Discussion
Like a number of others, I signed up for information about the GT86 as I'm genuinely interested, sorry if I've missed another thread, but I got an update this morning...
http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/frame_st...
Looks good, however I can't get my head around the 0-62 time of 7.6 secs. I totally agree that it isn't the most important thing about a car, especially with what it's aimed at, however that is really pretty slow to get moving. Is it going to be easily beaten in customer cars or is there something weird with the gearing as I just can't see how it's over 7 secs with the power to weight and RWD.
http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/frame_st...
Looks good, however I can't get my head around the 0-62 time of 7.6 secs. I totally agree that it isn't the most important thing about a car, especially with what it's aimed at, however that is really pretty slow to get moving. Is it going to be easily beaten in customer cars or is there something weird with the gearing as I just can't see how it's over 7 secs with the power to weight and RWD.
Test of the Subaru version here:
http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-sub...
They got 60 in 7.3, but made this comment:
"Best launch rpm = 3,500-3,700. Rev limiter hits in 2nd gear at 59.2 mph, forcing the 2-3 shift just before the 60-mph milestone and significantly increasing the 0-60 time"
http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-sub...
They got 60 in 7.3, but made this comment:
"Best launch rpm = 3,500-3,700. Rev limiter hits in 2nd gear at 59.2 mph, forcing the 2-3 shift just before the 60-mph milestone and significantly increasing the 0-60 time"
davepoth said:
Exactly this. I should think that to get a good spread of gears, 2nd will top out around 50-55mph or so, meaning an extra change is needed for 60. It'll feel a bit quicker on the road.
I've read a few US articles indicating the same thing. I suppose its promising that they have chosen to set the ratios for driving reasons rather than making their specs look better.otolith said:
Test of the Subaru version here:
http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-sub...
They got 60 in 7.3, but made this comment:
"Best launch rpm = 3,500-3,700. Rev limiter hits in 2nd gear at 59.2 mph, forcing the 2-3 shift just before the 60-mph milestone and significantly increasing the 0-60 time"
will add about .5 of a second unless the box sucks, maybe less to a prohttp://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-sub...
They got 60 in 7.3, but made this comment:
"Best launch rpm = 3,500-3,700. Rev limiter hits in 2nd gear at 59.2 mph, forcing the 2-3 shift just before the 60-mph milestone and significantly increasing the 0-60 time"
you do wonder why they made the ratio 0.9 mph too short??
Dave Hedgehog said:
otolith said:
Test of the Subaru version here:
http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-sub...
They got 60 in 7.3, but made this comment:
"Best launch rpm = 3,500-3,700. Rev limiter hits in 2nd gear at 59.2 mph, forcing the 2-3 shift just before the 60-mph milestone and significantly increasing the 0-60 time"
will add about .5 of a second unless the box sucks, maybe less to a prohttp://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-sub...
They got 60 in 7.3, but made this comment:
"Best launch rpm = 3,500-3,700. Rev limiter hits in 2nd gear at 59.2 mph, forcing the 2-3 shift just before the 60-mph milestone and significantly increasing the 0-60 time"
you do wonder why they made the ratio 0.9 mph too short??
If they really wanted to bring the time down, they could do what Aston Martin did with the Vanquish - bounce it off the limiter. In the Vanquish, 60 came just after the end of first gear, but when they floored it into the limiter, a certain amount of elasticity in the drivetrain allowed the car's speed to touch 60 quicker than it would with a change into second.
People need to get over this "its too slow" crap
Ive got a 2002 Saxo VTR that takes an age to get 0-60 but its such a laugh to drive because you can throw it around and it likes to rev
I wont pass judgement until driving one myself but the stats for this car are in its favour, If it gives a great 'smiles per miles' ratio then im sold
Ive got a 2002 Saxo VTR that takes an age to get 0-60 but its such a laugh to drive because you can throw it around and it likes to rev
I wont pass judgement until driving one myself but the stats for this car are in its favour, If it gives a great 'smiles per miles' ratio then im sold
I still don't see this is a huge issue.
You can go very fast indeed on £25k second hand - a 200mph car should be just about in reach - if that's what you want (not you personally, OP, but you get my point...) This car is about something different.
It's still got nigh-on 170bhp/ton. In-gear acceleration should be pretty brisk and 7.6 seconds to 60mph is hardly glacial. As others have said, the standing start times probably don't give the full picture, but if you honestly think that it's embarrassingly slow consider the fact that the average person in this country probably has a 10 year old C-segment hatch that does it in 10 seconds with a following wind.
I guess there's a danger of overstating the whole purity thing, but hypothetically you can imagine a few scenarios:
To keep the cost down you want a relatively low stressed n/a engine - screamers or turbos add cost; larger capacity n/a engines tend to be heavier and more expensive to run.
You need to beef everything up - most notably the tyres - if you want to transmit a lot of power. Skinny tyres work wonders for a car's dynamics and influence things like the amount of steering assistance that's needed, as well as simply providing fun at more manageable speeds.
Insurance groups would go up with more performance, as would CO2 ratings probably.
Last but not least, maybe they needed to allow space for an STi version.
You can go very fast indeed on £25k second hand - a 200mph car should be just about in reach - if that's what you want (not you personally, OP, but you get my point...) This car is about something different.
It's still got nigh-on 170bhp/ton. In-gear acceleration should be pretty brisk and 7.6 seconds to 60mph is hardly glacial. As others have said, the standing start times probably don't give the full picture, but if you honestly think that it's embarrassingly slow consider the fact that the average person in this country probably has a 10 year old C-segment hatch that does it in 10 seconds with a following wind.
I guess there's a danger of overstating the whole purity thing, but hypothetically you can imagine a few scenarios:
To keep the cost down you want a relatively low stressed n/a engine - screamers or turbos add cost; larger capacity n/a engines tend to be heavier and more expensive to run.
You need to beef everything up - most notably the tyres - if you want to transmit a lot of power. Skinny tyres work wonders for a car's dynamics and influence things like the amount of steering assistance that's needed, as well as simply providing fun at more manageable speeds.
Insurance groups would go up with more performance, as would CO2 ratings probably.
Last but not least, maybe they needed to allow space for an STi version.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff