Soldato
Wow that does look awesome. The standard wheels look horrible IMO.
Subaru-powered Toyota FT-86 gets closer to production...
- Thread starter DreXeL
- Start date
Soldato
They aren't that bad imo but you could get much nicer. Not a fan of the first pic but yes to the second. Are they BBS?
Soldato
I just got back from test driving this:
It looks awesome in the flesh, it sounds great, very nice driving position and overall 'feel' to the car. It just felt a bit underwhelming in a straight line. I was expecting it to feel much quicker than my Clio 182, but it didn't, it actually felt slower. I got back in my 182 afterwards and hammered it to the rev limited in 1st and 2nd down the dual carriageway (the same one I'd just taken the GT86 down) and it felt faster.
I don't know a great deal about cars by the way, that's just what it felt like.
It was an auto, they had no manual in, paddle shift was good.
It looks awesome in the flesh, it sounds great, very nice driving position and overall 'feel' to the car. It just felt a bit underwhelming in a straight line. I was expecting it to feel much quicker than my Clio 182, but it didn't, it actually felt slower. I got back in my 182 afterwards and hammered it to the rev limited in 1st and 2nd down the dual carriageway (the same one I'd just taken the GT86 down) and it felt faster.
I don't know a great deal about cars by the way, that's just what it felt like.
It was an auto, they had no manual in, paddle shift was good.
Soldato
Soldato
I just got back from test driving this:
It looks awesome in the flesh, it sounds great, very nice driving position and overall 'feel' to the car. It just felt a bit underwhelming in a straight line. I was expecting it to feel much quicker than my Clio 182, but it didn't, it actually felt slower. I got back in my 182 afterwards and hammered it to the rev limited in 1st and 2nd down the dual carriageway (the same one I'd just taken the GT86 down) and it felt faster.
I don't know a great deal about cars by the way, that's just what it felt like.
It was an auto, they had no manual in, paddle shift was good.
Who gives a **** it'll be ten times more fun around any circuit than any FWD hot hatch regardless of lap times
No manual test though - thankfully pinkstones do have a manwell in for me to drive on saturday.
The short shift on the gearbox is quite extreme as standard, too.
Soldato
Cars can be deceiving I’ve found, it may have felt slower because the car has a better ride or you feel ‘safer’ in it… I know my old car felt faster when travelling at constant speed than my current despite a massive difference in power due to it being a tin can with wheels.
Yeah that's a very good point actually!
I just got back from test driving this:
It looks awesome in the flesh, it sounds great, very nice driving position and overall 'feel' to the car. It just felt a bit underwhelming in a straight line. I was expecting it to feel much quicker than my Clio 182, but it didn't, it actually felt slower. I got back in my 182 afterwards and hammered it to the rev limited in 1st and 2nd down the dual carriageway (the same one I'd just taken the GT86 down) and it felt faster.
I don't know a great deal about cars by the way, that's just what it felt like.
It was an auto, they had no manual in, paddle shift was good.
Why were you expecting it to be quicker?
The clio has similar power, Is lighter and its torque and power are lower in the rev range?
This aint a 350z
Clio weight 1090kg
peak power 180 at 6.5k
peak torque 148 fltlb at 5.25k
Manual
Brz weight 1253kg
peak power 197 at 7k
peak torque 151 6.6k
Auto
Last edited:
Soldato
The thing is despite the whole idea of the GT86 being a fun less powerful RWD car, it has to live up to it's predecessors. Celica, MR2 and Supra. Which I will guarantee most people will have in mind when driving one, which is why I can understand why scarysquirrel though it would feel faster.
I remember reading a thread somewhere which went into great detail about the GT86's power band/torque and apparently it is narrower that a Clio 200's but with less revs? Someone can correct me on this though I'm sure.
I remember reading a thread somewhere which went into great detail about the GT86's power band/torque and apparently it is narrower that a Clio 200's but with less revs? Someone can correct me on this though I'm sure.
Soldato
Like I said, I don't know much about cars, I just thought a £24k RWD coupe might be quicker than my £3k 8 year old Clio 182. I imagine that is what most people that don't know what the peak torque of a Clio at 5.25k is would think!
I was thinking about this car last night and a thought occurred to me regarding the similarities with the '86 Supra (I know this is a hommage to the AE86), the GT-86 has the same power and 0-60 times as the 1986 Supra N/A (though it does it with 2 cylinders less and using 75% of the fuel ofc) and like the Supra is touted as having great handling (don't laugh, the MA70 chassis had great handling and suspension characteristics 26 years ago) but it was just under a year after the Supra launch that Toyota decided to turbo charge its engine, the '86 Supra ended its life with a TT engine that put out 1.5x the power the original N/A, hopefully the GT-86's career will follow suit
Age and current value are irrelevant, the 1990 TT Supra I used to drive was worth £3-4k and that would destroy a GT-86 in a straight line.
Age and current value are irrelevant, the 1990 TT Supra I used to drive was worth £3-4k and that would destroy a GT-86 in a straight line.
Last edited:
Soldato
I was thinking about this car last night and a thought occurred to me regarding the similarities with the '86 Supra (I know this is a hommage to the AE86), the GT-86 has the same power and 0-60 times as the 1986 Supra N/A (though it does it with 2 cylinders less and using 75% of the fuel ofc) and like the Supra is touted as having great handling (don't laugh, the MA70 chassis had great handling and suspension characteristics 26 years ago) but it was just under a year after the Supra launch that Toyota decided to turbo charge its engine, the '86 Supra ended its life with a TT engine that put out 1.5x the power the original N/A, hopefully the GT-86's career will follow suit
Age and current value are irrelevant, the 1990 TT Supra I used to drive was worth £3-4k and that would destroy a GT-86 in a straight line.
I know, like I said I don't know much about cars.
I babbled on about a comparison between the clio197 and the engine in the brz two pages back here :
IM not certain about that, I've read a lot about it that to actually get that 0-60 you need to up the rev limiter a little as it hits 58 in second. This could be wrong though
Besides, that box must be very short, The box in my gti-6 is short and I can do 67 in second, Which is a 9mph difference, And both boxes have 6 gears
Honestly though the thing that will prevent me getting one is:
I wanted to like it but the engine is the weak link really.
It doesnt even need more power its just the torque is ALL the way at the top.
6.6k is VERY high to have peak torque when you have peak power 0.4k afterwards and then the redline at the same interval after that.
It would benifit massively from an engine like this Clio 200:
It makes the same power at 7100 (.1k later)
But slightly more torque than the brz (7lbft) but 1.2k earlier.
And the clio engine isn't exactly known for low down torque...
And with it costing 25k to 30k if you like options. I'd much rather just plump up the extra 3k or so for a BMW M135i at 29k
Like I said, I think the engine is a serious weak link. Irrespective of comparisions with other sports cars of hatchbacks or what ever.
for a 2.0 litre 197 hp jobby. There are far better engines out there.
Bear in mind that a clio197 isnt exactly known for low down power but the engine significantly bests it.
They should have went with a lower capacity turbo'd engine producing the same power lower down. It would be just as eco friendly too
Agree 100% with this, Toyota should have gone to Yamaha for the engine instead of Subaru (Yamaha did the legendary JZ and 3S engines for them to name a couple).
Caporegime
JZ, 3S, 2ZZ etc...
The car looks great, the spoiler looks pap, and its too slow
The previous flagship Toyotas were all turbo. The 2zz series of Corolla and Celica were seen as too slow and they were quite similar to the output of the new engine, but being more revvy and less torquey.
Like i say, its a re envisioned 200sx but without the tunability.
The car looks great, the spoiler looks pap, and its too slow
The previous flagship Toyotas were all turbo. The 2zz series of Corolla and Celica were seen as too slow and they were quite similar to the output of the new engine, but being more revvy and less torquey.Like i say, its a re envisioned 200sx but without the tunability.
It seems unfair to me to compare a manual car with an auto that's heavier - I've decided to fire of an email to arrange a test drive but I only really want to try a manual so if the local dealer has an automatic I'll wait.
I'm wondering what some of you guys are expecting though, I'd expect the manual version to be around the same overall ballpark as a 172/182 (though it looks like it'll be slower in 0-60 terms, i'm more interested in once it's rolling really) with tight, well balanced handling and a reasonable interior. It's probably closes to the 190 7th gen celica but with rwd than anything else
It's not going to set your pants on fire in a straight line, one look at the performance figures should tell you that - if and when they stick a turbo under there I'd expect a significant improvement though.
I'm wondering what some of you guys are expecting though, I'd expect the manual version to be around the same overall ballpark as a 172/182 (though it looks like it'll be slower in 0-60 terms, i'm more interested in once it's rolling really) with tight, well balanced handling and a reasonable interior. It's probably closes to the 190 7th gen celica but with rwd than anything else
It's not going to set your pants on fire in a straight line, one look at the performance figures should tell you that - if and when they stick a turbo under there I'd expect a significant improvement though.
Thats valid, My only gripe is that the engine, if you view it as simply a 2.0 that makes 197hp is no where as flexible in the powerband as an equilvilent 2.0 197hp engine..
Which i think is part of the reason the car is a bit of a let down.
Essentially what I'm saying is, If you plonked a clio 200 engine in it, it would be better. Overall.
Or infact even some of the other competitors to the clio engine. Like the one found in a mini cooper S or VAG's 1.4tsi jobby.
Which i think is part of the reason the car is a bit of a let down.
Essentially what I'm saying is, If you plonked a clio 200 engine in it, it would be better. Overall.
Or infact even some of the other competitors to the clio engine. Like the one found in a mini cooper S or VAG's 1.4tsi jobby.
Soldato
Most people seem to have overlooked or missed the point of this car. It's not meant to be an super fast car where the owner can brag about how much hpee's he has and his 0-60 times down the pub. Its all about driver enjoyment; handling, engagement, feel, etc. I am so glad they didn't bolt on a turbo and make it super fast, as that is utterly pointless on a day to day driving basis. Comparisons with a Supra is also a non-issue, the fT86 predecessor is the AE86, which was a light weight fun to drive sports car, and the FT86 has followed much in the same ethos. They should having massive tuning potential for the BHP brigade, which is good as you have a nice basis to work with...
Soldato
Ah, but that'd mess with the weight distribution!