Grand Touring: What would you do to the Twins?

[bcj]

Originally Posted by Jordanwolf

I think modern day definitions are important. More so than the definitions of old.

Nope. They got defined.

The modern renditions are LB or Luxo Barge.

[troyguitar]

Originally Posted by Jordanwolf

In order for cars to evolve, definition requirements must evolve along with them. Could you imagine if all luxury brands building GT cars were still building them like those of the 80's/90's.



I think modern day definitions are important. More so than the definitions of old.

It would be amazing if companies still made small RWD coupes. The 86 is about the only one left.

[Feistyfrog]

Originally Posted by Stephen W.

Maybe by some modern day definitions but that may not be relevant to the OP's question or what the majority of us think a true GT is. I beleave the Ferrari GT, GTO and Jag E coupes (both 6 and 12 cylinder models) are fine, proper examples.
One of the best ones from back in the GT heyday IMHO, that is directly comparable to the our modern day twins, would be the MGC GT. Take a much loved four cylinder sports roadster, (the MGB) and make it into a fastback 2+2 coupe with a more powerful 6 cylinder.
(Yes I know they made a MGB GT as well as a MGC roadster but that's beside the point.)

You right about that. But since we don't know what OP consider a proper GT, I went with mine (I'm 37 years old).

Let's just say that any twin would kick the ass of an older "GT". That doesn't mean that older GT's were not good, it's just that cars have evolved so much that the comparaison is really hard to make.

I think we can agree that it would be easier to "transform" a twin in an older days GT than a modern one. In fact, looking at your suggestions, it's already an "old GT".

Very interresting thread OP...

[Stephen W.]

Originally Posted by Jordanwolf

In order for cars to evolve, definition requirements must evolve along with them. Could you imagine if all luxury brands building GT cars were still building them like those of the 80's/90's.

I think modern day definitions are important. More so than the definitions of old.

I agree that definitions change over time. I will also acknowledge that modern definitions have their own importance but... That does not negate nor replace the original meanings of words.
Too many words and phrases have become over used, misused and out-rightly abused. Words like rare and exotic or terms like limited edition and one-of-a-kind come to mind. I feel that GT (Gran Turismo) has been so abused as well. YMMV

[finch1750]

Originally Posted by Cole

This is somewhat on my to-do list. But at the same time, it's just so convenient to toss things into the back seat...

Yeah. I use it to store stuff when travelling already lol.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Hey, whatever works for you, but I just don't get this. The additional storage would be almost nothing, and the additional road noise caused by the loss of the seat back is a nonstarter for me.

Originally Posted by Spuds

The rear seats provide significant sound deadening, having made exactly what you just described myself.

I would add sound deading throughout the car as part of the GT build. I also like hearing my exhaust and sub so I think it would balance out

I've driven a car with stripped rear interior and have my rear seats down 90% of the time. I do know it makes a big difference.

[LimitedSlip]

Originally Posted by Stephen W.

I feel that GT (Gran Turismo) has been so abused as well.

Thoroughly and completely abused. Remember the Chevy Vega GT? Or the GMC Yukon GT? How about the Mercury Cyclone GT?
Mercury (Cyclone GT
Mercury (Cyclone GT

[86MLR]

The best mod IMO to make it a good GT car would be sell it and use the money to fund a GT car like a Supra or some other typical RWD car.

Why, because the twins are cheap sports coupes, not GT cars.

Disclaimer: in saying that I'm not a real fan of the "Zupra".

Well, I would own one but flip it prior to warranty running out, though I may be proven wrong with my view of long term reliability of the Toyota and Bavarian marriage.

Lets see how the Zupra goes reliability wise over the next year or three.

[Will BRZ]

I agree with the upgraded speakers I guess. But thats just something I personally would like. If you want a “real” GT, you’d have to make so many changes that you would end up with an Infinity, BMW or some other luxury car. It’s a Toyota, at the end of the day

[NOHOME]

I would drive my MGB GT for a couple of weeks in order to fully appreciate what a great GT the FRS really is.

Longest drive was Sturgis SD to London Ontario, solo and non-stop. I had food, tunes, a safe comfy seat and an entertaining chassis. What more do you want in a long distance cruiser?

[LimitedSlip]

Originally Posted by NOHOME

I would drive my MGB GT for a couple of weeks in order to fully appreciate what a great GT the FRS really is.

Come to think of it, I recall a trip I made in an Austin-Healy Bugeye Sprite. Certainly not a GT but point taken.

[N1rve]

Comparing the M4 to the FR-S, the main difference is going to be sound deadening, better audio system, more adjustment in the seats, and adjustable suspension. The M4 door panels is like solid with no hollow sound when you knock on it as compared to the FR-S, it's super hollow. Too much NVH from the FR-S. The seals aren't good and the body is pretty hollow. The seat adjustment in the FR-S is too heavily bolstered for long drives IMO, and in my F82, I can make it more aggressive in the bolstering or loosen it up. The suspension in the M4 can be really stiff in Sport+, but there is also comfort mode which makes it floaty. The FR-S is always in racecar mode which can make the ride pretty harsh and it's not adaptive.

It's very easy to hear that the FR-S headunit leaves much to be desired. Easily blown away by the HK System in the M4.

However, adding all of this, means extra weight -- which means the FR-S will need more power. The M4 with a 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds and 425 HP and 406 ft/lbs of torque @ 1200 RPM....handles it with ease. I feel that the FA20 is under engineered, the HP and Torque with fuel economy of like 21-23 MPG is ridiculous. The S55 is a higher displacement, higher HP (double HP of the FA20 and almost triple the torque) more cylinders, and I average 22ish MPG (probably due to less throttle to blow the doors off almost all the cars on the road).

Granted, the M4 is almost triple the cost lol.

[N_Raged]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

It is for me. I drive a minimum of 20,000 miles per year, up to 30,000. My longest trip in it was 1100 miles (700 in one day). This car is great on the highway. The minimal effort necessary to drive it plus the higher engagement level makes it a lot easier to stay focused without being nearly as tiring as a soft car.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. My 2015 Mazda6 had some characteristics of a good GT: soft suspension, stable long wheelbase, tall automatic gearing, GREAT fuel economy, and radar cruise control. However sometimes I felt the risk of falling asleep at the wheel because of the lack of engagement. I often had to pull over somewhere to take a nap.

I've yet to have that problem in my manual BRZ, even while driving home after a long day at autocross.

[gravitylover]

Originally Posted by Feistyfrog

By definition a GT has to have some characteristic that elevates them from "regular" sports cars. Things like comfort, high speed capacity and some sort of luxury are mandatory for a real GT is you ask me. Having a sporty look is somehow relevant, but this one might be more of personal preferences.

So to answer OP, I don't see how a twin can match that unless you totally transform the car. It would become something else and I don't see the point of taking that route with a sub 30K car.

That doesn't mean the 86/BRZ aren't capable of long distance travel without being adequate. I've done two trips of 10 hours straight in 2019 and I was very surprise how good it felt. No disconfort or road noise annoyance what so ever. Again this must be a matter of personal tolerance because my mother in law couldn't stand being in my 86 (mostly stock), after about 10 minutes she was done with it.

Adding some soundproof materials and the quietest tires available are the only things I would do to make it more of a "GT"...but I won't.

That's a win.

Originally Posted by Stephen W.

Maybe by some modern day definitions but that may not be relevant to the OP's question or what the majority of us think a true GT is. I beleave the Ferrari GT, GTO and Jag E coupes (both 6 and 12 cylinder models) are fine, proper examples.
One of the best ones from back in the GT heyday IMHO, that is directly comparable to the our modern day twins, would be the MGC GT. Take a much loved four cylinder sports roadster, (the MGB) and make it into a fastback 2+2 coupe with a more powerful 6 cylinder.
(Yes I know they made a MGB GT as well as a MGC roadster but that's beside the point.)

That's one of my top 3 all time must have cars. A series II or III E Type FHC is number one. Tough call on the order of 2 and 3 and what that third one is because it changes depending on my mood.

IMO a GT is a 2 door with enough power to hold it's own, is competent in most situations and conditions, is quiet enough inside that you don't go nuts after a couple of hundred miles, the suspension is compliant enough that you're not hammered each time you need to stop for gas but it handles well enough on back roads that you would choose them over Interstates, there's enough storage for a couple to travel for a few days and the seats are supportive but not hard so you can spend a full tank worth behind the wheel without feeling like you have to get up and stretch. To get this car there it needs a lot of sound insulation, 16's with at least a 50 series tire but 55 would probably be better, adjustable suspension so it can still be comfy on the inevitable stretch of rotten road and the seats need a better bottom cushion, adjustable lumbar support and adjustable thigh support. In other words it needs the Volvo seat designer to do his thing and whoever laid out the sound insulation in the Caddy CTS-V to do their thing.

[why?]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

It is for me. I drive a minimum of 20,000 miles per year, up to 30,000. My longest trip in it was 1100 miles (700 in one day). This car is great on the highway. The minimal effort necessary to drive it plus the higher engagement level makes it a lot easier to stay focused without being nearly as tiring as a soft car.

I think a lot of the "negatives" people associate with this car are psychological. Small, light cars used to beat the shit out of you and had a reputation for being impractical. Modern ones no longer have to fit that description, but stereotypes are sticky.

Of course a light car from the 80's weighed around 1800 pounds. The twins are a boat comparatively. Heck the Mk2 Supra weighed about what our cars weigh now.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Hey, whatever works for you, but I just don't get this. The additional storage would be almost nothing, and the additional road noise caused by the loss of the seat back is a nonstarter for me.

The road noise is sort of nuts if you don't like that type of thing. It is obvious the car was designed to spit every tiny noise from the trunk area right to the front windshield.

However if you take the rear seat out and the passenger seat out the added storage capacity is gigantic.

Originally Posted by troyguitar

It would be amazing if companies still made small RWD coupes. The 86 is about the only one left.

It would be amazing if people bought 2 door cars like they use to. Even Mustangs and Camaros sales are sliding down.

Originally Posted by N1rve

Comparing the M4 to the FR-S, the main difference is going to be sound deadening, better audio system, more adjustment in the seats, and adjustable suspension. The M4 door panels is like solid with no hollow sound when you knock on it as compared to the FR-S, it's super hollow. Too much NVH from the FR-S. The seals aren't good and the body is pretty hollow. The seat adjustment in the FR-S is too heavily bolstered for long drives IMO, and in my F82, I can make it more aggressive in the bolstering or loosen it up. The suspension in the M4 can be really stiff in Sport+, but there is also comfort mode which makes it floaty. The FR-S is always in racecar mode which can make the ride pretty harsh and it's not adaptive.
It's very easy to hear that the FR-S headunit leaves much to be desired. Easily blown away by the HK System in the M4.
However, adding all of this, means extra weight -- which means the FR-S will need more power. The M4 with a 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds and 425 HP and 406 ft/lbs of torque @ 1200 RPM....handles it with ease. I feel that the FA20 is under engineered, the HP and Torque with fuel economy of like 21-23 MPG is ridiculous. The S55 is a higher displacement, higher HP (double HP of the FA20 and almost triple the torque) more cylinders, and I average 22ish MPG (probably due to less throttle to blow the doors off almost all the cars on the road).
Granted, the M4 is almost triple the cost lol.

If you get 21 mpg in a twin you are either driving it in a city or flooring it constantly. I'm not the only one that has hit 40+ mpg on long highway drives.

The m4 is the definition of a luxobarge.