Next-Gen Toyota GT86 To Be Renamed Celica?

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

There are 45 years between the 2000GT and the 86, and yet there ARE stylistic similarities. That's because the 86 was designed to look like an updated 2000GT. It was never designed with the AE86 in mind at all. That was just marketing bullshit.

Yeah! Both cars are white, two-door, and nobody can deny that they both have four wheels!

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

So... going by your need to tie styling cues

I didn't say that.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

exact same type of motors

That either.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

what styling cues carried over from the Celica to the tC

Nor that.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

to make it the spiritual successor the people who made the cars claim it to be?

That neither.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

They didn't share motors, tCs had Camry power.

I didn't say they did.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Sports 800 was small, lightweight, FR, powered by a flat engine, and derived from a rather pedestrian common car in the Publica. But I guess it's not a real sports car because it and its powerplant were derived from an economy car, right?

I didn't say that either. "Derived from" is not the same thing as taking the same car and just slapping a body kit, a turbo and some big brakes on it and trying to pretend it's a sports car.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Toyota was just lying to us about this being their first real sports car because they hadn't built the Mustang-style-stealing Celica GT just yet.

Who said that? Not me.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

But there's your flat engine in Toyota's history.

I didn't say anything about "Toyota's history." I said the AE86 has nothing to do with the current 86, beyond maybe that they're both cars. "OMG, they both have wheels! They must be spiritual successors!"

Originally Posted by Overdrive

The 2000GT, as its name implies, was meant to be a grand touring car. That means power and comfort above sheer handling prowess, because you need to be able to control the car in virtually any sort of road conditions you'll find on your long road trip...you're touring, after all, which was a luxury aspect of car pwenrship when it was en vogue. Purpose-built sports cars don't make very good touring cars since better handling tends to trump comfort, by design. Not so great for long trips across all sorts of imperfect roads.

And yet it still has more in common with the current 86 than the AE86 econobox.

To be clear, I'm not even trying to claim the 86 is related more than superficially to the 2000GT. What I meant to convey was that it has more of a relationship to that car than to the AE86, and since the 2000GT isn't really considered its predecessor, the AE86 has even less (or rather, no) claim to that title. The marketing people made it up in an attempt to cash in on the popularity of Initial D.

Fanboys will believe anything.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

So I guess that makes the 2000GT, by definition, also not a sports car.

"Things I didn't say for $800, Alex."

Originally Posted by Overdrive

And even if I can concede that the RWD, why-bother-offering-an-LSD-option-for-this-non-sports car Corolla/Sprinter can be considered not a sports car depending on who you ask, since the other two aren't either according to your rules,

Not according to any rules of mine. You're well into making up your own bullshit at this point.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

where's the spiritual succession in any of it using your criteria?

I don't know. Maybe there isn't one.

But I know where it's not, and that's between the AE86 and the 86.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Toyota just pulled a sports car design out of nowhere, calling upon none of their recent history at all, right?

I dunno. This is your fiction at this point. It's way beyond anything I've said.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

That Corolla was just their last light RWD platform, so we can't possibly show any relation when it doesn't even have today's equivalent of the 4A engine in it. Is that engine only relevant when placed in an MR2?

"What is, 'Things I didn't say?'"

"Correct!"

"Staying with 'Things I didn't say for $1000,' Alex."

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Spiritual succession means it's obviously not going to be the resurrection of the exact same thing, but is designed in the (gasp!) spirit of the thing(s) from which it's derived, with each having something to offer to the whole package. I don't think most folks have any disillusions when it comes to that term. That's how spiritual succession works for the rest of the world.

The 86 is not derived from the AE86 in any sense of that word. The rest of that paragraph falls apart into irrelevance.

Originally Posted by Overdrive

It's not all just marketing BS. It's taking the good stuff from your history and putting it together to make something that hopefully rings true with those who knew those cars when they were new and the best thing going, and can make those who never had the pleasure appreciate what the successor can give them an idea of. It's what every company does with any car they make (ideally and hopefully). Take the good, toss the bad, and maybe try something new along with it.

Yet another straw man. Nowhere did I say they weren't drawing on their general history of building automobiles. It's the forced, artificial connection to the AE86 that is most definitely marketing bullshit.

You've had to work extra hard building straw men for this thread. You should change your screen name to Scarecrow.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

There's no marketing of it as a successor to the 2000GT, because nobody even knows what that is.

Sorry, but I can't let this one past, and I wish I'd spotted it before I typed out that grocery shopping receipt of a post so I could one-liner it here.

I guess those lil guys in the bottom right corner of the pages of the Scion brochure, especially that one in the middle, don't qualify as being a part of the marketing?

[PetrolioBenzina]

Damn, who needs LM?

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

I guess those lil guys in the bottom right corner of the pages of the Scion brochure, especially that one in the middle, don't qualify as being a part of the marketing?

Okay, I'll concede the point. Please try not to disturb the neighbors with your celebration.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

I didn't say that.

Ok, I'll try to be a little more careful this time. Multi-quoting on a phone screen was not gonna be a good time, so I didn't even attempt it. In other cases, clearly you didn't say some things, I wasn't trying to say you did, and some sarcasm in text failed.

Originally Posted by extrashaky

The current 86 shares almost nothing in common with the AE86. These two cars share no styling cues. They share no distinctive engineering concepts. They don't even share the same type of motor.

You did say this, right?

Brought up styling cues, motor, and a lack of commonality after saying the former wasn't the latter's spiritual successor. Are we not supposed to see that as what you believe makes one car a successor to another? Distinct commonality? My question to you was, based on that, what makes the tC (according to Toyota) the spiritual successor to the Celica? If not those things, then what? It can't really be a successor if there's nothing in common beyond the brand name, so there has to be something beyond what makes a car a car. In the case of the old Corolla, it was an affordable, sporty, and easily modified car, some of the same things touted about the 86. Yes, we're talking an economy car of the day, but are those things untrue about it? I'm not going to stretch and try to call those common engineering concepts, but even if it wasn't marketed that way in its heyday, neither were the cars that met the same criteria and eventually got automakers to start modding chassis and producing muscle and pony cars in the U.S. GM may not choose to trace these roots, but what became the eventual stand-alone GTO started out as a vanilla Pontiac Tempest with a chunky inline-4 as its base engine.

Originally Posted by extrashaky

If it's the spiritual successor of anything, it's the 2000GT. But since nobody remembered what that was, Toyota's brand managers used the artificial AE86 marketing nonsense to sucker in Initial D fanboys gullible enough to believe it.

Just because of a few styling cues, though? Nothing else? Not disqualified because they don't use the same type of motor either?

At this point it's looking like the ol' Sports 800 is coming out ahead by having at least the type of engine and some styling in common with the 86. Not a quote, an observation.

Originally Posted by extrashaky

The AE86 was not designed to be a sports car and was never marketed as such. It was an econobox intended to be a "sporty," practical commuter to sell in large quantities to young people in need of cheap, reliable transportation.

To that I'll definitely have to agree, much to some of my younger friend's annoyance (there's Koolaid involved there). But it did gain a following (maybe just not much in the U.S. mainland pre-Initial D) when it was a current car as a capable car for motorsport, so it would be rather foolish of Toyota to not acknowledge that it became a sporting icon (even if it wasn't intentional) even well before the Initial D craze, and to not capitalize on both of those followings. There are folks out there, peers of yours at least in age, who did make something out of those cars back then or it wouldn't have kept getting run in races well past its production time and have the following it does around the world. Initial D had nothing to do with that, and if anything Initial D was brought on by the unplanned successes of that car. Is there a marketing ploy for the unknowing fanboys? Of course, but that's not the only thing the car has going for it. Cheap, sporty, and easily modded, right?

Miatas weren't seen as true sports cars either, at least not around here, though as you later said they were designed from the ground up to be nothing else, and it still took a long while for them to partially lose the same sort of hairdresser/daughter's car labeling and be appreciated as a bona fide sports car.

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Among the real sports cars out cruising, nobody looked twice at an AE86. It was basically a girl's car, what daddies bought their daughters to have practical, reliable transportation to use to go off to college.

I mean, you did say that, right?

Originally Posted by extrashaky

In contrast, there was no base, non-sports version of the .... Miata .... These cars were designed to be sports cars from conception to production, not to be a "sporty" version of a multi-vehicle platform.

And that?

Does that mean this is the only way a sports car can be considered a sports car? It has to just arrive and not come from some potentially humble beginnings? (Not quoting you here, I'm asking questions). This is also not true of the MR2 despite its inclusion in your list. The conceptual focus was on an enjoyable drive and good fuel economy...rather Miata-ish/CRX thinking ironically. Turning it into a sports car came along in the process, but it didn't start out that way. It could have very well turned out differently, and the MR2 would be another vanilla economy car from Toyota with great gas mileage that we all forgot about...or gotten a really late start on turning into something sporty instead of showing up from year one sporty.

Originally Posted by extrashaky

You can't take an economy car, slap some go-fast parts on it and pretend it's a sports car.... They're just dressed up commuters.

Isn't that exactly what happened to create the first Skyline GT-Rs something like 45, almost 50 years ago? They literally took what started as a luxury commuter car and turned it into something that's now, for better or worse, a household name in Japanese performance cars and motorsport. Much like Pontiac Tempest ----> GTO.

Originally Posted by extrashaky

"Oh look! A sports car!"



NOPE.

Just had to say this was good for a chuckle. But hey, by definition, if it's got 2 seats and 2 doors, it can be considered a sports car. May not be small, and may not be very nimble from the looks of it (who knows, could be), but it fits the definition otherwise. Looks like fun either way.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Okay, I'll concede the point. Please try not to disturb the neighbors with your celebration.

[Cal3000]

The Scion tC was the Celica. tC stands for Toyota Celica. lol

[Overdrive]

It actually stands for touring coupe according to Toyota. I don't think that's very fitting, especially if it's supposed to carry on for the Celica, but it's what they decided to go with.

[Jordanwolf]

Holy that multi-quote, you need to relax bro, current 86 is derived from AE86, like just look at initial D and tell me you don't want to run in the 90's

Originally Posted by extrashaky

I didn't say that.



That either.



Nor that.



That neither.



I didn't say they did.



I didn't say that either. "Derived from" is not the same thing as taking the same car and just slapping a body kit, a turbo and some big brakes on it and trying to pretend it's a sports car.



Who said that? Not me.



I didn't say anything about "Toyota's history." I said the AE86 has nothing to do with the current 86, beyond maybe that they're both cars. "OMG, they both have wheels! They must be spiritual successors!"



And yet it still has more in common with the current 86 than the AE86 econobox.

To be clear, I'm not even trying to claim the 86 is related more than superficially to the 2000GT. What I meant to convey was that it has more of a relationship to that car than to the AE86, and since the 2000GT isn't really considered its predecessor, the AE86 has even less (or rather, no) claim to that title. The marketing people made it up in an attempt to cash in on the popularity of Initial D.

Fanboys will believe anything.



"Things I didn't say for $800, Alex."



Not according to any rules of mine. You're well into making up your own bullshit at this point.



I don't know. Maybe there isn't one.

But I know where it's not, and that's between the AE86 and the 86.



I dunno. This is your fiction at this point. It's way beyond anything I've said.



"What is, 'Things I didn't say?'"

"Correct!"

"Staying with 'Things I didn't say for $1000,' Alex."



The 86 is not derived from the AE86 in any sense of that word. The rest of that paragraph falls apart into irrelevance.



Yet another straw man. Nowhere did I say they weren't drawing on their general history of building automobiles. It's the forced, artificial connection to the AE86 that is most definitely marketing bullshit.

You've had to work extra hard building straw men for this thread. You should change your screen name to Scarecrow.

[bcj]

Wait. Wat?

It's got the same damn dash clock. Look! Right there!

[Is Always Angry]

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Let's meet behind the cafeteria after 5th period!

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Sorry, but I can't let this one past, and I wish I'd spotted it before I typed out that grocery shopping receipt of a post so I could one-liner it here.

I guess those lil guys in the bottom right corner of the pages of the Scion brochure, especially that one in the middle, don't qualify as being a part of the marketing?

*Can't let this one pass




It reads better.

[Overdrive]

Haha, well from one grammar nazi to another, fair enough.