Toyota makes the gt86(spiritual successor to the ae86)

It's a RWD economy car. It's self-defeating.

It's got a sports car look but is gutless and will get passed in a corner by a car that's known for not handling corners at all. You can't do that and brag about it being a "handling god machine" at the same time.

It's the car that can not decide what it wants to be. It's lost, and hopeless.

For me personally, it comes down to the tryhard "sporty" design, which overstates itself, while the original 86 was humble and understated in appearance.

If they some how managed to throw a 3sgte in it some how and made it emissions friendly they would have sold like cocane in the 80's

...

Polar moment isn't that much worse than a V though. The problem is the suspension problem I mentioned in .

It could be brilliant in a front-midengined car, where the engine is completely behind the suspension points. No suspension compromise - but then again, a V wouldn't be any worse in that situation.

This. I want a fast car that looks slow, not the other way around.

Veeky Forums shits all over it because they're mad their parents won't buy them one.

Would have been close to perfect running a 4GR as in the IS250. A 4GR turbo making a conservative 190kW would have made that car a winner.

Just get new camber plates.

>Camber plates fix camber curves
You should learn how mechanics work.

>doesn't look good
And you have other good options for the money.

>implying Veeky Forums would be able to afford it anyway
>implying Veeky Forums has even test driven a GT86 instead of just being bench racers and parroting what they've heard on the Internet from other bench racers

Bench Racer: The Post

>AE86 was literally a sporty Corolla
>the XRS is literally faster as well as an actual Corolla and not a one off car named after a meme car

Then again, RWDs and manuals have been obsoleted by AWDs and autotragics respectively, so it being one of the few RWD cars with manual should be a blessing.

Imagine if Toyota really wanted to shill this car in Initial D. I bet they'd make an episode where Dagumi's wife's son comes from the fucking future with a GT86, and wants to race his dad with his AE86. Could you imagine how fucking crazy Veeky Forums would get?

>Bloated design
>Boxer engine
>Premium gas

Those are the three issues I have with the car that is preventing me from buying one.

ricer

I'm waiting for the s-fr (and a decent color of course). I don't like the idea of the GT86 because it's big and it looks fast when it's not.

basically I want a miata but not a miata

>basically I want a miata but not a miata
you want something even gayer

>XRS
what are the odds they'll bring it back with the corolla if they're already doing it with the Yaris?

I don't want a hatchback. I want a sedan or at least something closer to a fastback

why are these fast rally cars always a hatchback anyways

>chassis code only has one digit

all of those are shared with the original AE86 stop crying you filthy ricer

>>stupidly high compression ratio so if you try to tarbo it it'll blow up, plus have to drink premium if you're a cheapskate
>car was designed as an N/A
>be surprised when it doesn't take a turbo without compression reduction
>take that as a negative

>No. Due to the oil pan and headers, a boxer engine cannot be lower than a V engine.
Wrong.

The exhaust manifold WILL take some space but you can easily have something stupid like a dry sump system and an exhaust manifold that sits as flat as possible and you can have an insane low COG

It's because it costs 30k instead of 3k.

Veeky Forums hates everything they can't afford, which is everything.

This 1000%

Yes, the original AE86 is garbage. Were you dropped on your head as a child?

And the AE86 was a three quarters the weight.

and just 60% the power.

There are

That's what the AE86 was too

could get one.
Getting an mr2 instead because as nice as a successor of ae86 is, it doesn't have snap oversteer

Provides a sedan the same enjoyment driving it?

without subaru there would be no 86

>haha le gay is bad xddddd

>cheap

it is though
just because you can't afford it on minimum wage doesn't make it expensive

Because right now it seems expensive and boo slow, wait until 20 years time.
All cars will be electric, AWD, almost driving themselves. The amazing purity, manual gearbox and RWD will have people remembering this as a classic,.

basically the same thing as the fucking silvia

100%
New cars are getting more and more detached from the experience.
90s cars will end up super rare collectibles, this will be that cool classic car which was "how it used to be" that will hold value but never be super expensive

>buy an RX-8 and all the apex seals and oil in the world for the money you spend on a new Toyobaru
>have an actual sports car
>???

They shilled it in the reanimation movie when Inital d anime series Takumi races Movie Takumi.

>29K after taxes and fees
>Still slower than a M3, s2000, boxster, and a 6th gen acura tl w/ a slushbox

/This
Expecting the real life version of a fictional car to be anything like the 2d car is like expecting construction equipment to form a giant robot.

>All cars will be electric
7 years ago people said everyone would be driving electric in 2020. an inferior technology with no potential will never become mainstream unless the better technology is outlawed.

>new car costs more than used cars
SHOCK! HORROR!

used BRZ are still shit value/money

>2-5 year old used car costs more than 20-30 year old car
please keep dropping these truth bombs on me

That's because it's more Celica than an ae86

Veeky Forums is full of retards.

>200hp
>$26k+ starting price
>cheap
lol

Slower than an S2000? Nope.jpg

>$26k
Not cheap? How poor are you?

Inflation adjusted what did the S2000 cost new?

$26k before taxes for 197 horsepower is a fucking joke and a rip off.

According to autotrader $45k
Hmmm

£17k for 80hp is a fucking joke and a rip off

At least that 80hp is actually fast :^)

>Post image showing s2000 is faster around the only real track
Kek

Only if you are stupid, and poor.

tsukuba?

>waste your money on no power, o-or your p-poor!

>implying the underpowered 4 banger with the boring design will be desired in 10 years when you can still have a 90's shitbox with more power and a better design

This

Arnt high compression ratios better for a turbo?

Neither of those cars are fast

In ten years time there will be plenty of good examples of cheap 86s, those 90s cars are only getting more expensive and less common

No, because it increases the chance to go kaboom. Compression ratio refers to the ratio at which the air in the cylinder gets compressed from tdc to bdc. You are thinking of boost, which is a measure of how much the turbo compresses air.

But 90s shitboxes are underpowered too?
That kit is hideous and makes it look like a frog

Nah it's more of a catfish

You want a high dynamic compression ratio, this can be accomplished by a high static compression ratio and low boost or a low static compression ratio and high boost. The former drivers better the latter is preferred by TFATF types because big boost gives a big kick when it comes in.

Thanks

No, you can't have a dry sump on a 30k economy car.

Even with a dry sump, you still can't get the crank axis any closer to the ground than a V engine. Exhaust will always be the limit, and C's don't intrude on suspension design. You can flatten the exhaust system all you want, you'll lose flow and it'll choke your engine. Meanwhile, the V engine would have none of the problems a boxer has.

>Buy a decent RX-8 for 5K
>25K budget for a 2.3 DISI swap
>No apex seals problems
>Actual sports car

I swear to god, if this "MX-8" came from the factory with the MPS3 motor, they'd be S2000-tier in terms of holding value.

>dump 25k into rx8...
for what exactly? so it lasts another 50k miles? what a fucking waste

>The former has better throttle response because you don't have to wait for your turbo to spool
>The latter makes more power because it isn't using crank energy to compress the air - it uses waste energy instead
Ftfy

what 200+ hp engine can be swapped into rx8 with minimum work?

>$26k

That would be reasonable, cheap for a sporty car.
Here it starts from €48k

For 25K, you can get a perfectly functioning swap from a shop. Won't just last 50K miles, it'll last as long as you can drive it, unlike the Remesis.

Most inline fours would probably fit. Keep it in the family with the 2.3 turbo - or maybe a K-series V6.

No turbo uses crank energy regardless of static compression ratio, you still use the waste energy to spool the turbo but a high static compression engine will need less boost to make the same power, thus require a smaller lighter turbo to make it, thus passing the boost threshold sooner giving a better driving experience, it's also better off boost but doesn't feel as fast because there is not sudden increase in power over a short rev range.

Sitting lower != Lower CG
How much mass is concentrated on the headers, and much is on the block?
Do you seriously think Porsche and Subaru have been marketing their flat engines wrong for so long?

why did Toyota need to team up with Subaru with this? same shit with the Supra.

The incoming hot yaris is probably going to be their only true race car.

>a high static compression engine will need less boost to make the same power
No. A high static compression engine will not make the same power as a well-optimised turbo setup. If everything but compression stays the same, you simply can't exceed the power of 2-3 bars of boost. This problem is twofold: you can cool the compressed air in an intercooler - you can't do that with the air being compressed inside the cilinder with a higher CR. This higher temperature leads to an early knock point. The second point is that you're always using the crank to compress air in the cilinderd, instead of waste energy. This causes a lower output at the crank, even if you had identical cilinder pressures.

An engine sitting higher still has a higher CoG.
Less mass is in the headers of course, but the headers push the block upwards on a boxer, which causes a higher CoG.

They've been marketing them absolutely brilliantly - but in engineering terms, they're far from ideal.

Totally wrong. If you have identical cylinder pressures you will have an identical force acting on the piston, this will generate an identical torque in the crank at an identical speed resulting in an identical power output.

Consider what happens on the next cycle then. On the turbo engine, the crank only had to compress the mixture, say, 9 to 1. The rest of the compression is created from wasted exhaust. On the high compression n/a motor, the crank had to compress it, for example, 13 to 1, which takes a lot more power. Learn2 physics.

As a side-effect, you can add ridiculous amounts of boost, cool it, and end up with way higher cilinder pressure without running the risk of detonation. In terms of raw power, boost > n/a.

A Miata is more fun

it would still have a higher COG. Like it or not. And no. V engines do not have a lower crank axis.

Not wrong

Its funny cause everything else form that website says the s2000 is the better car.

There are a couple of ways that the S2K falls short. One is that its tail gets unsettled far too easily, which is kind of fixable via a lot of experimentation with chassis mods. Honda themselves didn't figure out how to fix it until the CR. The other problem is that the the steering feel is numb as fuck, which isn't fixable unless you replace the whole steering rack or something. The BRZ has neither of those problems, so it's more competitive than it should be on paper. It's a lot less exhausting to drive, too.

The GT86 isn't a real sports car, only a ''sporty'' car. Comparing it to the S2000 is fucking disrespectful. Also, the twitchiness of the rear isn't a problem as long as you're not shit.
Just noticed even the freaking 9k redline S2000 engine has more torque than the BRZ. Fucking lol.