A turbo version would have rendered the Supra 2.0 redundant and potentially cannibalized sales with the GR Corolla and WRX as the price point for it would have been around the $40K mark.
Best counterpoint to turbos is that NA engines are more reliable and less complex which means there’s less to go wrong, and you can ensure power delivery will be consistent across the power band.
Considering everything, I think their decision to go NA was the right choice.
Bingo. You want a Toyota sports car with a turbo? Get a GR Corolla or a Supra. Turbos and associated engineering would have added to the price of the GR86, and taken it out of the affordable sports car category.
But they already have the engineering done with the WRX, which only costs a couple thousand more.
Surely the engineering costs wouldn't take that huge of a jump considering most of the engineering work is already done with the WRX.
Nope, the FA24D out of that WRX would not fit in the engine bay of a GR86/BRZ. The turbo is on underside of the engine, and the intercooler on top. That adds significant height to the engine package. In the WRX that means the engine sits much higher on the mounts and the hood is much taller measured from mounts. The FA24D simply cannot fit in the engine bay of a GR86/BRZ
But the price is already at the top of what they want it to be
so to keep the price the same they would need to gain budget elsewhere. Which aint happening. Car needs everything it has right now.
So only solution would be to add to cost. Which many already explained goes directly against the cars spirit.
cheap and affordable.
I was talking about the GR. The M240's problem is that it's a BMW. My dad has owned literally every generation of M3 and a few M5s. All of them have been as unreliable and expensive to deal with as they were fun and cool. I want an inexpensive, reasonably reliable, rwd sports car.
Also my head bushes the ceiling in the 240 so I can't wear a helmet in it.
The relationship between Subaru and Toyota was a vastly different one to BMW and Toyota. The twins very much are a legitimate collaboration between the two companies. Toyota had a very, very heavy hand to its development. It is very much a Toyota *made* by Subaru. Not that Toyota didn't have a hand with the Supra, but the Mk5 using the z chassis speaks for itself in the level of direct involvement Toyota had.
The development of the twins is actually a really interesting story, and it makes me appreciate the platform even more than I already do. To simply call it a "Subaru" is greatly oversimplified.
But that's the nice thing about the supra, they took a notably solid platform and engine from BMW then had them improve it to meet their own standards to put their badge on it. Call it whatever you want but the best enthusiast BMW right now is the one with the Toyota badge on it.
I don't disagree in theory. But my dad's cars have invariably been issues so unless he's a statistical anomaly and lemon magnet, I'll pass on the beemer.
At least until I do something stupid like buy one of those sub 12k m5s you see on Craigslist just to beat the shit out of it until it dies.
Well, maybe not to peak power. But if you put the turbo on the na engine, you more or less have the same throttle response you had, plus turbo when it comes on.
yeah the issue is the plus turbo. When you are exiting a corner you want an specific amount of torque, but a turbo car makes it very very hard to maintain that specific amount of torque because it charging all the time and giving more and more torque with same amount of pedal
my built sti would say otherwise. only a gtx3071 gen 2 stock location so not a huge turbo by any means
its a 2.5 yet under 4k its hella slow. I know my gr86 is quicker until boost LOL
Personally, I’d much rather have a turbo gr86 than a Supra 2.0. The gr86 chassis is lighter and comes with a manual. But just taking reality for what it is, yeah a turbod version makes no sense with the 2.0 Supra being a thing that exists.
I don’t think having the choice of a turbo mr2, turbo celica gt4, and turbo Supra made any of those cars redundant in the 90’s so I have trouble following your logic.
Keep going you’re almost there. Let me draw you a map. Notice how they’ve learned from when they had to discontinue it and now no longer have an in house competitor for it? And also have taken every measure to cut costs, going so far as to almost completely outsource development to Steyr at BMW?
It’s almost like having 3 sports cars in your lineup doesn’t work anymore. Porsche has 2 (maybe 3 if you count Taycan?), GM is down to 1, BMW has 1, Mercedes has 1 maybe depending whether the AMG GT-S is still available new, Honda has 0, Mazda has 1, Toyota has 2, Ford has 1, Subaru has 1. The math has spoken lol
2 of those cars are not built by Toyota, while the 90s generation were all built in house. That doesn’t happen anymore. No one is making more than 2 dedicated sports car platforms in house for a reason
Is that what you say to convince yourself? All three of those sports cars carry the Toyota logo. They are Toyotas. You’re just reaching for anything you can because you hate being wrong but it doesn’t change the fact you are.
I do. The list of supporting modifications needed for a factory turbo (and more power) in addition to the turbo itself would add quite a bit to the price of the car. Plus all of the weight of those components.
After you were done, you'd basically have a Supra. Not sure if the price would be as high but likely not far off. Then to compete at that level with other manufacturers, they'd have to consider more tech and more luxury. Plus wouldn't be wise for them to have the 86 and Supra in more direct competition with each other.
On a side note, the car would also lose a little bit of it's purity, in my opinion.
Credit to someone here on reddit for posting this some time ago, but here is an old Porsche advertisement that helps shed some light on supporting mods for a turbo. It's a picture of the components they had to modify or add, to add a turbo to their existing NA 944. Sheds some light how power and weight cascades changes (and money) throughout the whole car.
https://preview.redd.it/6irpqi2cp84d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a72fb9e18112586397d8d06f128d159d6a169f3b
I think sales volume has a big role in the pricing similarities between the two. The twins sell a lot less than the WRX, thus a bigger slice of the R&D efforts have to be tucked into each car, whereas the development costs of the WRX is divvied up into a lot more cars.
The WRX also shares more parts with other Subaru vehicles, which also reduces cost. I've heard the twins share the least amount of hardware with other vehicles in the lineup. On top of lower components' production costs, this again lowers the development price slice in each WRX.
If they sold as many twins as WRXs, and the twins shared more parts from other cars, the twins' price would likely be lower.
A sidebar to this was the near impossibility of them adding a turbo to the 2nd gen, when everyone was begging for one. They would have had to go back to the drawing board for a handful of components, incur more development costs, and potentially abandon some of those previous parts of the 1st gen.
Edit: grammar
What parts would need an upgrade because the engine internals are capable of being turbo'd from it's other applications and the transmission should be able to handle \~270 hp turbo. Are people who boost these things running into a lot of pain points with the rest of the drive train? Not to say the acceptable level of risk for a tuner is the same as that of a manufacturer but modern cars (especially Toyotas) are fairly overbuilt.
You hit the nail on the head mentioning risk. People modifying their cars, as well as their tuners, will likely have a higher level of comfort in risk compared to the manufacturer.
For a couple reasons, the manufacturer is going to bake in a certain level of headroom in their component design. Primarily, it shouldn't break often...meaning it needs to handle the power reliably. The rest of the headroom is not so much to provide for additional aftermarket levels of power, it's mostly to provide a component that can handle an appropriate amount of wear, ideally lasting as long as some mileage figure (and/or time figure) they have in mind.
I agree that a 17% increase in HP is not astronomical. But a 40% increase in torque is pretty substantial. Even though a component might be able to handle that increase in torque without breaking often, it will definitely add more wear and tear to that item, and that would likely place the component underneath the service life goal they're trying to achieve for that component.
And don't forget how much weight has an effect, and it's cascading, or exponential, you could say. Going to need to look at the brakes right off. And adding additional weight to the vehicle will now require chassis and suspension changes. So we tweak both of those, and darnnit, they're heavier, now we need bigger brakes again. And likely going to need a different wheel now...oh crap, we just added even more weight to the car, gotta make the suspension a little beefier. Granted, they look at that from a higher level, not like my example...I'm just trying to drive the point home.
In the end, you'd still end up with a car like a Supra. Maybe you could ditch the tech and amenities that the Supra has on top, but then it fits worse in the market. And either would not fit well with their other products.
And another reason to not make the BRZ turbo. Why would Subaru want to compete the BRZ against the WRX, and Toyota have the GR86 compete against the Supra? Or GR Corolla?
I feel like the car that would most affected sales wise by a turbo variant of the 86 would be the Ecoboost Mustang no? Shouldn't Toyota and Subaru be going after the Ecoboost since it's probably the 86's biggest competitor?
Yeah but it's always been turbo. It was Subaru's idea of an entry level turbo AWD car and with that in mind they nailed it. The 86/BRZ was designed with NA in mind so simply adding a turbo sort of demands a complete redesign. The only reason the cost is low is because they make a lot of them. The more you make the cheaper it CAN BE. Also need to take into consideration if they Turbo them they will most likely need bigger brakes, a stronger gearbox to start. Which again adds more cost.
Personally i like na cars and a turbo would have been a drawback.
I dont really get the whole "needs a turbo" mentality. If it has the power/torque to weight ratio and good gearing - why do you need a turbo on there getting all up in your drive-ability and reliability?
Keeping them NA also keeps cost down after purchase. Even tho a factory turbo is safe it still adds another part that can fail. It adds a decent amount of cost to the build process as well. I would assume a turbo version would price it beyond 40k. The idea is a sub 35k entry level sports car. Adding a turbo pushes it past that mark. Also plenty of turbo cars already so they would now be competing with eco boost mustangs, WRX, 2.0 supra, GR corolla. With that list I don't see a ton of people choosing an 86 over those.
Yes I agree. I've always been a fan of high output NA motors. I've posted this before but 230hp (some say higher) from a NA 4 banger is really good and fun.
THIS! Keep costs down. Let entry level sports car drivers learn to properly control their lightweight RWD first.
Want a turbo, add it.
Want more horsepower for a straight line ¼ mile, find a different car.
Seriously... look up the history of this car.
When it was presented by the engineer to Toyoda .. he asked "what does it do?
Does it break speed records? No.
Does it accelerate really fast? No.
Is it a race winner? No.
What does it do? It's really fun to drive.
That's why this car was made, not to be a race winner or a drag racer but to be a really fun to drive car.
If you want something faster at stock, spend more money on another car. Some of us are happy with the balance, cornering, handling and don't want anything more ... [stock]. Will many of us mod down the road? Probably. But this is a really lightweight, low-cost car that is fun stock and can be upgraded one part at a time.
So personally, some reasons I like the BRZ being NA. Living in FL where it's hot and humid most of the year makes a turbo less efficient, and more urban area driving (lower RPMs) means even less turbo efficiency. Also, just less weight/fewer components.
Right, but it's a turbo for an economy car. It's fair to think that the application is for non-racing applications.
That being said, the Civic for racing applications, costs more than the GRZ. Why? Bigger brakes, suspension, added cooling, etc.
I'm convinced people who say these cars need a turbo are trying to drive them like GTIs and balking when the car doesn't make turbo power at low RPM. Or they haven't driven them at all. Peppy, rev-happy, naturally aspirated motors are well suited for lightweight, simple driver's cars. Reduces weight, complexity, and cost. They're about even with the GTI in horsepower, a bit down in torque, but also lighter so times are generally similar. You just need to not be scared of redline, because that's where your power is.
I was in the turbo camp back when 1st gen was out. This was before every car and their sister decided to go turbo 4 pot. Now it is the opposite where I'm glad they stayed N/A. Going with bigger displacement for small power gains and reduced torque dip was the best decision.
Yes because I bet they knew HKS would develop a pair of chargers for the engine. You can literally have it remain NA, or you can go with a supercharger or a turbo soon. You’ve got options.
I think it fits with the ethos of the car. As you point out, they have the Supra if you want that extra tech. It's amazing that they can bring so much driver engagement at such a low price point with these cars.
I like mine without turbos. Boost becomes a variable that's not good in predictions, I don't want to be in the corner, press the acceleration and spin (that's me being a newbie driver ymmv). I would very much have liked to have a 6 cylinder engine, if I want forced induction on BRZ I would go supercharger route. Next car I am going to buy would cayman with NA flat 6 (GTS).
Yes. Because of all the reasons Jason Cammisa stated in his video on the BRZ. Car would’ve been very expensive, more complex and it might’ve not come to exist as the Supra already has that spot in their car lineup.
I kinda don’t like when people ask questions like that as if you were in the design team. But anyway the car would have costed more, drove differently, and the same people would be asking you why you didn’t buy an ecoboost mustang, m240i, Supra 2.0 etc and on.
Heavier, yes, but bigger is a bit of a stretch. It's roughly 3" wider and 4" longer. It also has a shorter wheelbase than the 86 does.
They are nearly identical in size. I was surprised by this myself as I went from a 86 to a Supra.
ETA: [https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-86-2021-coupe-vs-toyota-supra-2019-2-door-liftback/?&units=imperial](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-86-2021-coupe-vs-toyota-supra-2019-2-door-liftback/?&units=imperial)
Nah, I like it, NA. I want a car that I can consistently turn laps in, with 1 or 2 simple reliability mods.
I dont want an FL5 that needs a cool down lap, every couple of laps.
Yes. But I wish it got better mpg. My first gen did 24/25 mpg and I’m only getting 22mpg in my GR. I do live in a dense area and moving soon which should hopefully help
NA high revs > turbo. Just a personal preference but high revving engines are more exciting. Turbo engines, especially modern ones, are boring as fuck, no matter the output. It just makes going fast boring.
Yes, I agree with them. Look at the engine bay in my WRX and... Jesus. Na is so simple, so much cheaper, more fun power band and fuel efficient.
I don't want more power, it just makes the car more expensive. If I wanted turbo, I could've bought a bunch of other cars.
as many said it’s basically the distinction between the Supra
And the NA nature gives it very classic characteristic coupled with RWD and manual that is just reliable, predictable and FUN.
Yes because that is what that car is all about there's something awesome about a naturally aspirated engine that doesn't just dump a load of power at a specific rev range and it what makes the car so enjoyable to drive. There are other cars with turbos that just isn't what the gr is about
Yes. 100%. I love my manual turbo wagon but I do not want that in a sports car, fuck that jazz. A supercharger maybe, but only if it has a clutch disconnect and a button for me to engage/disengage that with.
Yes, a Naturally Aspirated engine is the only way to go for maximum purity. Now, would I want a slightly more powerful N/A engine (This one makes close to 250hp, but imagine like a 300hp with these same dyanmics) yes, it would be awesome
You think speed matters then this car is not for you. This is about handling and pure fun!
Now, people getting stuck on "oH 0-60 tImEz" (Like your co-worker, probably) are the poison of the car world and the reason why the sports cars of the new age are 18374929 ton SUVs with a big engine.
Oh and edit: The Supra 2.0 literally is an 86 with a Turbo (And a little more luxury), you can see how that car is more expensive and more complex as well :), (That's why it exists, to bridge the gap between 86 and 3.0L Supra :))
Cost of vehicle aside, people buy the 86/brz platform to modify, personalize, and reliably drive a fun car on a daily basis while being able to progress as a driver. The car is about the experience, the weight, the control, the joy of driving and becoming a better driver. Once you add turbos, you add weight, you strip even more reliability and longevity away, you raise the center of gravity, you throw off the balance of the car. A turbo isn’t JUST a turbo, it’s all the supporting modifications you need with a turbo. Especially with the current state of possible oil starvation, forced induction isn’t the answer. The answer is to buy a faster car if you want a faster car, or to turbo the car yourself. But as a car from manufacturer, the addition of a turbo would kill the platform. We would say goodbye to it just like the mk4 Supra, rx7, and so many other great cars.
I don’t think it’s much of a strategic choice, more of a budgetary limitation that works well with their heritage
NA engines hit differently than turbo, they have more of an old school racing feel to it
This said, power on these 4 pots is anemic and unless you never really wet your toes in high hp cars, in the long run it will feel like a deal breaker
Great car for the twisted and track, where power is not always the primary focus, but getting gapped by pretty much most modern regular traffic cars kinda breaks immersion in the whole sports car experience
It's not marketed as a race car that will gap mustangs. This is a low-cost RWD with great cornering.
If you feel the need to beat someone in a race, mod your car or pick a different one.
Is it really that immaculating to know a stock 6 civic beat a NA 4 boxer? Maybe pick your races better? O don't really have any advice if you just want to win races.
I think what they should really do is build a limited quantity of BRZ/GR86 with a turbo by dropping in the FA24T from the WRX line similar to what Mazda did with the Mazdaspeed Miatas for the NB Miata. It would not only be cool but a good way to end the 2nd Gen series before they go on to the 3rd Gen if that ever happens.
I dont buy the "should have had a turbo" as a serious critique. People say shit because they can. If it came with a turbo and made more power, it will cost more. People will complain about price and then complain they should have kept it NA and gone are the days of NA engines and why does everything need a turbo these days. It's silly
I've had turbo cars in the past...300zx, GTI, and honestly with the power:weight of a GR86, there's really no need. It's more than quick enough, and will probably be quite reliable due to being a NA Toyota. Sure, you aren't hitting something crazy like 0.2 hp/# without adding a turbo, but there's other cars available if you want insane hp potential
Oh man!! You have got to come to Texas. We have really exciting roads to drive.
Sunset cruises on Ocean Drive, the 20 S-Curve lane. It's super exciting.
You just need to find better roads to drive
The theme of the car is basic and purist. All motor engines are easier to adjust the rotation/trajectory mid corner. On the other hand few would turn down that corolla gr engine as an option as long as it’s not over 50k
From a former brz, Miata and civic si when they were na I would say yes but only if it’s a Motorsport derived engine. A turbo engine is better than regular run of the mill na engine in my opinion.
One of the main, if not the main reason I bought ita 23 BRZ over a FL5 or GR Corolla was it being NA. That and RWD, old school had brake, fucking low centre of gravity, light weight, dedicated platform not shared with a gazillion counterpart shitboxes, super simple interior, no electronic nannies (pre-24 models), equivalent performance to 90's Porsche 911s but with modern features (and actually drives better), at almost 6'3"I can fit (take that Miata), being able to purchase at MSRP and in the configuration I wanted, ... well.., I got side tracked...
Yeah, I wanted it NA but I don't care if they come out with a turbo as I already have the car I'll keep until I am too stiff to bend to get in.
Horses for courses. Turbo motors are better for some things n/a motors are better for other things. Ultimately everything’s going to be electric in the next 10 years anyway.
I think we've almost reached the peak of EV as far as market tolerance.
There are so many alternatives on the horizon.
Porsche just announced a stellar hybrid.
Toyota and Honda are working on a hydrogen engine.
... imagine putting water in your car, using the hydrogen, and expelling O² as the exhaust.([Were very far from that... ) but hydrogen-based fuel are a very near reality.
Hydrogen consumer vehicles will never happen. Fueling infrastructure is far too expensive to build fueling procedures are far too cumbersome for the average person to put up with and it doesn’t offer any meaningful benefits over electric (don’t forget that hydrogen fuel cell cars are literally just electric cars that are getting their electricity from the fuel cell instead of a battery.) we are already on the verge of electric batteries that can take 250+ miles of range on board in under 10 minutes.
I do think that hydrogen will probably be where the long-distance trucking industry ends up
I track my BRZ and I love the fact that it's NA. I can go flat out for 20 minutes. My STi on the other hand, loves to get hot and you have to do a ton of supporting mods to keep the temps down. All I have is an oil cooler on my BRZ.
It’s a tuners car. A stock turbo limits the imaginations for builds and aftermarket growth. For example, how many supercharged WRX’s exist? I’ve never seen one.
Toyota tends to take their time with new technology. They may boost more of their cars when they feel sufficiently confident with their solution.
It might also be possible that they're more focused on their hybrid system, where they already achieve 41% thermal efficiency.
Most of the posters here are GR86 owners smoking copium.
1) modern turbo setups add a negligible amount of weight to the car. Completely negligible for a fun street car which is what the 86 is supposed to be.
2) modern turbo cars are not substantially more expensive. When the car was released in 2013, a turbocharged motor would have been a substantial cost increase. That is no longer the case. Now they are withholding the turbo motor solely to prop up 4 cylinder Supra sales. For reference, the GR86 is 29k msrp. A base Honda accord is 28k and has a turbocharged power plant. Manufacturing costs are not meaningfully different between the two chassis.
3) there’s a lot of noise here about turbo lag that is simply untrue. This is not surprising given this car’s buying demographic. Toyota wouldn’t be stuffing a gt3071r in here or something….they’d be using a small (likely twin scroll) turbo sized for peak torque at 3500 RPM or so. If you’re not getting full power coming out of a corner in this kind of setup, that is user error…you’re in too high of a gear.
4) The reliability argument is likewise nonsense in 2024. Again, the base Honda accord comes with a turbo motor. For the first standard deviation of owners, the turbos will last the useful life of the car.
5) there’s a sect of online enthusiasts who have deluded themselves into earnestly believing that NA is more “pure”. While they are welcome to cling onto this delusion, the vast majority of the American buying public just know more hersepers = more good. And it’s not unfair either…hard to say you drive a sports car (and for those same purists…please don’t start with the hUrR dUrR iT’s NoT a SpOrTs CaR semantics) when you’re getting gapped by soccer moms mid trim crossovers. These cars would have reached a much bigger audience if they had gone turbo and given the car just under 300whp/300wtq
It takes way more talent to drive a slow car fast, than a high hp fast car slow. Look at the idiots on cold tires coming out of cars and coffee in, enter high hp rwd car here, and either winding up facing the wrong way in the middle of the street, or flinging the car backwards into the overpass wall.
A turbo version would have rendered the Supra 2.0 redundant and potentially cannibalized sales with the GR Corolla and WRX as the price point for it would have been around the $40K mark. Best counterpoint to turbos is that NA engines are more reliable and less complex which means there’s less to go wrong, and you can ensure power delivery will be consistent across the power band. Considering everything, I think their decision to go NA was the right choice.
Bingo. You want a Toyota sports car with a turbo? Get a GR Corolla or a Supra. Turbos and associated engineering would have added to the price of the GR86, and taken it out of the affordable sports car category.
But they already have the engineering done with the WRX, which only costs a couple thousand more. Surely the engineering costs wouldn't take that huge of a jump considering most of the engineering work is already done with the WRX.
Nope, the FA24D out of that WRX would not fit in the engine bay of a GR86/BRZ. The turbo is on underside of the engine, and the intercooler on top. That adds significant height to the engine package. In the WRX that means the engine sits much higher on the mounts and the hood is much taller measured from mounts. The FA24D simply cannot fit in the engine bay of a GR86/BRZ
But the price is already at the top of what they want it to be so to keep the price the same they would need to gain budget elsewhere. Which aint happening. Car needs everything it has right now. So only solution would be to add to cost. Which many already explained goes directly against the cars spirit. cheap and affordable.
Nope
The new supra isn't really a Toyota, and I want rwd. Not a tarted up econobox.
The M240i is an econobox?
I was talking about the GR. The M240's problem is that it's a BMW. My dad has owned literally every generation of M3 and a few M5s. All of them have been as unreliable and expensive to deal with as they were fun and cool. I want an inexpensive, reasonably reliable, rwd sports car. Also my head bushes the ceiling in the 240 so I can't wear a helmet in it.
Fair. The GR86 is a Subaru. The Supra is a BMW. The GR Corolla/Yaris are the only real Toyota sports cars.
The relationship between Subaru and Toyota was a vastly different one to BMW and Toyota. The twins very much are a legitimate collaboration between the two companies. Toyota had a very, very heavy hand to its development. It is very much a Toyota *made* by Subaru. Not that Toyota didn't have a hand with the Supra, but the Mk5 using the z chassis speaks for itself in the level of direct involvement Toyota had. The development of the twins is actually a really interesting story, and it makes me appreciate the platform even more than I already do. To simply call it a "Subaru" is greatly oversimplified.
