By on May 8, 2016

2016 Toyota 86 Shooting Brake Concept, Image: Toyota Australia

The main complaint levied against the Toyota GT86 (and Scion FR-S/Subaru BRZ twins) is its supposed lack of power, even though it pumps out 200 horses. Coming in at a close second on the 2+2 hatchback coupe’s complaint list is its lack of usable space.

Toyota Australia has an answer to that second concern, and it’s in the form of a Shooting Brake that looks like a Honda CR-Z after hitting up some free weights.

2016 Toyota 86 Shooting Brake Concept, Image: Toyota Australia

According to the Toyota Australia press release (which, by the way, wasn’t syndicated to by any other region for whatever reason), the design team in Australia brainstormed the concept, which was then built in Japan under the watchful eye of Toyota 86 global chief engineer Tetsuya Tada.

I’ve bemoaned privately for some time now that the best way into the hearts of enthusiasts looking for one car to do everything is to build some proper rear-wheel drive hatchbacks. Hell, if this thing existed on dealer lots last week, I may have made some very different car buying decisions.

2016 Toyota 86 Shooting Brake Concept, Image: Toyota Australia

Toyota Australia’s divisional manager national marketing Brad Cramb agrees.

“The Shooting Brake concept is a classy option for active couples or a second car for families who want something different. Equally suited to weekends away as well as the track, it’s a car you could buy with your head and your heart,” said Cramb.

Regardless, Australia seems an odd place to reveal this more practical sportscar. Toyota sold 3.5 times the number of Scion rear-wheel sportscars as Toyota did GT86s down under (10,507 vs. 3,006). But, hey, it was the Australian design team’s idea, so I guess we should let it have its 15 minutes of fame.

Before you get to excited, Tada-san made sure to put this project in perspective.

“While we never say never, and I would love this concept to become a production reality, it is very much a concept that demonstrates the passion within Toyota for cars that are fun to drive,” he said. Or, in non-spinspeak, we ain’t buildin’ it for you.

Honda, this is how you do a sportscar people want to buy — even if we can’t actually buy it. Take note.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

46 Comments on “Toyota 86 Shooting Brake Lands Down Under, Probably Won’t See Light of Dealer Lots...”


  • avatar
    nickoo

    Ridiculous. All the car really needs is a twin scroll turbo, the lack of torque is the real problem.

    • 0 avatar

      I said that from day 1.
      They should have offered a “base” 200HP model and a turbocharged model with at least 300 HP (or 400HP?)

      They tried to hype this car up…

      I found myself excited to test drive them simply because of the hype.

      The let-down was painful.

      All of those “professional reviewers”, Trying to talk about how well it handled on tracks.

      I still stand by my statement from years ago :

      Hyundai Genesis Coupe was a far better car than this piece of overhyped trash .

      A “Nissan GT-R” for college grads drowning in student loans – still living in mommy’s basement.

      HAPPY MOTHER’s DAY!

      • 0 avatar
        TonyJZX

        I go further. Put in a WRX engine. Fin.

        The car should have been a liftback in the first place. Toyota has a strong tradition of liftbacks in the Celica Supra days…

        This 86 brake is ugly as hell too. The rear gate is a mere mail slot.

        Nice bridge though. Maybe Toyota can use it to get to the real 86 the rest of us have been asking for.

    • 0 avatar
      LS1Fan

      Nyet,Comrade.

      See, in the real world, people are s–tty drivers.

      From an enthusiast perspective , everything could use more power. There’s probably a guy right now writing a check to a tuning house because he views his Hellcat Charger 4 door as “underpowered”.

      From Real Life perspective, if the BRZ/FRS shipped with a turbo half the buyers would wreck their cars before the annum was out. Look at the legion of “Mustang Fail” videos -folks who get a Mustang GT and immediately aim it at the nearest ditch or piece of cross traffic.
      Not that it’s a Mustang specific problem- video search any American middle class muscle car and you’ll see the same thing.

      And for what? 200hp is plenty enough to get one around. For all the awesomeness high horsepower is , there’s precious few chances to use it in public. Fat lot of good 300+HP does you in traffic.

      However, comma, a great handling car can make even a 30 MPH on off ramp fun.

      Keeping the power low was a wise decision from the view of the factory. Not only will fewer buyers (such as they are) wreck the things , but the determined folk who want a turbo are more then welcome to spend the $$ and labor making it happen. Those folks might actually think twice before hooning it stupidly.

      Then there’s reliability. No turbo means no oil line failures , busted turbo bearings ,failed blowoff valves, and other expensive upkeep problems with mileage . Amirite, Volkswagen AG owners?

