RE: The Toyota GT86 is more relevant than ever: TMIW

[ISO51200]

I have completely lost track of this thread and whats its descended into

[otolith]

janesmith1950 said:

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?

It's conceivable, once you get to the top end of their speed range. Depends how the things are geared. Does the BMW, for example, have very long higher gears for economy?

(if everyone knows that the cd tells you nothing about total drag without also knowing the frontal area, why mention it?)

[s m]

otolith said:

janesmith1950 said:

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?

It's conceivable, once you get to the top end of their speed range. Depends how the things are geared. Does the BMW, for example, have very long higher gears for economy?

(if everyone knows that the cd tells you nothing about total drag without also knowing the frontal area, why mention it?)

Does anyone have the actual test data sheet/figures from when the 187bhp 320d was tested or are they guesstimate figures?

[otolith]

s m said:

otolith said:

janesmith1950 said:

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?

It's conceivable, once you get to the top end of their speed range. Depends how the things are geared. Does the BMW, for example, have very long higher gears for economy?

(if everyone knows that the cd tells you nothing about total drag without also knowing the frontal area, why mention it?)

Does anyone have the actual test data sheet/figures from when the 187bhp 320d was tested or are they guesstimate figures?

The page the figure comes from has references to paper magazines for both figures.

[s m]

otolith said:

s m said:

otolith said:

janesmith1950 said:

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?

It's conceivable, once you get to the top end of their speed range. Depends how the things are geared. Does the BMW, for example, have very long higher gears for economy?

(if everyone knows that the cd tells you nothing about total drag without also knowing the frontal area, why mention it?)

Does anyone have the actual test data sheet/figures from when the 187bhp 320d was tested or are they guesstimate figures?

The page the figure comes from has references to paper magazines for both figures.

I noticed that - it seems to come from a conglomerate of sources though. Laptimes from Autozeitung ....0-200km -> "BMW 320d 0 - 200 kph

According to "Auto Motor und Sport", 2015 BMW 320d will accelerate from 0 to 200 kilometers per hour in 37.0 seconds.
"


.......und so weiter.....

I'm never particularly enamoured with that Fastest Laps site generally as it cherry picks from several tests - or so it seems to me

[LordGrover]

ISO51200 said:

I have completely lost track of this thread and whats its descended into

Just review any one of the other few dozen GT86 threads - they all end up the same.

[WCZ]

culpz said:

For those wincing that a 320D is faster, again, completely misses the mark. Just because the BMW is RWD, doesn't make it a sports car. The fact that it's diesel definitely counts it out as a sports car. I could go on...

It does make me laugh when seeing how many posts get put up on here about how useless it is to have wildy-fast performance cars now. Toyota's solution is to have less of everything; power, weight, grip yet it falls flat.

'faster than a 320d' is the absolute minimum requirements for a sports car performance for a new vehicle for many people

[Harrison-91xcg]

Getting more and more attracted to these.

However I would have the latest MX5 due to its better looks, lighter weight and zippier performance. I think the MX5 is more relevant that ever.

[threespires]

CABC said:

threespires said:

Suburu BRZ testing at Guadix in January

so.... what's the back story of the testing and why were you there?

It was a test for mainly US journo's of the facelift 2017 model.
Here is a 360 video, you can change the POV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6lcUaCakKI&t=...
I think the driver in the video works for Milltek and races the Toyota version.
After the journo's left I had a number of laps in the circuit owners Nismo GTR which was a lot of fun.
My reasons for being there are private.

[Pete Eroleum]

ISO51200 said:

I have completely lost track of this thread and whats its descended into

It's really simple. You either like it enough to want one, or you don't.

There isn't really any doubt that it's a good car - see Chris Harris video. Everything else is Marmite opinions.

[daemon]

300bhp/ton said:

daemon said:

The yardstick for me in terms of average is something like an A4 2.0TDI or a 320d and using that yardstick, for me, its not quick enough (relative to price anyway).

Edited by daemon on Sunday 21st May 13:29

Just another thought on this point.

0-60mph is in all honesty not the greatest stat. For a road car, so for "semi-sane" use. You want something that does 20-85mph well.

The GT86 probably does that absolutely fine.


And I'm not convinced these diesel cars are always as quick as their numbers suggest. I had a 'play' with a VW Scirocco just over a week ago. I don't know the exact specs, but it was a newish example and said Tdi on the back.

However in straight line grunt from a roll, I found I could stick with it very very well. So much so, the only time they pulled any ground on me, was when they performed a rather stupid maneuver at a roundabout, for which I slowed down. The rest of it was quite even.

And do you know what I was in? A 4.6 V8 Range Rover....

I'm sure on paper the VW is a lot quicker 0-60mph, but maybe it's engineered to be that way. In actual deployment on the open road it appeared not to be overly fast. And I suspect a Tdi Scirocco costs similar to a GT86 and is also sold under the label of 'sporting'.

It could well have been - and probably was - a 140 or 150BHP variant.

You can get an entry level TDI Scirocco for £24K ish list, £20K ish after discount.

