GIVE IT A TURBO REEEEEEEEEEE

I'm sort of jelly

I can’t imagine what it would be like to live in the south. Georgia for one terrifies me.

>Nederland
Vorte ollanders, butten!!

>Nederland
Hoor ik daar nu Nederdraad? Volgensmij wel.

fuck off yuropoors

...

>amerikanen

Lol, Subaru thought it was stupid to not turbo it, but Toyota wanted to keep it N/A

>new supra
>underwhelming

Jdm fans gonna praise it like crazy kek. Or cuck like op getting new supra with 4 cylinder.

...

>Netherlands

Bicycle generals are on

Why the fuck does toyota even need a shit company like subaru to build the 86?

Im happy with not spending my life savings on fuel and brakes thank you

Belgian actually.
We have a proud vehicular construction heritage.

...

>Belgian
You’re a chocolate?

>cheaper to buy but more expensive to insure s2k
>good
It's like 20 years of progress never happened.

Just get a Miata and put a tarbo in it

toyboat corporation can't into flat engines

Put it in yourself.

put it in yourself
>one of few good cheap purpose-built sports cars on the market (as opposed to hot hatches, which are of course cool but built on shitbox bases)
>faggots still whine because it's not $500 600hp 4wd als kers hiv monster with interior wrapped in human skin and small diamonds mounted on airbag covers

which shouldn't have been part of the 86 design plan to begin with

>That midrev torque dip big enough to fill a gallon of toyobaru tears in.

>STEP ON IT
>IT GOES
>BUAAAAAAAAAAAAH
CUNT

{citation needed}

Like I said, no one knows. They were more than capable of designing it independently.

Do you know how expensive designing a new rwd lightweight coupe platform would be if Toyota started from scratch? The only reason the 86 exists is because its based off a modified impreza platform.

Why do you think no other car companies offer a lightweight rwd coupe for under 50k?

SO WHY DON'T THEY PULL A BIGGER ENGINE OFF THE SHELF AND OFFER IT AS A 7-YEAR ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL ADDITION MODEL FOR AN EXTRA FEW THOU AND LIKE PUT REAL SPEAKERS IN IT OR WHATEVER ELSE INSTEAD OF RED INTAKE RUNNERS, A BIGGER TORQUE DIP, AND MORE COMPUTERY SCREENS ON THE DASH WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK

Here comes the bootlicker brigade. There's nothing under 50k because car companies have turned automobiles into disposable iPhone like appliances. They last for a few years, maybe 10, before the cost of the electronic gadgets and complex engineering is too expensive to repair. Disposable cars are the major technological advancement of the last decade, not evs, not AI, or even efficiency.

Basically this. The automotive industry in the last 10 years has just turned into a big rent seeking shithole. (Worse than ever before). Like I know there were schemes before that.. I was there... but it's just on a whole new level now. Just look around. You see more 10 year old cars on the road than 5 year old cars.

It's partially the fault of virtue signalling politicians.
>AUTOMAKERS MUST IMPROVE FUEL ECONOMY
So of course they are going to do that in the most profitable way. Shall we engineer lighter weight vehicles with less bells and whistles for the eco conscious consumer? Fuck no.
Let's just turbo charge everything so that it requires more frequent oil changes and breaks down faster.
And by making vehicles into 5 year throw-aways they are doing worse for the environment than ever before.

So you agree with me but call me a bootlicker?

Makes sense

They made a lot of fuss about it having the lowest center of gravity out of production cars, that's baisically the only number they can boast about, and early on they did boast about it a lot.

>more frequent oil changes
Nigger service intervals in general are ridiculously long these days. Just last night somebody posted proofs that his autotragic transmission didn't have a dipstick and wasn't meant to ever have its fluid changed.

Eat a king-sized helping of cocks.

O, bus rider.

Generally turbocharged cars require more maintainance compared to NA. People can't even maintain NA cars regularly, let alone a high strung turbo

Yes, and the maintenance they require these days is still way less than NA used to be. You're literally making up excuses for why you're so wrong.

>wasn't meant to ever have its fluid changed
the greatest maintenance lie ever sold to consumers

I'm talking about new NA cars and new turbocharged cars.

Maintenance intervals are full of shit these days. If you go by those oil life systems sometimes it will let you go retarded distances before telling you to change your oil. It's a great way to sell you a new engine. But yeah... when you need to also send that oil to lubricate a turbine shaft spinning at 100,000rpm then don't even bother with the oil life "monitor". It's going to cook your oil a lot faster than your oil life monitor will tick down.

Go ahead. Move the goal posts again. I dare you.

Especially do it in a thread about a car that was meant for car people, not your senile grandmother.

>Toyola 86, a car meant for car people

I wasn't the user who you originally responded to.

Do you even own an 86?

Because it was meant for your grandma. Next round!

>implying any of the teenagers on Veeky Forums even have a driver's license let alone a car.

No, I just change the argument all the time because I'm bored on the bus and have nothing better to do than engage in flamewars about memecars.

Oh you

ytho.

get your foundation fixed, damn son.

I've seen worse.

It's still high time to at least fill the cracks in the hopes it'll last long enough before it's time to give up and do something expensive about it crumbling apart.

>transmission didn't have a dipstick
That would be because it has drain and fill plugs on the bottom like 99% of manual transmissions, tcases and rear diffs. They're not hard to check. That or you have to drop that pan to change the fluid, which is definitely not a new thing.

Older picture. Already sold the house for a big profit. It's their problem now. ;)

Give it a turbo yourself.
200hp is plenty.

Stop replying to such shit threads ffs

he's a pancake

Wait I meant waffle sure fugged that up

I live in Georgia up by Blood Mountain and the Suches loop. The driving on the mountains around here is fucking amazing.
>little/no cops on most mountain roads
>extreme hairpin turns that literally can't be taken at more than 25mph in some cases
>constant switchbacks both up and downhill
it's a great place to live if you like twisty roads.

you have to be a total cuckold to defend the stock power output

Kek, you've moved on after getting bullied by prez/o/

You have to be a total cuckold to save those pictures to your computer

;)

m.drive.com.au/motor-feature/faceoff-toyota-86-and-subaru-brz-20111208-1okdl.html

Toyota and Subaru argued for months over this.

"We didn't think using a boxer engine was enough alone to make a good car. We were making 2 liter cars that produced more than 300 horsepower. A 2 liter naturally aspirated sports car sounded like a questionable proposition."

If Subaru didn't love the car as is they would have never let it go into production. This is from the same article

"But Senior, who drove a prototype of the vehicle while Subaru engineers were carrying out development work in Australia for the joint venture, is clearly warming to the idea.

‘‘I drove the car and I think the more time you spend with the car it sort of clouds the decision making – in a good way,’’ he says. Senior isn’t concerned by the lack of a turbocharger, a move that has been criticised by Subaru’s loyal following.

‘‘We don’t have turbo engines on a lot of our cars,’’ he says. ‘‘It was never designed from day one to have a turbo. One of the principal things is light weight and cost. We have had performance cars in the past without turbos."

Said article also claims NA was for the purposes of linear power delivery. So they put a big fat torque dip in it. gg

>on every gt86 thread, there is a fuckload of "torque dip" posts
>got curious
>googled dyno
>there is a torque dip
>around 4k rpm

why is that considered such a major problem in high-revving car? i bet you'll rarely drop down below 4.5k when you want to go fast (unless i don't know anything and car has super long gearbox or something)

>we have had performance cars in the past without turbos
What, the 145hp 88-91 XT6, 231hp 91-97 SVX, 165hp 98-01 Impreza 2.5RS, and 165hp 97-04 Legacy 2.5GT? Because those aren't exactly fast...

i wonder if toyota wanted to stay away from the turbo so they could avoid thousands of warranty claims from people who abused the cars and got pissed when a head gasket blew

North Georgia here. Have wanted to Touge up and down Lookout mountain with buddies all my life, but they always kissy out because the road, or because we all drive 90s v8 muscle and are terrified

Abused turbo Subarus blow ringlands and 3rd gear, not headgaskets

Because the car doesn't have much torque to begin with. It literally cannot climb any hill with any incline. It barely accelerates and there is no reason to ever have a torque dip in the first place. There are tons of cars with similar platforms that don't have torque dips, make way more torque. See things like the wrx or the civic si

Sure you can just convince yourself to never drive in the 3 to 5krpn range but why is your car so gimpy that you have to purposely avoid that region because your car actively loses torque through your acceleration

A supercharger or 2.5L would be a better fit on this car

give it an actual toyota i4 or v6

Because it feels normal above or below the dip, and that's fine if you want to shift all the time (which is part of the fun), but if you're just driving casually you wind up falling into the dip every time you try to just give it a little more juice, which is the opposite of fun.

And it bogs terribly in 1st through the dip if you're trying to go all out and stay above the dip.

yeah exactly. you guys don't remember the GTR fiasco from 2008 when people were launching the GTR every few minutes and started to call up lawyers because they were fucking their transmissions and the cars would need time to cool down.

thanks to those people, expect to never see a 'cheap fast fun' car ever again

>it literally cannot climb any hill with any incline
t. hasn't ever driven a truly slow car before
If it takes you more than 151 lbs-ft to climb a hill, you shouldn't be on the road.

Yeah if you're only ever redlining it you'll only notice in 1st gear. People don't spend their whole day on a ractrack though.
That dyno chart is pretty cringey.

it looks like they made the torque dip concession in exchange for a completely flat torque line up top

Then they should have bumped the redline up further so you can more easily spend your time up there. It is a delight to make it sing once you get it up there.

but then you trade off longevity

No I'm not kidding

m.youtube.com/watch?t=295s&v=xwpka_DDJis

Go To 4:55 when they climb this slight hill and the car literally does not accelerate because it has literally no torque

>150ftlbs
it only gets that at the very end of its Rev range

He never said they were fast. The 2.5rs isn't fast but it's a great car.

>Because the car doesn't have much torque to begin with. It literally cannot climb any hill with any incline. It barely accelerates and there is no reason to ever have a torque dip in the first place. There are tons of cars with similar platforms that don't have torque dips, make way more torque. See things like the wrx or the civic si
There are also cars that do have torque dip, like the Porsche Cayman. You are really exaggerating the dip, it has no problems with hills as long as you are in the right gear

I'm not the one who decided it was so important to use the number "86" so much that it had have an 86mm x 86mm per cylinder swept volume, limiting it to 2L forever. Honestly they could remove torque the dip and it would be less annoying even though it's nice to have a bit of grunt down low.

>There are also cars that do have torque dip, like the Porsche Cayman.
You're literally defending something that should never exist because one other car does it. No car should ever lose torque the more effort is put in.

I think I'm going to have to go test drive a Cayman. I'll let Veeky Forums know whether or not the torque dip in a Cayman is immediately obvious and annoying.

Do you know what the word literally means?

You are fucking retarded a civic si makes more torque at lower rpm and more power through out the entire acceleration

Is that a yes or a no?

Civic Si also has more displacement

So what. That extra 400ml doesn't magically mean it doesn't have a torque dip.

And at that the original s2k had a 2l engine and didn't have a torque dip. Same with Hondas current 2l na

>not installing a super or turbo yourself

What are you, poor?