For fun, not bar bragging, lap times, but fun..
- Thread starter Indi9xx
- Start date
OLD_ian
New member
Hah! yes it is. The other day I was sat in the passenger seat of our MDs Toyota Prius going 20 mph through traffic. The shiny new Jag in the next lane was going the same speed yet sounded like the starting grid of an F1 race. it sounded great, but come on... it must have been practically idling, but was very shouty and loud.
George Elliott
New member
Paul, no - it would be unfair to make a bhp centred comparison. I approached it as a 944 replacement, an up to date 944.......compact, practical, well made, nice balance, nice controls, nice steer.
Now what you get is, compact, practical, well made in a Japanese way (tinny metal work, superior electricals, good finish, cheap seats) so far no surprises, and I wanted to like the car. Then turn the key and listen to the magi-mix[
], which does a big rev on cold start when the shells have no oil pressure, and sits ticking over like a 125cc Yamaha[&:] breathing through a catalysed pea-shooter. (I'm out at this point.) but I've started so i'll finish. Depress clutch.....lovely light action and devoid of feel[&:], engage first, nice direct mechanical feel - no cable change backlash evident and not numb with rubberisation, then touch the throttle and the fly by wire input flows into the ECU with digital clunkiness, and the engine revs respond indirectly to the proportion of the throttle movement, and the rev counter responds according to some algorithm which is out of sync with the crankshaft revolutions. OK, so its a modern setup and we have to accept all this electronic interference, what happens once the road is clear ahead...[][][]not much, the rear digs in like a teaspoon and the revs fly round the Counter as the harsh mechanical sound effects of the engine spinning so fast vibrate through the cabin, the speed starts a slow climb from the zero position.......the steering is pin sharp and light to touch, I dont know if its accurate as there is no power to direct anyway....[8|]
That is my honest experience of the GT86, protect the sills of your 944z folks.
George
944t
Indi9xx
New member
Interesting read George! Shame it was that bad, the concept seemed quite sound and the reviews quite glowing.. But then again, its probably the press comparing it against a different band of cars and us comparing it against a 944.. The 944 when new, was something you would finance with a mortgage, the GT86 is something you could buy on a credit card! lol
I think I would like two different track cars, one being something like a 944 lux on a diet and skinny tyres for castle combe, bedford, Blyton Park, then a tuned and tripped out 944 Turbo for Silverstone, Spa and the Nurburgring... Then keep my white turbo as my pampered car.. So much for cutting down to two Porsche/
I think I would like two different track cars, one being something like a 944 lux on a diet and skinny tyres for castle combe, bedford, Blyton Park, then a tuned and tripped out 944 Turbo for Silverstone, Spa and the Nurburgring... Then keep my white turbo as my pampered car.. So much for cutting down to two Porsche
/
pauljmcnulty
Active member
My thoughts exactly! [
]I guess I'd be looking at it as more of an alternative to a modern hot-hatch, and as such it's a RWD car that's a viable option if you're liiking at a Megane Cup or something. The modern equivalent of a 944 is more likely to be £20K dearer than a GT86.
Going through my Dad's car progression at the time, from memory he went BMW 2002, 323i, Alfa GTV, GTV6, early Lux. They were quite grown up in the day, despite the Japanese trying to compete with cars like the RX7 or Celica/Supra
John H
New member
I drove a BRZ when it first came out and wrote a page about it which was published in Porsche Post, reprinted here http://www.arthurlea.com/Stories/BRZ/index.htm
Sure it's no Porsche, but until Porsche can produce a car this good for £25,000, it's pretty unfair to compare them like for like.
For the record, since driving the BRZ I have driven a few GT86's as well. The differences are subtle, but for me the Toyota is the better road car.
Sure it's no Porsche, but until Porsche can produce a car this good for £25,000, it's pretty unfair to compare them like for like.
For the record, since driving the BRZ I have driven a few GT86's as well. The differences are subtle, but for me the Toyota is the better road car.
Neil Haughey
New member
The Litchfield kit though looks like good value and may well may make the Toyabura a more exciting prospect.
I have to concur on sound. For years I have felt that if I moved away from these cars it has to be to something with a more exciting sound track, if anything many modern warm/hot alternatives have a worse sound track so are a non-starter for me.
