2022 Toyota GR86 Dyno & Weight | 

Simple and still ~$34K. Oof.

@@TapTwoCounterspell $29k if you wait and what’s cheaper? Just the Miata really.

I want one so bad. At a point in my life where it's just out of budget. Im thinking trueno blue premium.

Even the first gen with bolt-ons and e85 tune will pull away from a stock STi, those cars aren't fast..

@Bry Zeer yea just like your driving :) . You definitely need 300+ HP . You definitely could use some more .

@Bry Zeer 🤡 🤡 🤡

@Bry Zeer 🤡 🤡 🤡

I only had a chance to test drive the Auto box, have ordered a manual BRZ S, arriving in Dec 15h... can't wait.

Right. People are knocking off mid 5 second 0-60 times in the manual. Hard to believe the car has only "228" hp. I'd say this car has minimum 235 hp stock.

Talk about a mild ego boost :D

Yeah, way underrated. Their best pull was 253.15 hp exactly.

definately! 245-247 is my crank hp calculation for the gen 2

@@mikea5205 good tires and upgraded chassis also have a bit to do with it, something that differentials this and the previous gen versus just the hp/torque boost

i was, thank you. I wonder how this compares to a FWD car like a Velocitor N

@@tmolne117 nothing... hahahhah kidding, how can you pass up such Delicious FR car over another FF. When the choice for FF are plentiful and don't give the same experience.

Glad to hear you've been enjoying it, we really enjoy this car and think it's a good successor to the first gen.

I just got the Elantra N a lot of fun car 🚙

@@tenkayruanaya2554im disappointed hyundai cancelled their RM22 mid engine sports car that would’ve had around 400hp. I like hyundai but they don’t care about performance driving if fwd is all they have to offer.

I mean the K24 is of an older era, the FA needs to rev a lot lower to gain those numbers, so that's good.

@@gky3019 longer rods ??

@@ACommenterOnRU-vid Stroke of K24 is greater, so probably not.

@Bry Zeer almost $10k more tho. Can’t really compare these cars there at different price points

@Bry Zeer 3 cylinder yaris mak3s 200kw

@Bry Zeer Mustang makes 450. So what's your point?

Think you need to relax there bud. Can't imagine anyone looking at one of these cars actually cares about the Z or Mustang much@Bry Zeer . The Z actually interests me zero. Nothing wrong with the car, just doesn't interest me. So throwing out HP numbers on other unrelated cars and getting all wannabe alpha on YT is just making you sound angry. Relax.

@Bry Zeer first off, performance isn’t all about horsepower. That’s like 30% of the whole picture.

It runs high 13s stock. Prob run high 12s with 250 whp.

250 wheels and a screamer of an engine with some tastefull brake and suspension mod god damn this car would be a riot to drive

@@dave99rt Yeah i can definitely see it cracking 12's with FBO & E85. These cars are going to be crazy once tuning becomes available

@Bry Zeer Sure, but the base model Z is 13 grand US more than the base model 86, so there is that.

@Bry Zeer 13 grand is almost half the price of a brz. You are the embodiment of everything wrong with the car community

@Bry Zeer power isnt everything to some people, the way My 2022 86 Handles on my mountain pass and even in the city i would take any day over a turbo in a straight line. we legit done care about the nEw nIsSaN z.

@Bry Zeer yes FAR more car- as in 700 Lbs more. Little kids like you shouldn't be talking about cars if you think power is all that matters. You said it yourself, the Z is in "supra territory" so why are you even comparing it to a 86? And yes, the new Z is rated for more power than the Supra but is still slower than the Mk5. And honestly if the FA24 is anything like the FA20, 13k will get you to "supra territory" if not further. All of your knowledge on cars is from Need For Speed and Fast and Furious.

If I recall correctly the FA24 does have revised heads/valvetrain, intake manifold and exhaust so all that contributes to the power increase.

A little under 3/4 of a tank.

Pretty cool that the reported weight of the car was more or less equal to half a tank of fuel, as opposed to empty@@FTspeed

Same I didn’t fall in love with it until my dad sent it to me 😂

Just like herpes

@@richardburns9772 HUH?

