Toyota plots 'GR86' coupe from TNGA platform
Discussion
spikyone said:
Black S2K said:
It did pretty well in the US at first, but each variant only now sells 2-300 units per month. Initially, it was around ten times that.
So really, the converse is true!
Regarding your question - the current Hachiroku is largely a chopped-up old Impreza underneath. The front suspension is basically reversed (for better steering geometry) and the engine pushed-back to where the driveshafts ought to be. That is the theory, but in practice it uses a driveline related to that in the S2000 and RX-7 and most carried-over bits are modified in some way. There is ultimately very little in common with current Imprezas, much in the same way the X-1/9 ended up with little in common with the 128, other than its engine and chassis code.
So it can be regarded as a 'standalone' plank, even if it started life as not one.
I think the same logic would apply to utilising a big TGNA plank; it'd be too big and heavy (having too much RWD torque capacity/refinement for big Lexuses) for a small, light sports car, so you'd end up throwing most of it away again.
There was an older rumour that they'd try to align the 86 with the MX-5 and utilise that plank, which would probably make more sense.
To an extent, I could understand Subaru's argument that it's "AWD only" if they were using a transverse engine, like VW's MQB - it works for FWD and AWD, but you'd be a bit mad to have a transverse front-engined RWD, especially for a sports car. The same applies to TNGA; the smaller sizes that would be more suited to a GT86 are all designed around transverse engines, and as you said the larger version designed for longitudinal engines is far too big.So really, the converse is true!
Regarding your question - the current Hachiroku is largely a chopped-up old Impreza underneath. The front suspension is basically reversed (for better steering geometry) and the engine pushed-back to where the driveshafts ought to be. That is the theory, but in practice it uses a driveline related to that in the S2000 and RX-7 and most carried-over bits are modified in some way. There is ultimately very little in common with current Imprezas, much in the same way the X-1/9 ended up with little in common with the 128, other than its engine and chassis code.
So it can be regarded as a 'standalone' plank, even if it started life as not one.
I think the same logic would apply to utilising a big TGNA plank; it'd be too big and heavy (having too much RWD torque capacity/refinement for big Lexuses) for a small, light sports car, so you'd end up throwing most of it away again.
There was an older rumour that they'd try to align the 86 with the MX-5 and utilise that plank, which would probably make more sense.
But Subaru's selling point has been 'symmetric AWD' for a while; it's literally designed for longitudinal engines. If Subaru's is truly a modular system (in the same way as TNGA - look at how Toyota created the Yaris GR platform, combining TNGA-B with TNGA-C!), how difficult can it be to produce a smaller version if it were needed? Is it more accurate to say it's too expensive? Or is it just modular in a more 20th century sense?
Then again, it's probably a very limited-production, very expensive model that they'll likely lose money on for racing/publicity purposes.
Though modern planks are more about electronic architecture, HVAC, SRS, etc than steel pressings, it could be too much of a stretch for such a different layout in a more mainstream-volume product.
The news today is reporting this will use a 2.4 l boxer turbo engine producing 256 bhp from Subaru. An engine recently made for the WRX STI is also a 2.4 l boxer turbo and that produces 400 bhp. I’m curious that the Yaris GR will have as much power from the 3 cylinder 1.6 turbo as the GR86. I can see they probably didn’t want to make a car that would be more powerful than the Supra but just seems weird when they already have a capable engine from the Yaris. It could be the GR86 is highly tuneable with this 2.4.
Edited by delta0 on Tuesday 31st March 22:22
delta0 said:
The news today is reporting this will use a 2.4 l boxer turbo engine producing 256 bhp from Subaru. An engine recently made for the WRX STI is also a 2.4 l boxer turbo and that produces 400 bhp. I’m curious that the Yaris GR will have as much power from the 3 cylinder 1.6 turbo as the GR86. I can see they probably didn’t want to make a car that would be more powerful than the Supra but just seems weird when they already have a capable engine from the Yaris. It could be the GR86 is highly tuneable with this 2.4.
power delivery will be a key consideration. current pu is obviously flawed in many areas but it's still nicely linear when on a spirited drive. haven't driven the Yaris or this 2.4, so that's a guess. more power & torque is welcome, and a higher capacity boxer with a light turbo sounds promising. Edited by delta0 on Tuesday 31st March 22:22
CABC said:
delta0 said:
The news today is reporting this will use a 2.4 l boxer turbo engine producing 256 bhp from Subaru. An engine recently made for the WRX STI is also a 2.4 l boxer turbo and that produces 400 bhp. I’m curious that the Yaris GR will have as much power from the 3 cylinder 1.6 turbo as the GR86. I can see they probably didn’t want to make a car that would be more powerful than the Supra but just seems weird when they already have a capable engine from the Yaris. It could be the GR86 is highly tuneable with this 2.4.
power delivery will be a key consideration. current pu is obviously flawed in many areas but it's still nicely linear when on a spirited drive. haven't driven the Yaris or this 2.4, so that's a guess. more power & torque is welcome, and a higher capacity boxer with a light turbo sounds promising. Edited by delta0 on Tuesday 31st March 22:22
Mark Benson said:
I think it's a combination of things, both of the above, plus the Toyota branding (Prius etc.) and lacklustre sales effort (so many people don't know what my car is) and it's also very....Japanese - does the job with a lot of function but not so much style (to Gaijin eyes).