      Ive had plenty of time to cogitate on the subject, as this is partly why finding my original-records LS1 was such a pain in the rear. After 13 years of bad driver attrition, there ain’t many stock F cars left for sale .

      If your goal is to use horsepower as some pseudo Alpha-Male emotional compensation tool, buy a used M3 and have at it. For the rest of us, there’s cars we actually enjoy driving.

      • 0 avatar

        LS1fan

        “If your goal is to use horsepower as some pseudo Alpha-Male emotional compensation tool, buy a used M3 and have at it. For the rest of us, there’s cars we actually enjoy driving.”

        That was a cute statement.

        This world needs betas just as much as Alphas.

        Keep doing what you’re doing.

        You can shine my supercharger anyday!

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        150 ft-lbs of torque in a sporty coupe made specifically for driving pleasure is ridiculously low. It’s not 1988 anymore where a 2.8L v6 chevy camaro is passable. Buyers in this segment want power and handling and that is where their dollars are going.

        I’m not saying the car needs 500+ hp, but it needs around 300 hp/250 ft-lbs of torque to be taken seriously. It’s the same problem with the Miata, they are simply massively outclassed in power by the base models of the Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger.

        Buying a sports car that can easily be blown away by a minivan isn’t going to appeal to sportscar buyers.

        • 0 avatar
          EAF

          This looks horrible IMO. I am with the majority here, the twins need about 100hp/100ft-lbs more. Personally, I don’t want a 4-pot that has as many components as a V6 with half the torque and one-third of the reliability. Toyota should of thrown the 2GR in it!

        • 0 avatar
          sportyaccordy

          Taken seriously by whom exactly? Some internet loudmouths with no skin in the game? If people took their driving skills as seriously as they take bench racing cars would be better for it.

          I have said it before. All this thing needs is another 500ccs of displacement. Turbos will add cost, complexity, weight and change the characteristic of the car in a way that is at odds with its design intent.

          200 HP is plenty in a car this weight. My car weighs a little less and has a lot less power, and I still manage to get in a good amount of trouble.

        • 0 avatar
          Quentin

          I didn’t look up the base Camaro or challenger, but the base Mustang (V6, no more performance package available) has gearing that is 23, 23, 32, 40, 43, and 58% taller than the 86 because of the gearbox ratios, final drive, and taller tires. Gearing is a torque multiplier, so the torque delta at the crank gets considerably smaller by the time it gets to the wheels. Add in the heft difference of almost 800lbs and the performance in anything but straight lines is a lot closer than you’d expect… which makes sense considering the cars basically cost the same. If you prefer the corners to the straight line speed, the 86/BRZ will be more satisfying to own than base model pony cars.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff Waingrow

        Putting aside the alpha-male stuff, I find that the base 210 hp engine in my GTI is more than powerful enough. On an on-ramp, I’m up to 80 before I turn around, and that’s in third gear. I’m not sure how more horsepower would be a benefit.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @LS1fan makes more sense that BTSR.

        Who buys the BRZ/FRS?

        All of the one’s I’ve seen are owned by youngsters in their late teens early 20’s. This is the car that dad buys or cosigns because Johnny got good grades.
        Imagine Johnny and dad on the Toyota lot. Johnny sprouts a boner because the little car looks sporty. Dad is thinking Echo or slushbox Corolla. He asks the salesman what its got and the number ‘200’ gets passed around…..
        SOLD.
        The car handles well enough to keep Johnny happy and dad knows it doesn’t quite have the power to land Johnny in the morgue.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      nickoo,
      What was Toyota’s intent of this vehicle? If you want more there are other products to fulfill your dreams.

      If you want a little more from the vehicle, go out and fit an after market setup. I’d bet there are plenty of aftermarket businesses working on this vehicle.

      • 0 avatar

        Apparently Toyota actually believes potential buyers are driving these things on race tracks…

        …instead of simply adding Elephant-fart exhaust systems and trying to figure out ways to cram turbochargers into their small, cluttered RIDICULOUS Boxer engine bay.

        Let this be alesson.

        If you wanna hype a car, you’d better make sure it not only meets the hype – but SURPASSES IT.

        And all it would have taken was a single twin scroll turbo.

        Subaru probably moves 3 – 4 times as many WRX than BR-Z (AWD is most likely a factor).

        Toyota can’t move these things without giving them away.

        The FR-S hype almost died overnight.

        I wish I could have helped design it. I’d have made that car possible to option out AS A MONSTER.

        And what’s worse is the BR-Z included more equipment while the FR-S looked cheap.

        And the funnier part was when the fanboys tried to defend it.