@@prodbyJang you understand English?

@@richardburns9772 You mad?

Mx5? La macchina di paperino, buttala.

Yeah I thing I'd buy one if it had the 3 cylinder gr yaris engine it it. It's 100kgs lighter, more power and can hold 500hp with just bolt ons and tune un opened engine

They're called supras

@@pepesilvia6949 auto BMW supra? But for real, it would be a good idea to put the g16 engine in a 86. Boosted rwd car in manual. They'll sell so good. Being all Toyota. Not subie and bmw

@@pepesilvia6949 The Supra starts off at $20k over the GR86 though. I think everybody really just wants a turbo which should only run another 5-7k

300whp easy after EcuTek cracks the ECU.

@@lw1878 that would definitely require decent boost pressure. I'd be happy with 230 whp and a flatter curve.

@@lw1878 how so?

Just some head gaskets

@@remyche8768 head gasket issues disappeared along with the EJ motor

Yes there are holes, it's bolted in place.

@@FTspeed Thank you so much.

@Bry Zeer no

MSRP

That is I!

250whp NA with just bolt ons & tune would be a dream for this car.

(not saying it isnt possible, i really hope it can do it. it definitely seems like it can!)

@@walkemdown4127 It works better as the compression is higher - the tune will adavance the timing alot because e85 is around 105 octane and cools the combustion at the same time A good tune with e85 should add power and torque too - lots of midrange gains with e85

Break in according to the USDM owners manual is 1000 miles.

@@FTspeed alright, thanks for the useful info bro

RTFM. Why don’t people simply read the manual?

@@afbrat1963 fam relax, I just bought the car and I’ve been busy lately

I also have a 2022 gr86 and I wouldn’t worry about the break in stuff. It’s technically just something they do to prevent people from making mistakes when they first get the car. After 600 miles I’ve been driving it like I would normal and it’s totally fine. Just hit 1300!

My FRS made ~170hp ~140tq on that dyno.

I seen someone talk about doing it but i didn’t see it

The TRD model looks amazing, good buy!

On the gr86 forums I recall someone talking about it

You can't other than turbo ...

Headers and E85 will be the biggest gainers without adding forced induction.

@@KevinVo thank u so much

So many people think that a turbo or supercharger will make power. But power comes from burning fuel. So find a way to get more fuel to it and then add in more air.

@@martinrps13 so many "think" that a turbo or supercharger will make power .... 🤔 .... But power comes from burning fuel so find a way to add more air and fuek into the engine ... 🤔 ... And what do you "think" a turbo or supercharger do for an engine ????

If you like the civic si then buy it. But this car will blow the doors off a si in a straight line and in the turns.

RWD vs FWD. No one who likes the way a RWD car drives would think of buying a Civic. Then there's the Honda styling which is pretty bad.

I actually was cross shopping between the two. I ended settling with the Civic Si for the practicality and better fuel economy. I absolutely prefer the shifter in the Si over the GR86 but the GR86 is definitely a more entertaining and exciting car. I would love to get one of these in the used market later down in the road.

front wheel fail

If you're talking about the white one in the corner, that's am Evo.

@@KevinVo no I meant the one in their garage behind the Neptune blue gr86 not in the paragon garage

The white one as he’s weighing the gr86 is a c8 corvette

@@carloskid_6968 that's an STI.

225 hp at best ...

@@ACommenterOnRU-vid maybe but we shall see. Remember it has made 215whp in stock form on a Dyno jet. So 225 seems low, intake, headers, exhaust and an ecu tune I really think 235whp is possible.

