RE: The Toyota GT86 is more relevant than ever: TMIW
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Not for nothing are all F1 cars V layouts rather than flat layouts you might expect from a pure CofG perspective!
The main driver behind current engine layout in F1 is aerodynamics and torsional rigidity, which the V engine layout best caters for.The main reason Ferrari abandoned the flat layout for their F1 engine was ground effect aerodynamics, the engine was too wide and didn't allow ground effect tunnels to be used. Chasing power wasn't the issue that caused the shift to a V configuration. Until aerodynamics really took over as the key area to compromise for, the CofG played a more important role. Once the ground effect era was over, it was all about rear aero packaging which negated the return to the flat configuration.
If you look at the exhaust layout on the ground effect DFV F1 car I look after, the exhaust header shape is pretty poor on the rear most cylinders because the overriding concern was getting the ground effect tunnels as large as possible. Once back to flat bottom regulations with the banning of ground effect tunnels, you get back to better flow for the exhaust systems.
300bhp/ton said:
jsf said:
Whats a complete fail?
An example, a young lad at work has a new Fiesta ST as his daily driver he does a few trackdays with, he has a Mountune package, that's relatively cheap tuning by comparison to fitting a turbo/supercharger.
I'm well aware power isn't everything, I've been building and modifying cars for 35 years and have gone through a very broad range of performance and enthusiast options. I'm just putting across a particular point of view as to why this car isn't the sales success it could be, based on the other options available.
Sorry, I think I was being a little harsh. Just to my mind a Fiesta ST is not a 'sporty' car. And it saddens me that it would get labelled as an enthusiasts car.An example, a young lad at work has a new Fiesta ST as his daily driver he does a few trackdays with, he has a Mountune package, that's relatively cheap tuning by comparison to fitting a turbo/supercharger.
I'm well aware power isn't everything, I've been building and modifying cars for 35 years and have gone through a very broad range of performance and enthusiast options. I'm just putting across a particular point of view as to why this car isn't the sales success it could be, based on the other options available.
If you'd said they had bought a Lotus Elan M100 or Porsche 924... well they are what I would consider enthusiasts sporty cars.
As for getting cheap power gains. No idea how tunable the ST is, suspect internal engine components and turbo size plus other things like fuel system and injectors limit it. But turbo cars have always been more tunable via adding boost. I hardly see this as a major point for making a car sporty.
As an example, the n/a Ferrari F355 or Corvette C4 LT4 are IMO way more 'sporty' than a Focus RS and really couldn't care less if you can remap the Ford for more boost.
300bhp/ton said:
No offense but I don't really consider an EP3 a 'fun' car. It might have a fun engine. But exploiting it, as you allude to is difficult. Basically the EP3 is only entertaining when red lining it and likely very close to, or exceeding legal speeds. The rest of the time it's just a dull family orientated hatchback with a drab interior. This is true of all hot hatches though.
Let's face it a same year Civic with say a 1.2 engine (or whatever small engine they offered) is just completely uninteresting. Driving the EP3 slowly will have the same appeal.
Now the thing with a good sports car is, they are or should be fun at pretty much any speed. And should always have that sense of occasion about them. The GT86 might not be the pinnacle of this. But it is in a different league to all hot hatches.
Now I can relate. Up until recently I owned a Classic Impreza Turbo. Wanted one for years as I'm a big rally fan. But to be honest normal driving it was completely boring and dull. It was only fun when pushing on. While on the flip side a smart Roadster, MGF, MX-5 even an MGB GT where all huge fun on pretty much every journey.
Have to agree with most of this. I think it's fun, but it's not like I'm comparing it to a Cayman or similar. It does need to be worked to have fun, but it doesn't need to be going THAT fast to get it. I'm only asking to do 60mph in a 60 limit which is so difficult these days as seemingly no one seems to give a toss about the posted speed limit (on either end of the law). How many cars are truly fun at 40mph?Let's face it a same year Civic with say a 1.2 engine (or whatever small engine they offered) is just completely uninteresting. Driving the EP3 slowly will have the same appeal.
Now the thing with a good sports car is, they are or should be fun at pretty much any speed. And should always have that sense of occasion about them. The GT86 might not be the pinnacle of this. But it is in a different league to all hot hatches.
Now I can relate. Up until recently I owned a Classic Impreza Turbo. Wanted one for years as I'm a big rally fan. But to be honest normal driving it was completely boring and dull. It was only fun when pushing on. While on the flip side a smart Roadster, MGF, MX-5 even an MGB GT where all huge fun on pretty much every journey.
Also just seen someone else has quoted what you said about the Fiesta ST, which I very much agree with. I can talk for 10s of minutes about how poor a mk7 Fiesta ST is. Overrated doesn't even come close to a strong enough word for it. That thing really is a shopping car with a 200bhp engine dropped in it.
300bhp/ton said:
jsf said:
My observation is more based around what young people today consider to be sporty and have access too. A lot of these cars are bought new on finance deals, so the mods carried out tend to follow the path of packages that are well proven to be reliable and are easy to remove when the contract period is finished. It's a completely different world to the one I grew up in, where we bought a relatively cheap car with cash or a small bank loan and got our hands dirty. There was no such thing as residuals to worry about, if it went tits up you sent it to the scrapyard or sold it to the next kid who fancied a go.
I daresay you are right. Not sure I really understand the modern trend of that is what it is. When I was 19 I wanted to go faster. Most of my mates had Vauxhall Nova's or similar. I went off and bought a 5.3 litre V12 Jaguar XJ-S. Which successfully remained far faster than anything my mates had, even for years after.
From there I kept the Jag but also bought a TR7 FHC and proceeded to swap in a Rover V8. By this time most of my mates had moved from Nova's to XR3i's, RS Turbo's, XR4x4 and a few Jetta and Golf mk2 GTi's.
The TR7 V8 was probably never as quick as the Jag but was arguably more fun and more sports car. And a very enjoyable car. This was 16 years ago. I still have the TR7 although it has gone through more engine mods since then.
I think the price is just too high to capture the young market, so who is this car aimed at?
JB! said:
My biggest frustration, as someone who wanted a new one but bought used (sub 15kmi)
New prices.
USA? $26,000 inc taxes and registered
Australia? $35,000 Inc taxes and registered.
Both of which are under £21,000
UK prices? £25k+
10% import duty is applied to the UK price of any Japanese manufactured car because we are in the EU. 75% of that 10% goes to the EU, 25% goes to pay UK admin costs. If UK decides to remove import tariffs from USA and Japanese cars when we leave, they instantly become cheaper.New prices.
USA? $26,000 inc taxes and registered
Australia? $35,000 Inc taxes and registered.
Both of which are under £21,000
UK prices? £25k+
venquessa said:
Just thought I'd mention the "Designed to be a sports car" thing again.
Lets look at the Golf. What was it designed for? To be a small family car. Sure the MkI GTI version had some guts and was a fun LIGHTWEIGHT little hatch with a fun engine and grew to classic status and still rightly holds that classic "hot hatch" status, but that died a death with the MkII and again with the MkII and the MkIV is a FAT bulbous HEAVY family car.
Thus it is designed for comfort, practicality, getting the kids in the back, good for Asda car parks, getting the shopping in the boot and boring commutes. It's grown old and fat with the owner base of the MkI. Not a single strand of it's DNA even resembles the MkI or that of a sports car.
Now the GT86 is designed with sports driving in mind. It's often in the details, but while the GT86 was of course road tested round the world for it's compatibility with daily driving, most of the R&D effort went into making it a performant, well handling car aimed directed at young enthusiastic car drivers.
It's designed to go fast. Designed to be driven hard. Designed to handle well close to and beyond it's limits. NONE of those things are true of the Golf. They took an aging family car design that's put on a few spare tyres and they put a lump in it, tweaked a few things here and there to make an R (or GTI) version. Sports car is will never be. Fast family car, yes, sports no.
It's easy to drive a fast car fast. You push you right foot down and instantly feel like a hero, but if you are a motorsports fan you will know that 99% of motorsport is nothing about having a faster car than everyone else. It's about being able to drive the machine you (and everyone else on the track) has faster through skill, cunning, experience and determination. 99% of motorsport classes are limited in both engine power and grip to produce challenging fun racing.
It is much harder and therefore much more fun to drive a GT86 fast. On track I got over taken down the straights by things M4s and even a modified Clio 172. Another GT86 and a WRX STi got me only because I didn't want to force my way past the car in front and let the duo through to have a go at it. They didn't succeed either.
However with the Clio went past on the straight I had to then wait on it to skitter round the hairpin like a puppy on a wet kitchen floor while it under-steered wide and I hugged the apex sliding all 4 wheels gently playing with my slip angle. On the straight he pulled away, on the brakes and through the next few bends I reeled him in. It was very obvious which car was designed for the purpose and which was an impostor.
The whole time I sat behind a fully race/rally prepped AE86 and a Group N Rally Evo. and defended my rear from a full race prepped clubman level Fiesta (who ate me alive on the brakes and corners on slicks but got left on the straights (understandable as it only had a race tuned 1250cc engine)). The most important thing? It was my first time on a track and GT86 made me feel like a race driver and I had an absolute blast. Primaries lasted the day fine and are still on the car 2 years later. The brakes where a different story, fronts melted and trashed.
On the tyres thing. If you buy a GT86/BRZ and go rushing to change the tyres for stickier rubber, you really did miss the point. I see it all the time in the Owners club. These people all but invariably complain the car is under powered and not playful enough. Personally unless I can find a tyre that has comparably low grip to the Primacies but with better wet weather break away I would refit Primacies, or go down a few sizes and fit sticky rubber like PS4s 205 or even 195 (stock is 215). It's finding that balance between fun and safety though.
Besides the best fun in a GT86 is popping a little power slide in rush hour traffic at 15mph without anyone noticing. It's like farting in a meeting and getting away with it.
Is there even a race serious for the Golf? There are even Clio race series (entry level for touring cars, not sports cars), but I only recall seeing one Golf R in a clubman touring event and only once. I wonder why?
Sorry, but what a load of rubbish! lol!Lets look at the Golf. What was it designed for? To be a small family car. Sure the MkI GTI version had some guts and was a fun LIGHTWEIGHT little hatch with a fun engine and grew to classic status and still rightly holds that classic "hot hatch" status, but that died a death with the MkII and again with the MkII and the MkIV is a FAT bulbous HEAVY family car.
Thus it is designed for comfort, practicality, getting the kids in the back, good for Asda car parks, getting the shopping in the boot and boring commutes. It's grown old and fat with the owner base of the MkI. Not a single strand of it's DNA even resembles the MkI or that of a sports car.
Now the GT86 is designed with sports driving in mind. It's often in the details, but while the GT86 was of course road tested round the world for it's compatibility with daily driving, most of the R&D effort went into making it a performant, well handling car aimed directed at young enthusiastic car drivers.
It's designed to go fast. Designed to be driven hard. Designed to handle well close to and beyond it's limits. NONE of those things are true of the Golf. They took an aging family car design that's put on a few spare tyres and they put a lump in it, tweaked a few things here and there to make an R (or GTI) version. Sports car is will never be. Fast family car, yes, sports no.
It's easy to drive a fast car fast. You push you right foot down and instantly feel like a hero, but if you are a motorsports fan you will know that 99% of motorsport is nothing about having a faster car than everyone else. It's about being able to drive the machine you (and everyone else on the track) has faster through skill, cunning, experience and determination. 99% of motorsport classes are limited in both engine power and grip to produce challenging fun racing.
It is much harder and therefore much more fun to drive a GT86 fast. On track I got over taken down the straights by things M4s and even a modified Clio 172. Another GT86 and a WRX STi got me only because I didn't want to force my way past the car in front and let the duo through to have a go at it. They didn't succeed either.
However with the Clio went past on the straight I had to then wait on it to skitter round the hairpin like a puppy on a wet kitchen floor while it under-steered wide and I hugged the apex sliding all 4 wheels gently playing with my slip angle. On the straight he pulled away, on the brakes and through the next few bends I reeled him in. It was very obvious which car was designed for the purpose and which was an impostor.
The whole time I sat behind a fully race/rally prepped AE86 and a Group N Rally Evo. and defended my rear from a full race prepped clubman level Fiesta (who ate me alive on the brakes and corners on slicks but got left on the straights (understandable as it only had a race tuned 1250cc engine)). The most important thing? It was my first time on a track and GT86 made me feel like a race driver and I had an absolute blast. Primaries lasted the day fine and are still on the car 2 years later. The brakes where a different story, fronts melted and trashed.
On the tyres thing. If you buy a GT86/BRZ and go rushing to change the tyres for stickier rubber, you really did miss the point. I see it all the time in the Owners club. These people all but invariably complain the car is under powered and not playful enough. Personally unless I can find a tyre that has comparably low grip to the Primacies but with better wet weather break away I would refit Primacies, or go down a few sizes and fit sticky rubber like PS4s 205 or even 195 (stock is 215). It's finding that balance between fun and safety though.
Besides the best fun in a GT86 is popping a little power slide in rush hour traffic at 15mph without anyone noticing. It's like farting in a meeting and getting away with it.
Is there even a race serious for the Golf? There are even Clio race series (entry level for touring cars, not sports cars), but I only recall seeing one Golf R in a clubman touring event and only once. I wonder why?
The difference between ANY modern, non aero assisted car around any given bend is measured in a few mph at most, because the tyres are the limiting factor. The difference in max Lateral G between say a clio 172 and your -86 will be tiny.
If a clio 172 pulls away on a straight then sorry, but your car must be broken surely (or was it that you were driving too deep into the corners thinking "ah ha, i've caught you up" but actually just compromising your exit, so the 172 was able to pull away down the straights?)
Flibble said:
There is a big difference between the way a FWD car corners on track and a RWD corners.
Not with low power cars there isn't. Both are limited by their mass and their tyres. This is why modern fwd hot hatches are so quick.Once you get up into the >250bhp/tonne ratings, then a rwd car is going to start to show an advantage out of medium and higher speed corners, as it can leverage the positive weight transfer onto it's driving wheels.
There's two things that make a car good imo, in terms of handling, The first one of which is around twice as important as the second, and they are:
1) Repeatability
and
2) Linearity.
Repeatability means the car does exactly the same thing every time. Doesn't matter what it does, just that it does it the same. That way the driver can learn to drive it, and adapt their inputs to the cars response
Linearity, whilst nice for 'average' drivers isn't nearly as important for more skilled drivers as long as 1) is true. So if you have a car that is a massive oversteerer, it needs to do that all the time, and not suddenly swap into understeer without warning.
1) Repeatability
and
2) Linearity.
Repeatability means the car does exactly the same thing every time. Doesn't matter what it does, just that it does it the same. That way the driver can learn to drive it, and adapt their inputs to the cars response
Linearity, whilst nice for 'average' drivers isn't nearly as important for more skilled drivers as long as 1) is true. So if you have a car that is a massive oversteerer, it needs to do that all the time, and not suddenly swap into understeer without warning.
irish boy said:
Agree with Pete here. Great post coming from personal experience. No need whatsoever to come on calling it rubbish. No wonder new members get put off.
Sorry, but anyone who posts stuff like this:"However with the Clio went past on the straight I had to then wait on it to skitter round the hairpin like a puppy on a wet kitchen floor while it under-steered wide and I hugged the apex sliding all 4 wheels gently playing with my slip angle."
deserves everything they get! Even Sniff Petrol would be too embarrassed to write rubbish like that.... ;-)
janesmith1950 said:
irish boy said:
Flip 7 seconds quicker than the 320d to 200kph....wasn't expecting that substantial.
Looking at the relative stats, you don't have to be Einstein to spot there's a mistake in that figure. Two cars within 10% or so power and weight won't be so far apart.
Thats why you trim out a racecar for the particular circuit, you may have a 500BHP F1 car doing 185MPH at Monza only able to hit 170MPH at Barcelona because of the amount of downforce and drag you run at each venue to maximise the lap time.
jsf said:
Weight has very little impact at high speed, its all about the drag coefficient. Drag goes up with the square of speed, so as the speed climbs the drag has a major impact on top speed and acceleration. You need a lot more power to gain just a few MPH on top speed with the same drag coefficient.
Thats why you trim out a racecar for the particular circuit, you may have a 500BHP F1 car doing 185MPH at Monza only able to hit 170MPH at Barcelona because of the amount of downforce and drag you run at each venue to maximise the lap time.
My understanding is that the coefficients between a 320d and GT86 are similar. Thats why you trim out a racecar for the particular circuit, you may have a 500BHP F1 car doing 185MPH at Monza only able to hit 170MPH at Barcelona because of the amount of downforce and drag you run at each venue to maximise the lap time.
They have power outputs with less than 10% difference.
The 320d has a significant torque advantage.
The thought the the two are literally neck-a-neck up to 100mph then over the next 20mph or so it loses 7 seconds, seems a little less likely than someone typing a digit incorrectly.
Oh, but thank you indeed for the physics 101.
otolith said:
To complete the physics lesson, you have to multiply the coefficient of drag by the frontal area of the car, so you can't assume that two cars of the same cd have the same drag.
We all know this. The question is, do we believe that a GT 86 is neck a neck with a diesel repmobile up to 100mph, yet suddenly 7 seconds more accelerative over the next 20?
venquessa said:
I'm not saying the figures are right though.
Gotta love the internet some times. 101 ways people try and avoid admitting something blatantly obvious; the GT86 has a pretty naff engine and not enough power to be a mainstream consideration.
If you're looking for a close performance comparison in terms of low weight (circa 1200kg), supposedly under-tyred (17" 205s) and NA engined (197bhp), you're looking at a 2001 Honda Civic. Except the Honda had a decent engine and cost about 30% less, of course...!
Progress?
Flibble said:
320d is 1.46m high, GT86 is 1.28m high. They're similar in width (320d is a few cm wider), so the GT86 has roughly a 14% smaller frontal area. That translates to 30% less aero drag force, which is going to make quite a bit of difference at >100 mph.
Borefest that this is, the GT86 is 1.32m high and the 3 is 1.42m. Whichever way you try and dress this whole discussion up, there is a small pool of people (in the UK at least) who will tolerate a sports car with the straight line performance of a diesel repmobile. There is a larger pool who don't see the attraction and won't consider them.
Toyota/Subaru launched a car a generation behind and the result is millions of pages of internet arguments!
dash86 vs MX-5 RF:
2017 Mazda MX-5 Miata RF vs. 2017 Toyota 86 - Head 2 Head Ep. 89
Spoiler, the dash86's extra 40 horses completely fail to make an appearance...........
2017 Mazda MX-5 Miata RF vs. 2017 Toyota 86 - Head 2 Head Ep. 89
Spoiler, the dash86's extra 40 horses completely fail to make an appearance...........
Blayney said:
Olivera said:
Max_Torque said:
dash86 vs MX-5 RF:
2017 Mazda MX-5 Miata RF vs. 2017 Toyota 86 - Head 2 Head Ep. 89
Spoiler, the dash86's extra 40 horses completely fail to make an appearance...........
Make that 50 extra horses - the 2017 GT86 in the US is 205bhp, the Mazda 155bhp.2017 Mazda MX-5 Miata RF vs. 2017 Toyota 86 - Head 2 Head Ep. 89
Spoiler, the dash86's extra 40 horses completely fail to make an appearance...........
If anyone know where the extra 50 bhp went please let us all know.
With Max's background I am sure he's being deliberately obtuse and knows there's a difference between peak horse power on paper and real world performance.
From the video - the time difference at "Streets of Willow" was negligible between both cars. Of course looking at lap times is still missing the point. Having looked at other lap times for the same course, Randy managed to put a Mazda 3 MPS with 260bhp around there only 0.5 seconds quicker than the '86. Some unknown person went around slower in a 997 911 Turbo...
What did Randy have to say? "Amazing that car is great" "It's just like an extension of the body, it's a dance" "it pulls better at high rpm, good strong brake pedal, it just has a sense of control". So he liked it. Most reviews I've read/seen by someone who can drive well have raved about the GT86.
I have a copy of last months EVO (May) that also compares these two cars. I'll reproduce the conclusion in full.
"The Toyota GT86 is the better sports car. It struggles to match the MX-5 for pace but, equally, it isn't a "slow" car, and there's great pleasure to be had engaging with the drivetrain. It also feels the better-made product, puts you in great touch with the action and has a greater depth of ability, from its feedback to its willingness to raise its game when you raise yours.
The Mazda is a grower. Stay within the limits of its chassis and it's a whole lot of fun to drive, the exaggerated body movements giving it a playful feel and the extra grip giving it higher cross-country pace. It also looks great inside and out, costs less to buy, averaged a remarkable 40mpg over the course of our test (10mpg more than the Toyota) and, with it's folding roof, will appeal to some buyers in a way the coupe-only GT86 cannot match).
Roof-down on a rare sunny day in north Wales, the Mazda is an invigorating car, with a punchier engine, rortier exhaust note and theatrical body movements, but I suspect many reading this will prefer the Toyota's precision, composure and greater focus.
But if Mazda one day decides to make a tin-top MX-5 with a stiffer structure and a firmer chassis, that would be most refreshing of all."
A few important bits from within the article.
On straight line performance:
"The RF is 39bhp down on the GT86, at 158bhp plays 187, and it has slightly less torque too, producing 147lb ft to the Toyota's 151lb ft. But three things count in the Mazda's favour. Firstly, its peak outputs are developed lower down the rev-range than those of the Toyota - considerably so in the case of torque, with the GT86 starting to produce maximum twist just 600rpm shy of its power peak.
Secondly, Mazda's tireless efforts to cut weight allow the RF to undercut the '86 by nearly 200kg, despite the extra hardware sitting on its rear deck. And finally, the MX5's 2-litre in-line four is simply more enthusiastic and punches through snappier gear ratios than th GT86's Subaru-sourced boxer engine"
Oh handling, feedback, control... driving;
"As you trust the front end, so you begin to bring the rear into play. The GT86 corners flat, far more so than the Mazda, so things begin to happen as soon as you've loaded up the chassis. And yes, sometimes there's a touch of understeer, but, once you've identified this through your fingertips, you need only relax your toes to balance the chassis. From that point, with the front and rear tyres sharing equal load, you can feed in more power and tighten your cornering line with the rear wheels. It'll do this around virtually any corner, and while that outright lack of grip means an average hot hatch would soon be several turns ahead, it's deeply satisfying to string together a sequence of bends, the Toyota seemingly on tip-toes, always a throttle movement away from a few more degrees of rotation."
"Unsurprisingly, it's the Toyota that delivers the biggest grins when you begin to play in the corners"
For what it's worth, I actually think both cars are great and are some of the few cars available on sale today that I would actually consider buying. The MX-5 will undoubtedly out-sell the GT86 - it has the heritage now, it's cheaper, you can put the roof down. However the GT86 will appeal to those who want more of a drivers car.
The things we KNOW:
1) the dash86/BRZ is not a big seller.
So, what are the reasons for this? I think they include all the following:
1) Not fast enough for the price / looks
2) Not practical enough compared to the (increasingly brilliant) hot hatch alternative
3) Not quite special enough for true enthusiasts who want a 'proper' sports car, and are willing to perhaps go to the s/h market to get what they want (s/h cayman/ 370z etc etc)
So, to buy a new dash86/BRZ you have to be the following person:
1) Not too worried about value for money
2) Wanting a new car rather than a second hand one
3) Not too worried about relative performance
4) Wanting very very good handling above everything else (so an mx-5 won't quite cut it)
Now people who fit those ^^ requirements do exist, but currently they are very few in number, and as a result, sales volumes are very low indeed. If you ARE one of those people, congratulations, luckily you can still buy cars like this. You are not 'wrong' or 'crazy' or whatever, just individual....... ;-)
1) the dash86/BRZ is not a big seller.
So, what are the reasons for this? I think they include all the following:
1) Not fast enough for the price / looks
2) Not practical enough compared to the (increasingly brilliant) hot hatch alternative
3) Not quite special enough for true enthusiasts who want a 'proper' sports car, and are willing to perhaps go to the s/h market to get what they want (s/h cayman/ 370z etc etc)
So, to buy a new dash86/BRZ you have to be the following person:
1) Not too worried about value for money
2) Wanting a new car rather than a second hand one
3) Not too worried about relative performance
4) Wanting very very good handling above everything else (so an mx-5 won't quite cut it)
Now people who fit those ^^ requirements do exist, but currently they are very few in number, and as a result, sales volumes are very low indeed. If you ARE one of those people, congratulations, luckily you can still buy cars like this. You are not 'wrong' or 'crazy' or whatever, just individual....... ;-)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff