Video: Toyota GR86 SPIED for the First Time!

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gravitylover

Sort of.

It seems to me that the 2.4 having beefier internals could have more than 217hp NA with a few tweaks. I think the turbo isn't there so much to add hp but to boost efficiency in their bigger and heavier models but in the much lighter and more aerodynamic 86 platform the efficiency would already be there so boosting the power without a turbo shouldn't be much of a stretch at all. In fact, more power and a better torque curve should actually make it even that much more efficient almost negating the fleet fuel economy requirements hit that you'd think it will see.

FWIW if I got one it would be with the auto, it's already the easiest car to drive that I've ever owned and an auto would make it more pleasant in a bunch of ways that my "old" self will appreciate. It would also allow my kids to drive it whereas with the stick they can't because they're so short they can't put the clutch all the way in without being jammed into the steering wheel. I wonder if this kind of thing is a factor they'd consider when deciding which transmissions to offer. Is the market for the car aging or staying (mostly) younger and has the car gone mainstream enough to consider a wider user base...

Yes but I fail to see what that has to do with reduced costs from producing higher volumes?


We don't even know what sort of fuel system they are planning. Will it be another version of the current Toyota one with port and direct injection or will it just be a straight Subaru system like all the rest of their NA cars? Not near enough info to be trying to determine what the emissions will be at this point.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Needs?

Legally. The regulations say it needs to be centered and above the tail lights.

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Legally. The regulations say it needs to be centered and above the tail lights.

US or Canada?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by why?

Have you driven them back to back? The BRZ drives so much better than the WRX that anyone who thinks handling is more important than power chooses the BRZ over the WRX. Just look around, many people here test drove both and chose the BRZ. The BRZ makes the WRX feel like a pickup truck.

As but one piece of evidence as to how certifiably insane I am (at least when it comes to cars), my 3 cars are a 2019 BRZ, 2019 WRX, and 2015 Mustang GT. So as a matter of fact, I can comment on driving a BRZ vs WRX back to back, which I do often.

I bought the WRX before the BRZ, and wondered if they would be too 'similar' and if it was totally crazy to own 2 Subarus (3 including my wife's Crosstrek). My basis for comparison is having owned well over 100 cars over 47 years of driving.

I wouldn't say the WRX feels like a 'truck', but the driving experience is quite different between the two cars. The WRX is clearly 'bigger', also much more powerful (268 turbocharged hp and gobs of torque), and with AWD a very different feel. To my admittedly aging seat, the WRX doesn't feel 'truck like' at all, but is a very good handling, fast, and fun drive.

The dynamics of AWD + turbo are very different from NA and RWD of the BRZ. Even though it's full time AWD you can definitely feel the torque tugging at the front wheels. It's much more powerful and faster, especially in the mid-range. But to me most turbocharged engines feel more or less the same - nothing down low before the turbo kicks in, then a slingshot catapult WHAM! at around 2500 rpm, and then it's all over by 5000 rpm. The WRX isn't a heavy car in an absolute sense, but it feels much heavier than the BRZ. The ride is also very stiff. My aging butt can handle it for up to about 3 hours; any more than that and it's just too jittery even over relatively smooth highway surfaces. Passengers also tell me that the back seat is uninhabitable, not because of room (there's plenty of that), but being situated right over the rear axle, the ride is unbearably harsh (lots of heads banging against the headliner). Overall, it's definitely a fun car and puts a smile on my face whenever I drive it. It's far from perfect, but then, no car is (especially for $30k).

The BRZ is a vastly different driving experience (again, solely IMHO, and to how it feels to my older butt). It reminds me very much of the 1960's sports cars I used to drive back in the day (yes, being old, I went through many 60's sports cars back in the 70's). The BRZ feels much lighter than the WRX, much more than you would expect from the absolute weight difference. It has a much lighter steering feel (RWD vs AWD), much 'lighter on its feet', much nimbler handing, easier and smoother cornering transitions on twisty roads. It's not that the WRX is a 'bad' handling car. On the contrary, I think it's an excellent handling car. It's simply that the BRZ is outstanding. The ride of the BRZ also isn't as harsh and jittery as the WRX. It's far from a 'luxury' car, it's noisier and louder inside at highway speeds, but also less tiring. I've taken the BRZ on 8 hour drives and while I can't say I emerge feeling 'refreshed', it's not as tiring and wearing on me as the WRX on long trips.

Of all the cars I've owned and driven, the BRZ reminds me most of the Opel GT, and also the MGB-GT. It's much bigger than the Opel GT (which was almost micro-car sized), closer to the MGB-GT in size, but the closed-coupe feeling, nimble handling, light steering, and even the sightlines through the windshield with raised front fenders, feel very similar to me between both cars. Though the BRZ has double the power (and infinitely better heat/A/C and safety features) of those cars and pretty much most 60's sports cars, which is why I chuckle a bit at all the whining by people who've never driven the BRZ about how it 'needs more power'. With the 60's sports cars, we found 100 hp to be enough for street driving, and 'souped up' cars with maybe 150 hp were pure 'race' cars for the track. Realistically, 205 hp is more than enough to have fun in street driving. After taking several test drives in BRZs after buying the WRX, they felt very different to me and I had to have both.

Overall, I find the BRZ simply more fun to drive. While the WRX puts a smile on my face when I drive it, the BRZ gives me a big shit-eating grin from ear to ear. If I could only keep one of the two, it would be the BRZ (and even though it's been less than two years with the WRX, I already know I'm going to sell it in the foreseeable future, to get something with a more tolerable ride for long highway trips - as soon as the pandemic abates and makes highway trips doable again).

Solely my 2 cents. Your mileage may vary.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

US or Canada?k

Both.

Originally Posted by All Knowing Wikipedia

In the United States and Canada since 1986, in Australia and New Zealand since 1990, and in Europe and other countries applying UN Regulation 48 since 1998,[88] a central stop (brake) lamp mounted higher than the vehicle's left and right stop lamps and called a "centre high mount stop lamp (CHMSL)", is also required. The CHMSL (pronounced /ˈtʃɪmzəl/)[88] is sometimes informally called the "centre brake lamp", the "third brake light", the "eye-level brake lamp", the "safety brake lamp", or the "high-level brake lamp". The CHMSL may use one or more filament bulbs or LEDs, or a strip of neon tube as its light source.

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

The ND has a 1.5L option in addition to the 2.0L.

Not to derail too much, but the initial press releases where that the 1.5 was the "main" engine designed for the ND, and the 2.0 was just an afterthought. Then when the ND2 came out with the heavily revised 2.0 they said that they didn't have the development time to get a "proper" 2.0 for the ND and just took their regular transverse 2.0 and turned it 90 degrees. How far can we trust this? I dunno. But the North American market not even getting the 1.5 might give us some bias in that regard (it's kinda like the Supra and the 2 liter engine).

It might make sense for the next gen twin to offer both the existing FA20 and the FA24, unless the FA20 can't meet some regulation or other and it would cost too much to bring it up to snuff (outputting over 100 HP/liter it would probably be a non trivial undertaking - the rumored NA 217 HP FA24 is just 90 HP/liter and probably with a lower redline).

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

Based on the conversation up to this point, I think I can solve everyone's problem. This car I am going to offer you is under $25K, has a manual, 300hp, it's a coupe with 4 seats, nothing you don't want, a spacious truck, low cost to insure, and it is quite efficient.



I know the badge scares a lot of people, but this is the car you all keep bringing up without saying it. Just give in. Go for a test drive and take advantage of the incentives.

See my post above. Continuing evidence of my certifiable insanity, owning a BRZ, WRX, and a Mustang GT (albeit the 5.0 V8 and not the EcoBoost 4).

I bought the Mustang GT in 2015 as a 'semi' retirement present to myself (though a few years early). My first car was a 1965 Mustang and I've owned 5 of them over the years. I was intrigued by the IRS of the S550 Mustang that came out in 2015, and also smitten with the styling, which to me is very reminiscent of the 1969 'Sports Roof' (= fastback) Mustang which was one of my all-time favorite cars (hey, I was a stupid high schooler, it was the times).

Not surprisingly, the Mustang is a radically different driving experience from either the BRZ or the WRX. Even though it's a 'modern' car, it feels very much like the 1960's/1970's Mustangs I drove back in the day. It's very much like buying a new 1970 car today, both good and bad.

The good is primarily the engine. It's hard to argue about 435 hp and 400 ft-lbs of torque to match. The Coyote 5.0 V8 is a gem of a design. It has the rare combination of great torque down low, but still revs smoothly with linear power delivery all the way to 7000 rpm. With a '0-60' time of 4.3-4.5 sec (depending on whose road test you prefer), it's definitely more than plenty fast for street driving. The engine also has that inimitable 'American' V8 rumbly sound like something out of the 'American Graffiti' soundtrack (which it is).

Unlike the 'muscle cars' of olden days, the Mustang also corners well. It's a rare combination of straight-line power with good handling. Though, it is a very heavy-feeling car. It feels heavier and bigger than it is, with a long hood and generally ponderous feeling (the complete opposite of the BRZ). Ironically, of the WRX and BRZ, the Mustang has by far the most comfortable ride of the three, even though it has the 'Performance Package' with stiffer springs, suspension, etc.

The not so good is build quality. It's a Ford. It's built to the bare minimum of build quality and reliability they can get away with. The Mustang forums and internet are filled with stories of class-action lawsuits over various problems with the cars, such as the infamous Chinese-built MT82 manual transmission that seems to grenade itself if driven in a 'spirited' manner, a design flaw with the A/C that results in evaporator failures, and so countless other signs of cost-cutting such as plastic door latches that have been the subject of two recalls.

With the Mustang, you're buying an engine and its power (and associated handling). If those are the priority, it's hard to find 435 hp (now 460 hp) for under $40k anywhere else. But everything else is subject to cost-cutting. If you're used to the quality and reliability of Japanese cars, it's disappointing.

I can't comment on the 2.3 'EcoBoost' motor. On paper, 330 hp seems like more than enough, and the performance isn't far off the GT. But, I would be concerned with the longevity, durability, and long-term reliability of a Ford squeezing that much power out of 2.3 liters. The Focus RS with basically the same engine has known problems with head gaskets. Given Ford's penchant for cost-cutting, I wouldn't want to own one with some miles on it, but that's just me.

[Vides990]

Originally Posted by gravitylover

In fact, more power and a better torque curve should actually make it even that much more efficient almost negating the fleet fuel economy requirements hit that you'd think it will see.

Go back a few pages, bestcar is literally saying the opposite and that Subaru won't be keeping the Brz bc they don't have the fleet econ credits. Obviously grains of salt to be taken.

[Vides990]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

We don't even know what sort of fuel system they are planning. Will it be another version of the current Toyota one with port and direct injection or will it just be a straight Subaru system like all the rest of their NA cars? Not near enough info to be trying to determine what the emissions will be at this point.

I know how much you like speculation but from, imo, the "good sources" say it's all subaru and no Toyota fuel system this time around. That's a negative to me.

[dnieves]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Legally. The regulations say it needs to be centered and above the tail lights.

Does that mean you can be stopped if you have an additional JDM brake light under the bumper? Or the more merrier as long as the USDM top mount brake light is present & functional?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Vides990

I know how much you like speculation but from, imo, the "good sources" say it's all subaru and no Toyota fuel system this time around. That's a negative to me.

Our reliable sources here indicates almost zero Toyota involvement as well so I would tend to agree with that.
Speculation is one thing but presenting that speculation as confirmed fact is another. It is stating as fact that I object to. Many of my counter arguments are as much speculation as anybody else just not the popular version.

[mazeroni]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

...

All fair points, and maybe you hit on this a little in your initial post, but to be clear I am not asking anyone to accept that the Mustang is the same as 86/BRZ. Rather, the only reason the Mustang exists at its current price point with all of its standard features is because it appeals to wider demographic and shares lots of Ford parts. There are economies of scale that make the Mustang possible.

So for GEN-II to be what people want, the 86/BRZ must sell 30,000+ cars a year, meaning it must become a big and heavy Mustang so more people want it. If people don't want it to become a Mustang, then go buy a Supra 2.0, because that is the other side of the coin.

There is no inbetween. If there was, there would be more cars like the 86 with turbos for $30K. But there aren't.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

All fair points, and maybe you hit on this a little in your initial post, but to be clear I am not asking anyone to accept that the Mustang is the same as 86/BRZ. Rather, the only reason the Mustang exists at its current price point with all of its standard features is because it appeals to wider demographic and shares lots of Ford parts. There are economies of scale that make the Mustang possible.

So for GEN-II to be what people want, the 86/BRZ must sell 30,000+ cars a year, meaning it must become a big and heavy Mustang so more people want it. If people don't want it to become a Mustang, then go buy a Supra 2.0, because that is the other side of the coin.

There is no inbetween. If there was, there would be more cars like the 86 with turbos for $30K. But there aren't.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by dnieves

Does that mean you can be stopped if you have an additional JDM brake light under the bumper? Or the more merrier as long as the USDM top mount brake light is present & functional?

Not 100% sure, and may vary by state. I don't believe its an issue though as long as you have the legal one. The legal one also cannot strobe I believe, it has to act just like your brake lights.