2022 Toyota 86 (Click-bait articles)

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Yea, I’m one of those people that would take a 200hp RWD car over a 300hp FWD car any day.

Wholeheartedly agree. Before driving my BRZ I didn't understand what's the fuss car journalists make of RWD. I thought that it was more important which car it is than which wheels it drives. I guess it is true, but only to a degree. There's a limit of what you can do with FWD and front biased AWD, and a good RWD car can do things that a good FWD just can't. Obviously I'll take a Type R over a Crown Vic, but good sports car vs. good sports car, RWD wins for me.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by new2subaru

I meant the hubs are a direct swap so we can use 5 x 114.3 wheels on on Gen 1


5 x 100 is limited

If they are actually more durable with a bigger bearing. I have killed 5 front hubs in my car. 85K miles. Surprisingly no rears in that time.

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Yea, I’m one of those people that would take a 200hp RWD car over a 300hp FWD car any day. I just can’t stand the way a FWD car feels when you put the power down in a curve.

I agree with you and I would make the same choice. I’ve owned each type of configuration, except for a MR setup. And FR is my favorite easily. It’s amazing what Honda achieved with the Civic Type R. Converting the Civic chassis to RWD or AWD would have cost way too much. So they used every trick they know to dial out understeer and make the car rotate almost like a RWD car. But you’re right at the end of the day it can’t completely hide it’s FWD nature. I like their commitment when they decide to make a Type R version of one of their cars. Toyota is starting to do that with the GR models. Let’s hope that trend continues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by pallen

Yep - I dont hate the looks of the Civic, but fwd scratched it off my list.
I had a Mazdaspeed3 for a while. Lots of fun, practical car and faster than my 86, but I love the 86 so much more - mostly because its RWD. Low CG, balanced handling, RWD wins for me. Other people have other things they love - that's ok.

The Mazdaspeed3 was a little beast! Torque steer for days! And a harsh ride. I still think they are awesome.
Yeah the balance of the twins is amazing, everything comes together to create such a fun driving experience. The amount of feedback through your seat, steering wheel, and shifter is incredible.
Like you said people find different things they enjoy about cars. None of them are wrong, and we’ve had it really good as car enthusiasts. There is something out there for everyone. I gravitate towards Japanese cars, I always have for some reason. I got hooked on watching Speed Racer reruns as a kid, and then Gran Turismo sealed the deal for me. Growing up one of my uncles had a 300ZX, and the other had an RX-7. My mom drove a manual Mazda 626. Funny enough my brother only drives German cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by Ohio Enthusiast

Wholeheartedly agree. Before driving my BRZ I didn't understand what's the fuss car journalists make of RWD. I thought that it was more important which car it is than which wheels it drives. I guess it is true, but only to a degree. There's a limit of what you can do with FWD and front biased AWD, and a good RWD car can do things that a good FWD just can't. Obviously I'll take a Type R over a Crown Vic, but good sports car vs. good sports car, RWD wins for me.

Yeah especially with a sports car, RWD is just more fun. It’s not always the fastest, but the feel is perfect. A good AWD system allows so much power when exiting a turn, so it’s hard to compete on lap times. But I drive my car only on the street so lap times mean very little to me.
Honda has been able to create some really special FWD cars. The Integra Type R is up there as one of the most fun cars I’ve ever driven. So engine/drive train layout isn’t the only factor. I would get a Civic Type R over the Golf R and Focus RS. Probably not over a STI.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by JesseG

Yeah especially with a sports car, RWD is just more fun. It’s not always the fastest, but the feel is perfect.

Agree, and it‘s one of the reasons enthusiasts and reviewers often prefer the RWD Lambo’s over the AWD versions, even though the RWD ones are technically slower.

Honda has been able to create some really special FWD cars. The Integra Type R is up there as one of the most fun cars I’ve ever driven. So engine/drive train layout isn’t the only factor. I would get a Civic Type R over the Golf R and Focus RS. Probably not over a STI.

Sure, Honda put a lot of effort and engineering $$ into maximising FWD. it’s a bit like the way Porsche have perfected the rear engined layout in the 911. Technically, both FWD and rear engined cars are objectively dynamically inferior to, say, RWD or AWD and mid-engined. But Honda and Porsche have decades of expertise and have honed them so well, they still perform better than the sum of the parts.

