RE: New Toyota GR 86 - official!

[coastpath]

So, the same weight as a beemer Mini Cooper (1.5) N/A with proper proportions for U.K roads (and domestic garages). I, without a doubt, will buy one (forgot to mention Toyota’s legendary build quality) if they become available . For real driving enthusiasts in the real world (economic as well) this is as good as it gets.
Or, you could pay Twice or three times as much for an oil guzzling (true, see the forums)) Cayman that is 200 plus kilos heavier and has twice the servicing costs, and is so over geared you will (in Wales where I live) hardly ever get out of second gear. Such fun (not!)
This could be the perfect sports car for the better informed enthusiasts that do not require unusable performance/size/weight/width on U.K roads.

[Prestonese]

Shaqq said:

aka_kerrly said:

Pommy said:

Both of those mock ups look good , the hatch has hints of BMW Z3 & FF about it

Toyota do have form for making soft tops , as far as i know every previous generation of Celicas was available as a convertible

Gen 3 - 6 of the Celica came with a convertible option, would love to see another MR2 Roadster one day!

A shooting brake version would be interesting and probably drive a lot better than the Z3 did! Lose the back seats and just accept you have a large boot instead.

[Pommy]

https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/new-...

[DuncanM]

coastpath said:

So, the same weight as a beemer Mini Cooper (1.5) N/A with proper proportions for U.K roads (and domestic garages). I, without a doubt, will buy one (forgot to mention Toyota’s legendary build quality) if they become available . For real driving enthusiasts in the real world (economic as well) this is as good as it gets.
Or, you could pay Twice or three times as much for an oil guzzling (true, see the forums)) Cayman that is 200 plus kilos heavier and has twice the servicing costs, and is so over geared you will (in Wales where I live) hardly ever get out of second gear. Such fun (not!)
This could be the perfect sports car for the better informed enthusiasts that do not require unusable performance/size/weight/width on U.K roads.

Overgearing is a nightmare for sports cars, the GT86 is excellently geared for UK roads.

You want to feel part of the action, and that means changing gear

[aww999]

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I'm hoping this just . . . works . . . in the way that the original GT86 never did for me.

It's all very well having linear throttle response and deft handling, but unless you can confidently overtake with ease, then you will never to get to enjoy them because you'll be stuck at half speed behind a blob-mobile wobbling through the exciting set of sweepers at 25mph.

I also don't follow the argument that says more power leads to a ballooning of weight through a host of other component upgrades. The starting point is a car that felt underpowered to a lot of people a lot of the time, adding 25 - 50% horsepower makes the standard platform exciting, not a deathtrap that needs comprehensive re-engineering!

I loved the looks and the driving position and the feel but it was just too compromised. I'd probably love a turbocharged or supercharged aftermarket example. I suspect however that I'll just end up keeping my M140 and doing some suspension mods to it. Clearly I'm a hooligan at heart, rather than a driving connoisseur!

[MX-6]

aww999 said:

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I'm hoping this just . . . works . . . in the way that the original GT86 never did for me.

It's all very well having linear throttle response and deft handling, but unless you can confidently overtake with ease, then you will never to get to enjoy them because you'll be stuck at half speed behind a blob-mobile wobbling through the exciting set of sweepers at 25mph.

I also don't follow the argument that says more power leads to a ballooning of weight through a host of other component upgrades. The starting point is a car that felt underpowered to a lot of people a lot of the time, adding 25 - 50% horsepower makes the standard platform exciting, not a deathtrap that needs comprehensive re-engineering!

I loved the looks and the driving position and the feel but it was just too compromised. I'd probably love a turbocharged or supercharged aftermarket example. I suspect however that I'll just end up keeping my M140 and doing some suspension mods to it. Clearly I'm a hooligan at heart, rather than a driving connoisseur!

I think the 200 horse of the standard car should be ample for over-takes, you just need to drop a couple of cogs and redline the thing. A lot of folks these days seem to be used to and expect the low down push of a turbo diesel to get past slow traffic.

In something of a similar vein, I've a (modified) Mazda MX-6 which isn't particularly powerful in the scheme of things, but I enjoy driving in enthusiastically because it has a nice sounding quad cam V6 that revs to 7k, you need to beast it to make progress and overtake stuff which is fun. Saying that, I'm doing a turbo conversion to get it to something around 250-280 brake, which for me is ample for a road going sports car...

