Am I missing something (fuel consumption vs performance vs weight)
 

Hi all,

This is by no means a thread to bash the gt86 and I am a big fan of it myself, even though I don't own one. I think the gt86 is a fantastic looking car, handles great and has just about adequate power. I'm currently at a stage of really wanting one, but hoping to hold out until the *hopefully* larger displacement/turbo charged version comes out.

The problem that I do have with the gt86 is a weight to power to fuel economy ratio. I've been looking at the fiesta st and mazda 3 sp25 as it's direct competitors (for me at least). Have a look at the table below:

http://i.imgur.com/IOz3Ize.png

Can somebody explain on why, while making such modest power/torque figures, is it sipping 1.5 l/100km more than the other cars, which is made even worse by the fact that it needs 98 octane fuel, compared to 91 for other cars. For such a small car, using up so much fuel is pretty... terrible in my opinion (I've got a 2012 Impreza which is using around a litre less - 91 octane as well).

My other question is the weight - almost every single review I've read, it was mentioned about how lightweight and small the gt86 is. Small is true, but lightweight - hardly. Again - look at the table above - weighting around 50 kg less than 4 door mazda 3 is hardly lightweight.

Once again - not bashing the gt86 in any way - just wanted to see what others thought about those 2 points. :thumbsup:

Edit: posted in the wrong forum by accident - can somebody please move it to general discussion or vs forum please? :)

We use 93 octane though and the manual does 0-60mph way faster than 7.4 seconds

Rants about fuel consumption.... Wants turbo version. Pfft

Hmm - I'm just going by what's written in the official specs on Toyota Australia website for the RON rating. The 0-100 times are from a few reviews, including this one (go to 3:12):

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYrvhkIivgA&list=PLNy4MIqFoWYXvkzp5fpJti_w OTyp6rrQp#t=192"]Epic Scion FR-S, Toyota GT86 test drive: racetrack, drift & cross-continental dash - HD - YouTube[/ame]

And yes - I am ranting about fuel consumption, even though I want a turbo. Fiesta ST has a turbo - great fuel efficiency!

The turbo in the ST is the main reason. Toyota wanted the 86 to be a NA engine. If they had wanted better power numbers a 1.8l Turbo would have worked perfectly.

I'm happy with no turbo, but that's what I don't understand - looking at the Mazda 3 SP25 - it has a 2.5L engine which returns much better numbers both performance and fuel economy wise, than the 2.0L in the 86. Why is that?

The Mazda has better torque low down, which is probably why it has a better 0-100 time, but it makes less peak power.

If the gear ratio in 6th is different that would affect the highway mileage rating.

Am I missing something (fuel consumption vs performance vs weight)
 

Our cars are prettier. Also I think adding the msrp for base models would be even better because I think we are the most expensive of the three as well

Good post

Smaller engines with tiny turbos usually get better gas mileage than high output, larger liter 4 cylinders. Cruising the turbo actually helps with gas mileage.

The answer is you are comparing 3 cars which ultimately are in 3 different classes. The fiesta is a hot hatch and should be compared to the mini. The Mazda 3 is a four door small family sedan. The 86 is a two door car which is built for handling and enjoying the drive.

As for the weight, I'd much rather end up in a accident with an 86 then a Mazda or ford. The 86's unibody is built off of subarus ring design. Also I'm sure it has the boron bars and multi layered a pillars like all the other cars subaru produces.

In the EU there are 'games' that manufactures play to reduced tested emissions levels but are unrealistic for normal driving.

I think it was a fiesta ST (or maybe a Zetec S 1.0 EcoBoost) that was telling me to up shift when the next gear would be at around 1100rpm. Absolutely no torque and the engine was very uncomfortable at those rpms. Anyway the ST doesn't get close to its advertised EU economy figures.

We never got the SP25 here. The petrol Mazda 3 2.0 I drove was massively over geared, again its official economy figures were a joke. BTW in the UK the 2.0 Sports-Nav weighed in at somewhere north of 1400kg, but the maximum towing weight was 1300kg, are you sure you've got the right weight for the car?

The twins have lower, decent drivers car ratios which for the EU cycle will show higher fuel usage, but actually the figures will be much more realistic because the gear ratios are in a much more natural position.

As for 0-60 times, utterly useless IMO 10-60 through the gears is a much more realistic value & if you can work out these timings make HUGE differences to the acceleration times.

My 2p

I'm in the states running 92. I'm also turbod with the AVO kit. I get 38mpg on the freeway just cruising. Get 27mpg in the city. Mine is auto so i get a little better fuel consumption. I don't know what that converts into liters cuz 'MERICA!

Yes. It's this:

If you did, you wouldn't be asking these questions. You would instinctively understand that this car is greater than the sum of a bunch of numbers.

Thanks for your replies guys! Really interested to hear your thoughts :)

Once again - I'm not trying to bash the GT86 - I love that car, I'm just trying to get some opinions on a subject that has been puzzling me for a while now.

Getting back to the fuel economy figures - what originally raised that question was the fact that I own a 2012 Impreza myself. I'm sure many of you know that it has the same displacement engine as the GT86 - both 2.0L. Difference is the different bore and stroke + direct injection for the 86. And I guess the biggest concern that I had is that a small 2 door coupé is chewing up more, higher RON petrol than a larger, all wheel drive sedan.

Don't really know much about different body designs for different brands, but I doubt that you will fare much better in a low coupe, compared to a larger sedan (mostly talking about Mazda here).