I have to concur on sound. For years I have felt that if I moved away from these cars it has to be to something with a more exciting sound track, if anything many modern warm/hot alternatives have a worse sound track so are a non-starter for me.
George Elliott
New member
Jon, if I had a career as an automotive journalist to consider, I'd perhaps say it was marvellous. If Toyota took me for a week long launch in Nice, I could perhaps find other wonderful aspects to it.
But as a 944 driver who enjoys driving cars with character and engineering flair from an era before bling, combined with nasty cheap design and electronically masked controls, I find it unpleasant and totally unattractive. I would rate a good spec Golf TDi with DSG box better built, nicer to drive, free from bling, and definitely faster point to point.
Good to be reminded of cars such as the 2002, 323i, GTV6 Paul, I recall vividly the V6 Alfa orchestra and rear tyres yelping into 2nd gear [
]The bottom line is, there is no 944 equivalent in 2013. The nearest thing there is has to be the GTR Nissan, pity they stuck a nintendo telly on the dash.
George
944t
George Elliott
New member
in the dry[
]
pauljmcnulty
Active member
Well, for a start you can't say there's one 944 to have an equivalent: there is a world of difference between an early Lux and a well-modified turbo, just as there is between a C2 Cab and a GT2.
Someone referred to his 944 as a "dump" car today. A very valid point, as the decent boot and occasional rear seats are a large part of the appeal, and I think you would have to look to 4-seater cars with a good degree of practicality for an equivalent, rather than an alternative like a mid-engined roadster.
Not sure I can get beyond BMW 3-series when I put it that way, though. There's no real 2+2 sport car, front-engined RWD, well-built and reliable, reasonably affordable to buy and run, in the new car ranges I'd go for over something like an M3. If anyone suggests the perfect modern 944, the RX8, then unfortunately it's the engine that lets it down every time. Why can't Mazda, who build some really nice cars now, not find a better engine and make the RX8 worth considering? [
]
John H
New member
ORIGINAL: pauljmcnulty
Why can't Mazda, who build some really nice cars now, not find a better engine and make the RX8 worth considering? [
Simple ... manufacturers these days prioritise maximum profit, not interesting product. Look at Honda, previously my favourite manufacturer of both 2 wheels and 4. They used to make exciting and different cars like Preludes, CRX's and NSX's which were great to drive for enthusiasts. Now they make dull as ditchwater Civics and Jazzes and those ghastly SUV things. Why? Because they sell and make money. Just the same reason that Porsche are moving towards Cayennes and Macans.
pauljmcnulty
Active member
But the RX8 is perversly built to be the opposite: a cracking size, interior layout and a proper transaxle design, but an engine not used in any other car in the range and still unreliable. Bizarre.
For maximum profit, stick one of the good engines from the Mazda range in to the RX8, and they'd have a really desirable car.
George Elliott
New member
if they turbo'd the 1.8v6 from a few years back maybe......have to agree the RX 8 came very close
My second car was a 2.8i Capri (following an inherited Rover 216), and I think that Jon's proposal would be much better than the Capri he harks back to! It was RWD and 0-60 in 8s for a grand, but perfect it was not...
Mine had 205 tyres just like the front of my 944 turbo, and in the wet the front end broke away suddenly and seriously. Shortly after that the rear leaf springs would decide to straighten up and the back end would swing around. I won't say I didn't have fun, and when the front end was in perfect condition (the track control arm bushes wore very quickly), and I had not yet had enough scary incidences to curbmy enthusiasm - I certainly had some sideways fun. Ultimately I got used to the back end behaviour but the front end was very unpredictable in the wet and the enjoyment was gradually replaced with a lack of faith!
No doubt there was a lot of lack in the driver department on my part, and age has probably taught me a bit more skill and respect for my own mortality, but I find my 994t less intimidating - I've only ever had one real near-accident and that was early on when I didn't appreciate the way the power came on as the turbo spooled up.
So in my opinion, a low power skinny tyred 944 would be so much better than your Capri memories, Jon!
