Toyota FT-86

[king_panther]

Do manual transmissions add 200HP to the FT-86? Lol!

Wrong viewpoint Bruce: Do automatic transmissions reduce power availability at the drivetrain? I'd say yes even though I love autos.

I just find it strange they compared to with an auto. You yourself have said that an auto has no place in a high-revving NA car?
Does the MX-5 come with an auto? Should compare that with the RS250, which doesn't give you the option.

 

[ygoslo]

A manual certainly makes the chassis more tunable from the driver's seat, and allows the driver to make the most of the available power and torque. You know that Bruce. It is essential in a car like this.

 

[cyber_scriber]

Definitely agree that for their track shenanigans, they should test manual on manual.

I think the point I was making (not very clearly, I agree) is that if we're saying that had the FT-86 been manual, there would have been a different result at the track, well, that's still stretching the friendship a bit

I personally think it's a travesty that Toyota offer this type of car with an auto option at all. However, I think Toyota are smart and know their market well. Refer to the previous pic - there's a good chance there will be just as many hairdressers in this car as there are Takumis

 

[king_panther]

Hey, if you want to drive a manual around Sydney & give yourself crippling arthritis in your left foot, go ahead

 

[Guest]

I'm no expert but I would dare say a different track result would have definitely occurred with a manual transmission. How marginal it would have been may be debatable but it would have surely been better. Few Auto transmissions can match their manual counterpart for this type of thing, at that price range anyway. I think its a bit stupid to compare a much more powerful Manual worth a lot more money that has been built more for performance, to a less powerful auto that never actually claims to be a world beating performance car.

 

[Guest]

If you don't think it makes that much difference, have a look at the Evo VII GTA (Invecs II Auto) vs the Evo 7 GSR (5 Spd Manual) two otherwise identical cars are worlds apart on the track because of the transmission.

 

[ygoslo]

I like that they sell them as autos. Means that in 10 years there will be super cheap unthrashed ones just sitting there waiting for a manual conversion.

 

[Guest]

They are a little bit nicer inside and too from what I have heard and read, they don't get a cool bonnet though.
Hope this isn't too O/T but here is a comparison of track times with Auto Vs Manual in the same cars

 

[king_panther]

Funnily enough though, Ford's F6 with the 6-sp auto is quicker & more fuel efficient that the 6-sp manual. From what I've read anyways.

Just don't get me started on DSG transmissions........

 

[ygoslo]

Different engine characteristics though. The 4 litre is big & lazy & torquey, which lends itself to an auto.

 

[Guest]

The ford XR6 Turbo 6 speed Auto is an exception, that's a fantastic box. Usually cheaper slower cars with cheaper, crappier autos, suck much more. Think commodore lol.

 

[cyber_scriber]

I'm no expert but I would dare say a different track result would have definitely occurred with a manual transmission.

I think you could be a little optimistic

Remember, this isn't the case of some ancient 4 speed auto vs a slick shifting 6 speed. The FT-86's auto is a 6 speed Aisen unit, based on the 8 speed in the Lexus IS-F.

The FT-86 was some 5 seconds slower around Bedford circuit. It might be a stretch to suggest that the manual could have made up more than 5 seconds to ensure that "a different track result would have definitely occurred".

The RS265 is also the reigning lap champion at Bedford and the Nurburgring for any production FWD car ... ever. At Bedford, the Megane is a scant 0.2 seconds a lap behind an Evo X FQ-400.

At the Ring, for a manual FT-86 to be faster, look at the other cars it would need to beat:

BMW M6 - 8:07.76
Renault Megane RS 265 Trophy - 8:07.97
Ferrari 360 Modena - 8:09.00
Lamborghini Diablo SV - 8:09.00
Audi RS6 Avant - 8:09.00
KTM X-Bow - 8:10.00
Mercedes E63 AMG - 8:10.00
Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX - 8:11.00
Dodge Viper SRT-10 - 8:13.00
BMW M5 - 8:13.00
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII MR - 8:15.00

So a manual FT-86 faster than M5, M6, Ferrari Modena and Evo X FQ-400?!

Remember, a manual FT-86 has trouble shaking a Mazda MX-5 at the track. For it to then beat the other cars on the list would make it one hell of a Toyota! Oh what a feeling!

 

[cyber_scriber]

If you don't think it makes that much difference, have a look at the Evo VII GTA (Invecs II Auto) vs the Evo 7 GSR (5 Spd Manual) two otherwise identical cars are worlds apart on the track because of the transmission.

The Evo 7 GTA analogy is a poor example.

The GTA is not identical to the manual 7, except for the transmission.

The GTA has less power and torque, a smaller turbo, altered suspension geometry and steering, more weight (additional sound deadening etc), no Recaros (less suited to vigorous track cornering), etc. Basically, the GTA was the toned down, civilised road going version.

 

[ygoslo]

Remind me again why we're comparing the 86 (it's no longer the Future Toyota 86, BTW) to a Megane please.

Also, the point for me is that they were making all these comments about the responsivenenss of the car and chassis, and talking about how it is unsatisfying for keen drivers, based on an auto one that no keen driver will buy. It's a fatally flawed piece because of that.

 

[cyber_scriber]

It's also telling how the guy says something like "it's no M3". It's also not over $100k, genius.

Details, Tim! Details, my genius friend!

If you listen carefully, what they actually say with the M3 comment is that the FT-86 is no "modern, 4 cylinder M3".

It's pretty obvious that they weren't comparing the FT-86 with the 6/8 cylinder M3s of today.

Instead, they are referring to the old, E30 4 cylinder M3, which had similar power, weight and rear tyre size (they even specifically mention the tyre size thing, which would have alerted most geniuses). The E30's cost in the UK when launched was also eerily similar to the cost of a new FT-86 in the UK today.

They were obviously comparing the FT-86 and E30 in the context of chassis, balance, handling etc. The fact that they conclude that the 2012 FT-86 is inferior to a car 26 years older is pretty damning on the Toyota.

 

[cyber_scriber]

Remind me again why we're comparing the 86 (it's no longer the Future Toyota 86, BTW) to a Megane please.

C'mon Tim. It doesn't take a genius to follow the thread. Here you go:

Brad posts vid of track battle between Megane and 86. Brad stirs pot. Good one, Brad.

Someone points out, "No fair! The 86 was auto so was disadvantaged at the track!"

Bruce says, "Ummm, a manual 86 wouldn't have changed the result".

Someone says "Yes it would have. Check out the difference between an identical but not so identical GTA and manual Evo 7".

The hard lap times don't agree.

 

[ygoslo]

I would expect that the new (again, not future) 86 would be inferior in terms of chassis balance, feel etc to the AE86. To the S13. To a bunch of cars that have gone before. Sadly that's what has happened to cars as they have gotten "safer" and have had things like stability control mandated. That's why cars feel so much more direct when we modify them and tune all of the safe understeer and everyman softness out of them.

Comparing a new affordable sports car running an inexplicable auto transmission with a legendary, unaffordable even now, race-bred manual sports car from the 80s isn't ideal. Apples with apples is usually a better comparison.

Also, I am asking why the Megane continues to come up again and again, in this thread and outside of it. They're different cars in different price brackets for different markets.

 

[cyber_scriber]

Sorry dude. You lost me when you had your genius moment of thinking that they were comparing the back to the future 86 to a $150k V8 M3

 

[mookers]

The 86 is not a numbers car (ironic given its name). Who cares about the stats? If you think it's fun, it's fun. If it's not, buy a different car. People on this forum have test driven and declared it "not fun" and I respect that. But there are reports of "fun" by automotive journalists whose words I also respect.

There will always be cars with "better" numbers at any price point. If you want to be a stats geek, go join a baseball forum.

 

[mookers]

I'd also like to state, for the record, that I am completely open to the idea of discovering the 86 is "not fun" for me, should I ever drive one. I'm also open to the idea of it being "fun".

If only there were more cars that sparked this sort of passion in people, for or against. I think Toyota should be given credit simply for this.