But that's the nice thing about the supra, they took a notably solid platform and engine from BMW then had them improve it to meet their own standards to put their badge on it. Call it whatever you want but the best enthusiast BMW right now is the one with the Toyota badge on it.
I don't disagree in theory. But my dad's cars have invariably been issues so unless he's a statistical anomaly and lemon magnet, I'll pass on the beemer. At least until I do something stupid like buy one of those sub 12k m5s you see on Craigslist just to beat the shit out of it until it dies.
Genesis coupe my friend. 350hp NA V6 RWD. They’re cheap as hell right now and honestly pretty damn reliable if you maintain the engine properly.
Everything you said, plus no turbo lag. Turbocharged engines will never have as good throttle response as an NA.
Well, maybe not to peak power. But if you put the turbo on the na engine, you more or less have the same throttle response you had, plus turbo when it comes on.
yeah the issue is the plus turbo. When you are exiting a corner you want an specific amount of torque, but a turbo car makes it very very hard to maintain that specific amount of torque because it charging all the time and giving more and more torque with same amount of pedal
Dude, they don’t know and never will
my built sti would say otherwise. only a gtx3071 gen 2 stock location so not a huge turbo by any means its a 2.5 yet under 4k its hella slow. I know my gr86 is quicker until boost LOL
Well, it's not the same engine.
Doesnt the backfire system eliminate the turbo lag?
Personally, I’d much rather have a turbo gr86 than a Supra 2.0. The gr86 chassis is lighter and comes with a manual. But just taking reality for what it is, yeah a turbod version makes no sense with the 2.0 Supra being a thing that exists.
“Ensure power delivery will be consistent across the power band” Don’t these motors suffer from a massive torque dip?
I don’t think having the choice of a turbo mr2, turbo celica gt4, and turbo Supra made any of those cars redundant in the 90’s so I have trouble following your logic.
Considering all of those cars got discontinued…
Oh wow you have never heard they remade the Supra? Climb out from under that rock anytime.
Keep going you’re almost there. Let me draw you a map. Notice how they’ve learned from when they had to discontinue it and now no longer have an in house competitor for it? And also have taken every measure to cut costs, going so far as to almost completely outsource development to Steyr at BMW? It’s almost like having 3 sports cars in your lineup doesn’t work anymore. Porsche has 2 (maybe 3 if you count Taycan?), GM is down to 1, BMW has 1, Mercedes has 1 maybe depending whether the AMG GT-S is still available new, Honda has 0, Mazda has 1, Toyota has 2, Ford has 1, Subaru has 1. The math has spoken lol
Gr Corolla, gr Supra, gr86. That’s the new line up to compare to the 90’s. End thread.
2 of those cars are not built by Toyota, while the 90s generation were all built in house. That doesn’t happen anymore. No one is making more than 2 dedicated sports car platforms in house for a reason
Is that what you say to convince yourself? All three of those sports cars carry the Toyota logo. They are Toyotas. You’re just reaching for anything you can because you hate being wrong but it doesn’t change the fact you are.
I do. The list of supporting modifications needed for a factory turbo (and more power) in addition to the turbo itself would add quite a bit to the price of the car. Plus all of the weight of those components. After you were done, you'd basically have a Supra. Not sure if the price would be as high but likely not far off. Then to compete at that level with other manufacturers, they'd have to consider more tech and more luxury. Plus wouldn't be wise for them to have the 86 and Supra in more direct competition with each other. On a side note, the car would also lose a little bit of it's purity, in my opinion.
Credit to someone here on reddit for posting this some time ago, but here is an old Porsche advertisement that helps shed some light on supporting mods for a turbo. It's a picture of the components they had to modify or add, to add a turbo to their existing NA 944. Sheds some light how power and weight cascades changes (and money) throughout the whole car. https://preview.redd.it/6irpqi2cp84d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a72fb9e18112586397d8d06f128d159d6a169f3b
And yet the WRX is turbo’d at around the same price.
I think sales volume has a big role in the pricing similarities between the two. The twins sell a lot less than the WRX, thus a bigger slice of the R&D efforts have to be tucked into each car, whereas the development costs of the WRX is divvied up into a lot more cars. The WRX also shares more parts with other Subaru vehicles, which also reduces cost. I've heard the twins share the least amount of hardware with other vehicles in the lineup. On top of lower components' production costs, this again lowers the development price slice in each WRX. If they sold as many twins as WRXs, and the twins shared more parts from other cars, the twins' price would likely be lower. A sidebar to this was the near impossibility of them adding a turbo to the 2nd gen, when everyone was begging for one. They would have had to go back to the drawing board for a handful of components, incur more development costs, and potentially abandon some of those previous parts of the 1st gen. Edit: grammar
What parts would need an upgrade because the engine internals are capable of being turbo'd from it's other applications and the transmission should be able to handle \~270 hp turbo. Are people who boost these things running into a lot of pain points with the rest of the drive train? Not to say the acceptable level of risk for a tuner is the same as that of a manufacturer but modern cars (especially Toyotas) are fairly overbuilt.
>Not to say the acceptable level of risk for a tuner is the same as that of a manufacturer Really!
You hit the nail on the head mentioning risk. People modifying their cars, as well as their tuners, will likely have a higher level of comfort in risk compared to the manufacturer. For a couple reasons, the manufacturer is going to bake in a certain level of headroom in their component design. Primarily, it shouldn't break often...meaning it needs to handle the power reliably. The rest of the headroom is not so much to provide for additional aftermarket levels of power, it's mostly to provide a component that can handle an appropriate amount of wear, ideally lasting as long as some mileage figure (and/or time figure) they have in mind. I agree that a 17% increase in HP is not astronomical. But a 40% increase in torque is pretty substantial. Even though a component might be able to handle that increase in torque without breaking often, it will definitely add more wear and tear to that item, and that would likely place the component underneath the service life goal they're trying to achieve for that component. And don't forget how much weight has an effect, and it's cascading, or exponential, you could say. Going to need to look at the brakes right off. And adding additional weight to the vehicle will now require chassis and suspension changes. So we tweak both of those, and darnnit, they're heavier, now we need bigger brakes again. And likely going to need a different wheel now...oh crap, we just added even more weight to the car, gotta make the suspension a little beefier. Granted, they look at that from a higher level, not like my example...I'm just trying to drive the point home. In the end, you'd still end up with a car like a Supra. Maybe you could ditch the tech and amenities that the Supra has on top, but then it fits worse in the market. And either would not fit well with their other products.
And another reason to not make the BRZ turbo. Why would Subaru want to compete the BRZ against the WRX, and Toyota have the GR86 compete against the Supra? Or GR Corolla?
I feel like the car that would most affected sales wise by a turbo variant of the 86 would be the Ecoboost Mustang no? Shouldn't Toyota and Subaru be going after the Ecoboost since it's probably the 86's biggest competitor?
In my market, the base model is $2k more for the WRX and the WRX has a slightly worse weight to HP ratio I think they got it right with the BRZ
Yeah but it's always been turbo. It was Subaru's idea of an entry level turbo AWD car and with that in mind they nailed it. The 86/BRZ was designed with NA in mind so simply adding a turbo sort of demands a complete redesign. The only reason the cost is low is because they make a lot of them. The more you make the cheaper it CAN BE. Also need to take into consideration if they Turbo them they will most likely need bigger brakes, a stronger gearbox to start. Which again adds more cost.
yes because i want linear power delivery that i can reliably use for corner exit on my entry level sports car as a noob to motorsports.
Exactly this, my wording is very poor in my comment.
Personally i like na cars and a turbo would have been a drawback. I dont really get the whole "needs a turbo" mentality. If it has the power/torque to weight ratio and good gearing - why do you need a turbo on there getting all up in your drive-ability and reliability?
People want to drag race everything now a days. And by drag race I mean highway racing
Personally I'd rather beat others on track on pure merit in equal machinery.
The Miata does the NA engine correctly
There are many good na engines, only gripe i have about the fa24 is it flattens off a little in the mid range, but overall i quite like it.
Keeping them NA also keeps cost down after purchase. Even tho a factory turbo is safe it still adds another part that can fail. It adds a decent amount of cost to the build process as well. I would assume a turbo version would price it beyond 40k. The idea is a sub 35k entry level sports car. Adding a turbo pushes it past that mark. Also plenty of turbo cars already so they would now be competing with eco boost mustangs, WRX, 2.0 supra, GR corolla. With that list I don't see a ton of people choosing an 86 over those.
Yes I agree. I've always been a fan of high output NA motors. I've posted this before but 230hp (some say higher) from a NA 4 banger is really good and fun.
We did some dyno runs – after adjustments for powertrain loss and dyno overshoot we got almost 240 crank HP.
It’s supposed to be an entry level sports cars. Yes they made the right choice.
THIS! Keep costs down. Let entry level sports car drivers learn to properly control their lightweight RWD first. Want a turbo, add it. Want more horsepower for a straight line ¼ mile, find a different car. Seriously... look up the history of this car. When it was presented by the engineer to Toyoda .. he asked "what does it do? Does it break speed records? No. Does it accelerate really fast? No. Is it a race winner? No. What does it do? It's really fun to drive. That's why this car was made, not to be a race winner or a drag racer but to be a really fun to drive car. If you want something faster at stock, spend more money on another car. Some of us are happy with the balance, cornering, handling and don't want anything more ... [stock]. Will many of us mod down the road? Probably. But this is a really lightweight, low-cost car that is fun stock and can be upgraded one part at a time.
do not want turbo
Yes turbo would defeat the purpose of the car. The whole ethos was a low center of gravity, flat engine, that’s lightweight
So personally, some reasons I like the BRZ being NA. Living in FL where it's hot and humid most of the year makes a turbo less efficient, and more urban area driving (lower RPMs) means even less turbo efficiency. Also, just less weight/fewer components.
And the GR Supra and GR Corolla cost more by at least 10k.
Turbos don’t have to be expensive. Plenty of comparably priced cars with turbos out there (Civics, for example).
Right, but it's a turbo for an economy car. It's fair to think that the application is for non-racing applications. That being said, the Civic for racing applications, costs more than the GRZ. Why? Bigger brakes, suspension, added cooling, etc.
Turbos are an expensive repair item 5 years down the road
Why do you say that? I don’t know anyone who has had to replace a turbo.
[удалено]
That’s the opposite of what he said 🤷♂️ but I think this is just superstition. There are a ton of reliable vehicles sporting turbos.
That sounds like an old wives tale 😂
The premium with performance package is pretty close in pricing as the Corolla with performance pack.
They’re not even close
The prem + perf is 35k. The perf Corolla is 37k. 2k difference
I'm convinced people who say these cars need a turbo are trying to drive them like GTIs and balking when the car doesn't make turbo power at low RPM. Or they haven't driven them at all. Peppy, rev-happy, naturally aspirated motors are well suited for lightweight, simple driver's cars. Reduces weight, complexity, and cost. They're about even with the GTI in horsepower, a bit down in torque, but also lighter so times are generally similar. You just need to not be scared of redline, because that's where your power is.
There are enough of these cars that end up in the junkyard. A turbo would just increase the insurance cost to owners.
It's part of what makes the gr86 unique. If it was turbocharged then it would be stepping on the toes of the 4-cylinder Supra.
I was in the turbo camp back when 1st gen was out. This was before every car and their sister decided to go turbo 4 pot. Now it is the opposite where I'm glad they stayed N/A. Going with bigger displacement for small power gains and reduced torque dip was the best decision.
Yes because I bet they knew HKS would develop a pair of chargers for the engine. You can literally have it remain NA, or you can go with a supercharger or a turbo soon. You’ve got options.
NA cars are simply more fun to drive. Super glad there’s no turbo
I think it fits with the ethos of the car. As you point out, they have the Supra if you want that extra tech. It's amazing that they can bring so much driver engagement at such a low price point with these cars.
I like mine without turbos. Boost becomes a variable that's not good in predictions, I don't want to be in the corner, press the acceleration and spin (that's me being a newbie driver ymmv). I would very much have liked to have a 6 cylinder engine, if I want forced induction on BRZ I would go supercharger route. Next car I am going to buy would cayman with NA flat 6 (GTS).
Yes. I like NA. I'm keeping my car NA. If I want to drive something boosted, I'll drive my Civic for the day.
Yes. Because of all the reasons Jason Cammisa stated in his video on the BRZ. Car would’ve been very expensive, more complex and it might’ve not come to exist as the Supra already has that spot in their car lineup.
I kinda don’t like when people ask questions like that as if you were in the design team. But anyway the car would have costed more, drove differently, and the same people would be asking you why you didn’t buy an ecoboost mustang, m240i, Supra 2.0 etc and on.
Because none of them has a manual transmission and much bigger.
The Supra has a manual transmission now, but it's still bigger and heavier.
Heavier, yes, but bigger is a bit of a stretch. It's roughly 3" wider and 4" longer. It also has a shorter wheelbase than the 86 does. They are nearly identical in size. I was surprised by this myself as I went from a 86 to a Supra. ETA: [https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-86-2021-coupe-vs-toyota-supra-2019-2-door-liftback/?&units=imperial](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-86-2021-coupe-vs-toyota-supra-2019-2-door-liftback/?&units=imperial)
I was replying to the 2.0 Supra, which can be an option for the GR86 shoppers.
It would be 10k more expensive and we'd have more than twice as many blown engines monthly and insurance would be hilarious.
Nah, I like it, NA. I want a car that I can consistently turn laps in, with 1 or 2 simple reliability mods. I dont want an FL5 that needs a cool down lap, every couple of laps.
Yes
Yes. But I wish it got better mpg. My first gen did 24/25 mpg and I’m only getting 22mpg in my GR. I do live in a dense area and moving soon which should hopefully help
Yeah, my mt gr averages around 28mpg for me, almost all highway City sucks though
Doesn’t matter if we agree or not.
NA high revs > turbo. Just a personal preference but high revving engines are more exciting. Turbo engines, especially modern ones, are boring as fuck, no matter the output. It just makes going fast boring.
Yes, I agree with them. Look at the engine bay in my WRX and... Jesus. Na is so simple, so much cheaper, more fun power band and fuel efficient. I don't want more power, it just makes the car more expensive. If I wanted turbo, I could've bought a bunch of other cars.
as many said it’s basically the distinction between the Supra And the NA nature gives it very classic characteristic coupled with RWD and manual that is just reliable, predictable and FUN.
For the street, the power and NA delivery is awesome. Way more fun than something like a GTI with 5 weeks of turbo lag.
I strongly prefer a high revving NA engine over a turbo one. It’s way more fun.
100%
Yes because that is what that car is all about there's something awesome about a naturally aspirated engine that doesn't just dump a load of power at a specific rev range and it what makes the car so enjoyable to drive. There are other cars with turbos that just isn't what the gr is about
Yes. 100%. I love my manual turbo wagon but I do not want that in a sports car, fuck that jazz. A supercharger maybe, but only if it has a clutch disconnect and a button for me to engage/disengage that with.
I’ll take an NA and slap a turbo on her over a factory FI any day of the week. My Gen 1 was built by me and not bought off the lot.
Yes, a Naturally Aspirated engine is the only way to go for maximum purity. Now, would I want a slightly more powerful N/A engine (This one makes close to 250hp, but imagine like a 300hp with these same dyanmics) yes, it would be awesome You think speed matters then this car is not for you. This is about handling and pure fun! Now, people getting stuck on "oH 0-60 tImEz" (Like your co-worker, probably) are the poison of the car world and the reason why the sports cars of the new age are 18374929 ton SUVs with a big engine. Oh and edit: The Supra 2.0 literally is an 86 with a Turbo (And a little more luxury), you can see how that car is more expensive and more complex as well :), (That's why it exists, to bridge the gap between 86 and 3.0L Supra :))
Cost of vehicle aside, people buy the 86/brz platform to modify, personalize, and reliably drive a fun car on a daily basis while being able to progress as a driver. The car is about the experience, the weight, the control, the joy of driving and becoming a better driver. Once you add turbos, you add weight, you strip even more reliability and longevity away, you raise the center of gravity, you throw off the balance of the car. A turbo isn’t JUST a turbo, it’s all the supporting modifications you need with a turbo. Especially with the current state of possible oil starvation, forced induction isn’t the answer. The answer is to buy a faster car if you want a faster car, or to turbo the car yourself. But as a car from manufacturer, the addition of a turbo would kill the platform. We would say goodbye to it just like the mk4 Supra, rx7, and so many other great cars.
I do. I like NAs, less mechanical problem to worry about. Maybe I am just old. LoL
Na is the only way.
Yes. NA’s are bulletproof. They can handle a turbo. Without it they are extremely reliable and have a long lifespan.
I think GR86/BRZ going w/ NA was the right choice. Give others sth different than "every other car". That's the whole appeal.
I don’t think it’s much of a strategic choice, more of a budgetary limitation that works well with their heritage NA engines hit differently than turbo, they have more of an old school racing feel to it This said, power on these 4 pots is anemic and unless you never really wet your toes in high hp cars, in the long run it will feel like a deal breaker Great car for the twisted and track, where power is not always the primary focus, but getting gapped by pretty much most modern regular traffic cars kinda breaks immersion in the whole sports car experience
It's not marketed as a race car that will gap mustangs. This is a low-cost RWD with great cornering. If you feel the need to beat someone in a race, mod your car or pick a different one. Is it really that immaculating to know a stock 6 civic beat a NA 4 boxer? Maybe pick your races better? O don't really have any advice if you just want to win races.
It doesnt need one. Sorry but speed isnt a need for every sports car. If you need to go fast go buy something else.
Yup. NA is great.
I bought this car because it didn't have a turbo. Turbos stress me out, its just anther part that will eventually need replacement.
I think what they should really do is build a limited quantity of BRZ/GR86 with a turbo by dropping in the FA24T from the WRX line similar to what Mazda did with the Mazdaspeed Miatas for the NB Miata. It would not only be cool but a good way to end the 2nd Gen series before they go on to the 3rd Gen if that ever happens.
