Video: Toyota GR86 SPIED for the First Time!

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

And many of them came back to the Twins after discovering that the "upgrade" really was not there. It is not so much an upgrade as a sideways change of performance. You give up some things to gain others.

Too true. I test-drove a manual WRX before my BRZ lease ended.

No thanks.

[TheDonEffect]

One could make the argument that Subaru could capture sales that would otherwise have been lost to pony cars, 2 series, Miata, etc, but turboing the BRZ. Think about all the ecoboost owners who bought it because of price point and performance to the dollar, a turbo 86 could strip away alot of those sales.

So what could be attributed to cannibalizing sales from the WRX should be more than made up by capturing lost sales in general.

Also, any sales figures on the mustang and camaros?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

That decision most likely had 2 reasons and it wasnt "to preserve and not cannibalize sales from the WRX"

1.) Whoever was in charge of the project didnt want it.
2.) The FA20 turbo from the WRX doesnt fit as is (its too tall isnt it?). Why would subaru reroute the turbo system just for this car (which sells in small numbers) when they have a mass produced FA20 turbo just being plunked into various other subarus.

Beyond any kind of marketing spin im pretty sure its one of those (or both)

If they did it like other Subaru's, it would fit. It is not any taller, the intake manifold is backwards. There is enough room to get an up-pipe, and down pipe behind the passenger head. There are a few aftermarket turbo kits routed this way. There is a hell of a lot of room in our engine bays, that is why so many swaps fit so easily.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

If they did it like other Subaru's, it would fit. It is not any taller, the intake manifold is backwards. There is enough room to get an up-pipe, and down pipe behind the passenger head. There are a few aftermarket turbo kits routed this way. There is a hell of a lot of room in our engine bays, that is why so many swaps fit so easily.

You’re forgetting about the pedestrian safety air gap between the hood and the top of the engine! You can’t just stuff an intercooler in there, you need to raise the hood with it.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

You’re forgetting about the pedestrian safety air gap between the hood and the top of the engine! You can’t just stuff an intercooler in there, you need to raise the hood with it.

I didn’t forget. The inter cooler on the FA powered WRX’s sits behind the intake manifold. Looks marginally taller even with the covers. I don’t think we would have the room to run as much of one as the WRX has though.

[JesseG]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

That decision most likely had 2 reasons and it wasnt "to preserve and not cannibalize sales from the WRX"

1.) Whoever was in charge of the project didnt want it.
2.) The FA20 turbo from the WRX doesnt fit as is (its too tall isnt it?). Why would subaru reroute the turbo system just for this car (which sells in small numbers) when they have a mass produced FA20 turbo just being plunked into various other subarus.

Beyond any kind of marketing spin im pretty sure its one of those (or both)

When you look at how incredibly hunkered down the twins look, the very low COG, near perfect balance, it does make sense that the FA20 (in its original NA form) was always the best choice. That being said, why not a supercharger option? Toyota has done that in the past. Didn’t Lotus supercharge the 2ZZ in the Elise?
I guess my point is it’s possible to maintain the low COG and balance with something like a supercharger. Imagine how much more fun the twins would be set up that way. From the factory, not aftermarket. And the biggest weakness of the FA20 is lack of torque.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by JesseG

When you look at how incredibly hunkered down the twins look, the very low COG, near perfect balance, it does make sense that the FA20 (in its original NA form) was always the best choice. That being said, why not a supercharger option? Toyota has done that in the past. Didn’t Lotus supercharge the 2ZZ in the Elise?
I guess my point is it’s possible to maintain the low COG and balance with something like a supercharger. Imagine how much more fun the twins would be set up that way. From the factory, not aftermarket. And the biggest weakness of the FA20 is lack of torque.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they offered a dealer installed supercharger option from TRD (like they have for some trucks) I would be all over it. They could still crank out the cars from the factory as usual and only at the point of sale (or at some point later if the consumer wants to) install the supercharger.

Wishful thinking I know.

