Toyota GT 86

[Matt Bodycombe]

I had been reading a lot of conflicting reports about this little two seater coupe. Some magazines such as evo have criticised it for being slow and lacking power ( if 200bhp, 140 mph and about 7 sec to 60 is slow); others such as autocar have given it a 5 star rating whilst raving about the balance and fun factor and how involving it is. Therefore I thought I would take advantage of the "just ask" testdrive policy and have a spin in one at my local showroom.

Before you even get in the car it looks impressive in a non pretentious way. I drove a black one and it looks simple compact and purposeful without being in any way flash. It feels well built too with solid construction and a nicely put together if plasticky interior. Getting in the driving position felt perfect for a little short arse like me (well 5ft 8). You sit low with nicely spaced pedals (good for heel and toe if you are into that) with gear stick and transmission tunnel above your left arm. it feels low and sporty and is nice and simple. You start the thing by a push button and first impressions are well: not a lot. The engine is near silent at tick over with none of the bassy thud of an Impreza with a good pipe on it. The engine is a 2.0 boxer developed jointly between Subaru and Toyota and the stats are 200 bhp and 205 NM torque between 6400 and 6600 with the rev cut out coming in at 7700rpm. it is that last torque figure that you first notice though as the engine on pulling away feels very weak to be honest. Just like a regular hatchback with say a 1.6 petrol under the bonnet. They do one with an automatic transmission apparently but i would steer well clear of that on the basis of this sort of delivery.

The engine is responsive and free revving but around town the lack of pull is really quite frustrating. However I was allowed to take the car on some empty roads on a local business park and dual carriage way where I was able to give it some stick. The trick with this engine is that you need to drive it like a Honda V-tec to get the best from it. You have to drive it like you want to break it in other words. If you keep your foot in the engine will haul itself out from the limp bottom and midrange and by the time you hit 5000 rpm you are rewarded with a lovely off beat wail from the engine (more high pitched than the bassy subaru: more like an old Alfasud if you remember those) and some pretty decent thrust. However you do need to make the most of that gearstick as you only have a powerband of say 2500rpm to play with so it is a good job that the change is pretty good.

The real pleasure of this car though is the handling and general feel. It feels beautifully balanced with the low boxer engine set back and the car does seem to pivot around you as you turn into a corner. The steering has loads of feel and you can feel exactly what the car is doing through the seat of your pants. Unfortunately I was not allowed to turn the traction control ( for insurance reasons sir) but even with those skinny Prius tires, I don't think there would be enough torque to boot the back end out on the throttle in the dry. Apparently the knack is to throw it in hard into a corner or roundabout, back off and then give it a bootful but, as I say I was not allowed to try that sort of stuff. The car retails at about £25,000 and apparently it will only be coming in in relatively small numbers. The question is would i have one over a Scirocco or Audi TT? The problem for me would be the engine's gutless nature at low revs. I would imagine that I would get very frustrated with it in day to day humdrum driving. So as a first/everyday car I would probably defer to the Scirocco with the 2.0 TSI engine with it's superior torque and manners. However as a weekend car on good roads and if I could afford it I would definately have a GT86 as it is probably the only really involving and fairly cheap sports car out there apart from the MX5. I would definately have a go in one and see what you think. I am sure the tuning boys will be playing with it soon with chips and bolt on turbos and superchargers. With those I think you would have a little demon on your hands.

Edited 15 November, 2012 by Matt Bodycombe

[Jockdooshbag]

Im a torque man myself. Even when it came to my bikes i preferred twins and triples, even singles, to my mates rice rockets. I had a subaru previoulsy so was quite interested in this car. I spent a lot of time changing exhaust components in my subaru to get the right noise. I eventually found it but at higher sppeds the turbo whoosh drowned it out. Then this GT86 came along and my first thought was that this non turboed version of my old scooby might sound perfect i.e all the burble but none of the drowning turbo whoosh. I havent heard such comments from the motoring press yet but maybe thats because they havent fiddled with the exhausts? Who knows.

As for torque - i wouldnt buy one purely for this reason. Mate used to have a type R, it was a total pain in the arese having to rag it to get any performance from it. He changed it for a MK5 GTI and that just feels far faster and more relaxing also. If they could fit my old scooby engine to the GT86 and engineer out the turbo whoosh then id buy one. Well actually i wouldnt as company car rules dictate this, as does big boot requirement for dog and back seats and doors for baby. So other than the lack of noise, torque, doors, big boot, low emmisions the car seems perfect for me. Oh and id want an auto. Doh.

[Matt Bodycombe]

Here is a GT86 being given the gun at Goodwood. You can hear that it is much more high pitched in sound than the Impreza was. It is fun to rev but it really does lack bottom end torque as I said.

[Babs]

I loved the one I tested, yes, not the quickest, but quick enough I thought. I never thought it lacked bottom end power, when driven normally, and when "going for it" you rev it anyway

[Ootohere]

You can have your auto & it has flappy paddles.

They worked fine and felt better than my DSG paddles that i never use.

I could only drive a GT86 as there was no BRZ available at the time.

Liked it, & liked the way the Automatic behaved & liked the car, (not lots of love towards it tho, just liked)

but not really as a rear wheel driver, for me it would be more sensible to have a RWD BMW auto that i fit better into, or can get out of easier,

& for winter oop north,even thats not really sensible. IMO

george

[Matt Bodycombe]

@babs each to his own I guess.I found it weak low down to be honest.I felt it was definately a cammy sort of engine that needs a good 4500 rpm before it starts to hoist up its skirts.

@sk4gw: why anyone would have the auto is beyond me as it saps power (it is significantly slower than the manual) and the manual has a lovely short throw shift like an mx5.It is part of the appeal of the car I think.

Edited 16 November, 2012 by Matt Bodycombe

[Ootohere]

@ Matt Bodycombe,

One reason might be because all their cars are automatic because that is all they can drive & they do like driving.

What do you recommend to a person like that,

just do not bother and get the bus maybe! Or a diesel Skoda?

Try some automatics sometime maybe, they can be fun,

& actually in this day and age, sap no power.

Maybe try an automatic GT86 or BRZ

(If you are reviewing cars, IMO you are best to try the manual & the automatic and not

just take the published 0-60's, max, etc & believe them as being accurate to the performance,

try and see for yourself maybe)

Even then, If you only use a vehicle in the UK on the road to half its ability and performance,

a loss of 5-10 % would be neather here or there to some.

I see from your OP that you did not you hang the tail out at ever opportunity & red line it all the time,

so i imagine there was still something at hand/foot that would make the car still drivable with the autobox?

I road tested the auto for many miles on country roads and hills on a wettish road and on some nice flowing dry roads.

george

[Matt Bodycombe]

@George: hey calm down I was not dismissing automatics. In the right car: preferably a big torquey engine they are lovely but it is a fact that torque converters do sap a bit of power unlike a dsg box (which I love btw) and this becomes more pronounced when fitted to a peaky engine. A good example is the Honda NSX which had about 280 bhp quoted for the manual and 250 for the auto. I am a keen driver and I do think that a sports car should have a manual box too. I would not have an MX5 with an auto box and a classic like an E type with an auto: no way! Of course if you are disabled or only have an automatic llicence then so be it and it is good to have the option but it is not for me.With the GT86 that I tested (a manual which was the only car the dealer had inicdentally) I was not driving it like a nutter but all the time but I did get a chance to take it on some A and B roads and I did use the full rev range. I found that the car could not get out of its own way under 3K, about that it started to come on song and above 4500rpm to the limiter (which is 7700rpm from best recollection) it was decently rapid.Maybe I am just a bit more demanding in my expectations than you. Just prior to the GT86 i had driven a dsg Fabia VRS Mk2 and the twin charge 1.4 was much much beefier low down thanks to that supercharger punching from idle but was quite prepared to scream if I wanted it too as well: nice broad powerband. I really do think forced induction will be mainstream on petrols like Diesels soon.

Edited 18 October, 2012 by Matt Bodycombe

[Ootohere]

I waited about 2 years for the BRZ to become available & expected to wait longer after it became available before an automatic could be bought.

I was pleasantly surprised as they arrived, and was ready to buy one.

I travelled a long way to get a drive in a GT86 auto and was so disappointed as to what it was,

but it was still not a bad car, just not for me, & i have not bothered to get a drive in a BRZ auto.

I have driven a MX5 auto, but could not get back out it very easy after pouring myself in.

They were available from Motability when they first came out as automatics.

Quite a few were taken on lease & a friend bought and still has one.

That was also a disappointing drive to my liking..

I have also driven a auto E Type & given how a manual is, i doubt it is much worse as an auto, its not exactly exciting

as in fast,

it is frightening when the owner says, its OK to give it some and it handles and does not stop very well..

I have had V6 & V8 autos and lots of others & if you have more power than traction it is no bad thing if there was sapping of power from an Automatic box.

Fact is what ever is said, right engine and Auto with Torque Converter or not,

you are not going to lack any go, or think i need more than this.

70-80 or even120-140 is the same speed in a manual or an auto,

maybe the auto has just a bit less engine braking when you would like it.

A vRS twin charger is puting out maximum torque between 2000-4500 revs and can be screemed to 7000 if you wish, but your moving some when you do that.

Worlds full of good autos now, and there is no need still for anyone to have one if its not their thing.

35 years of automatics and i can say there are lots of good ones and for the road, torque, bhp & even CC's are not necessary for a fun driver.

A 1000cc automatic mini was fun driven every place and on back roads flat out.

a iQ Multidrive is almost an identical drive but with brakes.

Cant wait for a drive in a New Clio Sport with dual clutch box when it arrives.

george

eg,

Stage 3, 4.6 on LPG & Autobox in a Land Rover i towed with, but the box locks up at 50 mph & no loss of power.

[Jockdooshbag]

Kind of off topic but modern autos lock up very early, in fact the new range rover locks up almost as soon as it sets off as does the new CX-5. Modern BMW autos are quicker and more efficient than the manual equivelents so it wont be long before all autos become the performance and economy preference to manuals i suspect. I prefer autos also as using the clutch etc is just a pain in town so having the convienience of an auto as well as the economy and perfromance gains is having your cake and eating it.

[chicken_eyebrow]

Nice review Matt. Are you available for a meal soon with Simon and Ant?

[Babs]

@babs each to his own I guess.I found it weak low down to be honest.I felt it was definately a cammy sort of engine that needs a good 4500 rpm before it starts to hoist up its skirts.

You just have to remember that as there's no turbo, the engine will respond differently. Compared to other N/A 2.0 cars (such at the CTR), the GT86 pulls a hell of a lot better from lower down!

['daiking']

Looks like it failed the moose test

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/25/toyota-gt86-fails-moose-test-in-spectacular-fashion/

[Matt Bodycombe]

It's just won the Autocar drivers car of the year against much more expensive opposition. The lack of grip is the whole point

[Ootohere]

'Emperors new clothes'..

The magazines or at least some motoring journalists are certainly pushing it as the big thing.

These would normally slate a car without grip.

Sometimes fashion over function can go too far IMHO.

An under tyred car & letting the rear end slip, slide away is no big deal really.

Not Toyota or Subaru's greatest moment.

Lets see how long before they turn them out on different tyres as standard..

george

[Paul007]

Plato said it was slow and needed more power on Fifth Gear recently. I respect his views more than those of say, a magazine called Express Auto. Not wishing to start a debate either, but the comment above about "just do not bother and get the bus maybe! Or a diesel Skoda?" makes me wonder if you've driven a recent CR vRS with dsg ? Mine's not particularly slow.

[Ootohere]

I think that would be an automatic, would it not be?

Was my comment not in response the the Road tester/OP saying , "why anyone would have an automatic is beyond me, it saps power"

but he meant in a GT86, in this context.

Actually your diesel is no faster than anything else, 70 mph in it, is the same as 70 in any vehicle, as is 120, or whichever speed.

0-60 will be as fast as you get up behind to the slower car in front.

I love diesels, just not when they are causing you to close your air intake when sitting behind them.

Joking there obviously.

It is everyones right to save money on fuel.

Yes they are fast-ish & yes i have driven one.

Not particularly slow right enough.

george

[VladSoilerOfCarpets]

I don't think it'll be too long before the stork brings us a turbo version.

There are plenty of low-powered cars out there which are fun- MX5 springs to mind, along with the original MR2. Bhp isn't the be all and end all- I would have more fun in a 120bhp Saxo thana 580bhp Scania truck...

[Babs]

I would have more fun in a 120bhp Saxo thana 580bhp Scania truck...

Depends on whether 15 year old girls and McDonald's car parks or killing prostitutes is your idea of fun

[VladSoilerOfCarpets]

Depends on whether 15 year old girls and McDonald's car parks or killing prostitutes is your idea of fun

... both.

*sinks slowly back into swamp*

[MattyD]

I've driven the GT86 on Donington race track and slid it around a sapping wet Adelaide hairpin there, plus I've been lucky enough to enjoy one for a weekend as well. At the time I had a Leon FR TFSI which was way quicker in a straight line and now have a Octavia vRS which is probably quicker too. However I'd swap them both for the GT86 if I could afford to buy one. Being fast isn't the point of the car, it's great to drive when you get it on a decent road, the feel of the steering, the responsiveness when you turn into corners, the noise of the engine in the cabin when you rev it. I love that it doesn't have a turbo, revving it up to the line and getting the gear change light flashing at you, knowing the even a little slight too much throttle will cause the back wheels to spin a bit. To me it's just a proper good old fashioned sports car, front engined, rear wheel drive and a limited slip diff. Small wheels and tyres to keep the weight and cost of replacement rubber down, and all about being fun to drive. Yes I do work for Toyota, but I don't like all Toyota cars, I wouldn't be seen dead in some of them, but I do love the GT86, to me it's just an exciting car and so much fun for not very much money in car terms.

[Jockdooshbag]

I've driven the GT86 on Donington race track and slid it around a sapping wet Adelaide hairpin there, plus I've been lucky enough to enjoy one for a weekend as well. At the time I had a Leon FR TFSI which was way quicker in a straight line and now have a Octavia vRS which is probably quicker too. However I'd swap them both for the GT86 if I could afford to buy one. Being fast isn't the point of the car, it's great to drive when you get it on a decent road, the feel of the steering, the responsiveness when you turn into corners, the noise of the engine in the cabin when you rev it. I love that it doesn't have a turbo, revving it up to the line and getting the gear change light flashing at you, knowing the even a little slight too much throttle will cause the back wheels to spin a bit. To me it's just a proper good old fashioned sports car, front engined, rear wheel drive and a limited slip diff. Small wheels and tyres to keep the weight and cost of replacement rubber down, and all about being fun to drive. Yes I do work for Toyota, but I don't like all Toyota cars, I wouldn't be seen dead in some of them, but I do love the GT86, to me it's just an exciting car and so much fun for not very much money in car terms.

Nice sales pitch

[MartynVRS]

If I had one I'd be tempted to make it look like the AE86 that inspired it. Very tempted to get one in a few years

[CrazyCam]

Well, the one that I test drove was the GTS, auto and although it was technically a demo car, it had been taken over by the dealer's sales manager, who had a restrained aero kit added, the biggest wheels and tyres possible fitted and the suspension stiffened.

With the auto box, it allowed me to poodle about in Sydney suburban traffic, no fuss, just like I was driving a Corolla..... now that kind of appeals to me.

Onto the freeway, cruising at 110 kph, smooth as..... but there was just no gentle acceleration.... to get it to go, you had to hit the kick down or manually shift down a couple of gears.

I've never really got the hang of the paddle shifter business, but the selector lever was OK for me to manually shift.

I did a run up a set of twisties that I know quite well, manually selecting gears, and the car was quite fast.

I say quite fast because I normal ride up this hill on a Triumph Street Triple.

It turned in well, pushed itself out of the slower corners really nicely, and, generally, felt like a proper sports car.

As it was a nice sunny day, the grip from the over sized tyres was quite amazing, although I suspect it would have been more fun with the standard rubber.... I dunno if I'd like to have driven it as spiritedly if it had been raining.

All in all, it was a very nice thing to drive, but it just wasn't what I'm looking for.

Over here in Oz, the waiting list for the GTS is over a year long, and I can't help but think there will, sooner or later, be a turbo version for the really serious rev-heads and racers.

BTW, I know that things are different over here, but the auto has its good points, you can shift gear when you feel like it, or you can leave it to sort itself out if you're not in the mood. The "power loss" really isn't that significant unless you are actually racing it.

regards,CrazyCam

[Matt Bodycombe]

@crazycam: the auto has been criticised for the fact that the top gear ratios are too high and that this coupled with power loss inherent from the torque converter highlight the engine's low down torque deficit. With the manual you need to keep the engine boiling over 5k to get it to really go.

@Sk4w I disagree with you I am afraid and am with the car magazines and MattyD. In this day and age of sterile front wheel drive cars there is a huge dearth of fun rear wheel drive cars. A lot of people have never even driven a rear wheel drive. The whole point of this car is that it is not about huge amounts of speed or grip but that it has a beautifully balanced chassis that enables people to have fun learning about old fashioned car control without going backwards into a hedge. This is why the Mazda MX5 sold so well and why I think this car will also.It is aimed at those who are proper enthusiasts and who enjoy driving rather than the bling brigade.The car does not have a lack of grip at all in normal circumstances (you would have to be very brutal I imagine to get it to power oversteer in the dry). However the journalists say it can be provoked into a gradual and controlled loss of traction so that it can be "steered on the throttle". I would say that is much better than a car that plunges into terminal understeer . The more I think about it the more I feel that if Toyota and Subaru start making more powerful and grippier models at 35k plus price tags they will be going way off message. My humble opinion is that the manual base model will be the purists choice. Here is what Jonathan Palmer said in Autocar.

"The grip is ok but best of all is the balance, the front will go a bit, the rear will go a bit- it is your choice but whatever you do there is a feeling of delicacy. We've all come to expect electronics to correct chassis faults and dull things in the process and to think that big tyres and stiff suspensions are always right. But this car takes you back to an era of mechanical purity, when cars like the Escort Mexico gave you an exquisite connected feel. That makes it very special".

Edited 15 November, 2012 by Matt Bodycombe