A Scirocco R can be had for around £27,000 after discount.

I wouldnt have a Scirocco either, personally.

[LasseV]

About that performance... These are measured times:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-bmw-328d-...
BMW 328d (2.0 181hp)
0-100mph 21.2s
0-120mph 35.7s

Scion 2014 (Same as EU GT86)
http://www.caranddriver.com/scion/fr-s
0-100mph 17.6s
0-120mph 29.0s

GT86 is much faster than 4 pot diesel. When you are overtaking and driving spiritedly it is important that car goes well when speed is faster than 60mph. Family cars are not good at higher speeds, they are not made for it obviously.

[Flibble]

janesmith1950 said:

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?

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.

[grumbledoak]

Bah! You can prove anything with facts!

What this thread needs is opinions!

[CABC]

Pete Eroleum said:

ISO51200 said:

I have completely lost track of this thread and whats its descended into

It's really simple. You either like it enough to want one, or you don't.

There isn't really any doubt that it's a good car - see Chris Harris video. Everything else is Marmite opinions.

Succinct and direct.
funny thing is that all the driving journalist like it. Plato, Sutcliffe, Harris, Evo et al. But we need more nonsense to reach 30 pages.

C'mon boys. longer posts, pictures and..... lots more statistics.

[anonymous-user]

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!

[daemon]

CABC said:

Succinct and direct.
funny thing is that all the driving journalist like it. Plato, Sutcliffe, Harris, Evo et al. But we need more nonsense to reach 30 pages.

C'mon boys. longer posts, pictures and..... lots more statistics.

Its all very well reviewing it and thinking its great. Spending your own hard earned on one is an entirely different thing...

I've no issue with the car itself per se - its the performance relative to the price that i struggle to reconcile.

All IMHO of course - but then i'd have been a potential customer....

Edited by daemon on Monday 22 May 18:10

[s m]

Pete Eroleum said:

ISO51200 said:

I have completely lost track of this thread and whats its descended into

It's really simple. You either like it enough to want one, or you don't.

There isn't really any doubt that it's a good car - see Chris Harris video. Everything else is Marmite opinions.

I guess the author/OP was inviting divided opinions as he ended the thread title with
"Tell Me I'm Wrong"

I don't think they thought it would die with 3 or replies going on past form of GT86 threads! Job done

[CABC]

daemon said:

Its all very well reviewing it and thinking its great. Spending your own hard earned on one is an entirely different thing...

I've no issue with the car itself per se - its the performance relative to the price that i struggle to reconcile.

All IMHO of course - but then i'd have been a potential customer....

Edited by daemon on Monday 22 May 18:10

I recognise the struggle, and that criticism has merit. Firstly the 86 is quite pricey in the uk and secondly the uk benefits from some very keen prices on other cars. A few years ago the 135i was an odd anomaly (opportunity) and many others since. But some of the drivel on stats and speed in this thread is very silly. if you don't like the 86, move on. If you value a little bit of practicality with delicate handling dynamics the choice isn't great out there. Small market maybe, but i don't crawl over the hatchback threads being negative about weight, numb feel etc. They're great at what they do (awesome in many respects) but still compromised in some areas. I prefer to be glass half-full and see the positives in what we have on offer. Today's cars are great, best ever, but the manufacturers are mostly focused on legislation, emissions and 'transportation in luxury' rather than driving pleasure. PHers should be demanding more driving pleasure from manufacturers, with their wallets.

[daemon]

CABC said:

A few years ago the 135i was an odd anomaly (opportunity) and many others since.

Just on the 135i note, you can buy a 140i M Sport for £26,277 on www.broadspeed.com. I'd find it VERY hard to walk past one of those to buy a GT86...

CABC said:

if you don't like the 86, move on.

Great advice! We did - and subsequently bought a year old 370Z GT with 9K miles for £19,995. Then a Boxster. Then an A45.

Just a little saddened the GT86 didnt appeal to us more. We have "form" - we had a brand new 2001 Toyota Celica VVTi back in the day, followed by a late model MR2. Half a dozen MX5s too, so its not all about performance for us.

The GT86 just seems off the pace - for the VFM proposition relative to performance.

CABC said:

If you value a little bit of practicality with delicate handling dynamics the choice isn't great out there. Small market maybe, but i don't crawl over the hatchback threads being negative about weight, numb feel etc. They're great at what they do (awesome in many respects) but still compromised in some areas. I prefer to be glass half-full and see the positives in what we have on offer. Today's cars are great, best ever, but the manufacturers are mostly focused on legislation, emissions and 'transportation in luxury' rather than driving pleasure.

Agreed. There are positives to the GT86 and i applaud Toyota / Subaru for building it. Its just a shame Toyota UK have chosen to market it at the price point they have and with little financial incentives.

CABC said:

PHers should be demanding more driving pleasure from manufacturers, with their wallets.

I think, with the GT86, people have voted much voted with their wallets - and went elsewhere.

Edited by daemon on Monday 22 May 19:06