[AnalogMan]

There's been a lot of discussion and speculation about the engine in the next-gen car, and how much power it might, and should, have. We've all seen and heard the endless bitching about how under-powered the current car is (often from people who have never actually driven it), and how the only thing it needs is 'more power'.

Yeah, I get it... 'more power' is always 'better'. What car couldn't be improved with 'more power'? Everybody always wants 'more power'.

But to play devil's advocate and take a contrarian if not heretical point of view for a moment... how much power do you really need in a BRZ/86? For typical street driving and not the 'track'? Let's face it, most people spend most of their time in the car on the street, regardless of 'track day' fantasies and wishes (for true track rats, this doesn't apply, you're in a separate league with different needs).

The BRZ/86 is a cheap, entry-level sports car. It's not a supercar. It's not a muscle car. It's supposed to be a way to have fun for not much money. If you spend most of the time driving on the street, how much 'power' do you actually need?

My relatively advanced age no doubt has a lot to do with this, but my 'track days' are long behind me. I drive my car exclusively on the street. I don't care about the 'numbers'. I care more about how a car feels for me to drive, how my ass reacts to being in the seat, and not bragging about the 0-60 or other meaningless 'numbers' to people in a bar or gym club. Every time I drive my car (like I did today), it strikes me that it has enough power to be fun, to feel fun for me in any street driving I'm likely to do without attracting attention from the law and risking my license.

To those that will moan, 'but a hot Camry will outrun it!', I say, so what? How often are you going to try to race Camrys? Is that really what you do most of the time? Try to pick street races with Camrys or other cars? Really??? Again, it's no doubt my advanced age, but I'm long past high-school days of street racing other kids to see who can get to the next stop light the fastest. I just want a car to feel fast enough to be fun for my butt in the seat going down the road and around twisty turns. I don't care at all how the 'numbers' of what I drive compare to other cars on the road as long as I'm having fun driving it. I don't derive any part of my self-esteem from the 'numbers' of the car I drive. I don't care what anyone else thinks of the car I drive (except my wife). The only person whose opinion on my car matters is mine.

When I bought my car, I was certain I was going to spend money to squeeze a little more power out of it. I was set on buying headers, exhaust, and a tune. But the more I drive it, the less I think I'll do that. I might still get a tune to smooth out the power delivery and response, but the car feels fun to me as it is.

Being an old guy, I probably have different expectations and reference set for this car than some others might. I grew up driving the sports cars of the 1960s and 1970s. They were great fun to me back then, and I wanted something that would capture the feeling of those cars, but with a dose of greater comfort, reliability, and safety. Yeah, I was on a nostalgia trip, and wanted a return visit (don't laugh, when you get to be in your 60's, you might be craving nostalgia too). The BRZ does that pretty well.

It's all what a person is used to. I was used to the 100-ish hp sports cars of the 60s/70s, so the BRZ stacks up pretty well in comparison. Just for laughs, these are the horsepower outputs of some of the popular sports cars back then (I owned all of these back in the 70s):

Opel GT 1.1: 67 hp
Opel GT 1.9: 102 hp
VW Karmann Ghia: 53 hp
1970 MGB: 91 hp
1968 Fiat 124: 94 hp
1967 Triumph TR4: 104 hp
1968 Sunbeam Alpine: 106 hp
1968 Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV: 120 hp

The 'big' Healey, the 1968 Austin Healey 3000 with the 3 liter 6 cylinder engine, put out a whopping 150 hp. And the supercar of the time, the 1972 Porsche 911S, put out 190 hp.

The 205 hp of the BRZ/86 doesn't seem so lacking in comparison to those. The 'numbers' of the BRZ (0-60, top speed, 1/4 mile, whatever you like) would be unimaginable to us back in the 60s/70s driving the sports cars of the time. Even 'pure race' modified 2 liter sports cars of that time couldn't come close to the performance of a stock BRZ today.

The car the BRZ reminds me the most of is the Opel GT. I owned two of them back in the 70's, the 1.9 102 hp version. I never felt those cars lacked for power back then. They were cheap sports cars, and I had a blast driving them. The BRZ has twice the power they did, as well as much more comfort, reliability, safety, and fuel mileage.

