a quite a costly car for what your getting imho, no!
Its not an argument, just a point of view
Personally i would be buying an Rx8 for £4k ish with a rebuild and two years unlimited mileage warranty and put the other £20k away for rebuilds However, i know there is no comparison between what you can buy 2nd hand for new money otolith said:
I'd dispute "better"
Really? 
http://www.pistonheads.com/members/showcar.asp?car...
Really, for all people can mutter about liking the rotary's smoothness, or liking the power delivery, or the weight distribution, or the packaging, or buying in to the unique concept, the RX-8 was a superb car apart from the rotary, which would have sold vastly better had it had a normal engine. In fact, had they also offered a smooth-running powerful diesel in there, they'd have had an Alpina D3 for the everyman, and probably a huge, vast hit in the company car market, years ahead of the current move towards 'performance' diesels.
otolith said:
but yes, I would see this as what you get if you build something like an RX-8 without a rotary. Lose rear seats and mechanical refinement and some weight distribution benefit, gain fuel economy.
Gain fuel economy, oil economy, and the confidence that comes with a normal engine.Or in short, gain... mass market appeal.
mft said:
otolith said:
I'd dispute "better"
Really? http://www.pistonheads.com/members/showcar.asp?car...
Really, for all people can mutter about liking the rotary's smoothness, or liking the power delivery, or the weight distribution, or the packaging, or buying in to the unique concept, the RX-8 was a superb car apart from the rotary, which would have sold vastly better had it had a normal engine. In fact, had they also offered a smooth-running powerful diesel in there, they'd have had an Alpina D3 for the everyman, and probably a huge, vast hit in the company car market, years ahead of the current move towards 'performance' diesels.
Really, I don't understand why you would rather Mazda had made a rip-off of a BMW instead of something unique. There are loads of BMW 3-series, why not just buy one of those, why does the world need another wannabe?
mft said:
otolith said:
but yes, I would see this as what you get if you build something like an RX-8 without a rotary. Lose rear seats and mechanical refinement and some weight distribution benefit, gain fuel economy.
Gain fuel economy, oil economy, and the confidence that comes with a normal engine.Or in short, gain... mass market appeal.
Edited by otolith on Friday 3rd February 15:43
s m said:
Bit more blurb here
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/...
Interesting that the Subaru might cost £5k more
I doubt it's true. If Subaru built the car, why would they allow Toyota to undercut them? The brand issue is not really relevant since everyone knows this is a Subaru underneath so why build a car and allow a competitor to sell it cheaper?http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/...
Interesting that the Subaru might cost £5k more
Presumably Subaru customers will have different tastes to Toyota customers and the specification may not be the same - if the GT 86 base price is £25k, the ones that most people buy will be around £28k anyway, I would have thought.
otolith said:
It was a superb car because it handled like a sports car while having four proper seats. OK. Rebuild it around a piston engine. Now it either doesn't handle like a sports car, or it doesn't have four proper seats. Oh, and the styling doesn't work either, because the low bonnet line is now impossible. Make it into a Jap 3-series clone - well, you can already buy one of those, it's called a Lexus IS, and people look at it and then invent an excuse to buy German instead.
I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge of the packaging of the car, but somehow I can't believe that engineers couldn't have come up with some innovative way of sticking a decent piston engine in the front of that car. Maybe they'd have had to design something specifically for the task... but I can't believe it would have been impossible. Maybe I'm wrong.otolith said:
Really, I don't understand why you would rather Mazda had made a rip-off of a BMW instead of something unique. There are loads of BMW 3-series, why not just buy one of those, why does the world need another wannabe?
I didn't say anything of the sort. What made the RX-8 special to me was its appearance (at the time; I think it's aged quite badly), its innovative doors allowing a coupe form but good usable rear access, and its setup combining lovely sharp handling with more-than-acceptable comfort.The engine might have made it unique in your eyes, but made it unpurchasable in mine - and I doubt I was alone.
otolith said:
How many RX-8s do you think Mazda managed to sell? Every year between 2003 and 2009, Mazda sold between two and four times as many RX-8s as Nissan sold 350Zs - you really think losing the rear seating would have sold more cars?
Who said anything about comparing it with a 350z? Is that some marker of success? Since you brought up BMW, why not compare its sales with the 3-series? That's mass-market appeal.mft said:
otolith said:
It was a superb car because it handled like a sports car while having four proper seats. OK. Rebuild it around a piston engine. Now it either doesn't handle like a sports car, or it doesn't have four proper seats. Oh, and the styling doesn't work either, because the low bonnet line is now impossible. Make it into a Jap 3-series clone - well, you can already buy one of those, it's called a Lexus IS, and people look at it and then invent an excuse to buy German instead.
I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge of the packaging of the car, but somehow I can't believe that engineers couldn't have come up with some innovative way of sticking a decent piston engine in the front of that car. Maybe they'd have had to design something specifically for the task... but I can't believe it would have been impossible. Maybe I'm wrong.The GT86 is a stab at doing that. They've had to use a four cylinder boxer engine (you need at least six cylinders for comparable smoothness to the rotary), they still don't quite have a front mid engine layout and they've still got no usable rear seating. This is how small the rotary engine is:
It's like saying you really love the modern compact, lightweight mobile phone, but you're not sold on the lithium ion battery technology and don't see why it can't come with a lead-acid car battery instead. The engine makes it all possible, if you can't live with the downside of it, you can't have the upside.
mft said:
otolith said:
Really, I don't understand why you would rather Mazda had made a rip-off of a BMW instead of something unique. There are loads of BMW 3-series, why not just buy one of those, why does the world need another wannabe?
I didn't say anything of the sort. What made the RX-8 special to me was its appearance (at the time; I think it's aged quite badly), its innovative doors allowing a coupe form but good usable rear access, and its setup combining lovely sharp handling with more-than-acceptable comfort.The engine might have made it unique in your eyes, but made it unpurchasable in mine - and I doubt I was alone.
The fact is that the styling, the handling and the comfort came about because it had a tiny little engine sat between the driver's feet and the passenger's. That gave a low bonnet line, rear seating room and concentrated the major masses of the car within the wheelbase, and that's why it handles - it is technically mid-engined. Lots of other front engined cars are also technically mid-engined, but they achieve it by losing the rear seating.
mft said:
otolith said:
How many RX-8s do you think Mazda managed to sell? Every year between 2003 and 2009, Mazda sold between two and four times as many RX-8s as Nissan sold 350Zs - you really think losing the rear seating would have sold more cars?
Who said anything about comparing it with a 350z? Is that some marker of success? Since you brought up BMW, why not compare its sales with the 3-series? That's mass-market appeal.otolith said:
It's like saying you really love the modern compact, lightweight mobile phone, but you're not sold on the lithium ion battery technology and don't see why it can't come with a lead-acid car battery instead.
No it isn't. The lithium battery works well. Using your analogy, It's more like saying you can have a modern, compact, lightweight mobile phone, with a lightweight battery that gives 5 minutes battery life. You get the packaging but the compromises are not sensible.
Anyhow, the lack of rear space in a BRZ/GT 86 is about keeping weight down, not packaging, since the overall dimensions are smaller than an RX-8.
LukeyLikey said:
Anyhow, the lack of rear space in a BRZ/GT 86 is about keeping weight down, not packaging, since the overall dimensions are smaller than an RX-8.
Extending the rear seating would shift the car's front:rear weight distribution unfavourably towards nose heaviness and would increase the moment of inertia of the car. It's packaging.LukeyLikey said:
No it isn't. The lithium battery works well. Using your analogy, It's more like saying you can have a modern, compact, lightweight mobile phone, with a lightweight battery that gives 5 minutes battery life.
You get the packaging but the compromises are not sensible.
A lead acid car battery would give an iPhone much better battery life than the lithium ion one that it has. It's an extreme scenario to make the point clear. A more realistic scenario would be demanding that my smartphone should have the same battery life that my old Nokia used to have.You get the packaging but the compromises are not sensible.
The point is that whether the compromise is worth it or not depends entirely upon your personal priorities. For me, it was worth it, because nothing else I could live with at the time drove so well.
there's a lot of hype surrounding this car, and there are a lot of excuses for it too.
put simply, its not an attractive car.
its not a quick car
its not a very practical car.
but for some reason, because its rwd, it all of a sudden becomes a "drivers" car.
bull****
it won't sell in great numbers.
why would it? for 25k you can have some really good,fast,attractive,practical "drivers" cars.
and you won't have to find yourself explaining to everyone why its great because its slow and ugly.
epic fail by toyubaru.
put simply, its not an attractive car.
its not a quick car
its not a very practical car.
but for some reason, because its rwd, it all of a sudden becomes a "drivers" car.
bull****
it won't sell in great numbers.
why would it? for 25k you can have some really good,fast,attractive,practical "drivers" cars.
and you won't have to find yourself explaining to everyone why its great because its slow and ugly.
epic fail by toyubaru.
bigfish786 said:
there's a lot of hype surrounding this car, and there are a lot of excuses for it too.
put simply, its not an attractive car.
its not a quick car
its not a very practical car.
but for some reason, because its rwd, it all of a sudden becomes a "drivers" car.
bull****
it won't sell in great numbers.
why would it? for 25k you can have some really good,fast,attractive,practical "drivers" cars.
and you won't have to find yourself explaining to everyone why its great because its slow and ugly.
epic fail by toyubaru.
And you're adding to the hype - why do you care so much? The thing that you are wrong on is sales; I hear they're selling very well globally. put simply, its not an attractive car.
its not a quick car
its not a very practical car.
but for some reason, because its rwd, it all of a sudden becomes a "drivers" car.
bull****
it won't sell in great numbers.
why would it? for 25k you can have some really good,fast,attractive,practical "drivers" cars.
and you won't have to find yourself explaining to everyone why its great because its slow and ugly.
epic fail by toyubaru.
P.S. the key that says 'Caps' or 'Capslk' (or something of that ilk) should be depressed before you type the first letter of a sentence and then once again before you type the second. HTH.
Ignore the 'better (or otherwise) engine' in the comparison with the RX8.
For me, the GT86 is a total non-starter - You cannot get 4 people in it... I don't care if they've put seats in, no-one can sit in the one behind the driver (probably not even a baby seat!).
The GT86 is more like a modern day RX7 2+2 (but obviously not the fast FD).
The RX8 will always divide opinion, but as a practical and affordable way to go quickly on a twisty road it takes a lot of beating.
M
For me, the GT86 is a total non-starter - You cannot get 4 people in it... I don't care if they've put seats in, no-one can sit in the one behind the driver (probably not even a baby seat!).
The GT86 is more like a modern day RX7 2+2 (but obviously not the fast FD).
The RX8 will always divide opinion, but as a practical and affordable way to go quickly on a twisty road it takes a lot of beating.
M
bigfish786 said:
there's a lot of hype surrounding this car, and there are a lot of excuses for it too.
put simply, its not an attractive car.
its not a quick car
its not a very practical car.
but for some reason, because its rwd, it all of a sudden becomes a "drivers" car.
bull****
.
I think much the same could be said of the Mx5. put simply, its not an attractive car.
its not a quick car
its not a very practical car.
but for some reason, because its rwd, it all of a sudden becomes a "drivers" car.
bull****
.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff