2013 BRZ vs. 2017 86 (Everyday Driver)

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

You have to be stupid or ignorant to not understand that the new manuals are much better cars.

LOL, this is internet and this is the level of discussion. Have it your way. But don't assume I will care to join.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by mrg666

LOL, this is internet and this is the level of discussion. Have it your way. But don't assume I will care to join.

This was not for you. It was for the journalists in the dailydriver. Obviously, they are not stupid nor ignorant. They just don't care anymore or maybe they lost some sponsorship ...

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

This was not for you. It was for the journalists in the dailydriver. Obviously, they are not stupid nor ignorant. They just don't care anymore or maybe they lost some sponsorship ...

Sorry for misunderstanding.

I think this common complaint about torque dip is actually about the overall power. Because, as strat posted, there are other cars with similar torque dip and it is not a major complaint since they have more power.

I prefer the quiet ride and high gas mileage on freeway. I would rather keep my overdrive and downshift when needed. For better acceleration, more power is the real solution to me instead of swapping the final drive like they did in 2017.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I have no problems with that in any gear that I've ever needed. If I'm bogged down in 2nd or 1st gear so is any other car that's torque challenged at low rpm. I've done a fair bit of autocross at this point, I've felt the pain of a 20 mph hairpin when I didn't downshift to first, I'm not denying reality, if I wanted to squirt out of a corner by stomping the pedal at 2k rpm I'd get something with 6-8 cylinders, not an RX-8 or GS-R or 86 or Elise. And guess what, the Cayman bogs just as much through that same 20 mph hairpin, it isn't magic.

That's my only point, this isn't some special criticism that makes this car any worse than any other car with lower torque at low rpm like your Cayman or GS-R. You found what's right for you in the bigger engine that delivers more torque across the board, the shape of the curve isn't really the problem as you full well admit in your post.



There are enough gears and a 3k rpm powerband, same as the Cayman GT4 dyno I posted and much better than some cars that manage to escape criticism like the S2000.

Treat every situation where you need all firebreathing 151 ft-lbs of torque like a situation where you need to choose the appropriate gear, like any other fucking car.

If you want 151 ft-lbs of torque at partial throttle at 4k rpm buy a Mustang or Cayman. Don't buy an 86 or S2000 or RX-8 or Elise. The only thing I want to point out is that this isn't some 'special' problem the 86 has.

Criticize it for low torque all day long, I won't write any impassioned speeches about that. But saying that the 'dip' is the problem imho is silly.

Hey now, I wasn't posting to say that the Porsche is superior to the BRZ. I was just saying that the comparison is different. BTW my GSR has a pretty flat torque curve. Problem is it never makes much more than 100 lb-ft at the wheels at any time (I've got a dyno sheet from 2001 somewhere - if I can find it I will post it later).

Originally Posted by Twin4Life

Porsche has that sorted out....

I'd prefer an NA engine with it's powertrain flaws and character any day over an appliance like torque curve with a vacuum suction sound.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

BTW my GSR has a pretty flat torque curve. Problem is it never makes much more than 100 lb-ft at the wheels at any time (I've got a dyno sheet from 2001 somewhere - if I can find it I will post it later).

Oh wow you're right, I thought it got more of a bump from the VTEC kicking in but it really functions to keep the torque curve flat rather than take it up a notch like the F20C does. Although not sure I found any stock dyno sheets at all

[Twin4Life]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Hey now, I wasn't posting to say that the Porsche is superior to the BRZ. I was just saying that the comparison is different. BTW my GSR has a pretty flat torque curve. Problem is it never makes much more than 100 lb-ft at the wheels at any time (I've got a dyno sheet from 2001 somewhere - if I can find it I will post it later).



I'd prefer an NA engine with it's powertrain flaws and character any day over an appliance like torque curve with a vacuum suction sound.

Stig or no Stig, ive had the good fortune to ring a few laps out in a NA GT3 around Sebring. Talk about a torque issue...wow. I thought it was broken at first. You gotta drive that P like you stole it....and if you do, despite the torque "issues", it is BRUTALLY fast. OMG.

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Overall, as I said before it looks that Everyday Driver just lost their interest on this platform. You have to be stupid or ignorant to not understand that the new manuals are much better cars.

They have historically been one of the voices deriding the power and calling for more with an eye on the refresh. They did not get a significant power increase and even claim that the marketing people upped the power listing by 5HP as a mean joke. It appears they took it personally and are therefore writing the 2017 (and the platform in general) off.

[dowroa]

Originally Posted by Rampage

They have historically been one of the voices deriding the power and calling for more with an eye on the refresh. They did not get a significant power increase and even claim that the marketing people upped the power listing by 5HP as a mean joke. It appears they took it personally and are therefore writing the 2017 (and the platform in general) off.

I think this sounds the most accurate. Paul noted that yes, it does need more power. Todd owned one and reflashed it.

Just seeing the power dip continue to be in the line, when it can be tuned out, I think was the biggest negative slap I heard.

In general, I just get disappointment and waiting for an actual change IF there is another version.

[chaoskaze]

to be honest, I'm not surprised torque dip is there or how ppl seem to bash on it a lot.

IT's the only way for factory small NA 2L to have good emission/gas mileage while still be sports tuned.


I also think alot ppl are looking/reviewing it from american standpoint. Try driving it in other country, Atleast for me the gearing and everything makes more sense in a kilometer sort of way?

To put in prespective, it's like 20km = 2k in 2nd gear, 30km = 2k in 3rd gear, you will notice the gearing is just fine especially if you are driving in most "km" country's normal speed limit aka 45km -60km for normal roads, 70-80km for main roads & 100 for the highway. *Basically you not gonna be in torque dip under normal driving condition*

Down here at the states, because the speed limit for most roads are higher. Everyone tend to drive a bit faster and just happened to just stay in da "designed" torque dip..... unless you downshift...... hence the complain.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Rampage

They have historically been one of the voices deriding the power and calling for more with an eye on the refresh. They did not get a significant power increase and even claim that the marketing people upped the power listing by 5HP as a mean joke. It appears they took it personally and are therefore writing the 2017 (and the platform in general) off.

Originally Posted by dowroa

I think this sounds the most accurate. Paul noted that yes, it does need more power. Todd owned one and reflashed it.

Just seeing the power dip continue to be in the line, when it can be tuned out, I think was the biggest negative slap I heard.

In general, I just get disappointment and waiting for an actual change IF there is another version.

Yes, the 2017 is not boosted. So what? Did they dream to get a factory turbo? Come on ...

They are just fooling their audience. They tested the new car via butt dyno and said they didn't see any difference. Car and driver did a correct test by measuring times. I provided the links. New car has a shorter final drive ratio and better engine output. It has definitely better acceleration in top gear by several seconds. Not a tenth of a second. Same holds for all the other gears (3rd gear 2013 vs. 2017, 4th gear 2013 vs. 2017, etc.)

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by chaoskaze

IT's the only way for factory small NA 2L to have good emission/gas mileage while still be sports tuned.

I could be mistaken, but wouldn't a 2 stage cam profile VTEC system like that employed on older GSRs get rid of most of the torque dip?

(note i'm not referring to iVTEC, which also utilizes variable cam timing - which I believe the FA20 has).

[thill]

I watched the video. I don't think it was their best work, but I think the message they were trying to send was that Toyotaburu had an opportunity with a mid cycle refresh to address the biggest criticism of the FT86 platform which is the power. And they gave it a 5hp bump. So I get that part, but harping on the torgue dip and lack of power does get old from these guys. The car is what it is. You can address the power yourself, or for the same money, buy something like a WRX, GTI, Focus ST, etc.

That said, I do routinely listen to their podcast and they recommend the FT86 all the time to people. So they really do like the platform, they just want to see the car have more power from the factory which I get.