Chris
Mine had 205 tyres just like the front of my 944 turbo, and in the wet the front end broke away suddenly and seriously. Shortly after that the rear leaf springs would decide to straighten up and the back end would swing around. I won't say I didn't have fun, and when the front end was in perfect condition (the track control arm bushes wore very quickly), and I had not yet had enough scary incidences to curbmy enthusiasm - I certainly had some sideways fun. Ultimately I got used to the back end behaviour but the front end was very unpredictable in the wet and the enjoyment was gradually replaced with a lack of faith!
No doubt there was a lot of lack in the driver department on my part, and age has probably taught me a bit more skill and respect for my own mortality, but I find my 994t less intimidating - I've only ever had one real near-accident and that was early on when I didn't appreciate the way the power came on as the turbo spooled up.
So in my opinion, a low power skinny tyred 944 would be so much better than your Capri memories, Jon!
Chris
Neil Haughey
New member
We came very close to getting an RX-8 when we got the MX-5 for Steph, lovely car but that engine was a huge mistake for Mazda. ISTR looking at the figures at the time it had the same fuel economy and was in the same tax bracket as the 997tt yet had only half the power. Its like they completely missed the point of what made the MX-5 so great i.e. super low running costs and mega reliability. Modern MX-5s are cars you buy because you don't need the rear seats and luggage space of a hatchback and don't do mega miles each year ala diesels.
The GT86 is very lightweight which is a good thing, many miss this point as Toyota quote the mass all up whereas most other manufacturers tend to lie about what the realistic vehicle mass is i.e. quoting a non-existent base model with no one in it. There was a good thread over on PH about this explaining some of the measured figures in magazine tests. I guess it just goes to show how limp that engine must be as a car with 200 Bhp and much much less weight than an S2 should really fly but it clearly doesn't. ISTR when evo tested the BRZ they got a similar lap time to the old E30 M3 which is 80 Kg heavier and ran a highly strung four pot. Now that just doesn't make sense at all, it should have completely mullered the E30 just by having a more modern stiffer chassis, modern tyres etc. both cars would have had similar size rubber on the road as well. I know it sounds like I am pointing to its performance stats and the car ain't about performance stats but honestly the only way it can be that slow is due to a dud of an engine which is precisely what everyone who has driven the thing seems to report back.
The GT86 is very lightweight which is a good thing, many miss this point as Toyota quote the mass all up whereas most other manufacturers tend to lie about what the realistic vehicle mass is i.e. quoting a non-existent base model with no one in it. There was a good thread over on PH about this explaining some of the measured figures in magazine tests. I guess it just goes to show how limp that engine must be as a car with 200 Bhp and much much less weight than an S2 should really fly but it clearly doesn't. ISTR when evo tested the BRZ they got a similar lap time to the old E30 M3 which is 80 Kg heavier and ran a highly strung four pot. Now that just doesn't make sense at all, it should have completely mullered the E30 just by having a more modern stiffer chassis, modern tyres etc. both cars would have had similar size rubber on the road as well. I know it sounds like I am pointing to its performance stats and the car ain't about performance stats but honestly the only way it can be that slow is due to a dud of an engine which is precisely what everyone who has driven the thing seems to report back.
But if it didn't have a Wankel engine it it, it wouldn't really be an RXx.........
Whether it's true or not, but apparently once rebuilt properly the engines aren't too bad. Certainly plenty of people manage OK with the RX7 wankel engines. You wouldn't think twice about rebuilding a two stroke motorbike engine back in the day (or currently if you still run one), and the Wankel is pretty much a rotor two stroke, sorry - a two cycle four stroke!!
They just need a little more TLC than the common piston engine.
Although, I considered one, but bottled it!! Great cars for the money if you budget in a rebuild.
Indi9xx
New member
The Capri I had, did have wayward handing, which made it fun.. But if I drove one today, it would be way too agricultural to be a car I would want...
As George said, the GT86 has probably had some palms greased to make its reviews so good.. So that is not the car I would want, as the car probably does not exist in the form that the reviewers talk about..
The car I want is one where the suspension and engine has been tuned for fun, not for peak BHP figures, or for maximum road holding, but for fun.. Fun at slower speeds, where you can play with understeer and oversteer at safer speeds, with a setup which is forgiving at the limit, rather than being a hand spanker where you walk a tight rope between the fastest the car can be through a corner, but the margin between road holding and complete loss of control is very narrow.