        “uhhh it doezn’t need all that stuff cuz it addz weight and it kan’t tern az well”

        LOL – The internet is fun.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          They’re not specced for fast track use. But rather to be lively and move around a bit on the street. Similar to the Miata. You can, and many do, turn the stability control off on them for commuting over the Santa Monica mountains from Thousand Oaks to LA. Even a Boxster either requires too much concentration for commuting duty, or is driven at speeds so slow (for it’s grip) you may as well take an Uber, in that role.

          On tight canyon roads, as opposed to wide tracks, you want small. Narrow, narrower, narrowest, in opposite order. Elise is just about goldilocks. As are Kei cars. And you also want less than grippy tires, and suspension that’s not forced to be jarring, just to deal with grippy ones.

          Nothing wrong with mega power cars designed and used for a different purpose. But there are reasons to prefer a car with less power instead of more. Even for those old and “experienced” enough to be able to “handle” the latter.

      • 0 avatar
        Johnster

        Similar to the way that the Toyota 86 is something of a modern reinterpretation of the classic Toyota Corolla EA86 introduced in 1983, this is a reinterpretation of the classic Toyota Corolla E50 Liftback introduced in 1976 and the Toyota Corolla E70 Liftback introduced in 1980.

        Not a bad idea, but the little fake rear window black triangles, seen when the tailgate is open, are bad design.

  • avatar
    notapreppie

    So, it’s a Toyota Veloster?

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

    Now there is a wagon/Toyota I like.

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    Toyobaru owners could care less about interior space, they just want a little more power, not much, just a bit more torque.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      And this is why offering the base WRX powerplant (as opposed to the STi engine) as an option would be perfect. But I personally would still buy the 200hp version with no options.

  • avatar
    Joss

    Thought there’s a big closedown in car manufacturing in Oz? Toy being part of the triad.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Fair bit of a reversal. Local design teams for Ford and GM and it appears Toyota. Hyundai/ Kia have a fair bit of local input and tuning. Elsewhere design and production going strongly.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Joss,
      Manufacturing and assembly has off shored due to the Federal Government stopping handouts and subsidies to the vehicle manufactures.

      The vehicle manufacturers are retaining design and engineering in the country. This is far better as these are high paying jobs and highly value adding to our economy, ie, not handouts of a couple grand per vehicle manufactured in Australia.

      The US subsidies each vehicle that is manufactured by around $3 000 per vehicle. So every American vehicle we buy has the US taxpayer giving us $3 000. Fantatic!

      And you guys worry about jobs going to China!

      We essentially design and engineer and the vehicles are assembled in developing nations like Thailand and China.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Toyota has already done this. It was called the Lexus IS300 SportCross. Volvo did it forty years ago with the P1800ES.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve Biro

      True on both counts. But someone should do it today. Hey, how about a Lexus CT with a slightly massaged suspension and the 241-hp, 2-liter turbo four from the IS in place of the hybrid running gear?

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    I’m reminded of the Lotus Elite II Shooting Brake. I would hope that they build it. Not everyone wants or needs a high riding CUV but a sports car with a bit more room for cargo.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjS28609srMAhUIbz4KHcDSBIEQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikiwand.com%2Fde%2FShooting_Brake&psig=AFQjCNGXTbn_z6B5MVHfZupwDIqnpePUSA&ust=1462812193086609

  • avatar
    JMII

    This is pretty much my dream car… hatchback + turbo. So throw the WRX STi engine into it and they can have my money.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It’s a stupid-brake. A hatchback I could understand, but a tiny lid you’d have to stoop under to load stuff? A tailgate yeah I could get, and actually see as useful.

  • avatar
    WheelMcCoy

    I did a double-take on the photo to make sure it wasn’t a Honda CR-Z. The CR-Z, while unloved, was kind of interesting to me. Still, the Mazda3 hatchback did everything it could do without the compromises.

    This Toyota is actually good looking, promises fun *and* practicality. Unfortunately, “No Toyota 86 Shooting Brake for US!”

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    It looks a little odd to me.

    If it comes on line and sells good on Toyota.

  • avatar
    Maymar

    The FR-S’s problems really have nothing to do with it having too little power or anything, its problems entirely amount to it being a sports car and no one wants sports cars anymore. If you lump all Toyobaru sales together, the only real sports car that outsells it is the Corvette. Otherwise, you’re either getting pony cars (which benefit from 50 years of nostalgia, and also fleet sales for the V6 convertible models), or sports sedans/hot hatches. On one hand, the Genesis Coupe is unverifiable for US sales, on the other, it’s more of a lame Korean wannabe pony car (without the available V8), and if Canadian sales are anything to go by, it’s still behind.

    And, frankly, as much as more power would be nice, bu on the other,if it were suitably beefed up to reliably handle that power, it’d have its reflexes dulled, and it’d get harder to have any competitive advantage over a Mustang. Just look at the 370Z. It’s fat, powerful, and despite a starting price of less than $30k, it still isn’t that popular (although being ancient doesn’t help). A better compromise would be smoothing out that power band (which really does get a little soft in the middle), but I don’t expect Toyota to want to cough up too much more development money for a dying segment (frankly, I’m just appreciative we got it as we did).

    Now, if by some miracle, the 86 Shooting Brake made it to production, to North America, and was still on sale when I’m due for a new car in 6-8 years, I’d do my damndest to buy one (for what it’s worth, I at least put my money where my mouth is on my past purchase, buying the light, nimble, stick-shift hatch I want to exist), but I don’t expect that to happen.

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    “it is very much a concept that demonstrates the passion within Toyota for cars that are fun to drive”

    I don’t get statements like this. “Oh, we’re all about passion for driving! But f*ck you, because we don’t actually believe it, so there’s no way we’ll make it.”

    Can you imagine a game developer showing a trailer for the game that everyone wants, and then being like, “We only did this to show that we like good games. We’re not actually going to make it! That would be ridiculous!”

    Or a band gets together and records 30 seconds of the kind of music their fans really want to hear, and says, “We just did this to show how much we care about music. We’d never consider doing a whole album of it!”

    I just don’t get it. Either what you’re doing is irrelevant to your audience, in which case why the hell bother, or it’s not, in which case why don’t you sell the sh*t people want?

  • avatar
    Varezhka

    I’m not against the idea of FR-S wagon/hatch, but the Subaru BRZ Cross Sport concept from few years ago looked a lot more cohesive to me. This looks a little forced, like something you see in SEMA from a tuning house.

    • 0 avatar
      Johnster

      The BRZ Coss Sport is a little odd looking, but overall a more together design than the Toyota 86 Shooting Brake. At least it doesn’t have fake painted triangles masquerading as part of the rear window, so I give Subaru credit for that.

  • avatar
    Greg Locock

    Good to see the Reliant Scimitar back in production.

  • avatar
    Ooshley

    “…best way into the hearts of enthusiasts looking for one car to do everything is to build some proper rear-wheel drive hatchbacks” Which is why the BMW M135i is near the top of my short-list.

  • avatar

    It’s all about perspective. I reckon there are an awful lot of drivers out there who have massively less talent than they credit themselves with, and these guys need to remember that a dragster and a sports car aren’t the same.

    Power is easy to make, and often called upon to make a dull car interesting, look at the Hellcat. It’s much harder to make a car intrinsically interesting in the first place.

    For those with ADHD, an inhumanly low boredom threshold or a massive unquenchable ego, every car needs more power. But there are enough Mk1 Golf GTi’s, NA Miatas and original Lotus Elans to remind us that more isn’t always better.

    That said, I strongly suggest that the GT86 was always better suited to Europe, where the roads allow, nay encourage sustained fun rather than it coming in short, exaggerated bursts.

    It’s a shame people need to be shown how to have a good time these days.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Three thoughts:

    – Cries for turbocharging = displays of a complete lack of understanding of what this car is about.

    – All this car and the WRX/STI need are 2.5L versions of Subaru’s latest flat 4. An NA 2.5L ~220HP/180lb-ft engine would do well in this thing while keeping it cheap, simple and light.

    – They should have made this thing a liftback like the original AE86 from the start. This thing is hideous and the coupe body is needlessly impractical.

  • avatar

    Okay, I’ll admit it–I had to Google “shooting brake”.

    Pay me no attention, B&B. Please continue.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    Does anyone remember the FR-s convertible? They killed that idea 2-3 years ago, and that was supposed to go to production. This is even less likely to happen.

  • avatar
    laserwizard

    The coupe is ugly and a lightweight and worthless thing. I was getting ready to actually like this and then I looked at the full-sized images. Ghastly.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    “a classy option”

    No, now it’s not because you said that word. It’s now trashy.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • retrocrank: A couple of decades ago I asked my farmer friends (a.k.a. ag producers) why their huge tractors were...
  • The Comedian: Would it pass GM’s own toolbox test? https://youtu.be/GrahNMrlOIY
  • ToolGuy: Latest Proposal to OEM’s Which Will Not Be Adopted… “Road Warrior Edition” or model...
  • ToolGuy: Corey, I don’t think Mopar was necessarily referring to the input side of the equation.
  • ToolGuy: I think the idea is that many EV fans have or are perceived to have a religious fervor for electricity and a...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States