RE: Toyota GT86 TRD - official

[imp75]

tommy1973s said:

Agree 100%. This car needs nothing more and everything you add to it wiprecedence up. It's not meant to be a 'grip n grunt missile' for people who can't drive - there are enough of those cars out there already; stop screwing up a nice little sports car with this adolescent crap.

Perhaps Toyota is just responding to the "track look" obsessed market. Many people confuse grip with fun and as for the track-day look heroes who prefer dynamically-pointless big bling wheels and rigid "suspensions", suggest either penile-enhancement surgery or perhaps they could buy a steam roller. Google "Porsche 911 3.0 Rally Chris Harris" for a clip which shows the ideal wheel size / arch clearance when done by rally experts who know what they're doing.

Very well said, so many here seem to to have no idea that real dynamic benefits should take presedence over idiots sucked in by marketing!

[glazbagun]

This thread makes me curious about how well Lotus is doing with its entry level 1.6 Elise.

[otolith]

The problem with the 1.6 Elise is that drivetrain apart it's mechanically no different to the more powerful models. You aren't getting a lighter car or a better weight distribution or a better throttle response or whatever. And the car is as grippy as any other Elise.

[marcosgt]

imp75 said:

tommy1973s said:

Agree 100%. This car needs nothing more and everything you add to it wiprecedence up. It's not meant to be a 'grip n grunt missile' for people who can't drive - there are enough of those cars out there already; stop screwing up a nice little sports car with this adolescent crap.

Perhaps Toyota is just responding to the "track look" obsessed market. Many people confuse grip with fun and as for the track-day look heroes who prefer dynamically-pointless big bling wheels and rigid "suspensions", suggest either penile-enhancement surgery or perhaps they could buy a steam roller. Google "Porsche 911 3.0 Rally Chris Harris" for a clip which shows the ideal wheel size / arch clearance when done by rally experts who know what they're doing.

Very well said, so many here seem to to have no idea that real dynamic benefits should take presedence over idiots sucked in by marketing!

Sadly most people are 'people who can't drive' (or maybe people who think driving is bragging in the pub about the BHP and 0-60 figures. PH is full of posts about dreary, ill-handling barges with big engines being "Proper PHer" cars.

The naysayers tell you can't exploit the handling of a GT86 like car on public roads, but they clearly are the kind who storm down the straights and slow to 20 for the bends (you know, the ones you follow EVERY day).

If you don't like the GT86, buy something else and leave the GT86 to people who appreciate what Toyobaru have created.

M

[bobberz]

Toyota fail.... for now. I still believe they'll release a turbo version in due time.

Also, quad exhaust on a 200BHP four cylinder?

[Captain Muppet]

MC Bodge said:

cidered77 said:

They don't make cars like theses for romance - they make them because they think an niche of buyers can be encouraged to pay for a product that delivers them a higher margin than the normal saloons/mini-cabs they chuck out. In this case, i am sure a load of people on these forums felt initially excited, then read the slightly underwhelming reviews, saw the raw stats, realised its upgrade potential is limited short of a scary looking bolt-on, and then moved on to the Megane/370z/M135i...

Does it all have to be about raw stats?

I personally see very few 370zs and M135i's around the Manchester area.

The Top Gear GT86 feature was fairly positive, if a bit simplistic. The wet(if that was the actual timed session and not just wet weather show-boating) Stig Lap wasn't actually too shabby, although no mention was made of the wet conditions afterwards and the time was glossed over -because the car wasn't supposed to be about lap times?

ps. I wonder how the car would handle with some Rainsports fitted?

Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 10th February 21:04

Here are some numbers. From the Top Gear laps wiki page...

01:31.3 Toyota GT86 (Damp)
01:31.4 Audi TT Mk.II 2.0T
01:31.8 BMW M3 E46
01:31.8 Nissan 350Z
01:31.8 Mazda RX-8
01:32.8 Honda Civic Type-R (EP3-2004 Facelifted)
01:33.3 Volkswagen Golf Mk.IV R32
01:39:0 Subaru Impreza WRX

Hmm. Not a bad damp lap time for something slow with no grip.

[MC Bodge]

Captain Muppet said:

Here are some numbers. From the Top Gear laps wiki page...