For this, a 944 or maybe a 924 will be my weapon of choice I think. I would not be standard though, its targets would be to build it with the lightest weight, the best brakes, good suspension and the right level of performance to give it enough speed to keep up with the pace on a non supercar trackday, but also over engined enough to break traction by choice with a bit of provocation.
For over 20 years I have been making Porsche cars have more power, usually massive amounts, to go round corners faster and faster without loss of traction, to make gear changes faster, everything a race car should be... But I do wonder, if what my customers have been asking for, and what I have been giving them is not what would be the most fun for them.. They have ended up with something impressive rather than fun.. Maybe they all want impressive, but what I am wondering now, is with a bit of effort, what do you end up with when you build a 944 to be fun, rather than impressive..
I am guessing, but I think the result might actually be something which is built from the parts bin of cheap to obtain parts from different models, something that is cheap to run (in particular the narrow tyres), and is buckets of fun... Not to mention, may be a lot less stressed than an impressive car, so will be even more bullet proof as a track toy.
But if nothing else, from this thought process about "fun" versus "impressive", I have a new line of questions to ask customers when they say they want their 944 or any Porsche "Improved".
As George said, the GT86 has probably had some palms greased to make its reviews so good.. So that is not the car I would want, as the car probably does not exist in the form that the reviewers talk about..
The car I want is one where the suspension and engine has been tuned for fun, not for peak BHP figures, or for maximum road holding, but for fun.. Fun at slower speeds, where you can play with understeer and oversteer at safer speeds, with a setup which is forgiving at the limit, rather than being a hand spanker where you walk a tight rope between the fastest the car can be through a corner, but the margin between road holding and complete loss of control is very narrow.
For this, a 944 or maybe a 924 will be my weapon of choice I think. I would not be standard though, its targets would be to build it with the lightest weight, the best brakes, good suspension and the right level of performance to give it enough speed to keep up with the pace on a non supercar trackday, but also over engined enough to break traction by choice with a bit of provocation.
For over 20 years I have been making Porsche cars have more power, usually massive amounts, to go round corners faster and faster without loss of traction, to make gear changes faster, everything a race car should be... But I do wonder, if what my customers have been asking for, and what I have been giving them is not what would be the most fun for them.. They have ended up with something impressive rather than fun.. Maybe they all want impressive, but what I am wondering now, is with a bit of effort, what do you end up with when you build a 944 to be fun, rather than impressive..
I am guessing, but I think the result might actually be something which is built from the parts bin of cheap to obtain parts from different models, something that is cheap to run (in particular the narrow tyres), and is buckets of fun... Not to mention, may be a lot less stressed than an impressive car, so will be even more bullet proof as a track toy.
But if nothing else, from this thought process about "fun" versus "impressive", I have a new line of questions to ask customers when they say they want their 944 or any Porsche "Improved".
John H
New member
I would go further, and say that this is a question that Porsche should be asking themselves!
Look at the new GT3. Improved out of all recognition, and undeniably hugely impressive ... but be honest, how much of that can you ever use on modern roads? Frankly I would much rather see Porsche turn their formidable skills to making a fast, small light sports car with massive fuel economy and great fun to drive. Such a car would be much more useful to me than a GT3.
TTM
Well-known member
While full of good intentions I'm afraid this project is not started on right bases.
It's possible to have fun at slow speeds with a massively fast car if it's tuned accordingly, the bottom line being that low end torque will always be needed to wake up the chassis at slow speeds.
Can we get that out of the 2.5 lump? Not in my experience, and I have driven a much-lightened 924S with a 2.5T then a 3.0T engine, and even turbocharged, nicely tuned and used in a lighter car as the 924S the 2.5 engine remains IMO a gutless piece of junk.
I also drove a square dash 944 with complete late offset chassis parts, M030 brakes all around, KW V3, powerflexed everywhere and super lowered, and while the handling was surreal it made the car starve for more power, which is why the owner ended up dropping a 2.5T engine in it. It now feels a bit better but the shorter S2 gearbox would be most welcome, again because that 2.5 engine so gutless.
If I wanted to have cheap fun at low speed, I can't reasonably imagine going for anything different from a GTI from the 90s.
