BM TV: 86 Tuning Potential, comparison among non-tuned 86, TRD86 and HKS86

[YukiHachiRoku]

Originally Posted by Exhaust

I knew bigger wheels would be the way to go.... any joiners??

Me, but I was thinking 18 X 8/225 with +45 offset after a lot of pondering.

seems like a fair balance?

[Exhaust]

Originally Posted by YukiHachiRoku

Me, but I was thinking 18 X 8/225 with +45 offset after a lot of pondering.

seems like a fair balance?

My thoughts exactly, enough to close the wheel gap with a 3 second gain on the time attack. As well as a better selection in the wheel department.

[Lasse]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

What I don't understand is a IS250 with the same damn automatic weighs 3500 lbs, has 204 hp, and comes with 184 lb ft of torque yet it gets to the 0-400 in 15.6 seconds! Now the 86 auto is almost 700 lbs less weighty, the tranny is a slightly quicker shifter, and the torque difference is suppose to be a wash considering it only has 33 less torque with a 700 lb difference. I was expecting 0-400 for the auto in 15.1-2 seconds. The manual seems to be the best deal and the automatic sounds like less car for more money. And in the real world I believe the mpg is ultra close.

It's high strung small displacement N/A engine paired with automatic transmission. Of course it's slow on strip. Plenty fast for me, but i still prefer manual!

Besides, that lexus is quite fast in it's class.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Lasse

It's high strung small displacement N/A engine paired with automatic transmission. Of course it's slow on strip. Plenty fast for me, but i still prefer manual!

Besides, that lexus is quite fast in it's class.

Regardless of being high strung the power to weight ratio favors a FRS/BRZ automatic over a IS250. I remember telling somebody in a thread that in this day and age P2W ratio sometimes don't add up typically because of gearing,DCT,AWD and underrated F/I engines. But this is a case where none of that matters since both cars is RWD, same auto+gearing,and both N/A.

[Levi]

I don't know but I think it would make an even better lap time with 235/40/17.

[yajin]

hey, guys.
Just updated with the gymkahana part.

The post is getting longer...and my English is getting awkward....correct me if something weired....

[Lasse]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Regardless of being high strung the power to weight ratio favors a FRS/BRZ automatic over a IS250. I remember telling somebody in a thread that in this day and age P2W ratio sometimes don't add up typically because of gearing,DCT,AWD and underrated F/I engines. But this is a case where none of that matters since both cars is RWD, same auto+gearing,and both N/A.

Hey maaaan, you are just magazine racer this time.

Problem of automatic gt86 is that it has longer gears than manual, and when the car changes bigger gear on, the revs drops too much compared to manual (with good driver). And the acceleration suffers cos revs are too low after gear change. Someone could call that it doesn't have that much midrange torque but personally i love this kind of engines... If you are good manual driver, you can keep the revs high enough to get the best acceleration after the gear change. And this is the fact why high revving small displacement N/A engine is slower in automatic form.

IS250 doesn't have that kind of torque curve. It has very good midrange torque so acceleration doesn't suffer that much. Actually manual and automatic IS250's are almost equally fast. And manual GT86 is a lot faster than IS250 in any form...

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Exhaust

My thoughts exactly, enough to close the wheel gap with a 3 second gain on the time attack. As well as a better selection in the wheel department.

That 3 seconds is really coming from the tires. The 18s were still faster though by 2tenths or whatever BUT they were also 235s instead of 215s. A better comparison would have been 235s in 17 vs 235s in 18.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Lasse

Hey maaaan, you are just magazine racer this time.

Problem of automatic gt86 is that it has longer gears than manual, and when the car changes bigger gear on, the revs drops too much compared to manual (with good driver). And the acceleration suffers cos revs are too low after gear change. Someone could call that it doesn't have that much midrange torque but personally i love this kind of engines... If you are good manual driver, you can keep the revs high enough to get the best acceleration after the gear change. And this is the fact why high revving small displacement N/A engine is slower in automatic form.

IS250 doesn't have that kind of torque curve. It has very good midrange torque so acceleration doesn't suffer that much. Actually manual and automatic IS250's are almost equally fast. And manual GT86 is a lot faster than IS250 in any form...

Im a magazine racer for making sense? You sound incredibly stupid.

[Dave-ROR]

Chill. Both of you.

[yajin]

Just updated the last part on the circuit battle. Actually, there is one more thing regarding BRZ's GT300 race w/ some interviews to the director and the drivers. I'll skip this part for now....

Now, I am watching this!

[(K)]

Wow, Yajin. Thank you for the post. That took a lot of time and effort to make screen caps and translations. I appreciate it!

[Exhaust]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

That 3 seconds is really coming from the tires. The 18s were still faster though by 2tenths or whatever BUT they were also 235s instead of 215s. A better comparison would have been 235s in 17 vs 235s in 18.

Thanks for the correction

[Lasse]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Im a magazine racer for making sense? You sound incredibly stupid.

Relax. You did compare p2w and so on, and those things doesn't always tell the truth. IS250 engine is made for autobox and there isn't a big difference in performance when automatic and manual are compared together.

Automatic GT86 is slower in drag race than manual.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Lasse

Relax. You did compare p2w and so on, and those things doesn't always tell the truth. IS250 engine is made for autobox and there isn't a big difference in performance when automatic and manual are compared together.

Automatic GT86 is slower in drag race than manual.

That's the same thing I was saying. P2W ratio doesn't always add up. It seems like owning a sporty automatic is only good with 6/8/10/12 cylinder engines. That's why I was saying that the manual is the only good deal for the FRS/BRZ.

[Gardus@Supersprint]

A dual clutch system with shorter gearing would have been as good as the manual (but you can't kick the clutch).
We have the Audi S5 with the 7 speed DSG gearbox and is amazing.

[Lasse]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

That's the same thing I was saying. P2W ratio doesn't always add up. It seems like owning a sporty automatic is only good with 6/8/10/12 cylinder engines. That's why I was saying that the manual is the only good deal for the FRS/BRZ.

Sorry, i misread you!

[Sport-Tech]

LOL that auto gets through the 1/4 only .2 sec faster than my 98 Tiburon. As much as I love the car for many of its other attributes, that really blows. A big raspberry to Toyota for choosing such non-sporty ratios in the auto.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

LOL that auto gets through the 1/4 only .2 sec faster than my 98 Tiburon. As much as I love the car for many of its other attributes, that really blows. A big raspberry to Toyota for choosing such non-sporty ratios in the auto.

Do you have the V6 or I4 Tib. If its the I4 then that really is funny as hell to me too.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Do you have the V6 or I4 Tib. If its the I4 then that really is funny as hell to me too.

First-gen Tib, so no V6, but it is 200 lbs lighter than the FR-S. Still, it's only 140 hp/133 torques - so the laugh is on Toyota. BTW the Tib 1/4 mile time comes from a R&T comparo test - just checked it, it's conservative as their 0-60 was 8.3, the worst I've seen for the Tib.

Starting to get cold feet re my deposit. I have one longer test drive coming on an MT to make up my mind, plan to do a highway drive to check power is adequate (hopefully without my 250-lb salesman on board! ).

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

First-gen Tib, so no V6, but it is 200 lbs lighter than the FR-S. Still, it's only 140 hp/133 torques - so the laugh is on Toyota. BTW the Tib 1/4 mile time comes from a R&T comparo test - just checked it, it's conservative as their 0-60 was 8.3, the worst I've seen for the Tib.

Starting to get cold feet re my deposit. I have one longer test drive coming on an MT to make up my mind, plan to do a highway drive to check power is adequate (hopefully without my 250-lb salesman on board! ).

I have a feeling the manual will wow you better. I'm starting to jump on the manual transmission bandwagon now. But if this car was a 2.5l 4 cylinder or bigger it would be a different story.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I have a feeling the manual will wow you better. I'm starting to jump on the manual transmission bandwagon now. But if this car was a 2.5l 4 cylinder or bigger it would be a different story.

Had to quote this just because I never thought I'd see you write that