why toyota should have developed a car with honda instead...

[d1 mule]

^ if there were 2 options and you brought the 1zz version you should have been taken out the back and shot.

[Mr Revhead]

Not at all. Ever driven a 2zz? Most people would crash one with that power delivery

[Tha_INS]

Mid Ship Chassis + 2GR-FSE + Supercharger = Lotus Evora

http://www.lotuscars.com/gb/our-cars/cu ... vora-range

PS: Interesting Fact - Lotus Esprit uses Toyota AE86 Tail Lights.

lotus is not cheap...

[rollaholic]

Even in the FT-86 I think they should have used the 2ZZ-GE which I think is a great little engine. Boxer engines are crap, everyone knows it. I know people will say oh it has lower centre of gravity, but original AE86 didn't have a boxer engine & it handled great.

Toyota are just too lazy nowadays and driven by conservative board of directors that don't like sports cars.

I can assure everyone there is still plenty of demand for sports cars or else companies like AMG, HSV etc wouldn't exist.

sorry what?

theres nothing wrong with boxer engines at all. have you ever heard of a brand called porsche? early subarus might have given rise to a few reliability urban legends, but there is nothing inherently wrong with boxers.

AE86 didnt have a boxer engine its true, and it handled reasonably well compared to cars of its era. times have changed.

as for toyota not liking sports cars, i was under the impression the new CEO was mad keen on sports cars - hences toyotas renewed involvement in motorsports here and there, and the FT86 existing at all.

as for AMG and HSV... by and large they mostly exist to increase the wank factor of already overpriced exec mobiles. (adding more power to overweight four door does not make a sports car)

[Mr Revhead]

Even in the FT-86 I think they should have used the 2ZZ-GE which I think is a great little engine. Boxer engines are crap, everyone knows it. I know people will say oh it has lower centre of gravity, but original AE86 didn't have a boxer engine & it handled great.

Toyota are just too lazy nowadays and driven by conservative board of directors that don't like sports cars.

I can assure everyone there is still plenty of demand for sports cars or else companies like AMG, HSV etc wouldn't exist.

sorry what?

theres nothing wrong with boxer engines at all. have you ever heard of a brand called porsche? early subarus might have given rise to a few reliability urban legends, but there is nothing inherently wrong with boxers.

AE86 didnt have a boxer engine its true, and it handled reasonably well compared to cars of its era. times have changed.

as for toyota not liking sports cars, i was under the impression the new CEO was mad keen on sports cars - hences toyotas renewed involvement in motorsports here and there, and the FT86 existing at all.

as for AMG and HSV... by and large they mostly exist to increase the wank factor of already overpriced exec mobiles. (adding more power to overweight four door does not make a sports car)

The nail has just been smashed on the head.

FYI Toyotas CEO is not only mad keen on sports car, he races them!

I think we are seeing a new wave of excitement at Toyota

[Lloyd]

I, for one, love waves of excitement.

[Bling]

fkn lol

[Girvs]

In terms of sporty cars 1994 had the Levin

Sporty?? Really???

[RunningRich]

20 valve high revving engine in a coupe shell. Compared to what they currently make (FT86 excluded) yes that is sporty.

Cars such as the GT-Four and Supra were $&#$% expensive back in the day (my GT-Four has a list price of $96,000 and the leather was a cost option on top of that!). Having a budget "sporty" range of cars that younger people can afford should be considered mandatory for a car maker such as Toyota.

[Girvs]

I'd disagree, just because an engine rev's higher doesn't make it sporty.

Yes the other cars were expensive, because they were designed to be held in higher regard i.e. the sports division of Toyota. The extra costs, time effort and research that goes into making a car more "sporty" is reflected in the cost, its why there are not really than many "budget" sports cars.
I think it also comes down to personal opinion on making mandatory budget sporty cars. I don't foresee the FT86 as overly Sporty, you have a slow car than handles exceptionally well. Sure it maybe faster than your average Mazda 2 in a straight line, but its not got a huge amount going for it power wise, which is why people are ripping out the Subaru engines and putting something with substance in there.

[RunningRich]

Conversely just because an engine is powerful it does not mean it is sporty.

99.9% of buyers will keep the original engine in the FT86.

Budget sporty cars are needed for a car maker to make a profit. They are bought by mothers and 20 something's that don't care about fire-breathing grunty cars. High price sporty cars (like the GT-Four or Supra) didn't make much profit due to small volume of cars produced due to the niche market they were in.

Do you believe that the AE86 was a sporty car? Definitely not powerful. How about a Lotus Elan or a 1990 MX5?

[RomanV]

inb4 20 pages of people arguing their subjective opinion of 'sports car'

[Girvs]

Conversely just because an engine is powerful it does not mean it is sporty.

99.9% of buyers will keep the original engine in the FT86.

Budget sporty cars are needed for a car maker to make a profit. They are bought by mothers and 20 something's that don't care about fire-breathing grunty cars. High price sporty cars (like the GT-Four or Supra) didn't make much profit due to small volume of cars produced due to the niche market they were in.

Do you believe that the AE86 was a sporty car? Definitely not powerful. How about a Lotus Elan or a 1990 MX5?

Exactly, so the engine conversion is to try and make an unsporty car sporty. Which was my point, you need to modify the factory car to put it inline with that which came out factory as "sporty", hence why I don't find the new 86 as sporty.

As far as your examples go. MX5 no, just a well balanced car. The AE86 is much inline with that the FT86 is, well balanced and good handling, but not a huge amount of power. Not familiar with the Lotus to comment on it. For their era they were probably alright...well the MX5 was fairly modern in comparison to the AE86, so you'd expect for a factory car it should handle better.

I see the point you're trying to get at about cheapish "sporty" cars, so you're talking more inline of the calibre of GT starlets and the likes.

I'll try to keep it to a few posts Roman

[RunningRich]

Not familiar with the Lotus to comment on it. For their era they were probably alright...

Nuf said about continuing this discussion...

[Girvs]

Not familiar with the Lotus to comment on it. For their era they were probably alright...

Nuf said about continuing this discussion...

Having never been in one its not a fair comment is it

[Mr Revhead]

Sporty does not need a big engine, or to be fast in a straight line.
Show people an mx5 and a supra and most will pick the mx5 as a sports car not the supra.
When in reality, they both qualify

[MAC_HATER]

trouble is you can buy too low and end up with a 1G-E GA70 Supra with an auto trans and an open diff

that aint no sports car

[RomanV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car

[Truenotch]

Here's one man's opinion on the matter. Substitute the Z car for a Supra and we have a similar scenario.

http://youtu.be/JUhLXvxlQR4

[TTEETT]

Except the Supra is 20 years old and nowhere near as good as a modern 370z.. or even a 350z.

In term s of a car being sporty I would rate a 20v Levin higher than a Supra or Celica, both were heavy over priced pigs in an age where more was more, the GT-4 was only in existence so a rally team in Europe could build a rally car and the Supra was a GT car aimed at people who wanted a powerful car to cover distance in.