However... if Honda were to take their engineering know how and make another S2000 like sportscar, maybe an 86 coupe style competitor with RWD and the same engine as the CTR, I bet it would be even better, faster and more fun than the front engined CTR. It’s not worth doing from a financial standpoint, obviously, but in terms of sheer dynamic potential, a RWD Honda with the CTR’s engine and tech would be even better again. And of course, all else being equal, a properly engineered AWD version would be quicker again than either FWD or RWD, but likely not as fun as either.

Ultimately, I just prefer RWD and 2 doors, even when FWD or AWD and 5 doors is quicker. As you said, there are no ‘times’ in regular street driving, the most important thing is fun and how you feel when driving the car. And RWD still rules the roost for fun, all else being equal.

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by Red-86

Agree, and it‘s one of the reasons enthusiasts and reviewers often prefer the RWD Lambo’s over the AWD versions, even though the RWD ones are technically slower.



Sure, Honda put a lot of effort and engineering $$ into maximising FWD. it’s a bit like the way Porsche have perfected the rear engined layout in the 911. Technically, both FWD and rear engined cars are objectively dynamically inferior to, say, RWD or AWD and mid-engined. But Honda and Porsche have decades of expertise and have honed them so well, they still perform better than the sum of the parts.

However... if Honda were to take their engineering know how and make another S2000 like sportscar, maybe an 86 coupe style competitor with RWD and the same engine as the CTR, I bet it would be even better, faster and more fun than the front engined CTR. It’s not worth doing from a financial standpoint, obviously, but in terms of sheer dynamic potential, a RWD Honda with the CTR’s engine and tech would be even better again. And of course, all else being equal, a properly engineered AWD version would be quicker again than either FWD or RWD, but likely not as fun as either.

Ultimately, I just prefer RWD and 2 doors, even when FWD or AWD and 5 doors is quicker. As you said, there are no ‘times’ in regular street driving, the most important thing is fun and how you feel when driving the car. And RWD still rules the roost for fun, all else being equal.

Absolutely, the fun factor with RWD is impossible to beat. Especially when a car is set up like the 86 and BRZ. Razor sharp steering, very little body roll, a mechanical LSD, and being able to feel the rear end move through a turn. It doesn’t get better than that for driving enjoyment. I also completely understand why someone would choose AWD, or even FWD. I owned a bugeye WRX for many years, and it was terrific car. It gave a lot of confidence to get through any situation. Raining? Who cares! Not that it makes you invincible, and good tires are still critical. My brother owns a new Audi TTRS, and it’s so quick, almost scary fast. He beat a Tesla Model3 Dual Motor from a dig. The guy in the Tesla was like “What the f*ck is that car?!” That being said his car is very refined and you don’t feel the same connection with the road. It feels heavier even though it’s also a very small car.

Yes agree completely that if Honda put the CTR engine into a modern S2000, that would be an even better car. They can also build really awesome RWD cars, but have mostly focused on FWD. I guess the new NSX is one of the few times they used AWD in a performance car. I would have to get some seat time in a CTR before I could choose it over an STI or even a BRZ tS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irace86.2.0]

If Honda was going to make a RWD sports car then I suppose that would eat into the expansive Civic range. Then again, the SI and CTR are not exactly a huge part of Civic sales and sales are falling. Aren’t they dropping the coupe? Looks like it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.car...-discontinued/

The car to make is a RWD CTR with the same motor and trans just making it a transverse mid engine layout.

[NorthernDriver]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

Yea, I’m one of those people that would take a 200hp RWD car over a 300hp FWD car any day. I just can’t stand the way a FWD car feels when you put the power down in a curve.

To each their own

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If Honda was going to make a RWD sports car then I suppose that would eat into the expansive Civic range. Then again, the SI and CTR are not exactly a huge part of Civic sales and sales are falling. Aren’t they dropping the coupe? Looks like it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.car...-discontinued/

The car to make is a RWD CTR with the same motor and trans just making it a transverse mid engine layout.