[JmatthewB]

braddo said:

GR_WILL said:

I thought so. The owners manual states the use of higher octane fuel, as does the inside of the fuel cap.

I’m not having a pop btw, it’s just every time I’ve read about GT86’s not matching claimed figures it’s because the owner has put 95 RON fuel in against manufacturers guidelines. Use the good stuff on a car like that :-)

It would intresting to know if the wrong fuel is the main cause of these cars apparently not making the claimed power.

It has become a 'fact' around these parts but meanwhile over the in the US people were managing to get 0-60 well under 7 secs (albeit brutally), which is hard to imagine if there really were only making 180hp.

I wonder if the stock Primacy tyres hold back the official 0-60 time? Grippier rubber might knock half a second off the time.

I always run my 86 on V-power but I'm going island hopping in west Scotland in the summer. With no V-Power west of Glasgow and limited Super Unleaded availability would octane booster be recommended with 95 RON?

[grumbledoak]

JmatthewB said:

I wonder if the stock Primacy tyres hold back the official 0-60 time? Grippier rubber might knock half a second off the time.

I always run my 86 on V-power but I'm going island hopping in west Scotland in the summer. With no V-Power west of Glasgow and limited Super Unleaded availability would octane booster be recommended with 95 RON?

Or the extra gear change.

[jinba-ittai]

DuncanM said:

coastpath said:

So, the same weight as a beemer Mini Cooper (1.5) N/A with proper proportions for U.K roads (and domestic garages). I, without a doubt, will buy one (forgot to mention Toyota’s legendary build quality) if they become available . For real driving enthusiasts in the real world (economic as well) this is as good as it gets.
Or, you could pay Twice or three times as much for an oil guzzling (true, see the forums)) Cayman that is 200 plus kilos heavier and has twice the servicing costs, and is so over geared you will (in Wales where I live) hardly ever get out of second gear. Such fun (not!)
This could be the perfect sports car for the better informed enthusiasts that do not require unusable performance/size/weight/width on U.K roads.

Overgearing is a nightmare for sports cars, the GT86 is excellently geared for UK roads.

You want to feel part of the action, and that means changing gear

I actually felt that the GT86 was overgeared when I had one (although less overgeared than most), -10% off of the first five gears would have been perfect

[aww999]

MX-6 said:

aww999 said:

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I'm hoping this just . . . works . . . in the way that the original GT86 never did for me.

It's all very well having linear throttle response and deft handling, but unless you can confidently overtake with ease, then you will never to get to enjoy them because you'll be stuck at half speed behind a blob-mobile wobbling through the exciting set of sweepers at 25mph.

I also don't follow the argument that says more power leads to a ballooning of weight through a host of other component upgrades. The starting point is a car that felt underpowered to a lot of people a lot of the time, adding 25 - 50% horsepower makes the standard platform exciting, not a deathtrap that needs comprehensive re-engineering!

I loved the looks and the driving position and the feel but it was just too compromised. I'd probably love a turbocharged or supercharged aftermarket example. I suspect however that I'll just end up keeping my M140 and doing some suspension mods to it. Clearly I'm a hooligan at heart, rather than a driving connoisseur!

I think the 200 horse of the standard car should be ample for over-takes, you just need to drop a couple of cogs and redline the thing. A lot of folks these days seem to be used to and expect the low down push of a turbo diesel to get past slow traffic.

In something of a similar vein, I've a (modified) Mazda MX-6 which isn't particularly powerful in the scheme of things, but I enjoy driving in enthusiastically because it has a nice sounding quad cam V6 that revs to 7k, you need to beast it to make progress and overtake stuff which is fun. Saying that, I'm doing a turbo conversion to get it to something around 250-280 brake, which for me is ample for a road going sports car...

I hear what you're saying and I used to enjoy a well-executed overtake in my 100bhp AW11 MR2! However, more power gives you more options more of the time, and I like being able to surf past a single car on a wave of torque, or use all of the revs to nip past a lorry on a short straight. These days you also need to consider that the numpty in front of you may choose to be difficult and floor his turbodiesel MPV once he realises that you're coming past him.