@@CruiseControl1 what it made on the dyno is irrelevant. Bolt-ons on a na motor do nothing. This is not a turbo motor. This motor builds power based on cam profile and compression and piston pull. Turbo motors get power from the turbo. Even with a high flow intake and freer flowing exhaust, your hp is at the mercy of that piston suction. It can only suck in so much air regardless of how free that intake is and how free that exhaust flow is. A turbo motor can increase hp by like 60 hp by just doing the same basic bolt ons. Remember that the turbo is also restricted by the same bolt-ons, once that restriction is removed, that turbo will wake up and spool faster which increase hp by like 3 times the rate. So maybe 15 hp if lucky from the bolt ons alone, but with a tune on same 93 octane, maybe another 10hp, E85 tune, maybe another 10 hp, but also keep in kind this is a very high compression motor at 12:1 so .... So you think 235 whp ... we'll see 🤷🏽‍♂️

@@ACommenterOnRU-vid Yup a motor is just an oxygen pump, the better it breaths the more power it makes. Seeing how the fa20 made 20whp with bolt ons and a ecu tune it's a pretty safe bet this motor will do the same. I'm just excited to see what happens. Honestly the engine is underrated from the factory anyway and drives excellent as is. Also a baseline Dyno is very relevant, if it makes 215whp and bolt ons with a tune add 20whp then 235 is very attainable.

Because if you advertised this at 240-250bhp, you'd be fucking over Supra 2.0 sales. A car that makes 255bhp, costs over $13k more, and seats even less people.

@@Bob-Sacamano ya but the Supra line is also underrated from the factory so.........list them all the right way

@@19hundoc47 Why Toyota underrated the Supra line I can only imagine.

@@Bob-Sacamano Good point

Not under rated. You can't assume a certain wheel HP equals a certain crank HP.

@Bry Zeer here in Belgium probably whole europe stage 2 is when you have a cold air intake and completly afthermarket exhaust without cat

@Bry Zeer i know what you mean but it's not the same as the usa in here. They just call it like that here.. For the record i got a 20 hp gain proven on the dyno. So you dont know shit 😅

@Bry Zeer why so hostile? Don't want to offend you mate . Its only 20 hp more so if i wanted to lie i would say 30 or more .. It's the way its is mate. It's tuned by the one of the best here in Belgium. Would love a turbo or something like that but it's illegal here in Belgium. So be happy you live in the usa :)

@Bry Zeer yes we love them and our chocolate. Yea seems dangerous everyone with guns? Anyway If the war here in europe keeps getting worse we will probably end up with guns to .. Modding your car here is really restricted here... air ride and carbon fibre on the exterior is not allowed for example :(

@@stinoo8 disregard this guy. I live in the us and I understand what you’re saying. I’m not really into “stages” but that’s cool to hear you picked up some power. I’m looking to do headers and intake on my 2022 gr86

They DON'T respond .... don't waste time waiting

@@ACommenterOnRU-vid It's true, we don't respond, sorry.

@@FTspeed yea ONLY when called out huh ??

Yes

Is SARD making ITBs for the GR86/BRZ? I don't see it on their website yet. But SARD is developing a header + sports cat combo for the GR86/BRZ (release date TBA). I'm super stoked about what they can bring.

@@paulshi5974 If you click on this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ToCPo2_JT1E.html at 13:03, the representative of SARD says that he wants to develop the ITB kit for the FA24 GR86, after they improve on their old FA20 ITB system. It won't be much more of a power increase, but the sound will be worth it.

@@smilepermile8165 Wow thanks for the video! I do believe there will be some power increase since you need to retune the ECU for the ITBs. But yeah, they sound legit! However, there is no mentioning of it on SARD's website, so the new ITBs will take a while to come out

@@paulshi5974 - SARD makes beautiful stuff but are hideously expensive. Their Ti-Z full cat back weighs 16 pounds and is a work of art. Problem is it's $3,500 lol.

@@mikea5205 After doing some research, yeah $3500 is a bit absurd... The only thing that comes close is the Amuse R1 Titan for the previous gen ($3000-ish), which is still more than everything else by a long shot...

That might be true. Forced induction however I assume would be the opposite. More power with lower boost pressure.

I think 250whp will be possible with headers exhaust and an e85 tune

Probably more cost effective to go super charger and retain the linear power and response.

@@wayward03 yes, it probably is, and one will probably get more power and torque. But...I do not like the whine of auperchargers nor the lag from turbos. 😊

@@andreemilsen369 I kind of like the whine. My old street bike had gear driven cams and it sounded excellent. Reminded me of a supercharged v8 a little.

