Next-Gen Toyota GT86 To Be Renamed Celica?

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

Sure it doesn't look like a box, or have an inline 4-cylinder, but it's hard to deny the idealistic similarities between the 2 cars.

It's not hard if you don't drink the marketing Koolaid. 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. It was lightweight for fuel economy, and it was rear wheel drive because it came on the tail end of most cars being powered that way. It has more in common with something like the Scion tC as a spiritual successor than the current 86.

I spent plenty of nights out on the Parkway as a teenager when that car was new. 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.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by 8RZ

The two cars are almost 30 years apart from one another, of course there won't be any styling cues or technological similarities between them but their ideology remains the same.

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.

[8RZ]

Exactly. Fender mirrors would've been cool.

[driftartist]

Originally Posted by alan.chalkley

Things went downhill when the last celica changed to fwd.
fwd is much more for eco boxes , like yaris.
How about a coupe yaris with a fat turbo for smoking front tyres and renaming it celica?

because the yaris is the "vitz" and the yaris/vitz has the grmn edition with 210 bhp supercharged 1.8. also, FWD is not an eco box deal. there have been many legendary fwd cars and several championship cups for fwds. though rwd and awd are more preferred, fwd is not something to shun. but i do understand what you mean.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

It's not hard if you don't drink the marketing Koolaid. 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. It was lightweight for fuel economy, and it was rear wheel drive because it came on the tail end of most cars being powered that way. It has more in common with something like the Scion tC as a spiritual successor than the current 86.

I spent plenty of nights out on the Parkway as a teenager when that car was new. 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.

If anyone is drinking the marketing Koolaid it's you. Obviously the GT86 has styling cues from the 2000GT, but that's where the similarities end. Accounting for inflation, the 2000GT would cost roughly $50,000. Just because the GT86 is RWD doesn't make it a full blown sports car. It's relatively slow (even compared to FWD cars like the Civic), it's economical, and is relatively practical. It is marketed as a cheap practical car for young kids to take to the track without having to worry about their car breaking down.


The 2000GT was meant to compete with Porsche and Jaguar. Huge difference.






In short, the GT86 is much like a RWD Integra, yet you are claiming that it's the second coming of a high-end Halo car.

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

No it doesn't.



Except that it isn't. 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.

uhhhh...

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

The GT86 is an affordable, 4 cylinder naturally aspirated, 4-seater, relatively lightweight, rwd car that focuses on driver involvement over raw power. Sure it doesn't look like a box, or have an inline 4-cylinder, but it's hard to deny the idealistic similarities between the 2 cars.

Yeah.

You're so right. The GT86 has much more in common with the 2000GT as opposed to the old AE86. Nevermind all the differences there. But hey.. whatever helps you sleep at night.

Extra shaky is definitely a fitting name. Sounds like a sugar rush from that "kool-aid" you're referring to.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

If anyone is drinking the marketing Koolaid it's you.

That doesn't even make any sense. There's no marketing of it as a successor to the 2000GT, because nobody even knows what that is. The best you can do is, "I know you are but what am I?"

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

Obviously the GT86 has styling cues from the 2000GT, but that's where the similarities end.

You're making my point for me. There are at least some similarities to end. There are NO similarities at all between the AE86 and the current 86. The assertion was made that the 86 is the spiritual successor to the AE86, yet it has almost nothing in common with it at all. Thanks for demonstrating that it has more in common with the expensive niche sports car from 45 years ago than the economy shitbox from 30 years ago.

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

Just because the GT86 is RWD doesn't make it a full blown sports car. It's relatively slow (even compared to FWD cars like the Civic), it's economical, and is relatively practical... In short, the GT86 is much like a RWD Integra, yet you are claiming that it's the second coming of a high-end Halo car.

LOL. Integra. A sports car. I never said anything about the 86 being a high-end car, and the fact that you think speed or price is the determining factor demonstrates that you have no idea what a sports car is.

[extrashaky]

Oh, and by the way:

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

You can race anything. Racing a vehicle doesn't make it a sports car.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

That doesn't even make any sense. There's no marketing of it as a successor to the 2000GT, because nobody even knows what that is. The best you can do is, "I know you are but what am I?"

Dude, you just literally posted a picture of a Toyota display showing the 2000GT and GT86 together. How is that not marketing?

Originally Posted by extrashaky

You're making my point for me. There are at least some similarities to end. There are NO similarities at all between the AE86 and the current 86. The assertion was made that the 86 is the spiritual successor to the AE86, yet it has almost nothing in common with it at all. Thanks for demonstrating that it has more in common with the expensive niche sports car from 45 years ago than the economy shitbox from 30 years ago.

I've listed several similarities between the AE86 and GT86, and you have yet to refute them.

Originally Posted by extrashaky

LOL. Integra. A sports car. I never said anything about the 86 being a high-end car, and the fact that you think speed or price is the determining factor demonstrates that you have no idea what a sports car is.

The Integra Type R is a legitimate sports car, and one of the most well rounded cars ever made (FWD be damned). Just because a car has exterior styling cues from another car doesn't automatically make it a 'Spiritual Successor'.


I'm not saying the GT86 isn't a sports car. I'm saying the ideology behind the 2000GT has nothing in common with the GT86.

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

I've listed several similarities between the AE86 and GT86, and you have yet to refute them.

Except that I did.

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive

The Integra Type R is a legitimate sports car, and one of the most well rounded cars ever made (FWD be damned).

LOL, no. This is part of the misunderstanding here. Sports cars are designed to be sports cars. You can't take an economy car, slap some go-fast parts on it and pretend it's a sports car. This is one of the things the Subaru people can't seem to understand about the STI, or Mitsu people about the Evo. They're just dressed up commuters.

As for the Integra, putting an "R" after the name doesn't make it a sports car. That one is particularly silly because there's no such thing as a FWD sports car anyway.

In contrast, there was no base, non-sports version of the MGB, the Datsun 1600, the S2000, the MR2, the Miata, the RX7 or the current 86. These cars were designed to be sports cars from conception to production, not to be a "sporty" version of a multi-vehicle platform.

"Oh look! A sports car!"



NOPE.

[PetrolioBenzina]

Sadly, we will never get a resolution to this debate until LM checks in with a new account.

[driftartist]

Oh man....this thread lmao....this forum. yeah if a mod sees this post, delete my account please and thank you.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Except that it isn't. 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.

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.

So...going by your need to tie styling cues, exact same type of motors and such, so heavily to spiritual succession (not the same as, say, bringing the Nissan Z orbthe Camaro back from the dead in the same overall format, nothing spiritual about that, it's just succession by revival), what styling cues carried over from the Celica to the tC, beyond being another 2-door with a hatchback, to make it the spiritual successor the people who made the cars claim it to be? They didn't share motors, tCs had Camry power.

Speaking for myself, I knew about the Sports 800 and 2000GT growing up well before I ever cared about the old RWD Corolla (which had a very lame FWD derivative in the AE82, which got badge engineered into the little Chevy Nova from the 80s that people understandably want to forget for the mistake that it was...there's your spiritual succession failure), and I'm not old enough to have grown up seeing either when they were new, I just like classic cars. The way I see it, the car does indeed pull from each of those 3 eras of Toyota's sports car history, and from the early Celica and Celica Supra as well, but since Toyota is bringing that back they've got to tie that successor to those. Some may see the ties as thin, but they're ties just the same, and everyone is entitled to see it that way or otherwise.

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

The 2000GT probably forked over the most in terms of styling, and is a more convincing sports car in dimensions alone, but if you allow yourself to look at both at the same time, the 2000GT and the Sports 800 sure look a lot alike in the nose. Hard to avoid when you're designed and built around the same time, I suppose, with one more or less succeeding the other. 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. So I guess that makes the 2000GT, by definition, also not a sports car. But there's your looks department contribution.

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, where's the spiritual succession in any of it using your criteria? Toyota just pulled a sports car design out of nowhere, calling upon none of their recent history at all, right? 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?

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. 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.

But to stay on subject...is the tC the Celica's spiritual successor? According to Toyota, whose name is on it, yes. Did it do that particularly well? Not really, but neither did the last few generations of Celica when compared to the first few generations... they kept the name going on a far different product (see aforementioned Toyota-based Chevy Nova). They traded RWD and sporty handling for making a rallying legacy in motorsport when that sport was in its prime......and then let that kinda devolve into becoming a bit of a pedestrian but sporty-looking coupe until people stopped buying them.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by Zaku

There is however lots of talk and it's (talk) nothing more to say about it. About many of the old Coupe marques be turned into a CUV. For example the Eclipse CUV, the Next Z being a CUV, and many others. I can see that Toyota might not miss the opportunity to name a CUV Celica and then do a AWD one and try to Tie it to a GT4. there is I believe a niche market with the younger crowds that want performance CUV. Betting many of us would love something fun and practical as a daily if you're a two car family.

Man, Zaku, I really hope they don't do that. Turning the Mirage into a miniature car and the Eclipse into a CUV was painful for me to see. But with the trend we're seeing you may be very right. Maybe they'll even drop the C-HR name and slap Celica on it in two or three years.....oy.

I can't really put crossovers and fun (in terms of driving fun) in the same sentence, but that's really just me and what I see as fun, same as how my definition of practical doesn't meet someone else's. When it comes to that, I and others who find coupes plenty practical are in today's car buying minority.