Discussion
Ecosseven said:
For a driver of my average ability and for the type of driving I do I would probably take a Scirocco over a GT86.
You don't need to be a driving god for the Toybaru. It's a very composed chassis with plenty of traction (certainly in the dry) and just enough RWD feel to make it interesting. As some of the magazines have suggested, if you can keep an MX5 pointing in the right direction you'd be okay with a BRZ/GT 86.Dr G said:
Autocar weigh with fuel and a driver don't they?
They quote a kerb weight ( bare car driven to test station ) - also a weight as tested with test equipment and testers on board http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/autocar-road-te...
Baron von Teuchter said:
Bit of a thread resurrection...has anyone actually weighed a GT86 or BRZ?
most consistent place to get actual measured weights is from Car&Driver (recently not accessible from the UK)Gt86 was 1270 with fluids & fuel IIRC
not really that impressive, but the engine is very heavy, 55:45 weight distribution
My Mazda 3 2.0 weighs the same yet is much bigger and doesn't feel nearly as tin can like (that said the 86 is easily the most fun car I've had)
underphil said:
My Mazda 3 2.0 weighs the same yet is much bigger and doesn't feel nearly as tin can like (that said the 86 is easily the most fun car I've had)
Your Mazda 3 has its transmission close coupled to the engine and that whole assembly sat some distance above the front axle. It's weight distribution is probably 65% front. It may be a fine hatchback but there's no point comparing its weight against a sports car. The centre of gravity of the GT86 engine is much lower. It's largely behind the front axle line. The gearbox is in the middle of the car. The diff is at the back...
underphil said:
Baron von Teuchter said:
Bit of a thread resurrection...has anyone actually weighed a GT86 or BRZ?
most consistent place to get actual measured weights is from Car&Driver (recently not accessible from the UK)Gt86 was 1270 with fluids & fuel IIRC
not really that impressive, but the engine is very heavy, 55:45 weight distribution
My Mazda 3 2.0 weighs the same yet is much bigger and doesn't feel nearly as tin can like (that said the 86 is easily the most fun car I've had)
Car ready to drive - half a tank, no driver, no luggage -1235kg
HustleRussell said:
underphil said:
My Mazda 3 2.0 weighs the same yet is much bigger and doesn't feel nearly as tin can like (that said the 86 is easily the most fun car I've had)
Your Mazda 3 has its transmission close coupled to the engine and that whole assembly sat some distance above the front axle. It's weight distribution is probably 65% front. It may be a fine hatchback but there's no point comparing its weight against a sports car. The centre of gravity of the GT86 engine is much lower. It's largely behind the front axle line. The gearbox is in the middle of the car. The diff is at the back...
underphil said:
I do know all of that having owned both.. ..just saying the GT86 is surprisingly heavy for what it is
But is it?What other 2+2 coupes of similar size and mass market construction (i.e. not a fibreglass TVR), weigh considerably less?
A 1994 Nissan 200SX weighs in at 1270kg for instance.
Even a 1981 Ford Capri 2.8i was 1190kg.
The 2 seater BMW Z4 Coupe (2006) is 1395kg.
300bhp/ton said:
underphil said:
I do know all of that having owned both.. ..just saying the GT86 is surprisingly heavy for what it is
But is it?What other 2+2 coupes of similar size and mass market construction (i.e. not a fibreglass TVR), weigh considerably less?
A 1994 Nissan 200SX weighs in at 1270kg for instance.
Even a 1981 Ford Capri 2.8i was 1190kg.
The 2 seater BMW Z4 Coupe (2006) is 1395kg.
Look at C-segment hatchbacks - compared to 2 generations ago they have got a lot bigger, and in many cases got lighter too, the same advances should be possible in a 2+2 coupe. I guess the things holding the GT86 weight up are the boxer engine (extra 40-50 KG vs Mazda Skyactiv?) and much of the suspension/brakes which was developed for an older AWD car
underphil said:
Those cars are 2+ generations behind the GT86 though
Look at C-segment hatchbacks - compared to 2 generations ago they have got a lot bigger, and in many cases got lighter too, the same advances should be possible in a 2+2 coupe. I guess the things holding the GT86 weight up are the boxer engine (extra 40-50 KG vs Mazda Skyactiv?) and much of the suspension/brakes which was developed for an older AWD car
I do hear where you are coming from.Look at C-segment hatchbacks - compared to 2 generations ago they have got a lot bigger, and in many cases got lighter too, the same advances should be possible in a 2+2 coupe. I guess the things holding the GT86 weight up are the boxer engine (extra 40-50 KG vs Mazda Skyactiv?) and much of the suspension/brakes which was developed for an older AWD car
Not sure get the comment about the suspension/brakes though? Shocks are all going to be pretty similar, no matter the vehicle. Same with the rest of the suspension, lower arms will typically be pressed steel items. Of course bespoke lightweight parts can be used, but I can't see 100's of KG's being saved in these areas.
