If Toyota did offer more power.......

[smudge 1020]

It would be very cool. As long as it doesnt weigh too much and gives a decent boost.

 

An additional electric motor and all the gubbins to make it work would weigh a fair bit

 

And remember, the Prius and other hybrids recoup the energy to then be stored in the battery. It isn't used for extra power like KERS is

[JamesP1991 222]

Honda are just about to release the new NSX with a V6 hybrid engine drivetrain which will no doubt give an electric overboost function. I know we are talking about a different price range, but I still think a flywheel system could be implemented in the 86 for not a huge amount of money. 

 

A couple of small batteries to store energy under the drivers seat for best weight distribution, a flywheel gathering kinetic energy and a little button to deploy the energy stored  Would be a lot lighter than the traditional KERS systems too. 

 

I know Williams did the same thing with the experimental hybrid GT3R Porsche race car. Smoked everyone at the Nordschleife until it broke down and then dominated it's class over in the ALMS. 

[Steeps 294]

The battery on a Yaris hybrid is 30kg including all the packaging/cables (20kg of NiMH batteries), using Li-ion would increase the cost but halve the weight and space required. The rest of the weight on the Yaris (about 25kg) is from the electric motor and using a bigger engine (1.5 over 1.33).

 

Citroen are using these systems to make the DS5 a 4WD car on their flagship models and Honda used it in their CR-Z model to make a small eco coupe (but used the Jazz platform to keep costs down at 17k).

 

I know the GT86 is supposed to be a drivers car, but introducing a hybrid model could open it up to a much bigger audience for those who either wanted more hp, more low end torque, better mpg, less tax (not that it really makes much of a difference when paying more for the car) and saves unicorns in the London CC zone! Also if more grunt is wanted it's still possible to supercharge with hybrid tech, increase battery capacity or increase electric motor power.

 

I would honestly consider trading in for a new one if they went hybrid.

[Nicebiscuit 655]

An additional electric motor and all the gubbins to make it work would weigh a fair bit

And remember, the Prius and other hybrids recoup the energy to then be stored in the battery. It isn't used for extra power like KERS is

It is. On full throttle the petrol engine and motor work in tandem.

The interesting thing would be the transmission. The other Toyota hybrids run a CVT transmission. I've driven the latest Auris and it's well implemented, technically interesting and quite good to drive in its own way, but it's hardly sporting.

I don't know whether it would work with a manual box?

I think it's the future though. I intend to keep the GT86 for a good while. I wonder if it's replacement will be electric? You never know...

[Ade 517]

An additional electric motor and all the gubbins to make it work would weigh a fair bit

 

And remember, the Prius and other hybrids recoup the energy to then be stored in the battery. It isn't used for extra power like KERS is

 

I dont think it would. KERS would not require batteries, which are what weight most hybrids down, it would most likely use a large capacitor(s).

 

The Lexus hybrids use the motor power in combination with the engine to generate more acceleration.

[Kodename47 446]

Here's an article from 2012:

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/toyota-gt86-kers-2011-11-9

KERS - Not battery powered but stored energy from recuperation.

[Sonic 4]

While the KERs stuff is nice in principle in reality to get any serious power you need quite a big or quite an expensive motor

 

the Yaris system is about 10-12Bhp or so its way off whats required to give a decent boost

 

obviously this tech is only going to get better and will probably be in all cars within a decade - at which point the govenment is going to have  a wobbler when they realise their fuel tax income has dwindled somewhat

( cost of charging a plug-in hybrid is about £0.30 to give 25 miles range, cost of petrol to do that about £8)

 

but for now I'm thinking a supercharger is the way to go as I doubt Toyota will want to re-do all the catylst and emssions work again plus you get that nice throttle response and big engine feel

[Sonic 4]

I'm suprised by the poll results to date that centrifugal chargers are beating postive displacement ones?

 

I 've driven a mates with a CF blower on it and frankly I felt it wasn't very good, there was no push in the back just  a gradual build of power with rpm  - might be OK on  a track but I drive my car most days on the road

[Nicebiscuit 655]

Having had the pleasure of a GT86 now for a few days, I'd have to say I'd probably prefer supercharging to turbocharging on this. The stock throttle response is terrific and would be a shame to blunt it.

Not that I feel I NEED extra power but upper two hundreds would be nice if the standard response and driveability could be maintained.

It's always been the 911 Carrera I coveted, not the 911 Turbo...

[Tim Radley 18]

I seem to be the only one happy with a 250hp figure from a larger displacment tuned N/A engine haha! With it tuned I'd also like to see the blasted thing Rev to around 8.5k with a nice linear curve, unlike the stock motor that drops like a stone after 7k

 

The only people who will pay for proper N/A power are those that have it as their specific rules in a race championship.  Otherwise it makes no sense to spend twice as much to get half the gain as any of the cheaper boosted solutions on the market will give.

[Guest]

The only people who will pay for proper N/A power are those that have it as their specific rules in a race championship.  Otherwise it makes no sense to spend twice as much to get half the gain as any of the cheaper boosted solutions on the market will give.

Here here!!

 

I see no point in staying NA these days unless you HAVE to. It seems that all the manufacturers are keen to turbocharge everything right now, in an effort to achieve driveable power with low emmissions.

 

For example, my little Fiat is 2 cylinder, 875cc and is turbocharged. It pulls like a train from no revs and carries on pulling right to the red line. It costs nothing to tax, noithing to insure and readily returns over 50mpg. I've just bought a new Vivaro, 1.6 4 cylinder twin turbo diesel. pulls like a train with over 230ft/lbvs of torque and 120 bhp. My Mum test drove a vauxhall Adam 1.4 yesterday. She hated it, saying it was flat and had no go in it.. then she test drove the 1 litre 3 cylinder turbo.. she's going to order one this week!!

 

So, what do I think Toyota should do with the 86? Simple.. stick a Turbo on it!!

[Varelco 211]

Here here!!

 

I see no point in staying NA these days unless you HAVE to. It seems that all the manufacturers are keen to turbocharge everything right now, in an effort to achieve driveable power with low emmissions.

 

Or if you WANT to, everybody tinkers with their cars because they want to, not because they have to.

 

Personally if I was going to be pumping vast amounts of money into FI, bigger brakes, wide grippy tyres then I would of just bought a Cayman. Kind of goes against the principles of the car.

[Nicebiscuit 655]

Or if you WANT to, everybody tinkers with their cars because they want to, not because they have to.

Personally if I was going to be pumping vast amounts of money into FI, bigger brakes, wide grippy tyres then I would of just bought a Cayman. Kind of goes against the principles of the car.

I agree with your sentiment - but reckon the car could take a little more power with the standard running gear, don't you think?

[Guest]

Or if you WANT to, everybody tinkers with their cars because they want to, not because they have to.

 

Personally if I was going to be pumping vast amounts of money into FI, bigger brakes, wide grippy tyres then I would of just bought a Cayman. Kind of goes against the principles of the car.

 

Sorry, I should have said, "If you want to tune the car, I see no point in staying NA".

 

I like the Cayman comment, I went from a Brand new Boxster S into the '86, just so I could tune the hell out of it!!

[Guest]

I agree with your sentiment - but reckon the car could take a little more power with the standard running gear, don't you think?

 

I think we have proof on this very forum that the stock transmission can handle up to 330HP reliably? Pitman has never broken anything on his car.

[Tim Radley 18]

Valid point.  The only reason I did an N/A build was to see what it was like.  As soon as the intake manifold is proven i'll be rebuilding it with new internals to take the turbo.

 

As an N/A engine though it's pretty impressive despite the dyno figures.  Point to point it is very good and a car you can use all the available power with which results in huge driving satisfaction.  Just looking through some data from the car i see one drive that left me with a huge smile on a twisty B road (clearly not the UK I must point out!) which shows average throttle opening 40%, average speed 88.3mph and average rpm 5127 for a 3 minute section.  Can't think of any other car i've driven recently that that can be done in.

 

In a car like the 86 i'd say 350bhp and above will be a real handful and slower real world than stock in anything other than a straight line unless some very careful torque management is employed.

 

What I will say is i get out of big power R35's shaking and unexcited but i get out of the 86 with a big smile but still shaking.  Awesome little car.

 

Sorry, I should have said, "If you want to tune the car, I see no point in staying NA".

[rob275 1817]

I think we have proof on this very forum that the stock transmission can handle up to 330HP reliably? Pitman has never broken anything on his car.

 

But is it being driven? By that I mean is it really stretching it's legs? As far as I know he's done limited track work in it.

[Guest]

In a car like the 86 i'd say 350bhp and above will be a real handful and slower real world than stock in anything other than a straight line unless some very careful torque management is employed.

I think Mr Smith would disagree there Tim. In the wet maybe, but in the dry, no way.

[Sonic 4]

seems to be plenty of guys on the US forum running '300RWHP' ( american dynos eh......?)  and all they've had to change is the clutch, then as the power goes up  the driveshafts and then the transmisson

[Guest]

But is it being driven? By that I mean is it really stretching it's legs? As far as I know he's done limited track work in it.

Point taken Rob. I've been in his car a few times and he certainly doesn't hold back. I can't understand why he hasn't had driveshaft issues if I'm honest?

[Tim Radley 18]

I think Mr Smith would disagree there Tim. In the wet maybe, but in the dry, no way.

His car isn't real world though. I was talking road use hence that comment. For a full on race car with grip 450-500 would be ideal

[Twigman 93]

NA tuning means they will struggle to meet emissions. I would guess there isn't that much to be gained from head work. The engine is already 100bhp/litre.

 

The only way to increase power is to rev higher and higher, which won't meet emissions and would also be prohibitively expensive.

Bike engines manage 180bhp+ per litre and 12k + rpm NA and have no trouble with emissions........

[Guest]

Don't get Mr Tim Radley started on bike engines. He knows a thing or two about them.....

[rob275 1817]

isn't a bike engine generally half the capacity though? So surely emissions would be lower?

[Lauren 2259]

Bike engines manage 180bhp+ per litre and 12k + rpm NA and have no trouble with emissions........

 

But bike engines don't have the same emission requirements and don't even run a cat.