Hooniverse tests the 2017 86
 

Oh sweet! Thanks for posting this! I like the reviews from Hooniverse!

~ Read the review ~
Good review for the most part but I don't agree about it not having enough power. Honestly...I test drove a Honda Fit with 130Hp and felt like that car had enough for daily driving.

But 200Hp is not?

For me, this car has plenty of enough power for daily driving and it doesn't get boring. My BMW 335I with 300Hp got boring. So I don't understand the logic behind these thoughts.

While the two liter flat four will rev, it’s the velocity of how quickly it climbs the rev range that is the problem. Start a third gear pull at five grand, and it takes an eternity to approach the 7,000 rpm redline, also peak torque doesn’t occur until 6,400 rpm! While the 86 is fun to drive, and we did have fun on the drive on Highway 33 north of Ojai, California, to get anywhere, you really have to push the car HARD. Many will say that we miss the point of a light car and naturally aspirated engine, and you’d be 100% wrong. Momentum cars are fun, on the right roads, and the right tracks, but in the slog of everyday driving, the lack of power and more importantly torque in a usable range, becomes a turnoff to the ownership experience. If the 86 is a track car or a weekend fun car, maybe you get away with it, however, for 95% of the owners, this is their only car. An additional fifty horsepower and 100 torques would make this vehicle about perfect. There are enough people who have installed turbos or superchargers on the platform to know it can more than handle the additional power.






Actually a pretty well written article, but every single comment so far has focused on this.

I'll try to explain it to you and I'm not trying to be mean.


What they're really talking about is power delivery. Peak numbers don't tell the whole story. 200hp, IMO, would be fine in this car if a) it revved faster or peaked at a lower RPM and b) had more torque to back it up in the lower rev range.


So when people say "needs more power," sometimes they're not being clear enough. I test drove an ND before I bought my BRZ and the ND felt a HELL of a lot faster. It has 155hp. So, again, peak numbers don't always tell the tale.


By comparison, I have an 04 Mustang GT that only has 240hp. It can donut all day long and throw me back in the seat like the BRZ could only dream about. Why? The GT probably has 700 pounds on the BRZ. The reason is because the GT's got torque, a lot of it, and it's all down low.

Power delivery is what makes the difference. Peak numbers don't. And most people don't like the delivery of the power in the 86s.

Oh okay. I see what you mean. Good explanation!
Yeah TQ could be improved for city driving :thumbsup:
But it's still fine as is in stock form for me.

Just think, in the "muscle car" world the 2V GTs are considered dogs.


They did mention in this article that the torque dip is alleviated, but on recent dyno plots it shows just as prevalent. Soooo, I'm not sure on that one.

They really weren't fast even when they were new. I'd had an LS1 Trans Am before the GT. The old LS1s ate those things for breakfast.


I never cared though. I love the old fourth gen f-bodies, but the Mustang seemed to be built better and since it was a vert with the Mach1000 sound system, it was just more fun overall.

I think build quality in both isn't the best, but every mustang I've been around always has the door cards loose and the interior handles basically falling out.


Nothing like the 4th gen door card expansion when the window goes all the way down though, lol. :burnrubber:

With the fourth gens, it was the electrical stuff (especially in the Pontiacs) and some of the plastic pieces in the interior, like the seatbelt loop and the handle to put the seat back.


Threadjack over. Sorry!

T-Top leak....

Hmmm.... The commenters at Hooniverse seem to get the car much more than the typical Motor Trend/Road & Track peanut gallery.

Same age-old debate as always. It can go on forever because there is no right answer. Just comes down to driver preference.

Some find it fun to keep the engine in the 4500-7400 RPM sweet spot. Others think it's annoying to have to downshift multiple gears. For anyone in the latter camp, there are plenty of other 2+2 coupes with more midrange punch. Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, Accord V6, Genesis Coupe, etc. No reason to limit yourself to the 86 when there is no shortage of alternatives that would better suit you.

To each his own.

A good el header cures what everyone is complaining about. That notch in the torque band is all that people complain about. Get rid of that and they'll bitch about something else.

I was just about to type the same thing. People that don't want to keep the car above 4500 RPM should either buy another car or invest in F.I.

This car isn't about instant gratification of a mid-range RPM shove in the back, rather the satisfaction that comes with learning to drive as a skill with a tool that is suited to the task. The 86 communicates, teaches and rewards. Both are viable ways to have fun. Stock, an 86 does it one way.

The power band looks the same with the 17 elevated a little on the graph.

It can show up on a graph, and at the same time be felt less or even not at all.

Here's @DarkSunrise ' s excellent post on the dip. A lot of cars have them. How much you feel it depends on how you drive, gearing, total HP and TQ.

...because most "drivers" these days are used to gobs of torque coming instantly or they are worried about driving the car close to redline. The majority of people I have spoken to who have complained about the acceleration power of our twins have never taken the revs past 5 K. The power naysayers were boring to listen to since day one but I guess most reviewers wouldn't know what else to talk about :sigh:

Correct, exactly as I said. Still prevalent.

everyone says this car needs more power...what they really mean is i wish it had more low-end torque

Eh, I'm not so sure about that. If it had more torque only it would just get to "slow" faster. :slap:

exactly my point:thumbsup:

Lets be honest though, smoothing that torque curve with a header and tune makes a day and night difference.

At the risk of beating a dead horse:

I think that the whole discussion about lack of power and torque is fuelled by the North American car culture, where people are used to big engines and loads of torque and straight line push. European and Asian markets are quite different, where vehicle dynamics matter more the raw power. The whole car modding scene is also way bigger in NA then Europe where lots of passionate enthusiasts drive their car relatively unchanged, especially when it come to engine modifications.

The discussion here is always goes the same, blah blah need power, my Mustang is cheaper and has more power blah blah.
But if you look at the overall package, the 86 is just an exceptionally balanced offering. 100 hp per liter (now even 102.5 hp), an engine with two characters, one below 4500 rpm where it's easy going and compliant, and 4500 rpm and up, where it becomes spirited and happy.
And I honestly don't believe 80 % of the people complaining about the torque dip. They have no idea, see a graph and pretend they have a 'state of the art butt dyno' that feels the dip in torque. Yes, the engine changes and you feel the transition when you rev it, but that is not a torque dip.

Would I LIKE more power? Sure, I am an enthusiast and the whole idea of tweaking and tuning appeals to me. But there is a chance that you disturb the balance Toyota/Subaru have been trying to accomplish with the car. So personally I would never go overboard and try to make the car into something it is not designed to be. If I wanted that, I would have bought a different car to begin with.
Do I NEED more power, of course not. Not for daily driving on public roads.
Things are different when you use it as track car, but Toyota/Subaru and the after market business has lots of offering to make the 86 even more competent than it already is.

The north american car market also caters to people driving on well maintained, high speed limit highways with little curves normally.

I dont really agree with majority of this article starting with design and materials. Though the design looks much better in person than in pictures or video, I cant help but feel that this refreshed face will not age well. The additional "aggression" they've added is quite disruptive to the flow of the design especially when you assess everything from body and fender to nose of the facia. The headlights are very reminiscent of FT86 concept 2 lights so I do like them but not as much as the original GT86 lights. The "subtle" badges of 86 are not really that subtle when they're literally plastered everywhere throughout the car. This granlux material is very nice to the touch but unless you're really good at maintaining materials like alcantara, suede and etc i can see this actually being a con in the long term (for those of you guys who have experience with dirty alcantara/suede, you know what i'm talking about). Then again, these are just my opinion and I suppose its different strokes for different folks.

Also in regards to topic of power on the streets... Since I've neither driven anything above 200hp or track my FR-S my opinion may differ from majority, but i have never felt that this car had inadequate amount of power or torque for daily driving. Most people dont really rev their engines to their peak torque/hp on normal roads so if i downshift im usually accelerating enough to be able to pass most people...

The Pistonheads forum based in Brittan seem to hold the same opinion as the motoheads over here.
"Needs 300 horsepowers or it's useless." - From all the tiny diesel repmobile drivers.


They don't get it either.

What sort of review did you guys expect from a place called "Hooniverse" anyway?