Toyota 86 vs Cayman - Wheels Magazine australia review

[crazyyankeefan]

Man...do we really need another ass-kissing article about this car? To me, the car is already good. This looks just like another writer paid by Toyota to further hype up this car for their marketing

[virobloc]

"Those who demand a turbo-diesel-like torque spread may judge the 86 underpowered. In reality, this would suggest a lack of understanding of the Toyota's role as a purist sports car."

[klch]

Too bad some brick headed people will never get it

[DoogenBurns]

Originally Posted by OldSkoolToys

As for the F20 vs. 4A-GE in terms of note? Well....I'm biased. But I will admit, the F20 sounds absolutely amazing as well.

LOVE the sound of the sound of the FA20 with the Auto Factory exhaust!

[LeftFootBrake]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

You can rationalize it anyway you want, but the fact is their main complaints (other than the lack of power) about the BRZ had to do with the handling characteristics, not the auto tranny. They found that the 86 did not suffer from these same handling characteristics, and preferred those of the 86 - simple as that. Imputing motives about "backpedaling" etc is silly, Evo is not C&D or Motor Trend, they don't pull punches.

There has been no direct comparision yet published of the 2 reviewed side-by-side at the same time and by the same people, Evo's 2 reviews taken together are the closest to date. Other review sites have used different testers testing several weeks or months apart under very different conditions, making accurate comparison impossible.

It's always nice to find occasional sense on this forum. Completely agree that the root cause of EVO's feedback is more likely founded in the difference in suspension tune than transmission. But that's a topic for those with at lease a semblance of knowledge of dynamic load transfer and its impact on slip angles, so can't be had on this forum, unfortunately.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Alfie

86fanatic : I think this is what I needed to hear!

Yesterday I was about to order the '13 Porsche 981 for an August delivery and my chest was getting really tight at the thought of dropping $7-,--- on a car.
In fact I was feeling that tightness day and night for the last week just thinking about it!
And the fact that it would be parked in an open parking lot at an elementary school made me verklempt too!
Plus I learned recently the Porsches just love to eat tires, brake pads and disks even for conservative drivers!

Who told you that? Because it's not true.

[Alfie]

http://www.iwantaporsche.net/BoxsterBuyersTips.htm


.

[ultra]

Wheels is obviously trolling a bit with this one.

I think the take away here is not that the 86 is better than a Cayman per say so much as how freakishly close it comes so close for ao much less.

I've actually cross shopped the 86 with used Caymans and Cayman Ss but although the Cayman S is faster and carries so much more cachet I opted to put my money on the 86 because it promises to deliver sp much of that Cayman essence in a much easier to live with package.

To put it plainly I feel far more comfortable plunking down less money on a brand new car with a warranty and low running costs and just *drive* the thng than I am to go for an out of warranty Cayman which will cost an arm and a leg to keep running, never mind if tracking it or dealing with things in the event of an accident or minor bash up.

Pity that the new Boxster/Cayman seem to have bit a bit softer than the outgoing model, even if they're even better built and put together...although I doubt that many new Boxster / Cayman owners will give it a second thought.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Alfie

http://www.iwantaporsche.net/BoxsterBuyersTips.htm


.

Most performance tires aren't meant to last past 15,000 miles anyway. What tires you pick is up to you. As to brakes, I guess my buddy that tracks his 911 is lying to me when he tells me how long his brake pads last? Hint, it's longer than S2000 pads. As to cross drilled OEM rotors, yes they are expensive but they last a good while.

[ThatGuy]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

Man...do we really need another ass-kissing article about this car? To me, the car is already good. This looks just like another writer paid by Toyota to further hype up this car for their marketing

True it sounds like that but IMHO Wheels magazine would be one of the least likely of any magazine in the world to do that. I can't necessarily speak for the writer though.

Wheels pulls less punches than Evo, R&T, C&D, Inside Line, Top Gear and is generally less sensational than most.

The Cayman has never been beaten in a Wheels comparison previously, it is rare for any Porsche to be beaten (even against the GTR which is 2/3 the price here compared to a basic 911)

Saying that the criteria for the test is highly subjective.

[KnwsAThngOr2AbutAThngOr2]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

Man...do we really need another ass-kissing article about this car? To me, the car is already good. This looks just like another writer paid by Toyota to further hype up this car for their marketing

^This.

And like every other comparo that proclaimed the slower, less agile, noisier interior, less "supple" ride, and cheaper car the "victor", the "results" go misinterpreted and those blinded by "like" believe the underachiever to be the David that toppled Goliath. When, in fact, no where did this article state the Toyota was the faster, better handling, better car of the two. If anyone actually read the article, it states the Cayman left it as if it were parked from the "get-go" and continued to add distance between them through the "twisties". It stated that the Cayman could carry greater spead through the turns, had a much smoother ride, quieter interior, and that the exhaust/engine note of the Toyota was severely lacking (needed to be more "sonorous", or more like the Cayman's). So, where/when did the "victory" take place?

Sorry to say, but the majority of people who drive this car will be teens that read an article similar to this who religiously feel the need to show their friends that their new ride is "faster than a Porsche". When in reality, any average car could "meet or beat" them from stoplight to stoplight and they'll get "ruined" by newer Camry's(the irony)/Accord's.

No, I don't own a Porsche. Not my cup of tea. Picking up an AMG in a couple weeks (Euro delivery). I'll post up picks (if requested).

Now, if this car gets a Turbo/SC and some stickies, it could be a serious track weapon.

[ydooby]

Originally Posted by KnwsAThngOr2AbutAThngOr2

^This.

And like every other comparo that proclaimed the slower, less agile, noisier interior, less "supple" ride, and cheaper car the "victor", the "results" go misinterpreted and those blinded by "like" believe the underachiever to be the David that toppled Goliath. When, in fact, no where did this article state the Toyota was the faster, better handling, better car of the two. If anyone actually read the article, it states the Cayman left it as if it were parked from the "get-go" and continued to add distance between them through the "twisties". It stated that the Cayman could carry greater spead through the turns, had a much smoother ride, quieter interior, and that the exhaust/engine note of the Toyota was severely lacking (needed to be more "sonorous", or more like the Cayman's). So, where/when did the "victory" take place?

The "victory", if you actually read the review, comes in form of a driving experience that's more "alive" and "fun" than the Cayman, as well as a much better balance that makes the 86 "utterly adjustable" at the limit. The final scoring is higher for the FR-S (hence the claimed victory), and although that of course is just the author weighing more heavily on the driving experience, it shows that the 86 can be a victor to you too, regardless of price, if that is also what you're looking for in a car.