01:31.3 Toyota GT86 (Damp)
01:31.4 Audi TT Mk.II 2.0T
01:31.8 BMW M3 E46
01:31.8 Nissan 350Z
01:31.8 Mazda RX-8
01:32.8 Honda Civic Type-R (EP3-2004 Facelifted)
01:33.3 Volkswagen Golf Mk.IV R32
01:39:0 Subaru Impreza WRX

Hmm. Not a bad damp lap time for something slow with no grip.

The 'point' JC was making was that the car was fun to drive, and I'm all in favour, but it seems strange to play down it's presumably decent abilities in comparison with other cars around the track. The damp 'lap' did show the tail wagging a bit, which may require some skill to tame, but even so, I'd have thought that JC would have made more of it.

Then again, it's only TV.

ps. Are the "Prius tyres" really that lacking in grip or is the Prius well-tyred?

[Captain Muppet]

MC Bodge said:

Captain Muppet said:

Here are some numbers. From the Top Gear laps wiki page...

01:31.3 Toyota GT86 (Damp)
01:31.4 Audi TT Mk.II 2.0T
01:31.8 BMW M3 E46
01:31.8 Nissan 350Z
01:31.8 Mazda RX-8
01:32.8 Honda Civic Type-R (EP3-2004 Facelifted)
01:33.3 Volkswagen Golf Mk.IV R32
01:39:0 Subaru Impreza WRX

Hmm. Not a bad damp lap time for something slow with no grip.

The 'point' JC was making was that the car was fun to drive, and I'm all in favour, but it seems strange to play down it's presumably decent abilities in comparison with other cars around the track. The damp 'lap' did show the tail wagging a bit, which may require some skill to tame, but even so, I'd have thought that JC would have made more of it.

Then again, it's only TV.

ps. Are the "Prius tyres" really that lacking in grip or is the Prius well-tyred?

I thought the numbers made interesting reading, especially if any of the "needs more power" and "low grip tyres" people actually read it and think about it.

I very much doubt that it's fastest time was set with it oversteering round the track. Oversteer is a choice that the car gives you, you don't have to do it on every corner (unless you want dramatic footage for TV, or think it's fun).

The tyres aren't particularly slidy, they just seemed like normal tyres to me when I drove a GT86.

[MC Bodge]

Captain Muppet said:

I thought the numbers made interesting reading, especially if any of the "needs more power" and "low grip tyres" people actually read it and think about it.

They won't though. Prejudice is prejudice, they've already made up their minds. I'm not sure why JC didn't point out that the car was fun to drive, and still had decent performance in the real world, away from a drag race against a GTR or a Hayabusa.

Captain Muppet said:

I very much doubt that it's fastest time was set with it oversteering round the track. Oversteer is a choice that the car gives you, you don't have to do it on every corner (unless you want dramatic footage for TV, or think it's fun).

I did wonder if some of the more gullible viewers would be watching thinking that the car was a dangerous liability that couldn't travel in a straight line....

Captain Muppet said:

The tyres aren't particularly slidy, they just seemed like normal tyres to me when I drove a GT86.

As I'd suspected, but the 'Prius tyres' thing will be something that follows this car around for years, no matter whether or not the Prius is fitted with decent tyres.

[Gary C]

So it was significantly faster round than an rx8 231?

Not bad and I can confirm an RX8 is a sharp handler and fast enough to be fun.

All I need to do is decide between the 86 & brz.

I have had a 265hp impreza and a 350hp evo and power in a grippy chassis is great but so was the rx. The evo was a monster, and I knew one day it would probably cost me my licence, whereas the rx was fun at much more sensible speeds.

The gt86 seems just the car I want.

(And my 911 too)

[StormLoaded]

Captain Muppet said:

Here are some numbers. From the Top Gear laps wiki page...

01:31.3 Toyota GT86 (Damp)
01:31.4 Audi TT Mk.II 2.0T
01:31.8 BMW M3 E46
01:31.8 Nissan 350Z
01:31.8 Mazda RX-8
01:32.8 Honda Civic Type-R (EP3-2004 Facelifted)
01:33.3 Volkswagen Golf Mk.IV R32
01:39:0 Subaru Impreza WRX

Hmm. Not a bad damp lap time for something slow with no grip.

It seems it did the same time in the damp as a VX220 Turbo did it (presumably dry as it doesn't say) 1:31.3

VX220 turbo, 4.9s to 60; 930kg weight.. maybe the new stig is just super fast .. Or maybe Toyota/Subaru actually know what they are doing.

[Steve vRS]

Captain Muppet said:

Here are some numbers. From the Top Gear laps wiki page...

01:31.3 Toyota GT86 (Damp)

01:39:0 Subaru Impreza WRX

Hmm. Not a bad damp lap time for something slow with no grip.

Surely an Impreza is faster than 1:39?

Steve

[elementad]

Steve vRS said:

Captain Muppet said:

Here are some numbers. From the Top Gear laps wiki page...

01:31.3 Toyota GT86 (Damp)

01:39:0 Subaru Impreza WRX

Hmm. Not a bad damp lap time for something slow with no grip.

Surely an Impreza is faster than 1:39?

Steve

There are loads of different versions of the impreza much quicker on that board if you check them out.

01:26.0 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII MR FQ320 04.04
01:26.2 BMW M5 (E60)
01:26.2 Porsche 911 Carrera S (997) (damp) 10.02
01:26.2 Brabus S Biturbo Roadster 09.04
01:26.3 Vauxhall VXR8 Bathurst S 13.07
01:26.4 Lotus Exige (mildly moist) 04.01
01:26.5 BMW M3 E92 Competition Pack (moist) 16.05
01:26.7 Porsche Cayman S[6] 07.02
01:26.7 Jaguar XFR
01:26.8 Chevrolet Corvette C6 LS2 04.10
01:26.8 Aston Martin V12 Vantage (Not Shown on TV)[4]
01:26.8 Ferrari 575M Maranello GTC 05.04
01:26.9 Lexus IS-F 12.05
01:26.9 Mercedes-Benz CLS55 AMG 06.01
01:27:0 BMW M5 E39
01:27:0 KTM X-Bow (Driven by new Stig)
01:27.1 Aston Martin Vanquish S 05.04
01:27.1 Aston Martin DB9 04.01
01:27.1 HSV Maloo 13.07
01:27.2 Porsche 911 GT3 (996) (very wet; last car tested by Black Stig prior to HMS Invincible "incident") 03.01
01:27.2 Tesla Roadster (mildly moist) 12.07
01:27.3 Spyker C8 Spyder (with hard top) 04.07
01:27.4 Aston Martin DBS (wet) 10.07
01:27.5 Audi RS5 (moist) 16.05
01:27.5 Nissan 370Z GT 13.06
01:27.5 TVR T350C 02.10
01:27.7 Cosworth Impreza STI CS400 (wet) 16.03
01:27.9 Wiesmann MF 3 06.03
01:27.9 Chevrolet Camaro SS 15.03
01:28.0 Roush Mustang
01:28.0 BMW M3 CSL (E46) (wet)[7] 03.02
01:28.1 Renault Mégane R26.R 13.04
01:28.2 BMW Z4 sDrive35i (E89) 13.06
01:28.2 BMW X5 M (E70) (wet) 14.04
01:28.2 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X FQ-300
01:28.2 Marcos TSO GT2 07.05
01:28.2 Lotus Elise Sport 190
01:28.2 Subaru Impreza WRX STI
01:28.5 Dodge Viper SRT-10 (very wet) 05.03
01:28.6 MG XPower SV 03.07
01:28.7 Porsche Boxster S 08.04
01:28.7 Audi TT MTM Bimoto (cold tyres) 01.10
01:28.9 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII MR FQ-300
01:28.9 Porsche 997 Carrera S (very wet)
01:29.0 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG
01:29.0 Lamborghini Murciélago (partly damp) 01.01
01:29.0 Alpina Z8 Roadster
01:29.2 BMW M5 (F10) (Very Wet) 18.07
01:29.3 Ford Focus RS Mk II 13.04
01:29.4 Subaru Impreza WRX STI WR1 (very wet)
01:29.6 Volkswagen Golf GTI W12-650 Concept 10.01
01:30.0 Autodelta Alfa Romeo 147 GTA 3.7

[bicycleshorts]

elementad said:

Steve vRS said:

Surely an Impreza is faster than 1:39?

Steve

There are loads of different versions of the impreza much quicker on that board if you check them out.

Looking at the wikipedia page, why are some of them not tied to an episode? Was the WRX on there at the start of the current format as an establishing time or something?

[otolith]

StormLoaded said:

It seems it did the same time in the damp as a VX220 Turbo did it (presumably dry as it doesn't say) 1:31.3

VX220 turbo, 4.9s to 60; 930kg weight.. maybe the new stig is just super fast .. Or maybe Toyota/Subaru actually know what they are doing.

I think you may be over-analysing Top Gear lap times

More lap times here if you want a broader picture:

http://fastestlaps.com/cars/toyota_ft-86.html

[MC Bodge]

The Lap time isn't really that important, but the narrative of the piece was that the car was about being fun (or giving the impression that it is impossible to keep in a straight line on plastic tyres?!), not fast. In "reality"(TV Land?) it appears that the performance on a 'power circuit' isn't particularly lacking, which could be a selling point?

Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 12th February 21:55

[StormLoaded]

otolith said:

StormLoaded said:

It seems it did the same time in the damp as a VX220 Turbo did it (presumably dry as it doesn't say) 1:31.3

VX220 turbo, 4.9s to 60; 930kg weight.. maybe the new stig is just super fast .. Or maybe Toyota/Subaru actually know what they are doing.

I think you may be over-analysing Top Gear lap times

More lap times here if you want a broader picture:

http://fastestlaps.com/cars/toyota_ft-86.html

Indeed it's just nice to see something fairly positive,. I saw another review (possibly where the ring time came from in your link) with the GT86 coming in only c4-5 seconds slower than an S2000 around the nurburgring .. Which impressed me more.
I sold my S2k for one and the 86 is definitely slower (It's a lot more fun though .. No doubt).. But to come within 5 seconds after all those miles is impressive i'd say.

Same bridgestone rubber for that ring time though, (Prius rubber taken off) but the gt86 was still on slimmer tyres (215 allround vs 215 front 245 rear on the s2k), and noticeably less power (similar weight).. Once the gt86 gets out of first gear and into its groove it's clearly no slouch.. I think on a dry/grippy day a BRZ would do somewhat better as well.. It's more track focused in its setup i believe vs the gt86s 'lets play' attitude...

[KennyGT]

Looks better than the standard one. Which im not a massive fan of. I think getting rid of the 'LEXARSE' lights would make the back of it look a lot better.

[crispyshark]

StormLoaded said:

Indeed it's just nice to see something fairly positive,. I saw another review (possibly where the ring time came from in your link) with the GT86 coming in only c4-5 seconds slower than an S2000 around the nurburgring .. Which impressed me more.
I sold my S2k for one and the 86 is definitely slower (It's a lot more fun though .. No doubt).. But to come within 5 seconds after all those miles is impressive i'd say.

Same bridgestone rubber for that ring time though, (Prius rubber taken off) but the gt86 was still on slimmer tyres (215 allround vs 215 front 245 rear on the s2k), and noticeably less power (similar weight).. Once the gt86 gets out of first gear and into its groove it's clearly no slouch.. I think on a dry/grippy day a BRZ would do somewhat better as well.. It's more track focused in its setup i believe vs the gt86s 'lets play' attitude...

I've got the 86 for the next week on a road test....pretty much spent every opportunity I could get today in the car as it makes me smile so much. Anyhow, I digress, having also owned an S2000 the 86 gear box reminds me of the Honda, bloody fantastic!

Having driven this car I don't feel it's underpowered (excuse earlier posts before id driven it), in fact it feels perfectly balanced, I don't bother with the traction control and keep it in sport mode.

Edited by crispyshark on Tuesday 12th February 23:42

Edited by crispyshark on Tuesday 12th February 23:43

[Gary C]

crispyshark said:

Having driven his car I don't feel it's underpowered (excuse earlier posts before id driven it), in fact it feels perfectly balanced, I don both with the traction control and keep it in sport mode.

That's good to hear.