New Article on TTAC about the GT86-- Speaks with Engineer!

[tripjammer]

Originally Posted by zigzagz94

2600lbs and 0-60 in 6 secs isn't bad at all

And it's 0 to 62 in 6 secs...I told y'all this car would be upper 5 secs 0 to 60!

That's fast enough for this car..but the car is too expensive if it is $32k...

[SUB-FT86]

This car will have as much computer aids as other cars on the market. Toyota is talking BS. This car will have ABS and TC just like a Mustang or Genesis Coupe and it can be shut off just like the two cars I mentioned. I think they meant AWD cars with automatic or SCT/DCT trannies.

[iff2mastamatt]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

And it's 0 to 62 in 6 secs...I told y'all this car would be upper 5 secs 0 to 60!

That's fast enough for this car..but the car is too expensive if it is $32k...

Not to burst your bubble, but I feel like it's high 6's and low 7's for 0-60. More reviews predicted 7's than 6's, just to throw that out there.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Dark

Top speed 143mph, 0-60 in 6 sec. Are you happy now 0-60 guys?
197hp is about enough for this car. We don't really need Turbo.

The 197hp is not the problem with the power. It's actually terrific for this car with 2600-2700 lbs. The problem most people have is that little thing called torque which is a pathetic 151@6600 rpms. 180-190 ft lbs would've been good enough

Originally Posted by tripjammer

And it's 0 to 62 in 6 secs...I told y'all this car would be upper 5 secs 0 to 60!

That's fast enough for this car..but the car is too expensive if it is $32k...

I bet this car will not hit under 6 seconds 0-60. It will be around 6.3 seconds which is still respectable. If the weight is ''REALLY" 2600 lbs then I can possibly believe the under 6 seconds 0-60 but I bet the weight will be 100-150 lbs heavier.

[PuGZoR]

The press corps had a chance to drive the car. That opportunity that was immediately turned into hoonery by a rough and tumble contingent from Australia. One of them drove the car with so much enthusiasm that it spun out , did a few twirls and had a near-miss with an Australian cohort. We immediately had proof that the car provided only the barest necessities in computer control, and that one has to know how to drive, unless a rendition of Swan Lake is desired.

Australia represent! Haha. That's how we do things on our little island.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

The 197hp is not the problem with the power. It's actually terrific for this car with 2600-2700 lbs. The problem most people have is that little thing called torque which is a pathetic 151@6600 rpms. 180-190 ft lbs would've been good enough

Again, in NA 2l engine which car has 190tq? 150's is s2k tq range. 2l NA engine, to make tq = more $. Are you willing to spent over $26k (prob be close to $30k when you're done w it)

[st162celica]

Trust the Aussies to push it past the limits.

0-60 in the 7's. Think about it. Car doesn't have to have a turbo to be fast. It's light with 200hp. The last gen celica was in the 7's wasn't it.

It will be in the 6's for sure. !

This is going to be a epic car and I can't wait any longer. Take my money now.

[Sport-Tech]

Good article on the reveal but his only comment on his driving experience was "It drove very nicely." Pathetic.

[cambo]

Nice find! Hopefully the price will be around 25k but very encouraging words from toyoda!

[Slide]

This article didn't say it will cost 32k they said jap gard student get 32k first year after grad.

They are saying that this person is who its summed at and that it shoild be leass then 32k

[Neutral_Eyes]

Originally Posted by iff2mastamatt

0-60 6 seconds
33 mpg
2+2
~$25K

GREAT combo

I agree, the V6 Mustang is a fantastic car.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

The 197hp is not the problem with the power. It's actually terrific for this car with 2600-2700 lbs. The problem most people have is that little thing called torque which is a pathetic 151@6600 rpms. 180-190 ft lbs would've been good enough

You sir are hopeless...if you're so disappointed already maybe you should go find yourself a turbo car instead of whining. From your posts you don't even seem to understand what torque is. Really sorry to be so harsh, but it's getting tiring reading this nonsense about "not enough torque" and "torque to weight ratio" :P

[rmagic]

I am very excited and I love to buy this car for auto x. but so far all I heard from the chief engineer is that it is lower cg, but what about talking about chassis and suspension? I'm just confused. If the are making a car to just be a fun car to drive, not necessarily fast on the track, then why would they be concerned about and design the car that can carry extra track tire on the back? Or to have a spot to put a road cage? Sports cars have to be fun to drive but all the enthusiasts I know want the car to be fast on the track as well.(I am not talking about hp) This car has to at least have the potential to be a decent car to build for the track, and that's where it comes with chassis regality and suspension geometry and performance. I don't know maybe this is the part subaru has to talk about.

there is no way that professionals test drive this car and don't put this car in some sort of category, and as soon as you do that it comparison must come,and as long as you use the word 'racing', it's bound to be compared and Competition.

[Dave-ROR]

Best article so far IMO. Thanks for posting it.

RMagic: It should be a fun track car based on it's specs and the first drives (grain of salt though).

Some people like doing HPDEs with R comps (ok many people) but you may not want to drive 3 hours on them to get to the track, hence the space for tires.

As for the rollcage spot, I'm not even sure that made it to production, but it'll be great for SCCA showroom stock cars, etc.