@@wayward03 Most people like the whine. I think it sounds like the car is broken🙊 Really can't stand it, and this is why I prefere the 392 hemi to the hellcat engine🙊

Dems a lot of words no ones ever gonna read

@@dalvincastillo3904 You're probably right about that. So I'll take a shot at a "For Dummies" version. No promises, though. By the way, the more you read, the more you know. First, when manufacturers build a car with a turbocharger or supercharger, they invariably use a lower compression ratio in the ballpark of 9:1 in order to deal with detonation that will otherwise occur with an engine that is supercharged or turbocharged. They wouldn't do this without having a very good reason for doing it. This particular car uses a compression ratio of 12.5:1, and it requires 93 octane fuel. It is OBVIOUS that adding a turbocharger or supercharger to this car is a very dumb idea. If you want a car that is turbocharged, buy a car that comes with a turbocharger from the factory. Second, as concerns the claims that this or that manufacturer "underreported" the power of the engine, the truth here is that the people who make these claims are not even aware of the assumptions they are making. The people who make these claims have no knowledge of whether the claim they make has any validity, and no knowledge of what would be required in order for these kinds of claims to have any validity. They are using a type of dynamometer that measures something that is similar to, but not identical to what is measured by the type of dynamometer that engine manufacturers use in a laboratory setting. To anyone who genuinely understands the difference between the two classes of dynamometer, it is out of the question to think that there could be a universal correction factor that would permit measurements obtained using a rolling drum dynamometer to be translated to measurements that are obtained on the type of dynamometer that engine manufacturers use in a laboratory setting. The conclusion that is obvious and that fully rational people draw from the fact that the numbers don't match up is that the measurements are not comparable because the two types of dynamometers do not measure exactly the same thing. And I'm not alluding to just friction. The difference is more fundamental, and has to do with the fact that on a rolling drum dynamometer a significant portion of the engine's work output is diverted to the increase in the kinetic energy of all of the parts that rotate along with the engine. At some point some people read somewhere that friction loss in a drivetrain is about 15% and they concluded, without having a complete understanding of the fundamental difference between the two classes of dynamometer, that by merely adjusting for this amount of friction loss it is possible to translate between measurements taken on the two different classes of dynamometer. The people who write for the popular automotive magazines sometimes do this, but as a rule those people rarely have any clue what they're talking about. By the way, "Dems" is an abbreviation for Democrats, and so far as I know it has no meaning other than this.

This is what happened with that transgender Supra ... high compression 11:1 with boost on 93 octane = disaster. So they dropped it to 10.2:1

​@@tombarber8013 I seem to have found the only person less fun than me at parties. A couple of points. First, there is already a mass produced version of this engine with a turbo. It's in the Ascent and the WRX. And I'm not sure where you got that 9:1 value from, but you seem to have made it up to make your point sound more meaningfull. Off the top of my head, the car I know of with the highest stock boost pressure is the GR Corolla, which has a 10.5:1 compression ratio. Apparently even the most boosted car isn't near your "invariable" value. Your dyno commentary is mostly useless as well. The video compared two very similar vehicles (his own FRS and the '22 gr86) on the same machine. The results are consistent with what has been seen on different machines everywhere. The claim that Toyobaru underreported the power of this generation seems pretty well supported. They claimed 200hp for gen1, dynos showed ~175. With essentially the same drivetrain (other than the bore of the engine, of course), on the same dyno, a claim of 228 is seeing 211. Nobody would have bat an eye if they claimed 240hp, because people rightfully expect very similar differences between crank and wheel hp between near identical cars. But at the end of the day, none of that matters. The same dyno that showed an FRS getting 175whp is showing both a '22 brz and gr86 getting 211whp. That's a 20.5% increase, and we should all be happy cars are fun