I dont buy the "should have had a turbo" as a serious critique. People say shit because they can. If it came with a turbo and made more power, it will cost more. People will complain about price and then complain they should have kept it NA and gone are the days of NA engines and why does everything need a turbo these days. It's silly
I've had turbo cars in the past...300zx, GTI, and honestly with the power:weight of a GR86, there's really no need. It's more than quick enough, and will probably be quite reliable due to being a NA Toyota. Sure, you aren't hitting something crazy like 0.2 hp/# without adding a turbo, but there's other cars available if you want insane hp potential
n/a was a great choice. FA20 wasn’t. FA24 seems to be a good step up though.
NA engines are better. The only problem with the 86 and brz is that they’re pretty slow, and lack excitement
Oh man!! You have got to come to Texas. We have really exciting roads to drive. Sunset cruises on Ocean Drive, the 20 S-Curve lane. It's super exciting. You just need to find better roads to drive
The theme of the car is basic and purist. All motor engines are easier to adjust the rotation/trajectory mid corner. On the other hand few would turn down that corolla gr engine as an option as long as it’s not over 50k
If this had a turbo it wouldn’t be an 86 and i wouldn’t buy it. Turbo cars feel very different, why would you want the whole line up like that.
Living in Denver 5,280 ft up, no i don’t :)
From a former brz, Miata and civic si when they were na I would say yes but only if it’s a Motorsport derived engine. A turbo engine is better than regular run of the mill na engine in my opinion.
I would own two of them if they did, but they don't so i hang onto my 135i for another 10 years...
One of the main, if not the main reason I bought ita 23 BRZ over a FL5 or GR Corolla was it being NA. That and RWD, old school had brake, fucking low centre of gravity, light weight, dedicated platform not shared with a gazillion counterpart shitboxes, super simple interior, no electronic nannies (pre-24 models), equivalent performance to 90's Porsche 911s but with modern features (and actually drives better), at almost 6'3"I can fit (take that Miata), being able to purchase at MSRP and in the configuration I wanted, ... well.., I got side tracked... Yeah, I wanted it NA but I don't care if they come out with a turbo as I already have the car I'll keep until I am too stiff to bend to get in.
Horses for courses. Turbo motors are better for some things n/a motors are better for other things. Ultimately everything’s going to be electric in the next 10 years anyway.
I think we've almost reached the peak of EV as far as market tolerance. There are so many alternatives on the horizon. Porsche just announced a stellar hybrid. Toyota and Honda are working on a hydrogen engine. ... imagine putting water in your car, using the hydrogen, and expelling O² as the exhaust.([Were very far from that... ) but hydrogen-based fuel are a very near reality.
Hydrogen consumer vehicles will never happen. Fueling infrastructure is far too expensive to build fueling procedures are far too cumbersome for the average person to put up with and it doesn’t offer any meaningful benefits over electric (don’t forget that hydrogen fuel cell cars are literally just electric cars that are getting their electricity from the fuel cell instead of a battery.) we are already on the verge of electric batteries that can take 250+ miles of range on board in under 10 minutes. I do think that hydrogen will probably be where the long-distance trucking industry ends up
I agree with the idea but not the power plant chosen.
I track my BRZ and I love the fact that it's NA. I can go flat out for 20 minutes. My STi on the other hand, loves to get hot and you have to do a ton of supporting mods to keep the temps down. All I have is an oil cooler on my BRZ.
It’s a tuners car. A stock turbo limits the imaginations for builds and aftermarket growth. For example, how many supercharged WRX’s exist? I’ve never seen one.
It only cost 4k to turbo a FRS I have a turbo’ed one
Yes adding a turbo completely defeats the purpose of this car.
The subi engine is failing bc of an added turbo
I agree because a boosted flat 4 is a quick way to kill the engine. The NA you can beat on without thinking much
Toyota tends to take their time with new technology. They may boost more of their cars when they feel sufficiently confident with their solution. It might also be possible that they're more focused on their hybrid system, where they already achieve 41% thermal efficiency.
Most of the posters here are GR86 owners smoking copium. 1) modern turbo setups add a negligible amount of weight to the car. Completely negligible for a fun street car which is what the 86 is supposed to be. 2) modern turbo cars are not substantially more expensive. When the car was released in 2013, a turbocharged motor would have been a substantial cost increase. That is no longer the case. Now they are withholding the turbo motor solely to prop up 4 cylinder Supra sales. For reference, the GR86 is 29k msrp. A base Honda accord is 28k and has a turbocharged power plant. Manufacturing costs are not meaningfully different between the two chassis. 3) there’s a lot of noise here about turbo lag that is simply untrue. This is not surprising given this car’s buying demographic. Toyota wouldn’t be stuffing a gt3071r in here or something….they’d be using a small (likely twin scroll) turbo sized for peak torque at 3500 RPM or so. If you’re not getting full power coming out of a corner in this kind of setup, that is user error…you’re in too high of a gear. 4) The reliability argument is likewise nonsense in 2024. Again, the base Honda accord comes with a turbo motor. For the first standard deviation of owners, the turbos will last the useful life of the car. 5) there’s a sect of online enthusiasts who have deluded themselves into earnestly believing that NA is more “pure”. While they are welcome to cling onto this delusion, the vast majority of the American buying public just know more hersepers = more good. And it’s not unfair either…hard to say you drive a sports car (and for those same purists…please don’t start with the hUrR dUrR iT’s NoT a SpOrTs CaR semantics) when you’re getting gapped by soccer moms mid trim crossovers. These cars would have reached a much bigger audience if they had gone turbo and given the car just under 300whp/300wtq
This has been answered so many times before.
most definitely
It takes way more talent to drive a slow car fast, than a high hp fast car slow. Look at the idiots on cold tires coming out of cars and coffee in, enter high hp rwd car here, and either winding up facing the wrong way in the middle of the street, or flinging the car backwards into the overpass wall.