Of course it would be nice if the next-gen car was turbocharged and had 260-ish hp. But it won't. And to me that's perfectly OK. The current car is fine for me just as it is, and I'll keep having fun driving it for as long as my aging knees can get into it and shift it.

[saltywetman]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

There's been a lot of discussion and speculation about the engine in the next-gen car, and how much power it might, and should, have. We've all seen and heard the endless bitching about how under-powered the current car is (often from people who have never actually driven it), and how the only thing it needs is 'more power'.

Yeah, I get it... 'more power' is always 'better'. What car couldn't be improved with 'more power'? Everybody always wants 'more power'.

But to play devil's advocate and take a contrarian if not heretical point of view for a moment... how much power do you really need in a BRZ/86? For typical street driving and not the 'track'? Let's face it, most people spend most of their time in the car on the street, regardless of 'track day' fantasies and wishes (for true track rats, this doesn't apply, you're in a separate league with different needs).

The BRZ/86 is a cheap, entry-level sports car. It's not a supercar. It's not a muscle car. It's supposed to be a way to have fun for not much money. If you spend most of the time driving on the street, how much 'power' do you actually need?

My relatively advanced age no doubt has a lot to do with this, but my 'track days' are long behind me. I drive my car exclusively on the street. I don't care about the 'numbers'. I care more about how a car feels for me to drive, how my ass reacts to being in the seat, and not bragging about the 0-60 or other meaningless 'numbers' to people in a bar or gym club. Every time I drive my car (like I did today), it strikes me that it has enough power to be fun, to feel fun for me in any street driving I'm likely to do without attracting attention from the law and risking my license.

To those that will moan, 'but a hot Camry will outrun it!', I say, so what? How often are you going to try to race Camrys? Is that really what you do most of the time? Try to pick street races with Camrys or other cars? Really??? Again, it's no doubt my advanced age, but I'm long past high-school days of street racing other kids to see who can get to the next stop light the fastest. I just want a car to feel fast enough to be fun for my butt in the seat going down the road and around twisty turns. I don't care at all how the 'numbers' of what I drive compare to other cars on the road as long as I'm having fun driving it. I don't derive any part of my self-esteem from the 'numbers' of the car I drive. I don't care what anyone else thinks of the car I drive (except my wife). The only person whose opinion on my car matters is mine.

When I bought my car, I was certain I was going to spend money to squeeze a little more power out of it. I was set on buying headers, exhaust, and a tune. But the more I drive it, the less I think I'll do that. I might still get a tune to smooth out the power delivery and response, but the car feels fun to me as it is.

Being an old guy, I probably have different expectations and reference set for this car than some others might. I grew up driving the sports cars of the 1960s and 1970s. They were great fun to me back then, and I wanted something that would capture the feeling of those cars, but with a dose of greater comfort, reliability, and safety. Yeah, I was on a nostalgia trip, and wanted a return visit (don't laugh, when you get to be in your 60's, you might be craving nostalgia too). The BRZ does that pretty well.

It's all what a person is used to. I was used to the 100-ish hp sports cars of the 60s/70s, so the BRZ stacks up pretty well in comparison. Just for laughs, these are the horsepower outputs of some of the popular sports cars back then (I owned all of these back in the 70s):

Opel GT 1.1: 67 hp
Opel GT 1.9: 102 hp
VW Karmann Ghia: 53 hp
1970 MGB: 91 hp
1968 Fiat 124: 94 hp
1967 Triumph TR4: 104 hp
1968 Sunbeam Alpine: 106 hp
1968 Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV: 120 hp

The 'big' Healey, the 1968 Austin Healey 3000 with the 3 liter 6 cylinder engine, put out a whopping 150 hp. And the supercar of the time, the 1972 Porsche 911S, put out 190 hp.

The 205 hp of the BRZ/86 doesn't seem so lacking in comparison to those. The 'numbers' of the BRZ (0-60, top speed, 1/4 mile, whatever you like) would be unimaginable to us back in the 60s/70s driving the sports cars of the time. Even 'pure race' modified 2 liter sports cars of that time couldn't come close to the performance of a stock BRZ today.

The car the BRZ reminds me the most of is the Opel GT. I owned two of them back in the 70's, the 1.9 102 hp version. I never felt those cars lacked for power back then. They were cheap sports cars, and I had a blast driving them. The BRZ has twice the power they did, as well as much more comfort, reliability, safety, and fuel mileage.

Of course it would be nice if the next-gen car was turbocharged and had 260-ish hp. But it won't. And to me that's perfectly OK. The current car is fine for me just as it is, and I'll keep having fun driving it for as long as my aging knees can get into it and shift it.

Actually the people in my local 86 group that actually track their car don't complain about the power. Even watch the everyday driver video where they take the car onto the track. the stock frs with just better tires was passing bmws, audi's and an sti. Those who cry about power are those only interested in straight line drag racing which this car was never designed for in the first place.

I've had a friend who shat on my decision when I picked up my 2020 earlier this spring saying it was slow as balls and I should've gotten a wrx. He also claims to love only "drivers cars" (i highly doubt he knows the definition of what constitutes as one). Anything under 400hp he scoffs at. But I doubt he can even bring out the full potential of the stock 86 on the track.

Likely a person who wants more HP to make up for not having to learn how to drive faster. The local people who track their twins have no complaints about power because on the track most often you're above the torque dip RPM range anyways so it's got enough guts for that scenario.

I'm also used to the 80's and 90's import cars where back then 200hp/200lbs /ft was considered on the higher end of the 4cylinder spectrum back in the day. A mass produced NA 4 cyl motor pushing 205hp was non-existent. Just now in this turbo era where even civic si's come turbocharged with 200hp/195lbs/ft and "sports cars" are 300hp+ the bar has been raised in car enthusiasts.

Could be my more mature age as well but i'm more interested in learning how to drive fast rather than drive a fast car using only a fraction of its potential

[TheDonEffect]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

There's been a lot of discussion and speculation about the engine in the next-gen car, and how much power it might, and should, have. We've all seen and heard the endless bitching about how under-powered the current car is (often from people who have never actually driven it), and how the only thing it needs is 'more power'.

Yeah, I get it... 'more power' is always 'better'. What car couldn't be improved with 'more power'? Everybody always wants 'more power'.

But to play devil's advocate and take a contrarian if not heretical point of view for a moment... how much power do you really need in a BRZ/86? For typical street driving and not the 'track'? Let's face it, most people spend most of their time in the car on the street, regardless of 'track day' fantasies and wishes (for true track rats, this doesn't apply, you're in a separate league with different needs).

The BRZ/86 is a cheap, entry-level sports car. It's not a supercar. It's not a muscle car. It's supposed to be a way to have fun for not much money. If you spend most of the time driving on the street, how much 'power' do you actually need?

My relatively advanced age no doubt has a lot to do with this, but my 'track days' are long behind me. I drive my car exclusively on the street. I don't care about the 'numbers'. I care more about how a car feels for me to drive, how my ass reacts to being in the seat, and not bragging about the 0-60 or other meaningless 'numbers' to people in a bar or gym club. Every time I drive my car (like I did today), it strikes me that it has enough power to be fun, to feel fun for me in any street driving I'm likely to do without attracting attention from the law and risking my license.

To those that will moan, 'but a hot Camry will outrun it!', I say, so what? How often are you going to try to race Camrys? Is that really what you do most of the time? Try to pick street races with Camrys or other cars? Really??? Again, it's no doubt my advanced age, but I'm long past high-school days of street racing other kids to see who can get to the next stop light the fastest. I just want a car to feel fast enough to be fun for my butt in the seat going down the road and around twisty turns. I don't care at all how the 'numbers' of what I drive compare to other cars on the road as long as I'm having fun driving it. I don't derive any part of my self-esteem from the 'numbers' of the car I drive. I don't care what anyone else thinks of the car I drive (except my wife). The only person whose opinion on my car matters is mine.

When I bought my car, I was certain I was going to spend money to squeeze a little more power out of it. I was set on buying headers, exhaust, and a tune. But the more I drive it, the less I think I'll do that. I might still get a tune to smooth out the power delivery and response, but the car feels fun to me as it is.

Being an old guy, I probably have different expectations and reference set for this car than some others might. I grew up driving the sports cars of the 1960s and 1970s. They were great fun to me back then, and I wanted something that would capture the feeling of those cars, but with a dose of greater comfort, reliability, and safety. Yeah, I was on a nostalgia trip, and wanted a return visit (don't laugh, when you get to be in your 60's, you might be craving nostalgia too). The BRZ does that pretty well.

It's all what a person is used to. I was used to the 100-ish hp sports cars of the 60s/70s, so the BRZ stacks up pretty well in comparison. Just for laughs, these are the horsepower outputs of some of the popular sports cars back then (I owned all of these back in the 70s):

Opel GT 1.1: 67 hp
Opel GT 1.9: 102 hp
VW Karmann Ghia: 53 hp
1970 MGB: 91 hp
1968 Fiat 124: 94 hp
1967 Triumph TR4: 104 hp
1968 Sunbeam Alpine: 106 hp
1968 Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV: 120 hp

The 'big' Healey, the 1968 Austin Healey 3000 with the 3 liter 6 cylinder engine, put out a whopping 150 hp. And the supercar of the time, the 1972 Porsche 911S, put out 190 hp.

The 205 hp of the BRZ/86 doesn't seem so lacking in comparison to those. The 'numbers' of the BRZ (0-60, top speed, 1/4 mile, whatever you like) would be unimaginable to us back in the 60s/70s driving the sports cars of the time. Even 'pure race' modified 2 liter sports cars of that time couldn't come close to the performance of a stock BRZ today.

The car the BRZ reminds me the most of is the Opel GT. I owned two of them back in the 70's, the 1.9 102 hp version. I never felt those cars lacked for power back then. They were cheap sports cars, and I had a blast driving them. The BRZ has twice the power they did, as well as much more comfort, reliability, safety, and fuel mileage.

Of course it would be nice if the next-gen car was turbocharged and had 260-ish hp. But it won't. And to me that's perfectly OK. The current car is fine for me just as it is, and I'll keep having fun driving it for as long as my aging knees can get into it and shift it.

I get what you're saying about not needing more power. But, more power is always welcomed.

That said, I dont think people are clamoring for 400hp from the factory or anything like that. I think first and foremost it would benefit from a more endearing engine.

I like how it behaves doing mundane tasks, the engine feels very willing and suits the car very well, it just makes the car feel very light and easy to drive around town.

But, then you see a sweet onramp, and you're approaching it in a car that's not a Camry, you hit it, initial push not bad, and then, just sorta loses steam. And that's where the letdown is.

The ND1 Miata was a good car by all accounts, the ND2 most will say didnt get decisively faster, but it did get more character. I drove both, the ND2 takes it from a good car to a bordering special car.

When I had my FRS, I also carsat my brother's 2009 Si, and it was then that I realized what my gripe with the FRS was, the engine just doesnt have an endearing personality.

And while the 86 had a good low price, I wouldn't exactly call it a value play. Miatas, mustangs, etc are priced comparably, but of course the attributes are different. Point is though, there's room in there.

I've been clamoring for a turbo engine forever, my ideal car is a modern Silvia. But, a solid NA motor I can forgive.

I hear your concerns though, I would not want the F20C out of the S2000 in the 86 because those things are dogs around town.

The ND2 was a revelation, they didn't add a ton of power where it spoils the recipe, what they did was put in an engine with character befitting a sportscar, which convinced me that maybe all out power isn't necessar. All of the old school lower power cars had charismatic engines that fit the package. I always felt the FA20 just felt blah.

So. NA FA24, maybe bump the power up to 220? 240?!?! but more importantly, get rid of the torque dip, keep all the low end goodness, and just give it a bit more when you rev it out.

[Coaster]

unlock magic new brz.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

*edited for length*

Being an old guy, I probably have different expectations and reference set for this car than some others might. I grew up driving the sports cars of the 1960s and 1970s. They were great fun to me back then, and I wanted something that would capture the feeling of those cars, but with a dose of greater comfort, reliability, and safety. Yeah, I was on a nostalgia trip, and wanted a return visit (don't laugh, when you get to be in your 60's, you might be craving nostalgia too). The BRZ does that pretty well.

It's all what a person is used to. I was used to the 100-ish hp sports cars of the 60s/70s, so the BRZ stacks up pretty well in comparison. Just for laughs, these are the horsepower outputs of some of the popular sports cars back then (I owned all of these back in the 70s):

Opel GT 1.1: 67 hp
Opel GT 1.9: 102 hp
VW Karmann Ghia: 53 hp
1970 MGB: 91 hp
1968 Fiat 124: 94 hp
1967 Triumph TR4: 104 hp
1968 Sunbeam Alpine: 106 hp
1968 Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV: 120 hp

The 'big' Healey, the 1968 Austin Healey 3000 with the 3 liter 6 cylinder engine, put out a whopping 150 hp. And the supercar of the time, the 1972 Porsche 911S, put out 190 hp.

The 205 hp of the BRZ/86 doesn't seem so lacking in comparison to those. The 'numbers' of the BRZ (0-60, top speed, 1/4 mile, whatever you like) would be unimaginable to us back in the 60s/70s driving the sports cars of the time. Even 'pure race' modified 2 liter sports cars of that time couldn't come close to the performance of a stock BRZ today.

*edited for length*

Can't argue the validity of your post to a point. I grew up in an era when a "muscle car" was putting out 230hp from of a 5.0 or 5.7 V8 choked down with vestiges of 1970's era smogger cylinder heads and lazy camshafts. A stock 86/BRZ is marginally faster than a top of the line factory IROC, Trans AM or Mustang from the late 80's, which on it's own is a bit impressive.

Unfortunately, it's not the 1980's anymore. I really enjoy my '89 Trans Am and my 86, but I have to admit it kinda makes me sad that either can only just barely wheeze past my totally stock '15 Wrangler. Two "sports cars" that have to be pushed to the limit to just barely edge out a 4500lb brick of an SUV.

Today, 300hp sedans and minivans are on every street corner. It's not hard to see why a sports coupe that only posts marginally better performance numbers than most grocery getters draws some level of ire from the automotive press and buying public.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by saltywetman

Actually the people in my local 86 group that actually track their car don't complain about the power. Even watch the everyday driver video where they take the car onto the track. the stock frs with just better tires was passing bmws, audi's and an sti. Those who cry about power are those only interested in straight line drag racing which this car was never designed for in the first place.

Comparing different drivers in different cars on track is not a good measure at all. I would say the vast majority of guys I meet at track days are just out enjoying their cars where they are meant to be enjoyed. They are not trying to push to "set a lap", they are driving their cars as hard as they want to. I've meet other drivers that are more competent then I am, but slower because their level of "give a fuck" is much higher then mine. There where 13 911 GT3's at my last track day. I got passed by none of them. By no means does that mean I am a better driver or my car is more track suited.

My biggest issue with the twin is the engine. I can't build the FA20 into more power without taking a huge hit in reliability. Especially early models like my 13' with their ejecto-seat rocker arms.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by JesseG

When you look at how incredibly hunkered down the twins look, the very low COG, near perfect balance, it does make sense that the FA20 (in its original NA form) was always the best choice. That being said, why not a supercharger option? Toyota has done that in the past. Didn’t Lotus supercharge the 2ZZ in the Elise?
I guess my point is it’s possible to maintain the low COG and balance with something like a supercharger. Imagine how much more fun the twins would be set up that way. From the factory, not aftermarket. And the biggest weakness of the FA20 is lack of torque.

Who said they didn't do it? They mentioned at that time they didn't like the way it drove. Issue is that the FA20 engine is already too heavy and with the addition on top of it of an additional weight (~35 kg), the front to rear weight ratio is getting worse. Apparently, it was much worse to the level they could accept. Don't forget that this car is more focused on handling performance and not on engine performance.