[CABC]

jinba-ittai said:

DuncanM said:

coastpath said:

So, the same weight as a beemer Mini Cooper (1.5) N/A with proper proportions for U.K roads (and domestic garages). I, without a doubt, will buy one (forgot to mention Toyota’s legendary build quality) if they become available . For real driving enthusiasts in the real world (economic as well) this is as good as it gets.
Or, you could pay Twice or three times as much for an oil guzzling (true, see the forums)) Cayman that is 200 plus kilos heavier and has twice the servicing costs, and is so over geared you will (in Wales where I live) hardly ever get out of second gear. Such fun (not!)
This could be the perfect sports car for the better informed enthusiasts that do not require unusable performance/size/weight/width on U.K roads.

Overgearing is a nightmare for sports cars, the GT86 is excellently geared for UK roads.

You want to feel part of the action, and that means changing gear

I actually felt that the GT86 was overgeared when I had one (although less overgeared than most), -10% off of the first five gears would have been perfect

Being rwd the diff is accessible. There are a few different fd ratios available fitted for under 1k.

[cerb4.5lee]

MX-6 said:

aww999 said:

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I'm hoping this just . . . works . . . in the way that the original GT86 never did for me.

It's all very well having linear throttle response and deft handling, but unless you can confidently overtake with ease, then you will never to get to enjoy them because you'll be stuck at half speed behind a blob-mobile wobbling through the exciting set of sweepers at 25mph.

I also don't follow the argument that says more power leads to a ballooning of weight through a host of other component upgrades. The starting point is a car that felt underpowered to a lot of people a lot of the time, adding 25 - 50% horsepower makes the standard platform exciting, not a deathtrap that needs comprehensive re-engineering!

I loved the looks and the driving position and the feel but it was just too compromised. I'd probably love a turbocharged or supercharged aftermarket example. I suspect however that I'll just end up keeping my M140 and doing some suspension mods to it. Clearly I'm a hooligan at heart, rather than a driving connoisseur!

I think the 200 horse of the standard car should be ample for over-takes, you just need to drop a couple of cogs and redline the thing. A lot of folks these days seem to be used to and expect the low down push of a turbo diesel to get past slow traffic.

In something of a similar vein, I've a (modified) Mazda MX-6 which isn't particularly powerful in the scheme of things, but I enjoy driving in enthusiastically because it has a nice sounding quad cam V6 that revs to 7k, you need to beast it to make progress and overtake stuff which is fun. Saying that, I'm doing a turbo conversion to get it to something around 250-280 brake, which for me is ample for a road going sports car...

Another thing you have to be aware of if you are using a NA engine is that the person that you are overtaking doesn't floor it. I've had a couple of occasions in my 370Z when someone driving either a petrol turbo or a diesel turbo boots it when I've gone to overtake. You are then either left out hanging there or you have to make sure that you are right at the top of the revs to get past them.

I have a love/hate relationship with NA engines being fair, and I think that if I had a lower powered NA engine then I'd probably never do any overtaking! I just prefer the boost from a turbo!

ETA...just realised that aww999 has mentioned what I've said as well.

Edited by cerb4.5lee on Friday 9th April 12:17

[MX-6]

aww999 said:

MX-6 said:

aww999 said:

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I'm hoping this just . . . works . . . in the way that the original GT86 never did for me.

It's all very well having linear throttle response and deft handling, but unless you can confidently overtake with ease, then you will never to get to enjoy them because you'll be stuck at half speed behind a blob-mobile wobbling through the exciting set of sweepers at 25mph.

I also don't follow the argument that says more power leads to a ballooning of weight through a host of other component upgrades. The starting point is a car that felt underpowered to a lot of people a lot of the time, adding 25 - 50% horsepower makes the standard platform exciting, not a deathtrap that needs comprehensive re-engineering!

I loved the looks and the driving position and the feel but it was just too compromised. I'd probably love a turbocharged or supercharged aftermarket example. I suspect however that I'll just end up keeping my M140 and doing some suspension mods to it. Clearly I'm a hooligan at heart, rather than a driving connoisseur!

I think the 200 horse of the standard car should be ample for over-takes, you just need to drop a couple of cogs and redline the thing. A lot of folks these days seem to be used to and expect the low down push of a turbo diesel to get past slow traffic.

In something of a similar vein, I've a (modified) Mazda MX-6 which isn't particularly powerful in the scheme of things, but I enjoy driving in enthusiastically because it has a nice sounding quad cam V6 that revs to 7k, you need to beast it to make progress and overtake stuff which is fun. Saying that, I'm doing a turbo conversion to get it to something around 250-280 brake, which for me is ample for a road going sports car...