My car history has a couple of Lotus' and 20-odd years of racing, I can honestly say the 86 is the best all rounder I've owned. Usually after about a year with a car I'm starting to look at something else but approaching 2 years with the 86 and I still have plans for the car.
I came from a Golf R and have never missed the bhp - my original plan was to run the 86 for a year until the warranty ran out then strip and cage it for racing but it's such a good road car I've ended up keeping it pretty standard. It's fun at safe speeds and it communicates so well that when the time is right, it's easy and accessible to 'play' with.
I've upgraded the ICE with a decent headunit so I can have Car Play and Focal speakers and added a small amount of soundproofing so it's now much more usable day-to-day, plus I have a set of Team Dynamic wheels and AD08RS tyres for trackdays (this year I'm looking at AP brakes, maybe some suspension).
The interior isn't great but bit by bit I'm going to improve it, it's one of the easiest cars I've worked on to remove interior trim and my plan is to spruce up the plastics and fake leather with some alcantara and piano black trim.
And I suppose the above is the point of the 86, it's great fun to drive even as standard but it also has scope to change however you want it without breaking the bank - a supercharger would set me back £5k and give me 280bhp without changing much else, if I want silly power, it's all there with turbos in various guises up to 700bhp. I might go FI one day, but at the moment I'm happy with what I've got.
I'm much the same. Two years into ownership I was thinking of changing but there's nothing else I fancy that also has back seats for the kids on the school run. It's been faultless. Remapped sports exhaust is all it needs to transform the engine. I may keep it forever now. Focal speakers for £130 are amazing and so easy to upgrade.My car history has a couple of Lotus' and 20-odd years of racing, I can honestly say the 86 is the best all rounder I've owned. Usually after about a year with a car I'm starting to look at something else but approaching 2 years with the 86 and I still have plans for the car.
I came from a Golf R and have never missed the bhp - my original plan was to run the 86 for a year until the warranty ran out then strip and cage it for racing but it's such a good road car I've ended up keeping it pretty standard. It's fun at safe speeds and it communicates so well that when the time is right, it's easy and accessible to 'play' with.
I've upgraded the ICE with a decent headunit so I can have Car Play and Focal speakers and added a small amount of soundproofing so it's now much more usable day-to-day, plus I have a set of Team Dynamic wheels and AD08RS tyres for trackdays (this year I'm looking at AP brakes, maybe some suspension).
The interior isn't great but bit by bit I'm going to improve it, it's one of the easiest cars I've worked on to remove interior trim and my plan is to spruce up the plastics and fake leather with some alcantara and piano black trim.
And I suppose the above is the point of the 86, it's great fun to drive even as standard but it also has scope to change however you want it without breaking the bank - a supercharger would set me back £5k and give me 280bhp without changing much else, if I want silly power, it's all there with turbos in various guises up to 700bhp. I might go FI one day, but at the moment I'm happy with what I've got.
It's a Mk2 Escort RS2000 at a quarter of the price. So much fun.
New one sounds like the original will be the classic.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
if a 2.4 had same specific output it would be 240hp. any ideas why this proposed installation is so little more than that?emissions? this car doesn't want a high pressure turbo and all that goes with it, but i'd have guessed just under 300hp if you told me a new car was getting a 2.4 turbo. i'm not criticising, i think it might be a fitting unit for the car. As Otolith says though, it needs to be light in the nose.
CABC said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
if a 2.4 had same specific output it would be 240hp. any ideas why this proposed installation is so little more than that?emissions? this car doesn't want a high pressure turbo and all that goes with it, but i'd have guessed just under 300hp if you told me a new car was getting a 2.4 turbo. i'm not criticising, i think it might be a fitting unit for the car. As Otolith says though, it needs to be light in the nose.
But it's got to be light overall, like the current car - that's the real benefit to me. I co-drive a friend's Boxster race car occasionally, he spent a fortune having weight taken out of the car including GRP panels only to find it's now the same weight as my road-going GT86.
delta0 said:
The news today is reporting this will use a 2.4 l boxer turbo engine producing 256 bhp from Subaru. An engine recently made for the WRX STI is also a 2.4 l boxer turbo and that produces 400 bhp. I’m curious that the Yaris GR will have as much power from the 3 cylinder 1.6 turbo as the GR86. I can see they probably didn’t want to make a car that would be more powerful than the Supra but just seems weird when they already have a capable engine from the Yaris. It could be the GR86 is highly tuneable with this 2.4.
Keeping the bonnet line low like the current car is impossible if they move away from the boxer engine. It would be a shame if a new GT86 has a high bloated bonnet that every other front-engined car does these days (pedestrian impact regs).Edited by delta0 on Tuesday 31st March 22:22
As mainstream cars go hybrid and electric they get heavier, which you would think makes the current GT86 ever more relevant and appealing. Small hatchbacks like the Corsa-e are 1450kg. Golf-sized cars will be 1600kg+. The GT86 becomes more and more of a relative featherweight and engaging driving tool. It sounds like that won't be enough to save the ethos of the current car however.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff