2017 Toyota 86 - new name, styling, and more power

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but that looks really nice. It actually matches the lines of the rest of the car.

I wonder if they'd respond to an email.

That was what I liked as well.

Originally Posted by Quentin

I saw it in person in Japan. I personally don't care for it. The nose and rear don't match, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No worse that the new front doesn't match any of the lines.

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

They press released that it was aimed at working women. Trying to get a cuter version out.

Not like the basic look is new to Toyota.
Not sure that these were "cute":




Won't let me quote Steph
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82322
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82182

[echo419]

Originally Posted by Stephen W.

If there isn’t a thread about the Cb there should be.





http://minkara.carview.co.jp/en/userid/1336703/album/10223/156803/#title

well that looks like a disgusting jelly bean. no thanks jeff

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by echo419

well that looks like a disgusting jelly bean. no thanks jeff

I thought it would look best as a roadster/convertible. As a coupe/hardtop, not so much.

Same way I felt about old Jags that had the long nose, much better as a ragtop.

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Not like the basic look is new to Toyota.
Not sure that these were "cute":




Won't let me quote Steph
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82322
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82182

I actually liked the CB in a weird way. I don't think I'd have bought it, but it had some neat features and it looked different.... kind of like the shooting brake in a way. I like it, but don't think I'd buy it.


I didn't say it was cute, I specifically remember an article (which of course I cannot find) where someone from Toyota was saying they made it "cute" to appeal to woman audiences.


Honestly, I'd take an old Datsun or 2000GT over quite a bit of modern vehicles styling wise.

[PetrolioBenzina]

Those of you who dislike it, please tell us why. I guess the marketing dudes do know what they are doing. No girly front, must be agressive.

I need to find a trashed front and drag it to a body shop.

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

Go ugly early.

Am I a bad person for liking this?

But then I actually have come to like the Lexus spindle grille in the sport sedans - IMHO, Lexus has done the best job of making the terrible pedestrian-crash-standard hoodlines look good (conversely, I think Honda is the worst at it, though BMW is pretty bad as well).

As for the Cb, my main beef with that design is that the front looks smooth, soft and curvy, but the back remains the same as the stock model, which is far too chiseled, angled and hard-edged to match the soft look for the Cb front end.

[DAEMANO]

Short Rant...

The CB was a failure to people in this market because Art-Deco styling does not belong on this car, no matter what demographic they were targeting. Shit, Art-Deco is barely surviving even with Chryslers (the new Pacifica is one of their cleanest designs in years and barely A.D.). Where Art-Deco works is on ornamented Grand Touring cars, Service vehicles, Estate Cars, and Luxury SUVs. The 86 is none of these and it's especially NOT A GT (despite the poorly chosen trim level "GT" in much of the world (this was so dumb)). It wasn't designed for traveling long distances in great comfort at high speeds. Anyone that drove it would know that immediately. The 86 would need a low revving torquey motor, completely new suspension (including tires), tons of sound insulation, increased ride height, electronics galore, and probably tons of other shit achieve this role. Not just leather and a body kit. Not taking the time to understand the 86's purpose led to the CB's designers wasting time, effort, and energy.

The 86 is a Sports Car (a car that with little modification can be used for motorsports). When was the last time anyone asked for more flourishes of chrome and less aggressive aero at the track? Never. That's because Art Deco nearly by definition requires ornamentation, and motorsports requires minimalism.

Clearly the CB's designers are skilled at what they do. What they chose for the 86 simply made no sense. Don't do it again.

/rant

[Stephen W.]

So, many of you must be very happy that Toyota didn’t go forward with this version, eh?



Personally, I wished they built something closer to this with the power to warrant those fat tires!







http://douceart2.blogspot.ca/2012/05/scion-fr-s-coupe-concept-wallpapers.html

[m.box.design]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

That's the one I would spend money on. Does it exist, or is it still just a design excercise? The front end has always looked like an afterthought, or the cheapest place to add muh aggrsehuns. I'm fairly certain it ugliness will creep onto the rest of the car.

Offered as an option in Japan. Might have been a limited run.

[PetrolioBenzina]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

Short Rant...

The CB was a failure in this market because Art-Deco styling does not belong on this car, no matter what demographic they were targeting. Shit, Art-Deco is barely surviving even with Chryslers (the new Pacifica is one of their cleanest designs in years and barely A.D.). Where Art-Deco works is on ornamented Grand Touring cars, Service vehicles, Estate Cars, and Luxury SUVs. The 86 is none of these and it's especially NOT A GT (despite the poorly chosen trim level "GT" in much of the world (this was so dumb)). It wasn't designed for traveling long distances in great comfort at high speeds. Anyone that drove it would know that immediately. The 86 would need a low revving torquey motor, completely new suspension (including tires), tons of sound insulation, increased ride height, electronics galore, and probably tons of other shit achieve this role. Not just leather and a body kit. Not taking the time to understand the 86's purpose led to the CB's designers wasting time, effort, and energy.
/rant

Oddly enough, the 17 86 does feel a bit like a GT. I did 400 miles on the coast yesterday and I spent most of my time in fourth of fifth gear and was perfectly happy, and broke the posted speed limits by a lot most of the time.

Just because a car is designed to be because racecar does not mean it needs to be beaten with the retarded aggressive stick. The car is way too slow to wear aggressive clothes to make up for the lack. I'd happily have that girly front end with 300 HP under the hood. Or even 200.

There are lots of hard-core sports cars that don't feel the need for stupid "agressive" BS.

[Dake]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

Those of you who dislike it, please tell us why. I guess the marketing dudes do know what they are doing. No girly front, must be agressive.

I need to find a trashed front and drag it to a body shop.

For me it's retro done wrong. The front and back don't match aesthetically. Trying to match the lines of the GT2000 on a modern car is virtually impossible due to current minimum head light/hood height, and pedestrian safety requirements.

Also, for me, this looks like a mid-nineties Jag XK without the benefit of consistent styling. Throw in that the Jag might have looked good back then, but it looks dated today. It's like some of those awful Pontiac Firebird or split-bumpered front fascias people made for the new Camaro.

[PetrolioBenzina]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

The start of that vid has me searching for a Mr. Sparkle decal for somewhere on the car.

I've always named cars, and they have all been women. Even though I believe my 86 is also female, it identifies as male, so "Mr. Sparkle" may be the name and this may be on the back. An incentive to disrespect dirt.

[Ashikabi]

Was that a DelSol V2?

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by PetrolioBenzina

Oddly enough, the 17 86 does feel a bit like a GT. I did 400 miles on the coast yesterday and I spent most of my time in fourth of fifth gear and was perfectly happy, and broke the posted speed limits by a lot most of the time.

Just because a car is designed to be because racecar does not mean it needs to be beaten with the retarded aggressive stick. The car is way too slow to wear aggressive clothes to make up for the lack. I'd happily have that girly front end with 300 HP under the hood. Or even 200.

There are lots of hard-core sports cars that don't feel the need for stupid "agressive" BS.

Just because you can use it to cruise, doesn't mean that's what it's design goals were. R&D as well as design resources are all focused at the goals for the platform. The use case you describe above is feasible and maybe even comfortable however the point actually is "aggressive BS". Not grand touring. So even though it'll get you up and down the coast in 4th and 5th gear does not a relaxed single lane highway cruiser it make. For that reason, the CB's styling feels totally wrong for the platform.