Fuel Economy
 

Yes, I know the idea behind this car... I'm still gonna get it as quickly as I can, regardless of fuel economy, but just because the car's badass doesn't mean I don't wonder about this...
I'm thinking... combined 25MPG? Maybe?

sounds reasonable.

-Mike

Hopefully something around that. My daily was around 24-25mpg

for NA i see it being higher, maybe 30/34? toyota also seems to underwrite the value of MPG's, as my yaris is spoken for at 29/36, but I get 34-36 city and closer to 40 highway, and I drive like a nut haha.

Well, the yaris is running a F designation head, which is specifically engineered for economy.

Though I'm not sure how they'll designate the head on the FT, we could assume it'll be a G classification, which is engineered for more performance, so MPG isn't going to be as high as it could considering its only a 2.0L N/A. Of course I have no experience with cars running Direct Injection, which is supposed to help in that regard.

Meh, I agree...mid-high 20's city. Low 30's on the highway possibly. It'll get better mileage than my AE86, I know that for sure. Sucker is quite thirsty for a 1.6L....its also a 25 year old engine, lol.

Older engines are fun.. New engines are kind of a bitch to work on.

Edit: Hopefully, this won't be the case with the FT..

my MR2 gets low 30s on the highway... :D

-Mike

I'm gonna say at least 22-28, somewhere around there.

if it is 2800lb 2.0L engine, I expect my driving will give me 40-50mpg.

in my 3300lb GTI 2.0LTurbo, i get 30-40mpg

Weight will be critical to the fuel consumption figures

i believe this car will get awesome fuel economy.. my friend gets about 20mpg on his 09 wrx.. and he pushes 4.5k every gear

my 2004 Matrix XRS is around 2800 lbs and I could get 35ish MPG with the 1.8L 2ZZ-GE.
I'd estimate close to that with the FT-86?

30-40 combined would be great... my '90 civic gets about 30... better power AND gas mileage? Yes, plz.

My old 86 (1.6L) got about 24 city and 30ish highway. My '05 Accent (also 1.6L) gets about 28/38. Anywhere between those would be awesome.

The 2.0T Genesis is rated 21/30 so the FT will have to be better than that seeing as it should be at LEAST 500lb lighter and down about 30hp. Now that I think about it, anyone who bought that car is going to be really upset when Toyota releases this thing. Lighter, same speed, and better on gas? Oops!

I would really hope for a little over 30 around town and 35+ on the motorway.

I reckon that ought to be achievable.

I say 27-34mpg. average those two numbers you get 30.5, so somewhere around there would be very practical

30-35??? you got to be kidding me, if you want power forget does numbers, my 07 ej25 wrx gives me about 22-24 mpg, and that is just with a K&N filter.

so if you guys want a fast car the word here is sacrifice !

but i have to tell you, nothing sounds better that a ej25 turbo engine with a nice blow off valve! that's just sex! :popcorn:

Why? My ITR DC2 does around that MPG and has a similar output. It is possible and frankly needs to be as it affects running costs. A two litre NA should be capable of doing 30mpg at least!

Agreed. Just because your car sux on fuel mileage doesn't mean this one will.

Who said we wanted a fast car? I want a light car with excellent handling and RWD that seats 4 with a massive trunk like my old Carolla. And it was NOT fast. It was SLOW. 0-60 in about 10 seconds slow. But I still loved driving it. And toyota is constantly pushing this as 'green and fun' so I'm sure the power/fuel economy is going to be pretty good. AKA so much better than Honda's new CR-fail.

The only way your fitting 4 people in the FT is if 2 of them are vertically challenged. The back seats are way to small - and I don't think there is going to be much room in the truck either.

Now the car won't be fast, but it won't be all that slow either. It'll just be a fun car to take out once in a while. And expect around 30+ MPG. Toyota won't do anything less - at least I think they won't do anything less.


BTW - has anyone noticed the bogus MPG claims GM gets with their cars?
I was flipping through a flyer the other day and they said the Pontiac Vibe gets 51MPG highway -- and some larger SUV type thing was getting 42MPG -- I was thinking "How the heck did they do that? the Vibe is a Matrix with a new shell??"
Then you look online and realize the Vibe only get 26 MPG, the same as the Matrix and Impreza i2.5

I love how everything here turns into a Honda bashing thread.

He's bashing the CR-Z.

That car is open game. Its a complete joke and does NOTHING to hark back to the old CR-X, except with its hatch design.

CR-X = capable, light-weight fun car
CR-Z = overweight underpower hybrid


They should really call it the CR-Y., as in "Y is Honda coming out with the piece of a car instead of a new S2K?"

CR-Y = Cry :P
clever but I think you missed that part (maybe not) just for the "Y are you doing this Honda! why why why!!"

Ha! Wow, can't believe I didn't catch that!

I'm so clever that my cleverness is also very clever!

Still a Honda.

I don't care how good or bad the gas mileage is.... I drive at the most 250 miles per week and the gas cost between 23mpg and 27mpg is not going to break the bank.

I would rather the car be fun to drive and get mediocre gas mileage, then the car be boring as sin and get great gas mileage.

This is going to be a sporty car, right?

+1

+1

Im with him aswell would rather okay fuel mileage aslong as the car is awesome and fun to drive.:burnrubber:

x.X
Look at OP.
I wasn't saying MPGs were my main concern. Just something I was curious about.

Do you think the back seats will be unusable? Ie would child seats fit (They need to for my job)? If they don't I won't be buying this car.

We have no way of knowing how big the back seats in this car will be but considering it's a 2+2 design I have hope that it should fit any one under 6 feet. Also if the production car is anything like the concept then it should. See this topic http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39

Also if a 2011 Mustang V6 at around 3500 lbs and over 300 HP and a current V6 Camaro at around 3750 lbs and over 300 HP can make 30 and 29 MPG respectively freeway albeit with some technical wizardy I would hope a car that weights a projected 1000 lbs less give or take will get at least 29 mpg freeway.

It's a concept. There's really no way of knowing what the finished product will look like, TBQH..
That said, I really hope the back seats aren't just insurance assistants.

Yeah, V6 = usually less efficient per liter than V8s right?
Well.. one way or another, I doubt Toyota will put this thing out with less than 30 MPG.

Cheers for that. [+]

Guess really there is no way of knowing for sure until we see a production interior, though it does appear that there is certainly room for rear seats, so looking at it, they ought to be usable I think.

ditto

i have a 1.8L GM car at the moment and that gets around 33MPG on 60% Motorway 40% town - thats an old engine design too

id imagine a brand new toyota engine will be pushing those figures without too much problems after all, the latest BMW 2.0L gets around 38MPG (claimed) at the moment.

I'm betting with the current engine and and the low rpm torque, it should be around 26 city and 30 hwy depending on the top gear. They said it would be clean, but with the performance they are asking from it, I don't think they will get compact economy-car mileage figures. There is a little give there because it is going to be direct injection, but not much.
If they turbo it, expect a much better rating. My 2.0 liter direct injection turbo engine had 260hp/260lbft of torque and it was getting 28 combined, but could get as good as 34mpg on the hwy - I think it was rated at 27city-31hwy, really good from such a small engine and the sky redline is a much heavier car then the FT-86 is supposed to be.

I've owned 2 2+2 Toyotas (mk3 Supra and my current AE86). The back seats were both usable, they just weren't comfortable in the least. Very little leg room. However, if you were just using it to strap in a baby seat, then you should have plenty of room to do so.

I've hauled people around in the back seats of both cars before. Again, they weren't snug as a bug, but they fit.

So basically, based off of previous Toyota models, you could say theres a good chance that Toyota will make the back seating area 'usable'. Just don't expect it to be spacious.

A couple of my friends have mid 90's celica's, and those seats are even smaller than the ones in my old 86. But you can still fit 2 actual people back there. They just have tuck their legs in a bit. Seeing as the FT is very similar in dimensions to the original 86, I'm guessing it will have about the same interior room.