I could see them making an AWD Civic TypeR, I don’t think we will ever see a RWD version. Imagine what it would be capable of with a good AWD system.
Honda needs to make a modern S2000. Just please give it a telescoping steering wheel, and slightly more leg room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by JesseG

I could see them making an AWD Civic TypeR, I don’t think we will ever see a RWD version. Imagine what it would be capable of with a good AWD system.
Honda needs to make a modern S2000. Just please give it a telescoping steering wheel, and slightly more leg room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CTR was faster than the Golf R and Focus RS. AWD is great, but only if you have reached the limits of traction because of the surface/tires or because of the horsepower/tires, but even then, that isn't the case necessarily, which is why we don't see AWD drag cars being the fastest cars at the drag strip, or why there are many records set with RWD cars, and AWD is destroying everything. In fact, in the top 10 Nurburgring times, 6 out of 10 are RWD.

I suppose AWD is like automatic transmissions; they just make it easier to go fast for novice people. The obvious disadvantages are the weight penalty, the drivetrain losses and packaging.

I don't really want an AWD or RWD CTR. I would be down for a mid engine Honda with the CTR or Accord 2.0T powertrain, which wouldn't be too hard to design, or I would be down for a RWD longitudinal setup like the S2000 with the CTR motor.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The CTR was faster than the Golf R and Focus RS. AWD is great, but only if you have reached the limits of traction because of the surface/tires or because of the horsepower/tires, but even then, that isn't the case necessarily, which is why we don't see AWD drag cars being the fastest cars at the drag strip, or why there are many records set with RWD cars, and AWD is destroying everything. In fact, in the top 10 Nurburgring times, 6 out of 10 are RWD.

I suppose AWD is like automatic transmissions; they just make it easier to go fast for novice people. The obvious disadvantages are the weight penalty, the drivetrain losses and packaging.

I don't really want an AWD or RWD CTR. I would be down for a mid engine Honda with the CTR or Accord 2.0T powertrain, which wouldn't be too hard to design, or I would be down for a RWD longitudinal setup like the S2000 with the CTR motor.

The tests that show the CTR beating the golf R have the golf on worse tires and without the now standard DCC. I’m willing to bet that if you put both on PS4s, it’d be dead even the golf.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

The tests that show the CTR beating the golf R have the golf on worse tires and without the now standard DCC. I’m willing to bet that if you put both on PS4s, it’d be dead even the golf.

The CTR is lighter and the Golf is going to have more drivetrain loses because of the AWD, so I don't know if AWD would see much benefits on many tracks.

For perspective, the CTR went around the Nurburgring in 7:43.8. Its time is next to a Porsche 981 GT4 on Michelin Sport Cup 2 tires, which finished in 7:42.

The development car that achieved the lap time was technically representative of production specification. A full floating roll cage was installed for safety reasons, but its presence did not provide any additional rigidity to the body frame. The extra weight of the cage was compensated for by the temporary removal of the infotainment system and rear seats. The car was using road legal track-focused tyres.

The Golf Clubsport S is a Golf GTI with a 306hp engine, so it is similar, we could say, to the Golf R's power minus AWD, but it has a lot of weight savings and track focused modifications, and it did 7:47.19.

Once they’d packed in more power, they started throwing out weight—the Clubsport S has no rear seats, center armrest, rear parcel shelf, variable-height trunk floor, floor mats, or sound-deadening insulation. More mass-shedding includes a smaller battery, an aluminum subframe for the front suspension, and aluminum hats connected to steel brake rotors. The latter pares 2.2 pounds of unsprung mass at each corner. Adding some weight back in are semi-slick 235/35 Michelin Sport Cup 2 tires on 19-inch aluminum wheels, the DCC system, a strut-tower brace, a partition net behind the seats and a carpet in the rear. All in, it’s about 66 pounds lighter than the GTI Clubsport and VW says it works out to 9.14 pounds of GTI per horsepower. They use “unladen” weight and Germany’s metric PS power units (the output is 310 PS) to make these calculations, by the way.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1...e-w-lap-video/

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

The tests that show the CTR beating the golf R have the golf on worse tires and without the now standard DCC. I’m willing to bet that if you put both on PS4s, it’d be dead even the golf.

I doubt it. The Golf R is a pig of a car. It's hardly even AWD, with only sending some power to the rear when traction is lost, and the chassis/suspension is less than optimally setup for aggressive track driving. It's not a full time AWD system.

Meanwhile, the CTR is faster in a straight line, better braking, and turns in/corners much MUCH better than the Golf does, even on the OEM tires. The car rotates better on corner entry than the most recent Evo and STI.

The time would be slower, but not that slow lol

The Golf R is an autobahn car; not a high performance track day type of a car.