- The riddle pf the Toyota GT86- the car for purist drivers.
Discussion
daemon said:
No problem then - i'll let it get back to the GT86 fanboys indulging themselves (24 pages and counting when i entered the foray this morning) and trying to convince each other that there arent better cars out there for similar money and such people who dont "get" the GT86 simply arent "purists"
Go ahead, lads, knock yourselves out.
But every 'what hatch thread' you relentlessly plug the A45. Go ahead, lads, knock yourselves out.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 January 18:05
Stop being so sensitive, it's the Internet for goodness sake!
People who don't like it probably aren't "purists" of that particular type of purity, though indeed some people who do like that kind of thing might find the compromises necessary in making a 2+2 daily driver too much for their taste. But the Church of Petrol is broad. Different car people take pleasure from different aspects of car ownership.
I drove one when it was launched. I liked it, a lot. If I had to have a one-car solution, it would be a strong candidate. But I don't.
I drove one when it was launched. I liked it, a lot. If I had to have a one-car solution, it would be a strong candidate. But I don't.
daemon said:
Gary C said:
Good point.
Yes the Subaru and the Evo had lots of power but they were more than that, certainly the Evo was a gnats from a competition car, fantastic engineering (stripping a rear diff down is fun) rather than just about the power.
Don't mean that power is not good, just why is the 86 not selling too well and it must be that the people who won't buy it do so because they cant get over the perceived lack of power rather than what the car does well.
Nothing wrong with a fast powerful car, but a lot to like about a well balanced chassis, rwd and a manual gearbox.
Exactly - so why were you saying that the OTHER people might buy OTHER more powerful cars were purely for bragging rights? Yes the Subaru and the Evo had lots of power but they were more than that, certainly the Evo was a gnats from a competition car, fantastic engineering (stripping a rear diff down is fun) rather than just about the power.
Don't mean that power is not good, just why is the 86 not selling too well and it must be that the people who won't buy it do so because they cant get over the perceived lack of power rather than what the car does well.
Nothing wrong with a fast powerful car, but a lot to like about a well balanced chassis, rwd and a manual gearbox.
When clearly there are perfectly good reasons for having a car with more power - as youve just described?
Edited by daemon on Sunday 22 January 12:47
Let's face it, the majority of car buyers don't have a clue and can only decide on what's said down the pub or written in the brochure. As such a large enough group of people necessary for good sales figures are keeping clear even though it gives so many of the things people enjoy in driving.
People are being put off by its apparent lack of power
Why, is it actually too slow or are a large number of new car buying people more impressed by power ?
Now my Evo V had so much more than just power. The power matched its chassis perfectly and made a great car to drive. The RX8 had much less power but again, the power matched the car perfectly. Now if I was only excited by power I would have gone nowhere near the RX after an Evo, even the 911 is less powerful than the Evo but again it's fine for its grip.
Yes. I think there is a tendency to avoid the GT86 because they want the numbers.
Forgot the 370z of course that's a good challenger. Sort of proves the point.
Edited by Gary C on Sunday 22 January 18:28
But the Boxster does lack "focus" - to be focussed on something it would by definition have to do something else badly as a result and it just doesn't. "Focus" is not, in itself, a good thing; it just seems to be a necessary evil if you want a car that truly excels at any one thing.
Edited by kambites on Sunday 22 January 21:03
I agree entirely; there's a far bigger market for a car which does nothing badly than a car which does any one thing particularly well.
I think this is why the MX5 sells so much better than the GT86 - compared to its obvious coupe competition, the GT86 is compromised in terms of refinement and practicality. Compared to its roadster competition, the MX5 really doesn't do anything badly.
I think this is why the MX5 sells so much better than the GT86 - compared to its obvious coupe competition, the GT86 is compromised in terms of refinement and practicality. Compared to its roadster competition, the MX5 really doesn't do anything badly.
rockin said:
That's pathetic. Might as well say blue cars are "drivers' cars" but red cars "aren't".
If you wish to argue that the Boxster is a more focused car than the Cayman, take it up with Porsche. Perhaps they'll explain why they created the GT4 on that platform?It's a truly bizarre comment to make tbh.
I'm still yet to hear a convincing reason why it can't have 240bhp. Another 40bhp that's all.
And before we have the supercharger, turbo, 6 cylinder arguement both Honda and Porsche, many years ago prior to the tech available today had 240bhp normally aspirated 4 cylinder engines and both had renowned handling.
Turbo? It's not exactly that Japanese coupes of old that everyone longs for were ruined by a turbo.
I
And before we have the supercharger, turbo, 6 cylinder arguement both Honda and Porsche, many years ago prior to the tech available today had 240bhp normally aspirated 4 cylinder engines and both had renowned handling.
Turbo? It's not exactly that Japanese coupes of old that everyone longs for were ruined by a turbo.
I
Pommygranite said:
both Honda and Porsche, many years ago prior to the tech available today had 240bhp normally aspirated 4 cylinder engines and both had renowned handling.