BTW - do you have any examples of the hatchbacks?
Just had a look:
2004 Focus MK2 2.0 litre | 1322kg | 170.9" long | 72.4" wide |
2018 Focus MK4* 2.0 litre | 1355kg | 171.7" long | 74.1" wide |
*pretty sure it's a MK4 not 3
About the same size as the older model and slightly heavier.
underphil said:
Those cars are 2+ generations behind the GT86 though
Look at C-segment hatchbacks - compared to 2 generations ago they have got a lot bigger, and in many cases got lighter too, the same advances should be possible in a 2+2 coupe. I guess the things holding the GT86 weight up are the boxer engine (extra 40-50 KG vs Mazda Skyactiv?) and much of the suspension/brakes which was developed for an older AWD car
has the C-segment been getting lighter?Look at C-segment hatchbacks - compared to 2 generations ago they have got a lot bigger, and in many cases got lighter too, the same advances should be possible in a 2+2 coupe. I guess the things holding the GT86 weight up are the boxer engine (extra 40-50 KG vs Mazda Skyactiv?) and much of the suspension/brakes which was developed for an older AWD car
let's be under no illusion that the GT86 is a mash up, focusing on some areas to the exclusion of others. all in very deliberate contrast to the C-segment stuff. twice the price gets you an A110.
300bhp/ton said:
underphil said:
Those cars are 2+ generations behind the GT86 though
Look at C-segment hatchbacks - compared to 2 generations ago they have got a lot bigger, and in many cases got lighter too, the same advances should be possible in a 2+2 coupe. I guess the things holding the GT86 weight up are the boxer engine (extra 40-50 KG vs Mazda Skyactiv?) and much of the suspension/brakes which was developed for an older AWD car
I do hear where you are coming from.Look at C-segment hatchbacks - compared to 2 generations ago they have got a lot bigger, and in many cases got lighter too, the same advances should be possible in a 2+2 coupe. I guess the things holding the GT86 weight up are the boxer engine (extra 40-50 KG vs Mazda Skyactiv?) and much of the suspension/brakes which was developed for an older AWD car
Not sure get the comment about the suspension/brakes though? Shocks are all going to be pretty similar, no matter the vehicle. Same with the rest of the suspension, lower arms will typically be pressed steel items. Of course bespoke lightweight parts can be used, but I can't see 100's of KG's being saved in these areas.
BTW - do you have any examples of the hatchbacks?
Just had a look:
2004 Focus MK2 2.0 litre | 1322kg | 170.9" long | 72.4" wide |
2018 Focus MK4* 2.0 litre | 1355kg | 171.7" long | 74.1" wide |
*pretty sure it's a MK4 not 3
About the same size as the older model and slightly heavier.
Perhaps it's more the way that the packaging of the car has changed - the newer ones certainly look much larger when you see them side by side on the motorway. I think that the lengths are often similar but the wheelbases grow by 2-3 inches which along with a similar increase in width gives much more useable interior room. Also less taper on the sides of the car possibly
underphil said:
I guess that with a lot of them (Focus) they have also got considerably faster, the current 1.0 ecoboost Focus probably offers similar performance to the Mk2 2.0
It's not unsurprising. 1.0 litre with a turbo and force in 1 atmosphere of boost (14.7psi) and you are effectively getting 2.0 litres capacity from a 1 litre displacement.But add a turbo to a 2.0 litre and you are more likely matching the performance of most n/a/ 4.0-5.0 litre V8's for the same reasons.
underphil said:
I guess the things holding the GT86 weight up are the boxer engine (extra 40-50 KG vs Mazda Skyactiv?) and much of the suspension/brakes which was developed for an older AWD car
How heavy is the the Skyactiv engine? Which also makes a fair bit less power. I can't find a weight for the Skyactiv online, but the FA20 boxer is listed at 171kg. Mazda are very focussed on weight reduction as a company, but even so I'd be surprised if they had managed to make an engine ~30% lighter with the same capacity. Also depends whether weights are quoted with ancillaries attached or bare engine.As for the suspension/brakes being developed for an older AWD car, I don't know where you get that idea from? I'm sure they didn't just whip them off an Impreza and chuck them on the BRZ/GT86 unchanged!
They may be heavier than shopping car suspension/brakes due to being engineered for better control and higher forces being applied though, same with the monocoque and subframes etc. Then there is the weight of a driveshaft and rear diff to consider...
Edited by GravelBen on Friday 7th December 22:56
Gassing Station | Japanese Chat | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff