2019 Toyota 86 GT

Joe Gearin said:

In reply to Coupefan :

For many, power isn't the issue, it's the way the power is delivered.  The "flat spot" at about 3,500 rpm is a real downer.....for me at least.  I wouldn't mind 200hp if it was delivered in a zingy-- rush to the redline sorta way.

Great cars--- with an uninspiring engine.  IMHO 

That BRG does look fantastic though! 

I agree with this 100%. The engine just doesn't have any "character" to it - it's not torquey down low, nor does it really zing! up top, and it has the big stupid flat spot in the midrange. If they had made this thing with a K20 (just to use an example I'm familiar with that makes similar peak numbers), no one would bitch about lack of power. I also fail to see how a boxer is superior in any practical way to an I4.

In spite of all this, I still love mine. 

te72 said:

Ian F said:

I have to say, the new special edition in BRG looks awesome:

Although appears to be JDM only right now. 

 

I liked the FR-S I drove on a road trip. Had no trouble getting it to do whatever I wanted (apart from shutting off the traction control that's absolutely too complicated), was reasonably quick straight line if you know how to drive a car like that, and the handling was absolutely confidence inspiring.

 

The "pedal dance" isn't too hard once you get the hang of it. Engine fully warmed up, within 30s of starting up, pull once, twice, three times on the hand brake and hold, press once, twice, three times on the brakes and hold, pull three times and hold again on the hand brake, press twice on the brake pedal and you're done! Simple, right? 

Seriously though, if you're going to put a button there to (sort of) disable traction and stability control, why not make it actually disable traction and stability control??

alfadriver said:

Everyone wants a car like this, until presented with what they want. 

Kinda like how everyone complained that the modern pony cars are too big and heavy. So GM goes and downsizes the 6th-gen Camaro and makes them lighter and then sales fall to dead last, behind even the hefty, antiquated Challenger

alfadriver said:

Reading the comments, it's pretty clear why Toyota is going to stop selling this sooner than later.

Everyone wants a car like this, until presented with what they want.  Then they want someone else to buy it, so they can get one used.

So IMHO a Miata is better in most every way except for the roof or lack thereof. Add to that the "tuner" image of the twins and it's no wonder nobody buys them. Heck, even at the track it seems like the twins are up there with S2000s and VWs for the proportion of flat-brimmed, agro drivers.

Robbie said:

GIRTHQUAKE said:

Has anyone attempted to swap in the Subaru Flat-6 into one of these?

No. If you own one you are satisfied with the power and you wouldn't want to add more to ruin the car's balance. 

No, because...

Dave M said:

So IMHO a Miata is better in most every way except for the roof or lack thereof. Add to that the "tuner" image of the twins and it's no wonder nobody buys them. Heck, even at the track it seems like the twins are up there with S2000s and VWs for the proportion of flat-brimmed, agro drivers.

The sales of the twins are basically the same as the Miata... They're niche cars.  And I'm not sure your sample size, but based on my limited observations (~25 events) ego-driven drivers come from all walks of life.  There are no shortage of them regardless of make or model.  

alfadriver said:

Reading the comments, it's pretty clear why Toyota is going to stop selling this sooner than later.

Everyone wants a car like this, until presented with what they want.  Then they want someone else to buy it, so they can get one used.

Hey, Appleseed, didn't you buy one?

Yep. Brand new. I'm the only owner. Only 3 other people have ever driven it. You cheap bastards can have it when I'm dead, because I'll never sell it.

Furious_E said:

te72 said:

Ian F said:

I have to say, the new special edition in BRG looks awesome:

Although appears to be JDM only right now. 

 

I liked the FR-S I drove on a road trip. Had no trouble getting it to do whatever I wanted (apart from shutting off the traction control that's absolutely too complicated), was reasonably quick straight line if you know how to drive a car like that, and the handling was absolutely confidence inspiring.

 

The "pedal dance" isn't too hard once you get the hang of it. Engine fully warmed up, within 30s of starting up, pull once, twice, three times on the hand brake and hold, press once, twice, three times on the brakes and hold, pull three times and hold again on the hand brake, press twice on the brake pedal and you're done! Simple, right? 

Seriously though, if you're going to put a button there to (sort of) disable traction and stability control, why not make it actually disable traction and stability control??

Or you can buy a $100 box that plugs into the car and you just press one button after you start the car. 

Appleseed said:

alfadriver said:

Reading the comments, it's pretty clear why Toyota is going to stop selling this sooner than later.

Everyone wants a car like this, until presented with what they want.  Then they want someone else to buy it, so they can get one used.

Hey, Appleseed, didn't you buy one?

Yep. Brand new. I'm the only owner. Only 3 other people have ever driven it. You cheap bastards can have it when I'm dead, because I'll never sell it.

But when you see the posts that crap all over the car, in spite of it being exactly what people said they wanted....  I really wonder how many have actually driven one.

As a side note, the ONLY car that I've ever actually bought brand new (I don't count lease cars) is my '99 Miata, which I am restoring.  It fit all of what I wanted, even if imperfect.  Love the car.

I've driven one at an autocross and ridden in a few. I didn't think they were underpowered. But then again, I spent a good portion of my driving career behind the wheel of a 1.6L Miata with 90whp and a 1993 Subaru Loyale that had 85 crank horsepower when new (and I'm sure a lot of those ponies had left the stable) and a 3-speed automatic, so my power scale was skewed a little.

One of those FR-S I rode in had a cold-air intake, unequal length headers, catalytic converter delete, cat-back exhaust and one of those silly Afterfire tunes that turns it into an opposed-piston popcorn machine on decel and shoot the occasional small fireball. It sounded great and the power felt just right for that car. If I had one, I'd want it set up to pull like that thing

A catless header and an off-the-shelf tune does wonders for the motor. Almost completely eliminates the flat spot and gives just enough of a power bump to feel "right."

I do agree the overall character of the motor isn't endearing. The ND is much better here. Not sure what can be done (cheaply) about that.

I need to look into the pedal-dance button thing - I hate going through that.

It's funny reading about all the complaints on the power of the 86. When I was in high school - I remember people going through all kinds of work to swap in a 200hp SR into an S13/S14, giving the same P/W that the 86 had. Yeah, some were tuned for more power but a lot of folks ran out of money at that point and were just running ~220bhp. That's in a 2800lb car, just like the 86. I didn't think my 155bhp stock S13 was particularly slow.

Another highschool-era champ was the ITR. 2600lbs and 200bhp - pretty close to a reflashed 86. It's the "just right" ratio for a sporty street car.

In reply to Wiscocrashtest :

That's not exactly a legal modification....  For multiple reasons.  Can run in a stock class with that mod, and I would not want to drive it more than a few min.

Catless header + E85 tune does a lot for the engine. 

I'm Gearin on this one. I owned one for just over 3 years. That torque dip in the middle of the powerband could make around town driving frustrating. Just E85 nearly eliminates that. 

Keep the motor above 5k and it moves fairly well. 

NickD said:

alfadriver said:

Everyone wants a car like this, until presented with what they want. 

Kinda like how everyone complained that the modern pony cars are too big and heavy. So GM goes and downsizes the 6th-gen Camaro and makes them lighter and then sales fall to dead last, behind even the hefty, antiquated Challenger

My complaint about the Camaro is you can't see out of it and the interior is tiny and cheap.   They have fixed none of those things. 

Four 200lb adults can take a dodge challenger to lunch.

I've driven one, but not in any sort of anger - my boss let me drive his first year FRS a week or so after he picked it up.  It's his 3 season DD.  He hasn't complained about the power.  The power seemed fine to me, but the 200-ish HP in my R53 JCW seems more than adequate to me. Especially compared to my LBCs and my TDI wagon.  

Honest question - for folks that dislike the car for power reasons, what are the alternatives if you want a fixed roof and usable trunk?  E46 330 or something?  

I'm sure we all want more power / lower weight / cheaper price, but you know, reality and all that... 

z31maniac said:

Catless header + E85 tune does a lot for the engine. 

I'm Gearin on this one. I owned one for just over 3 years. That torque dip in the middle of the powerband could make around town driving frustrating. Just E85 nearly eliminates that. 

Keep the motor above 5k and it moves fairly well. 

Odd that the engine needs a pretty darned illegal modification to make it fun (the E85 part is less bad than taking the cats out, but not much- I'd rather not DD a catless car anymore).  Subaru didn't do their homework all that well, it seems.

alfadriver said:

z31maniac said:

Catless header + E85 tune does a lot for the engine. 

I'm Gearin on this one. I owned one for just over 3 years. That torque dip in the middle of the powerband could make around town driving frustrating. Just E85 nearly eliminates that. 

Keep the motor above 5k and it moves fairly well. 

Odd that the engine needs a pretty darned illegal modification to make it fun (the E85 part is less bad than taking the cats out, but not much- I'd rather not DD a catless car anymore).  Subaru didn't do their homework all that well, it seems.

Wouldn't improving the characteristics of the motor be a factory tune away?

Seems odd to me they couldn't easily change that a bit, so is the real culprit the compliance cost of re-certifty emissions?

Or is it a mileage thing where they think mpg would shrink to a point the "average user" would pass the car by (hard to believe for me given what the car is...)?

I drove a BRZ when they came out, loved the handling, but the feel of power delivery was a dream killer. 

I still think about one of these from time to time, but I'm not sure I could let go of the NB.

There are two cats on these cars. The smaller one built into the stock exhaust manifold is for cold-start emissions. There is a larger, tradition cat immediately after the "header". Removing that doesn't free up much power and most people (me included) keep that main stock cat in place.

r is it a mileage thing where they think mpg would shrink to a point the "average user" would pass the car by (hard to believe for me given what the car is...)?

With my tune I still see 32mpg on the highway and 28-30 combined. Running 93, not E85.

OldGray320i said:

alfadriver said:

z31maniac said:

Catless header + E85 tune does a lot for the engine. 

I'm Gearin on this one. I owned one for just over 3 years. That torque dip in the middle of the powerband could make around town driving frustrating. Just E85 nearly eliminates that. 

Keep the motor above 5k and it moves fairly well. 

Odd that the engine needs a pretty darned illegal modification to make it fun (the E85 part is less bad than taking the cats out, but not much- I'd rather not DD a catless car anymore).  Subaru didn't do their homework all that well, it seems.

Wouldn't improving the characteristics of the motor be a factory tune away?

Seems odd to me they couldn't easily change that a bit, so is the real culprit the compliance cost of re-certifty emissions?

Or is it a mileage thing where they think mpg would shrink to a point the "average user" would pass the car by (hard to believe for me given what the car is...)?

I drove a BRZ when they came out, loved the handling, but the feel of power delivery was a dream killer. 

I still think about one of these from time to time, but I'm not sure I could let go of the NB.

A "tune" shouldn't be needed.  That's kind of my point.

Add in the fact that they have to use restrictive catalysts- something seems odd to me.

If you want to do flex fuel- that should be a tune away, but not good power that is fun.  Something seems wrong to me, in terms of what Subaru is doing.

Wiscocrashtest said:

There are two cats on these cars. The smaller one built into the stock exhaust manifold is for cold-start emissions. There is a larger, tradition cat immediately after the "header". Removing that doesn't free up much power and most people (me included) keep that main stock cat in place.

Given the current state of the art, it's highly likely that the tiny, restrictive, catalysts are the main ones.  

Again, the fact that this set up is used, and it's pretty restrictive, suggests that Subaru didn't do their homework.  Toyota could have done a lot better.

How much do you think we'd see if you replaced those cats with a quality, high flow cat?

In reply to Appleseed :

That, I really don't know.  

Do any of you know what is in the tune that unlocks the midrange?

alfadriver said:

In reply to Appleseed :

That, I really don't know.  

Do any of you know what is in the tune that unlocks the midrange?

Ignition timing and cam timing.

You can actually download all the Open Flash Tablet tunes and look at STFT, LTFT, targets, etc.

The intake roar with the aftermarket tune is noticeable in the midrange. I suspect there is some use of reversion in the midrange with the cam timing.