follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook.
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Speed By Design
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum - FT86CLUB > Off-Topic Discussions > Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions

Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions Discuss all other cars and automotive news here.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-07-2021, 07:47 AM   #57
Tcoat
He who smelt it...
 
Tcoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Drives: 2020 Hakone
Location: London, Ont
Posts: 64,007
Thanks: 56,746
Thanked 95,297 Times in 41,702 Posts
Mentioned: 2308 Post(s)
Tagged: 50 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Tires are not really holding this car back as far as 0-60 goes. And we already know what 215/40-18 Michelin PS4 tires do for BRZ acceleration vs. 215/45-17 Primacies:
2017 BRZ: 0-60 in 6.2 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.8 at 95mph on Primacies.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...l-test-review/
2018 BRZ tS: 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.9 at 94mph on PS4s
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-drive-review/


And it ain't the tires... Agree that the +23hp isn't nearly enough to account for 1 second quicker to 60, so if it really *is* 1 second quicker it's gotta be one less shift.
I suspect that Toyota marketing may be playing the age old bench racer game of using what numbers suit their case at that particular point in time. They have always pushed that the MT was someplace around 6.2 and ignored the 7.4 of the AT. Now all of a sudden the car is "faster" when it is 6.2 or does it go 5.2?
__________________
Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar, because Racecar.
Tcoat is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Tcoat For This Useful Post:
Irace86.2.0 (04-07-2021)
Old 04-07-2021, 08:45 AM   #58
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 3,240
Thanks: 624
Thanked 2,373 Times in 1,316 Posts
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcoat View Post
I suspect that Toyota marketing may be playing the age old bench racer game of using what numbers suit their case at that particular point in time. They have always pushed that the MT was someplace around 6.2 and ignored the 7.4 of the AT. Now all of a sudden the car is "faster" when it is 6.2 or does it go 5.2?
That makes some sense. Even with +23-27hp and no 2-3 shift required, a full second is a LOT. Maybe they "fixed" the lazy acceleration of the AT version...
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 01:45 PM   #59
PulsarBeeerz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: BRZ
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 435
Thanks: 355
Thanked 283 Times in 170 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
They also are said to of made some suspension geometry changes. Lack of power wasn't the only reason it was slow off the line. All the factory anti-squat of the previous models makes getting off the line efficiently challenging. There's also the 30+lb/ft of TQ that keeps getting left out the conversation for some reason...
PulsarBeeerz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 02:48 PM   #60
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 3,240
Thanks: 624
Thanked 2,373 Times in 1,316 Posts
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz View Post
They also are said to of made some suspension geometry changes. Lack of power wasn't the only reason it was slow off the line. All the factory anti-squat of the previous models makes getting off the line efficiently challenging. There's also the 30+lb/ft of TQ that keeps getting left out the conversation for some reason...
It isn't any suspension geometry change either... Like with the tires, for this car the effect is going to be minor. IMO a much bigger issue with it inherently having trouble getting off the line than tires or rear geometry is the 55F/45R weight distribution, but that's most likely unchanged.

Torque is fine as a means to make power. But yeah, there's more of it and there's no real dip any more. But again, not enough to account for a 1 second improvement in acceleration to 60. IMO it's gotta be either no 2-3 shift required, or it's the improvement of the AT model due to a much more performance-oriented automatic trans. Or it's not really 1-s quicker to 60... We shall see!
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2021, 10:33 PM   #61
Irace86.2.0
Non Sequitur
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 4,810
Thanks: 3,649
Thanked 3,631 Times in 2,071 Posts
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Tires are not really holding this car back as far as 0-60 goes. And we already know what 215/40-18 Michelin PS4 tires do for BRZ acceleration vs. 215/45-17 Primacies:
2017 BRZ: 0-60 in 6.2 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.8 at 95mph on Primacies.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...l-test-review/
2018 BRZ tS: 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.9 at 94mph on PS4s
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-drive-review/

And it ain't the tires... Agree that the +23hp isn't nearly enough to account for 1 second quicker to 60, so if it really *is* 1 second quicker it's gotta be one less shift.
Well, I know we are talking about 0-60 versus 0-62 in the above articles and below, but apparently the last gen did 0-60 mph in 6.2 seconds and 60-62 mph in 1.2 seconds for a total of 7.4 seconds. If the new 0-62 time is 6.3 seconds then the 0-60 time might be 5.1 seconds like Tcoat said, or not like Tcoat said.

Kinda odd the Ts had a lower time, right?

https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/toyota/34997138.html
Attached Images
 
__________________

Last edited by Irace86.2.0; 04-07-2021 at 11:07 PM.
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2021, 07:48 AM   #62
Stonehorsw
Member
 
Stonehorsw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Drives: 18 BRZ
Location: Michigan
Posts: 98
Thanks: 177
Thanked 56 Times in 41 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Tires are not really holding this car back as far as 0-60 goes. And we already know what 215/40-18 Michelin PS4 tires do for BRZ acceleration vs. 215/45-17 Primacies:
2017 BRZ: 0-60 in 6.2 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.8 at 95mph on Primacies.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...l-test-review/
2018 BRZ tS: 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and 1/4-mile in 14.9 at 94mph on PS4s
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-drive-review/


And it ain't the tires... Agree that the +23hp isn't nearly enough to account for 1 second quicker to 60, so if it really *is* 1 second quicker it's gotta be one less shift.
TS version is slightly heavier, has aero and 18” wheels, so not a apples to apples comparison.
If the 0-62mph is reduced by 1 second, I would expect to be from a conjunction of factors: tires (you do not know how much the grip difference would make with a higher torque), gearing, aero (drag reduction), weight distribution, suspension geometry.
Stonehorsw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2021, 08:56 AM   #63
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 3,240
Thanks: 624
Thanked 2,373 Times in 1,316 Posts
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0 View Post
Well, I know we are talking about 0-60 versus 0-62 in the above articles and below, but apparently the last gen did 0-60 mph in 6.2 seconds and 60-62 mph in 1.2 seconds for a total of 7.4 seconds.
I don't think the current car takes 1.2 seconds to get from 60mph to 62mph...
6.2 second 0-60 times we see are kinda cheating, they give themselves a 1 foot rollout.

The 7.4 seconds the press release references as 0-62 time, that must be truly from zero without a 1ft rollout, soft launch, or possibly it's an automatic? In that same 7.4-second run to 62mph they reference, I would bet they did not get to 60mph in 6.2...

Quote:
Kinda odd the Ts had a lower time, right?
tS was 48 lb. heavier, and the data is in pretty coarse units, 6.2 seconds given could be 6.24, and the tS at 6.3 could be 6.25. Likewise for 94 vs. 95mph, could be 94.4 vs. 94.5. Anyway it's clear that the tS doesn't get any acceleration advantage from its PS4 tires, not enough to make up for it's modestly (+1.7%) greater weight anyway...

I have to be a bit skeptical of the Toyota press release claiming that big an improvement 0-62. But if it really *is* 1.1 seconds quicker to 60, a lot of that is likely not having to upshift to 3rd, that's ~0.5(ish) right there. And the rest due to better power/weight and no big torque dip.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2021, 09:07 AM   #64
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 3,240
Thanks: 624
Thanked 2,373 Times in 1,316 Posts
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehorsw View Post
TS version is slightly heavier, has aero and 18” wheels, so not a apples to apples comparison.
Yes, *slightly* heavier, 48 lb., +1.7%, which theoretically should amount to something a bit less than 1mph slower in the 1/4. The argument had been that 215/40-18 PS4s would give a big improvement in acceleration vs. 215/45-17 Primacies, and that's exactly what's compared here. If the new car gets to 62mph 1.1 seconds quicker, it is not because it's on 215/40-18 PS4s vs 215/45-17 Primacies.

Quote:
If the 0-62mph is reduced by 1 second, I would expect to be from a conjunction of factors: tires (you do not know how much the grip difference would make with a higher torque), gearing, aero (drag reduction), weight distribution, suspension geometry.
I'm saying that if it really *is* 1.1 seconds quicker to 62, the main factors are better power/weight, no torque dip (doesn't affect acceleration times from higher speeds but does for standing start), and ~half of that advantage from being geared taller enough that it doesn't have to upshift to 3rd to hit 62.
Weight distribution is going to be close to the same, other factors are minor...

Anyway, we'll see!
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2021, 11:48 AM   #65
Sasquachulator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 2016 Scion iM, 2017 BMW X1
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,850
Thanks: 19
Thanked 1,110 Times in 602 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
guys the 6.2 ish time bandied about (for the first gen) is the C&D number, not the official number.

After some searching i found that the official time is (way back for when the Scion FRS first came out)

Official 0-60 is 7.3 for 6MT and 8.0 for 6AT.
Official 1/4mi is 15.6 for 6MT and 16.1 6AT.

found it in this thread:
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5494

Sounds like this makes more sense if the official 0-100 is 7.7 or so.

I honestly thought ive seen 6.6 and 6.9 before but what do i know....the performance metric for this car is all over the place.
Sasquachulator is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Sasquachulator For This Useful Post:
Tcoat (04-08-2021)
Old 04-08-2021, 11:48 AM   #66
Stonehorsw
Member
 
Stonehorsw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Drives: 18 BRZ
Location: Michigan
Posts: 98
Thanks: 177
Thanked 56 Times in 41 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Yes, *slightly* heavier, 48 lb., +1.7%, which theoretically should amount to something a bit less than 1mph slower in the 1/4. The argument had been that 215/40-18 PS4s would give a big improvement in acceleration vs. 215/45-17 Primacies, and that's exactly what's compared here. If the new car gets to 62mph 1.1 seconds quicker, it is not because it's on 215/40-18 PS4s vs 215/45-17 Primacies.



I'm saying that if it really *is* 1.1 seconds quicker to 62, the main factors are better power/weight, no torque dip (doesn't affect acceleration times from higher speeds but does for standing start), and ~half of that advantage from being geared taller enough that it doesn't have to upshift to 3rd to hit 62.
Weight distribution is going to be close to the same, other factors are minor...

Anyway, we'll see!
Your assumptions to say that the other factors are minor is based on the current torque x weight ratio, which is incorrect.
You would need to bump the GEN1 to this and then verify if the tires and suspension play a factor, as both may not be the bottleneck currently, but may become with a slightly power bump.

Yes, the main factor for the time reduction is the power bump, then the removal of the dip (it makes difference on both of the measurements here) and then other items.

When I mentioned TS, I also mentioned the wheel size (highr inertia) and aero drag.

Regarding weight distribution, this can get worse if they did not move the engine, as engine is heavier( Gen1 has about 5” of clearance on the bay, not sure if due to safaty factors, but it is ugly).
Stonehorsw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2021, 12:35 PM   #67
Irace86.2.0
Non Sequitur
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 4,810
Thanks: 3,649
Thanked 3,631 Times in 2,071 Posts
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
I don't think the current car takes 1.2 seconds to get from 60mph to 62mph...
6.2 second 0-60 times we see are kinda cheating, they give themselves a 1 foot rollout.

The 7.4 seconds the press release references as 0-62 time, that must be truly from zero without a 1ft rollout, soft launch, or possibly it's an automatic? In that same 7.4-second run to 62mph they reference, I would bet they did not get to 60mph in 6.2...

tS was 48 lb. heavier, and the data is in pretty coarse units, 6.2 seconds given could be 6.24, and the tS at 6.3 could be 6.25. Likewise for 94 vs. 95mph, could be 94.4 vs. 94.5. Anyway it's clear that the tS doesn't get any acceleration advantage from its PS4 tires, not enough to make up for it's modestly (+1.7%) greater weight anyway...

I have to be a bit skeptical of the Toyota press release claiming that big an improvement 0-62. But if it really *is* 1.1 seconds quicker to 60, a lot of that is likely not having to upshift to 3rd, that's ~0.5(ish) right there. And the rest due to better power/weight and no big torque dip.
Did Toyota do a rollout test? If not then that could explain the difference in traction off the line and why the difference with the tires didn’t matter on their 0-60 between the Primacies and tS’ PS4s, but why it did make such a huge difference 70-0 with a 151 foot distance instead of a 164 foot distance, despite the extra 48lbs on the tS.
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Irace86.2.0 For This Useful Post:
DAEMANO (04-08-2021)
Old 04-08-2021, 12:57 PM   #68
WolfpackS2k
Senior Member
 
WolfpackS2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Drives: '06 Cayman S, '17 GTI Sport
Location: NC
Posts: 2,471
Thanks: 2,320
Thanked 1,389 Times in 793 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Garage
Unhappy

30 years ago automakers put out conservative performance numbers for their cars. And it confused people when magazines (and people IRL) could do better.

Here we are 30 years later and...how is the same thing happening?!

__________________
Current: '12 C63 AMG P31 & '17 VW GTI Sport
'06 Porsche Cayman S - sold and missed

'13 SWP BRZ-L - Innovate Supercharged - RIP, claimed by VIR T10

'07 S2000 - DD & track rat - sold
'92 GS-R - 300k club member - sold
WolfpackS2k is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to WolfpackS2k For This Useful Post:
Tcoat (04-08-2021)
Old 04-08-2021, 01:26 PM   #69
Irace86.2.0
Non Sequitur
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 4,810
Thanks: 3,649
Thanked 3,631 Times in 2,071 Posts
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k View Post
30 years ago automakers put out conservative performance numbers for their cars. And it confused people when magazines (and people IRL) could do better.

Here we are 30 years later and...how is the same thing happening?!

We are more interested in debating the delta between the manufacturer’s numbers of the first gen and second gen. Either they were conservative and then they weren’t, so their numbers look better on the second gen or the car really improved by 1.1 seconds. If it is the latter then is it mostly the engine or mostly the tires or mostly one less gear to shift into or equally all three? Why was this discussion started? Because AnalogMan mentioned wanting to know what it actually feels like, which spawned comments that it might not be so great. Why? Because one less gear shift could improve times without much change in feel, and if someone already has PS4 tires then they might already have improved their 0-60 time. Maybe the 1.1 seconds is actually 0.3 seconds of actual improvement in acceleration.

The difference between manufacturers and journalists is actually not the focus of the debate, even if we are discussing the discrepancy.
__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GR (Gazoo Racing) Front Lip: 2017+ Toyota 86 TylerLieberman Exterior Parts (Aero, Lighting, Etc.) 3 10-09-2020 10:46 PM
TOYOTA GAZOO Racing WINS LE MANS gymratter Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions 18 06-20-2018 10:42 PM
Mega Web: Toyota 86 14R, Gazoo Racing 86 Concept, and Gazoo Racing 2012 GT86 #165 mav1178 Photos, Videos, Wallpapers, Gallery Forum 7 09-03-2015 10:24 AM
Toyota Gazoo Racing Festival 11-25-2012 switchlanez Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum 2 11-25-2012 03:11 AM
Toyota Gazoo Racing Festival Stream ichitaka05 Photos, Videos, Wallpapers, Gallery Forum 1 11-24-2012 10:52 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.