That was also prior to all the emissions regulations we have today though. What's the highest specific output mainstream car engine on the market at the moment? kambites said:
Pommygranite said:
both Honda and Porsche, many years ago prior to the tech available today had 240bhp normally aspirated 4 cylinder engines and both had renowned handling.
That was also prior to all the emissions regulations we have today though. What's the highest specific output mainstream car engine on the market at the moment? kambites said:
That was also prior to all the emissions regulations we have today though. What's the highest specific output mainstream car engine on the market at the moment?
Indeed. It seems these days, the last bastion of really wild specific output for N/A engines is motorcycles. I'm sure Toyota could easily make a more powerful NA engine for the GT86. They're often overlooked next to Honda's excellent engines but their BEAMS engine was a firecracker 20 years ago! Emissions are what has killed that off. I still think the GT86 could be a hit. They'll never supercharge it, I think their last in-house supercharger was on the final Corolla T-Sport and it probably cost Toyota a bit of cash to make. A turbo on the other hand, would be cheaper and simpler to design and would open the car up to the tuner's market wholesale. A 241bhp turbo unit would be comparable to the Rev 3 MR2 Turbo with room for more mapping. Supras, 200SX, RX7 - they are arguably heralded for their turbos moreso than anything else!
rockin said:
Well so you say. But just remember how many manufacturers of "focused enthusiast cars" have gone bust because they're trying to sell vehicles to a creature which only exists in the minds of internet dweebs who don't actually buy cars....
My garage speaks for itself.
I must be an Internet Dweeb in that case as my garage speaks for itself too.My garage speaks for itself.
Pommygranite said:
I'm still yet to hear a convincing reason why it can't have 240bhp. Another 40bhp that's all.
I
Emissions rules. That is the answer, pure and simple.I
Honda only got 240hp by having a 9000rpm redline and I think it might have been the ONLY 2 litre four in mainstream production ever to hit 120hp/litre. And I believe they had to stop selling it 8-10 years ago because it couldn't pass EU emissions regs.
I do think a 2.5L version of the GT86 would be an interesting option. Whether anyone would buy it would be another matter.
braddo said:
Pommygranite said:
I'm still yet to hear a convincing reason why it can't have 240bhp. Another 40bhp that's all.
I
Emissions rules. That is the answer, pure and simple.I
Honda only got 240hp by having a 9000rpm redline and I think it might have been the ONLY 2 litre four in mainstream production ever to hit 120hp/litre. And I believe they had to stop selling it 8-10 years ago because it couldn't pass EU emissions regs.
I do think a 2.5L version of the GT86 would be an interesting option. Whether anyone would buy it would be another matter.
Pommygranite said:
See I get it, I get the emissions piece - my comment was that another 40bhp would make a world of difference yet no fan ever says 'you know what, yeah it would' - like it would be ruined if it had more power.
right now you mod it to get 25hp more yourself/the S2000 'trick' cam is not a good thing for a handlng car anyway.
i wonder in future whether a 48v electric s/charger would be a factory option?
Pommygranite said:
See I get it, I get the emissions piece - my comment was that another 40bhp would make a world of difference yet no fan ever says 'you know what, yeah it would' - like it would be ruined if it had more power.
I would imagine most people would prefer it if they could squeeze another clean, reliable, naturally aspirated 40bhp out of it. Hell, while we're contemplating things we can't have, make it 100bhp!otolith said:
Pommygranite said:
See I get it, I get the emissions piece - my comment was that another 40bhp would make a world of difference yet no fan ever says 'you know what, yeah it would' - like it would be ruined if it had more power.
I would imagine most people would prefer it if they could squeeze another clean, reliable, naturally aspirated 40bhp out of it. Hell, while we're contemplating things we can't have, make it 100bhp!
daemon said:
Agreed. However the 370Z comparison (by me at least) it to show that you can buy something an awful lot more powerful in a RWD coupe for the same sort of money. So does that not suggest the pricing is wrong by Toyota and we're being stiffed?
I "get" what the designers were trying to do - its the bean counters at Toyota UK have cocked it up for everyone by its pricing and lack of manufacturer backed decent finance deals.
And Nissans problems with the 370Z are as bad -
(a) Crappy taxing of it - £505 a year
(b) Naff finance deals in a finance driven market - if Nissan dont believe in its car enough to put a decent GMFV on it, why should we, prospective buyers?
(c) Disinterested dealer network
(d) Not a lot of people want that particular set of compromises.
Is a 370Z a "better" car? Totally subjective and down to the individual. Its just a different set of compromises.
You missed the bit where the 370Z is 200 kg heavier, thus even more comprised for handling, fuel, consumables, etc.I "get" what the designers were trying to do - its the bean counters at Toyota UK have cocked it up for everyone by its pricing and lack of manufacturer backed decent finance deals.
And Nissans problems with the 370Z are as bad -
(a) Crappy taxing of it - £505 a year
(b) Naff finance deals in a finance driven market - if Nissan dont believe in its car enough to put a decent GMFV on it, why should we, prospective buyers?
(c) Disinterested dealer network
(d) Not a lot of people want that particular set of compromises.
Is a 370Z a "better" car? Totally subjective and down to the individual. Its just a different set of compromises.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff