RE: Time for Tea? BR-Z and GT-86 take on MX-5

[Nicholls22]

I can see why people are kicking up a fuss on this. There are cars cheaper, better looking, just as practical and above all else allot faster cars out there. However, take a step back for second and think about what these two cars are about. These are two RWD coupes. What else is available in that price bracket in same category? Forget what you could get a few years back or what you can get used for that money, were talking about new and now…….. There’s the BMW 125i coupe already mentioned……erm...I’m still thinking…….erm.

I wouldn’t even compare these with the MX5 (based on the fact it has two seats less, the roof comes off and, well, it’s a roadster). The 370z is over 30k new I’m not mistaken? What’s more, it still only sits two. Everything else is FWD, 4WD, Electric drive….I think you get the picture.

Whilst I will agree, the price is a bit steep, and I don’t intend on trying to defend the people who agreed this price tag. But if you’re set on this setup and want nothing else, there isn’t much else out there. The buyer just has to be extremely picky on what he or she wants (i.e. “I want a brand new coupe with RWD and 4 seats, for no more 25k”).

All I can say is, good luck selling these at this price in a time of bad financial times. In my opinion, most of the people who can afford to splash 25k on a new car will most likely be attracted to the badges more than the setup of the car.

[MX7]

DanDC5 said:

The price of every car in this country is heavily loaded though. Any car for sale here and in the US has a huge price difference once you change the $ to £. It's a sad fact but it's true, using that as a negative against the Toyobaru is a non argument.

I take it you didn't read my comparison between the US and UK MX5?

[kambites]

jetpilot said:

IAJO said:

40mpg and fun. Forget equivelent priced cars that do 30mpg or 20mpg, 20mpg killed the rx8 a great car that sold well and goes for peanuts second hand because of 20mpg.

I will look forward to being proved wrong on this but if owners get anywhere near 40 mpg out of a boxer engine in real world driving i would be gobsmaked!

I don't really see why the piston orientation would have a significant effect on fuel economy at all? If anything, the fact that a boxer is better balanced than a straight engine should mean better efficiency because there's no need for balancer shafts and whatnot?

I do take the point about it having a bigger markup than some other cars vs other markets, but even with that larger markup it still seems an extremely good value car, to me.

[jetpilot]

kambites said:

I don't really see why the piston orientation would have a significant effect on fuel economy at all? If anything, the fact that a boxer is better balanced than a straight engine should mean better efficiency because there's no need for balancer shafts and whatnot?

Ask any Subaru owners about their consumption

[IAJO]

kambites said:

jetpilot said:

IAJO said:

40mpg and fun. Forget equivelent priced cars that do 30mpg or 20mpg, 20mpg killed the rx8 a great car that sold well and goes for peanuts second hand because of 20mpg.

I will look forward to being proved wrong on this but if owners get anywhere near 40 mpg out of a boxer engine in real world driving i would be gobsmaked!

I don't really see why the piston orientation would have a significant effect on fuel economy at all? If anything, the fact that a boxer is better balanced than a straight engine should mean better efficiency because there's no need for balancer shafts and whatnot?

I do take the point about it having a bigger markup than some other cars vs other markets, but even with that larger markup it still seems an extremely good value car, to me.

Tell you what you buy me one and i'll get back to you with a real world mpg figure in about 12 months lol. To be fair if its marketed at 40 it'll be more like 35 real world but all marketing mpg figures will vary by similar degrees. I'd be dissapointed if it only delivered 30mpg on smaller tyres with relatively light body weight and 200bhp from a new engine design.

[otolith]

jetpilot said:

Ask any Subaru owners about their consumption

Historically, Subarus have not been very economical, but we are told that there has been a great deal of effort by Toyota to bring this up to their standards of efficiency (which are somewhat higher). This car is also two wheel drive - I'm sure the permanent four wheel drive transmission has done nothing for Subaru fuel economy.

[Captain Muppet]

One of the most fun cars I ever had was a 160bhp RX7. It was also the second slowest car I've owned (and only then because of the 2CV I had as a student).

It was the same sort of weight as the toyobaru, and had the same sized tyres (on dreadful aftermarket wheels). I loved everything about it. The only real downsides were 19mpg and lots of rust. And the iffy electrics.

If I had fun driving that I'm pretty sure I can have fun driving something two and a half decades newer that has a bit more power. Which is why I'm going to test drive the GT86 as soon as my dealer gets his car.