It's possible to have fun at slow speeds with a massively fast car if it's tuned accordingly, the bottom line being that low end torque will always be needed to wake up the chassis at slow speeds.
Can we get that out of the 2.5 lump? Not in my experience, and I have driven a much-lightened 924S with a 2.5T then a 3.0T engine, and even turbocharged, nicely tuned and used in a lighter car as the 924S the 2.5 engine remains IMO a gutless piece of junk.
I also drove a square dash 944 with complete late offset chassis parts, M030 brakes all around, KW V3, powerflexed everywhere and super lowered, and while the handling was surreal it made the car starve for more power, which is why the owner ended up dropping a 2.5T engine in it. It now feels a bit better but the shorter S2 gearbox would be most welcome, again because that 2.5 engine so gutless.
If I wanted to have cheap fun at low speed, I can't reasonably imagine going for anything different from a GTI from the 90s.
Indi9xx
New member
Thats the problem that I am talking about though.
KW Suspension and setup to go round corners like it was on rails??
No, what I am talking about is a car setup to have good functioning suspension, lowered for a low centre of gravity, stiffer anti roll bars to make it stay flat through the corners, but narrow wheels and the suspension geometry setup to be forgiving rather than ultimate grip.
Ultimate grip makes the terminal speed before the car breaks away much higher, so when it looses it, it looses it not only at higher more dangerous speeds, but also in a more dramatic and sudden way.
Forgiving means making the car predictable, so it looses grip on cornering in a more progressive way.. The narrower tyres will make this happen at slower speeds..
The problem with going the other way, with high tech suspension, wide grippy tyres and a maximum attack geometry setup, means that you will always hunger for more power, more power, more power.. Which is also an expensive proposition.
What I am talking about it making a car, which is more of a handling trainer, not even ruining what Porsche gave us, but a car where you can play with going from understeer, to four wheel drift and into oversteer at safer speeds, perhaps lightening the car for more performance..
All of which, for a lux owner, would give them a more fun car, without asking everyone "How do I get more power from the lux?" which is always going to be an expensive proposition... Whereas with my thoughts, lux owners could do it themselves, with minimum outlay and picking most of the bits from other Porsche model parts bins (used) and using cheaper, narrower tyres for a package which would be more fun and teach them something about handling a car beyond the limits of grip, without breaking the bank and without ending up with a monster which needs to be taken at break neck speeds to get into the exciting zone.
Its not a car I would want to take to the ring, or silverstone, this is a car to take to places like Blyton Park and Bedford Autodrome, to have fun mixing it up with old BMW's and MK2 escorts, rather than with 997 Turbo's.
KW Suspension and setup to go round corners like it was on rails??
No, what I am talking about is a car setup to have good functioning suspension, lowered for a low centre of gravity, stiffer anti roll bars to make it stay flat through the corners, but narrow wheels and the suspension geometry setup to be forgiving rather than ultimate grip.
Ultimate grip makes the terminal speed before the car breaks away much higher, so when it looses it, it looses it not only at higher more dangerous speeds, but also in a more dramatic and sudden way.
Forgiving means making the car predictable, so it looses grip on cornering in a more progressive way.. The narrower tyres will make this happen at slower speeds..
The problem with going the other way, with high tech suspension, wide grippy tyres and a maximum attack geometry setup, means that you will always hunger for more power, more power, more power.. Which is also an expensive proposition.
What I am talking about it making a car, which is more of a handling trainer, not even ruining what Porsche gave us, but a car where you can play with going from understeer, to four wheel drift and into oversteer at safer speeds, perhaps lightening the car for more performance..
All of which, for a lux owner, would give them a more fun car, without asking everyone "How do I get more power from the lux?" which is always going to be an expensive proposition... Whereas with my thoughts, lux owners could do it themselves, with minimum outlay and picking most of the bits from other Porsche model parts bins (used) and using cheaper, narrower tyres for a package which would be more fun and teach them something about handling a car beyond the limits of grip, without breaking the bank and without ending up with a monster which needs to be taken at break neck speeds to get into the exciting zone.
Its not a car I would want to take to the ring, or silverstone, this is a car to take to places like Blyton Park and Bedford Autodrome, to have fun mixing it up with old BMW's and MK2 escorts, rather than with 997 Turbo's.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