@@kadengordon6941 Thanks for sharing a pile of patently useless MISinformation. It does not matter where I got the 9:1 value for the typical compression ratio used with turbocharged engines. The salient and relevant point is that the compression ratio used in turbocharged engines is generally less than what is used in a normally aspirated version of the same engine from the same manufacturer. I thought this was common knowledge, but apparently not. The GR Corolla is OBVIOUSLY an exception to what is typical, and it is a completely different engine from a completely different manufacturer. It has little if any true relevance to the question, and the fact that you brought it up is an indication that you are not really making any effort to be honest. What WOULD be relevant is if the compression ratio that Subaru uses in the 2.4 liter boxer engines that are turbocharged is the same compression ratio that they use in the BRZ. You wrote that " there is already a mass produced version of this engine with a turbo. It's in the Ascent and the WRX." In writing that, you are in essence asserting that Subaru uses the same compression ratio in both the turbocharged and non-turbocharged versions of the 2.4 liter boxer engine presently in use. The compression ratios are NOT the same, and given that the compression ratios are different, the engines are not the same. As such, it doesn't really make good honest sense to even write "version of this engine with a turbo". This amounts to playing fast and loose with the facts. You imply that the two engines are identical aside from one being turbocharged and the other not turbocharged, but this is obviously not true. This simple truth is that there is NOT a mass produced version of the same engine except with a turbo. This is the simple truth, and it is an absolute truth, and what you wrote, in your eagerness to create the impression that I didn't know what I was talking about, is simply not factually correct. As for your statement that my dyno commentary is mostly useless, this only reveals that you don't understand very much and that when you are presented with an opportunity to improve your understanding of things a little bit, you respond with belligerence. The truth here, which is well known by anyone with a solid foundation of knowledge of elementary physics, is that there simply isn't any way to translate between numbers obtained with a brake dynamometer mounted directly to an engine crankshaft vs. number obtained on a dynamometer that uses a drum driven by the wheels of a vehicle. There is no valid way to translate between the two, at least not in the general sense. In order for a translation of this sort to be valid, the translation factor would have to be obtained by taking an engine that had been measured on a brake dynamometer, installing that engine in a vehicle and then taking measurements on a chassis dynamometer. And if this is done, the translation factor thus obtained will be specific to that particular engine, that particular vehicular drive train, those particular wheels, and that particular chassis dynamometer. There is good reason why the standards specifications that major manufacturers adhere to stipulate the use of a brake dynamometer and stipulate the formula that is required to be used to correct for non-standard atmospheric conditions. But since you claim implicitly to understand all this better than I, I challenge you to find one single technical article, that has been published in a legitimate journal, that describes how to go about doing this kind of translation. If you do not know of any such technical article, why would you assert in essence that these translations, which are commonly undertaken for dubious purposes, are valid? Personally I would not make any claim of this sort unless I were able to explain in meaningful technical detail why they are valid. You say that the claim that 'Toyobaru" underreported the power of this engine seems pretty well supported. Please back up this claim. There mere fact that lots of people want to believe this means nothing at all. Neither does the fact that various tuners and various magazines may have encourage people to believe this. This same claim has been made at one time or another for the majority of engines favored by performance enthusiasts, and it totality is bogus B.S. In order for it not to be bogus B.S., the translation that many people accept at face value and assume to be valid would need to proven valid. I know for an absolute fact that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE TRANSLATIONS HAS A WHIT OF VALIDITY. I know this because I understand the underlying physics. Note also that you are mixing together two different questions. On the one hand there is the question of whether it is valid to compare chassis dynamometer measurements of different vehicles. This question, which is not as cut-and-dry as you likely assume, is not the same question as the question of whether it is valid to use measurements obtained on a chassis dynamometer to argue that the numbers that the manufacturer reported, which were obtained on a type of dynamometer which has fundamentally different physical principles, are "underreported". It is most likely true that the bulk of these kinds of claims, that the manufacturer underreported the performance of this particular engine or that particular engine, are patently bogus, being based crucially on the use of some fudge factor that is of uncertain origin. In fact, I defy you to produce a single example of where and when one of these fudge factors was obtained in a manner that is consistent with the general principles for taking measurements in a laboratory environment. Dare I say that you don't have the faintest clue where these fudge factors come from?

Honestly when you drive one they feel like a great amount of car for the price, if you can find it at MSRP. This car definitely isn't built for power, and they never advertised it as such, but more for handling and overall enjoyment.

Except the mustang weighs in at 800 pounds or so more, which is a lot. It would be no contest.

About the same as my 7 liter diesel 🤣

🤦🏽‍♂️

Sony A7iii.