I'm also going to stop reading about this car on the internet, because the combination of fun and cheap to run has been completely ignored by zillions of people who seem to think road driving is a race, or that fun only starts at a specific 0-60 time, or that rolling burnouts from flooring a car in any gear is the only worthwhile benefit of RWD, or that how the dashboard plastics feel is in any way even remotely important.

I'm not convinced it's even a good car, but it should be the sort of thing I'll like, so I'm going to find out by actually driving one, and I'll give up on the dozens of threads about it.

As for the price: if I enjoy it enough it's worth it, if I don't it isn't. What proportion of that cost is profit for someone else really doesn't matter to me at all.

[356Speedster]

otolith said:

A more powerful, more expensive (to run and buy) version would be a direct rival to the 370Z. Which, in case anyone hasn't noticed, Nissan is having to discount heavily to shift.

If you don't want an old car and are bored of hot hatches (easily done) but you can't afford to step up a level of ownership and running costs, this is for you. If you've got more money, you've got quicker options. The end.

Reaction to this car (even Evo's) is a bit depressing. There is no point engineering a sporting coupe with rear wheel drive, great front:rear weight distribution, naturally aspirated engine and low centre of gravity when so many people would rather have a souped up front wheel drive family car with none of those advantages. If this car isn't a success, I can see that being the end of that kind of venture, and we will have nothing but things based on shared hatchback platforms.

I think perhaps BMW have the right idea about dumping the naturally aspirated sixes, replacing them with turbo fours and going front wheel drive, I'm coming to the conclusion that most people don't appreciate or deserve anything better.

I am sort of with you, although as many manufacturers are showing running costs / emissions are not necessarily mutually exclusive from power / torque. We have turbo technology to thank there. The interesting thing is that if it had a blower pushing sensible power of say, 240bhp, it’d have almost the same in lb/ft and that 50% additional twisty stuff, which would make the car feel a good chunk brisker. Most manufacturers can knock out these engines cheaply enough, so a turbo-4 shouldn’t push the cost up by more than a few hundred £s.

If people are a little cold on the car, then I don’t think it’s fair to blame PH / evo-type folks for losing their spirit, I think instead we have to blame the market. We really are spoilt these days for very good quality and enjoyable cars. Hot hatches these days are so damn good underneath that their FWD chassis can flow every bit as well as a nice RWD one. The game has moved on. I for one am genuinely torn…… my comment above about considering the Toyobaru were true: my wife will need a new car shorly (the ST is 6yrs old and we’ve had it that long, so a change is due!). Having disposable income, enjoying fun cars and only needing a small back seat for the baby, I’d have thought I’m pretty target for one of these cars?

However, I think what the detractors are saying, is that it feels like something of a missed opportunity. Just putting together a low COG RWD chassis is not enough these days if you’re going to ask £25K+ for the car. I don’t mind Japanese interiors / plastics (and to Kozy's point above.... we had an MX5 before) and in the right colour, the Toyobaru can look pleasing enough, but it’s missing that little something in the end details…. And for me, it’s the engine. I feel that’s the missing ingredient, but given where the pricing has been pitched, if / when we get a blown version, it’ll be a £30K car and that really is too big of an ask.

[kambites]

jetpilot said:

kambites said:

I don't really see why the piston orientation would have a significant effect on fuel economy at all? If anything, the fact that a boxer is better balanced than a straight engine should mean better efficiency because there's no need for balancer shafts and whatnot?

Ask any Subaru owners about their consumption

I know that Subarus have dubious fuel consumption. I just don't see why that would be anything to do with the piston layout.

[DanDC5]

MX7 said:

DanDC5 said:

The price of every car in this country is heavily loaded though. Any car for sale here and in the US has a huge price difference once you change the $ to £. It's a sad fact but it's true, using that as a negative against the Toyobaru is a non argument.

I take it you didn't read my comparison between the US and UK MX5?

Yes I did, but it's still a non argument. End of the day the price there and here are what they are. If it's an issue then import one. Otherwise there's no point moaning about it, we're got what we've got.

[MX7]

DanDC5 said:

Yes I did, but it's still a non argument. End of the day the price there and here are what they are. If it's an issue then import one. Otherwise there's no point moaning about it, we're got what we've got.

If you can't answer the question, don't post.

[kambites]

I don't really see why the cost of a car in another country has any bearing on its value (or indeed anything else) here?

[DanDC5]

MX7 said:

If you can't answer the question, don't post.

Simple enough question, Did I read your post. Answer in the 1st sentence - Yes I did.

My opinion was after - It's still a non argument.

edit. As pointed out an equivalent spec MX5 with the 2 litre engine is £23k over here. So what exactly has the price loading got to do with anything?

That too difficult to comprehend that someone doesn't agree with you?

Edited by DanDC5 on Wednesday 2nd May 15:00

[DanDC5]

kambites said:

I don't really see why the cost of a car in another country has any bearing on its value (or indeed anything else) here?

Simple fact is it doesn't. It's just another weak reason to criticise this particular car.

[jamespink]

number1nesta said:

Er, has nobody noticed that the Toyobarus have to be worked really hard to get past the 'girly' MX-5. So, apart from the lack of masculinity, surely owning a good looking soft top is a better bet that owning one of the most uninspiring, badly styled and bland cars to come onto the market? Besides, the MX-5 would be much more attractive to the opposite sex whilst clearly being pretty nifty around a track.

Doesn't matter whether you put a Toyota badge or Subaru badge on the bonnet, it's still about as undesirable as it can get.

I agree completely. two seconds is all these £25k new cars could pull on an MX5, itself no ball of fire! They were ringin' the nuts of 'em to get past the hairdressers car... Oh Please! I doubt they would have done that without the inferior aerodynamics of a soft top... Pants

[MX7]

kambites said:

I don't really see why the cost of a car in another country has any bearing on its value (or indeed anything else) here?

It's to do with it's place in the market. I'm asking if anyone knows why Toyota would pitch the GT86 along side the MX5 in the US, but closer to the 370Z in the UK.

Unfortunately I'm not getting any answers that make sense.

[s m]

Johnboy Mac said:

It is a good question, especially when I read this below. I understood 'kerb' allowed 75kg for the driver, half tank of fuel and complete tool kit including spare wheel where applicable - very unsure now.



''General remarks for specifications

Kerb weight

As far as possible, AutoZine refers kerb weight to DIN kerb weight, i.e., car with all fluid and fuel tank 90% full, but without driver.

Most European car makers now quote only kerb weight according to new ECE (European) standard, which is DIN kerb weight + 75kg (68kg driver and 7kg luggage).

Many journalists confuse DIN and ECE figures thus made wrong comparison between cars. For a fair comparison, AutoZine always converts ECE figures into DIN. However, sometimes it is impossible to identify the obtained figures.

SAE (American) and JIS (Japanese) kerb weight seems to be different too - only half tank of fuel is needed. Otherwise same as DIN. This could be around 20-30kg lighter than DIN for most cars.

Some sports car specialists quote only dry weight, which is the car without any fluid, fuel and driver. Generally this could be around 90-100kg lighter than DIN''

Autocar give a kerb weight and an 'as tested' weight.
I think the kerb weight is just the car with half a tank but the as tested will include the 2 testers and test equipment. Certainly the 'as tested' weight in today's issue was 160kg more than kerb weight

[jamespink]

kambites said:

jetpilot said:

kambites said:

I don't really see why the piston orientation would have a significant effect on fuel economy at all? If anything, the fact that a boxer is better balanced than a straight engine should mean better efficiency because there's no need for balancer shafts and whatnot?

Ask any Subaru owners about their consumption

I know that Subarus have dubious fuel consumption. I just don't see why that would be anything to do with the piston layout.

You can have good power "on the cheap"! but the result is high consumption (any fast Ford). BMW (for example) on the other hand spend the money on the engine development to produce power with economy. Development costs are a million miles apart.

[Johnboy Mac]

jetpilot said:

Ask any Subaru owners about their consumption

You mean the heavier, turbo'ed, 4x4's with 10-50% more power that lack Toyota knowhow. As, already stated the four cylinder layout should have little or nothing to do with M.P.G.. Ask any Alfa Sud owners from years gone by.

[jamespink]

braddo said:

MX7 said:

So as long as the most expensive markets charge more, we're getting a good deal?!!

Really, if you think that there's a logical reason why a very similar car costs £10k less in another country, so be it.

There will not be any illogical reasons for the £10k difference. Just some reasons that you don't like.

My guess is mix of:
- different tax regimes
- higher freight costs to Europe
- different spec levels
- higher unit costs for RHD cars (lower volumes)?
- different profit margin levels across countries, both for the importers and dealers (different costs bases and volumes sold -> different prices).
- competitors - the US have stuff like cheap Mustangs and for all you know, margins for the new Scion might be razor thin as a result. Toyota/Subaru can afford a higher selling price here because the competition is different.

I see the thin arguments for a higher UK price but come on... £10k - your 'avin a larf!