Video: Toyota GR86 SPIED for the First Time!

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

There is no inbetween. If there was, there would be more cars like the 86 with turbos for $30K. But there aren't.

There theoretically could be an 'in between'. There could be a BRZ/86 with turbos. But it wouldn't sell for $30k. It would have to cost significantly more.

The closest thing to a BRZ/86 with turbos might (big might) be the upcoming Nissan 400ZX - with a lot of if's. IF it's actually produced, IF it comes with a manual transmission (important for me, maybe not to others, and otherwise it's just a Supra-esque car with an automatic only), and IF it's priced right (which likely won't be anything less than somewhere in the $40k's).

Even then it won't truly be a '86 with turbos', it will be bigger, heavier, less nimble, more expensive, etc. etc. etc. But it would still be the closest thing possible - a small(ish), Japanese sports car hopefully with a manual transmission.

At any price, there's the over-riding question of how many people would actually buy a BRZ/86 with turbos? I certainly would, but as you said, in the $40k's price range it would take to build it, most buyers want something else (more luxury, bigger size, etc.).

Ah, well, can't have everything (but can still wish for it).

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

They could pull a Mazda and have the smaller motor still around for more displacement restrictive markets. The ND has a 1.5L option in addition to the 2.0L.

Too difficult to offer 2 different engines, but it is true that the 2.0L option was a solution to sell in more markets. Offering just a 2.4L would mean its death in certain regions.

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

[p1l0t]

Oh I see it's legal because we have the window light also.. I still like my low light though haha.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by gravitylover

Sort of.

It seems to me that the 2.4 having beefier internals could have more than 217hp NA with a few tweaks.

You would think, but the FB25 has smaller rod journals and thinner rods. I know it is not the same engine, but just an example. I wouldn't assume the FA24 is beefier anywhere. My main concern would be does it have the 12mm oil pump or the 14mm that was in the FA20DIT.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by why?

Have you driven them back to back? The BRZ drives so much better than the WRX that anyone who thinks handling is more important than power chooses the BRZ over the WRX. Just look around, many people here test drove both and chose the BRZ. The BRZ makes the WRX feel like a pickup truck.

Sure. And my 86 makes my Wrangler feel like a semi truck with trailer attached. But the 86 would still just barely wheeze past that 4200 lb brick if you floored both from a stoplight....

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Oh I see it's legal because we have the window light also.. I still like my low light though haha.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Yes, it’s legal as long as it doesn’t strobe.

Also these regulations cover most of the world. Nobody builds a car just for the US.

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

You would think, but the FB25 has smaller rod journals and thinner rods. I know it is not the same engine, but just an example. I wouldn't assume the FA24 is beefier anywhere.

The FB25 isn't turbocharged, but the FA24 is. I'd guess that running FA24 naturally aspirated would leave quite a bit of robustness from removing the turbo that could be directed at higher compression ratio and higher redline. Might be similar to the turbo FA20 in the WRX (and others) and the NA FA20 in the Twins (with the NA version having higher compression and redline).

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by dnieves

Does that mean you can be stopped if you have an additional JDM brake light under the bumper? Or the more merrier as long as the USDM top mount brake light is present & functional?

Best to check your State/Province requirements as they can vary considerably and sometimes be bizarre.


Buckle up and get ready for this roller coaster ride for Ontario, Canada:


New cars (federal) - Covered by one set of legislation that requires all cars built for new sales in Canada to include (for the rear) two red tail lights, two red or amber directional signal lights with auto shut off, red reflectors in the Imeadiate vicinity of the lights and a third brake light centered between and at least 6 inches above the taillights. There is also a requirement for two headlights with both high and low beam capability, front signals and amber side markers. The detailed section of the requirements is about a page long.


Used cars (provincial) - All used cars must have all lights that are installed functioning. There is no requirement that it have all the lights required in a new car to be in place but if they are there they need to work.


Cars operating on the roads (provincial) - Here is the whole list of required lights as per the Highway Traffic Act.

HTA s.62(1)

• A white or amber light on the front-left of the vehicle
• A white or amber light or the front-right of the vehicle
• A red light on the rear of the vehicle

These are the TOTAL requirements!
There is no disclaimer that lights required on new cars have to be there to drive on the roads.
You need two head lights and one tail light PERIOD
The one red light in rear does not have to be a brake light. You can have NONE.
You can put as many white lights on the front or as many red on the back as you want as long as they meet the minimum.
I could take all but one of the lights off the rear of my car and be legal.
There are of course different requirements for large and commercial vehicles.
Now, although legal I would not advise trying to drive around with no signals. For one you would almost certainly be hit, you are just asking for them to pull you over and check other things and unless you are really diligent at arm signals you could be ticketed for failure to signal a turn.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Ohio Enthusiast

The FB25 isn't turbocharged, but the FA24 is. I'd guess that running FA24 naturally aspirated would leave quite a bit of robustness from removing the turbo that could be directed at higher compression ratio and higher redline. Might be similar to the turbo FA20 in the WRX (and others) and the NA FA20 in the Twins (with the NA version having higher compression and redline).

So your assuming an NA FA24 would get the same parts as the turbo version, yet we didn't get the same upgrades the turbo FA20 got

[MJones_RB]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Best to check your State/Province requirements as they can vary considerably and sometimes be bizarre.


Buckle up and get ready for this roller coaster ride for Ontario, Canada:

I understand in Ottowa it's illegal for a donkey to own a gun.

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Yes, it’s legal as long as it doesn’t strobe.

Also these regulations cover most of the world. Nobody builds a car just for the US.

Then why can't we get the good (rally) Focus?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by MJones_RB

I understand in Ottowa it's illegal for a donkey to own a gun.

Funny story on that one..

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[ROFL it's Waffle]

Originally Posted by Raven86Project

Way too big. Too heavy, 5" taller than the 86 and aesthetically very unappealing. It has a lot of heritage but I really don't feel the connection with it. These are some of my honest reasons of why I would not consider the Mustang over the current or future 86. But ngl, I'm a JDM fanboy

I apologize for the distant pic (I'll get a good one at this weekend's C&C). The only mustang that really catches my eye is the Shelby GT500 (the Ford GT next to it is nice too!).

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

But so do the Crosstrek, Legacy, and even up into the Outlander and Forester. Subaru loves their parts bin designs.
Much of the design and many of the systems (i.e steering directly transferred over) of the new Impreza is based on the developments made for the 86/BRZ so is it safe to say that the newest Impreza is just an upsized BRZ?

Oh I agree. I just think it’s funny because Subaru made it such a big deal as if the two didn’t share any structural parts, saying the two were completely different.

Yet under the bodywork, they’re still extremely similar just like they’ve always been.

I’m not saying they’re bad. I still enjoyed my STI. I just can’t help but laugh just a smidge at it.