5 yrs

Is this a real question? You have to strap the car down on the dyno.

@@KevinVo why did you even answer ???

@@ACommenterOnRU-vid I try to be helpful 😅

@@KevinVo i do too ... BUT ... at the same time some questions i just look down and shake my head and just move on. I understand we have stupid walking the streets but damn it man, THINK .... try to THINK before posting. You have your car on a machine doing 100+ mph at a stand still, what do you think for a split second if anything goes wrong, where do you think that car is headed ----> ???? To the wall ??? So how do we prevent that from happening ???????? 🤷🏽‍♂️

Thats what im hoping as well and im hoping boost will offer around 300ish safely 400 safely on e85 is what im hoping to see

@@ricardocardenas4150 You could get those numbers fairly easily with the old engine; it was just matter of how much the stock internals can hold. One would think the 2.4L will have larger, stronger rods and pistons. If the stock rods and pistons, as well as the clutch can handle 250-275wtq from a centrifugal supercharger reliably, that'd be amazing.

@Bry Zeer No.

91

@@FTspeed with a 93 octane or better it should perform much better

@@EvoTME05 we had a car on 93 on the same dyno. It doesn't make that much of a difference.

@@FTspeed strange, usually modern engines really apreciate high octane fuel

You gotta do it man lol

diesel

@@ACommenterOnRU-vid oh no way I thought they would be using coal

@@HWS221 when you ask a stupid question ... you get a stupid answer 🤷🏽‍♂️

@@ACommenterOnRU-vid have you ever heard of octane? And how what’s available may be different depending where you go?

@@HWS221 Your question was WHAT FUEL was used ... You didn't specify WHAT OCTANE was used 🤷🏽‍♂️ there is a difference. So when you ask what "fuel" was used, the answer can be ANY type of "fuel" and thats what you got .. an answer with a type of "fuel" Next time be a bit more specific 🤦🏽‍♂️

NA motors dont gain much hp from bolt ons ...

@@ACommenterOnRU-vid I would agree. I'd bet the margin the factory left avaialble was to account to how won't be getting 93 octane

91

@@FTspeed thanks. I wonder what it will do on the 99 we have here.

Still not even announced for the UK yet. I just got a GR Yaris though. Its epic.

How about you learn to improve on your driving to be like Chris Harris and Keiichi Tsuchiya instead of whining like a little girl

i dont hate it. what history do you speak of? the brz came out in 2013...

@@holeshot26 he's referring to the 86 heritage.

Yes because a car that came out in 2013 to now has no history

@@hellsdoom8095 well the Toyota 86 came out in 1965

@@KevinVo its a brz. you can change a couple suspension things & cosmetic things & badges but its still a brz.

It's not uncommon. Thye may not have wanted to pull sales from the Supra or the WRX.

@@KevinVo *The Supra is also heavily underrated. It's actually more common than not in performance cars.*

500 miles of engine break in.

* with tunes and turbos

Its called design evolution. You don't play all your cards on the first version because then there's no way to make it better and more appealing to keep generating sales.

@@ronaldpacher4167 Yeah I guess you can try to call it not playing all your cards for a major deficiency but selling an average of less than 10k cars a year for Subaru and Toyota combined, made them almost have to kill the line and stop production… the result of that kind of "design evolution" thinking = The B9 Tribeca and Baja 😂

@@Truehoon You're right, but here it is, better looking and more powerful just like Toyota always intended. The 10K sales number isn't surprising at all. considering how unpractical it is. Mazda doesn't move many MX5 Miatas either for the same reason yet it soldiers on also despite the low sales.

LMAOOOOOO

LOL

@@Dragon228833 what’s funny🤔?

@@callmesxege1878 ur mom

@@Dragon228833 felt the same way about yours last night

270 is ludicrously high. Dynos can be manipulated to show higher or lower numbers.

i think its a mustang dyno, watch the vid

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Nh7lkaPeGPE.html

@@holeshot26 I just watched the video and they said in "dynojet" mode (our car is ran on a dynojet) the car is supposed to make 270hp. No chance. Those numbers are highly inflated.

@@KevinVo ok then.