I hear what you're saying and I used to enjoy a well-executed overtake in my 100bhp AW11 MR2! However, more power gives you more options more of the time, and I like being able to surf past a single car on a wave of torque, or use all of the revs to nip past a lorry on a short straight. These days you also need to consider that the numpty in front of you may choose to be difficult and floor his turbodiesel MPV once he realises that you're coming past him.

I always really like the mk1 MR2 but never owned one. But yeah, I agree that more power does give more options and all other things being equal ought to result in safer over-takes. I've had a few characters in turbo family motors wanting to speed up to resist being passed which can be a bit dangerous in certain situations.

It's obviously better to get passed if you are already carrying some extra speed over the car you are passing before you move across to pass, so timing is important in that regard, otherwise if they accelerate too the difference in speed can be inadequate if they get into full boost. Knowing the road your on always helps as well doesn't it.

[PK1987]

Olivera said:

I don't quite understand this.

Making it more practical would turn it into a bigger/longer/heavier car, or a hatchback, at which point you might as well go for one of the established hot hatches with the extra torque from a turbo engine to match.

As for it not being hardcore enough - what car is more hardcore at this price point? It's a bespoke drivers' RWD/NA/manual coupe, that is rare at any price point.

As an owner of an 86 for 6 years I am inclined to agree that I would have preferred a redesign of the back end to a hatch style, like a 944 or even the trueno. This would mean m minimal changes to the shape but improved rear head room and a convenient boot access.

I would have preferred them to have focused on lightening the chassis to reduce weight by 100kg or so. That would have had benefits for everything and power to weight would have been similar to the new car.

[grumbledoak]

PK1987 said:

As an owner of an 86 for 6 years I am inclined to agree that I would have preferred a redesign of the back end to a hatch style, like a 944 or even the trueno. This would mean m minimal changes to the shape but improved rear head room and a convenient boot access.

I would have preferred them to have focused on lightening the chassis to reduce weight by 100kg or so. That would have had benefits for everything and power to weight would have been similar to the new car.

As an owner of an 86 for 5 years, I didn't want a Fiesta ST or an Elise. Should I expect all that to change in the next few months?

[DuncanM]

PK1987 said:

As an owner of an 86 for 6 years I am inclined to agree that I would have preferred a redesign of the back end to a hatch style, like a 944 or even the trueno. This would mean m minimal changes to the shape but improved rear head room and a convenient boot access.

I would have preferred them to have focused on lightening the chassis to reduce weight by 100kg or so. That would have had benefits for everything and power to weight would have been similar to the new car.

No one is reducing the 86's weight by 100kg, without completely ruining the car - if you look around one, there's no fat to trim.

[nickfrog]

DuncanM said:

No one is reducing the 86's weight by 100kg, without completely ruining the car - if you look around one, there's no fat to trim.

Yes I remember mine feeling quite "optimised" already. The panels were very thin. Even if they could take 100kgs off the chassis, it would flex for Japan.

[Varelco]

nickfrog said:

Yes I remember mine feeling quite "optimised" already. The panels were very thin. Even if they could take 100kgs off the chassis, it would flex for Japan.

The only realistic way to make the car lighter would be to make it smaller. Ditching the rear seats and making it shorter would have helped. The rear seats are truely pointless.

I do wonder if it would have gained more love if this was the case.

[DuncanM]

Varelco said:

The only realistic way to make the car lighter would be to make it smaller. Ditching the rear seats and making it shorter would have helped. The rear seats are truely pointless.

I do wonder if it would have gained more love if this was the case.

I love the back seats, and for some, even the tiniest rear seats will be essential to the buying choice.

I've used mine a few times for short journeys, 1 person behind the passenger, fine for 3 people, less so for 4.

Very good load space with seats down too.

I love the idea of a 350/70Z car, but they're heavier, and less practical. That engine though

[loudlashadjuster]

Varelco said:

nickfrog said:

Yes I remember mine feeling quite "optimised" already. The panels were very thin. Even if they could take 100kgs off the chassis, it would flex for Japan.

The only realistic way to make the car lighter would be to make it smaller. Ditching the rear seats and making it shorter would have helped. The rear seats are truely pointless.

I do wonder if it would have gained more love if this was the case.

Everyone I know who has had or has a GT86 has a family and appreciated the rears, even if only for occasional use. Dropping them cuts out a fair chunk of potential buyers.