The Toyota GR86 has one generation (from 2021-04-01, still in production) and two versions with the same engine: 2.4 MT and 2.4 AT. The buying choice is the gearbox, not the motor.
Both versions use a 2387 cc Gasoline engine with 4 cylinders in an Opposite layout, 235 hp (172 kW) at 7000 rpm, and 250 Nm at 3700 rpm. Compression is 12.5, bore and stroke 94 × 86, fuel 98, Direct injection (direct), Front, longitudinal placement. Boost is not measured on either version. Drive is RWD, 6 gears, Coupe body. 0–100 km/h is 6.3 s for 2.4 AT and 2.4 MT. Top speed is not measured.
The Toyota GR86 has one generation (from 2021-04-01, still in production) and two versions with the same engine: 2.4 MT and 2.4 AT. The buying choice is the gearbox, not the motor.
Which GR86 version to buy
Both versions use a 2387 cc Gasoline engine with 4 cylinders in an Opposite layout, 235 hp (172 kW) at 7000 rpm, and 250 Nm at 3700 rpm. Compression is 12.5, bore and stroke 94 × 86, fuel 98, Direct injection (direct), Front, longitudinal placement. Boost is not measured on either version. Drive is RWD, 6 gears, Coupe body. 0–100 km/h is 6.3 s for 2.4 AT and 2.4 MT. Top speed is not measured.
The split is mass and fuel, not power. 2.4 MT kerb weight is 1260 kg; 2.4 AT is 1290 kg — 30 kg more. Gross: 1480 kg vs 1510 kg (also +30 kg). Payload is 220 kg on both (1480 − 1260 and 1510 − 1290).
Power-to-weight: 2.4 MT 1260 ÷ 235 = 5.36 kg/hp; 2.4 AT 1290 ÷ 235 = 5.49 kg/hp. Specific output is the same: 235 ÷ 2.387 ≈ 98.4 hp per litre; 250 ÷ 2.387 ≈ 104.7 Nm per litre.
Buy 2.4 MT if you want the lighter car and lower city/mixed use. Buy 2.4 AT if you want Automatic and accept the 30 kg and higher city consumption.
Generations compared
There is 1 generation: 1 generation, start 2021-04-01, stop not measured (still listed as current). Body: Coupe. Modifications: 2. No later generation to compare years, body, or engine count against. Restyling is not listed as a separate generation.
What “changed between generations” cannot be measured: there is only this pair. Within the generation, the only listed change is Automatic vs Manual.
Engine and specs
| Version | hp | Nm | cc | Fuel | Cylinders / layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.4 AT | 235 | 250 | 2387 | Gasoline | 4, Opposite | not measured | Automatic, 6 | RWD |
| 2.4 MT | 235 | 250 | 2387 | Gasoline | 4, Opposite | not measured | Manual, 6 | RWD |
Valves per cylinder: 4 on both. Eco class: not measured on both.
The Automatic does not add horsepower, torque, displacement, or a different cylinder count. The extra hardware of 2.4 AT shows up as kerb weight and CO2, not as a second engine family.
Performance, mpg, and fuel
0–100 km/h: 2.4 AT 6.3 s; 2.4 MT 6.3 s. The 30 kg Automatic penalty is not visible in the 0–100 figure in this dataset. Top speed: not measured for both — do not treat a missing top speed as “no limit.”
Fuel (L/100 km):
- 2.4 AT: city 13.9, highway 6.7, mixed 8.5; CO2 198; tank 50 L
- 2.4 MT: city 12.5, highway 6.9, mixed 8.3; CO2 193; tank 50 L
City: Automatic uses 13.9 − 12.5 = 1.4 L/100 km more. Highway: Automatic uses 6.9 − 6.7 = 0.2 L/100 km less. Mixed: Automatic uses 8.5 − 8.3 = 0.2 L/100 km more. CO2: Automatic is 198 − 193 = 5 units higher.
Range on the 50 L tank at mixed figures: 2.4 AT 50 ÷ 8.5 × 100 ≈ 588 km; 2.4 MT 50 ÷ 8.3 × 100 ≈ 602 km — about 14 km more for Manual. City-heavy use widens the gap: at 13.9 vs 12.5, the same tank covers ≈360 km vs ≈400 km.
Highway-only use slightly favors 2.4 AT (6.7 vs 6.9). If most kilometres are motorway, the Automatic’s city penalty matters less. If most kilometres are city, 2.4 MT is the clearer economy pick.
Dimensions, weight, and clearance
Ground clearance is 130 mm on both. Wheel sizes: not measured on both. Tank: 50 L both.
Front suspension: Independent, spring. Rear: Independent, spring. Front brakes: Ventilated disc. Rear brakes: Disc ventilated (label as in the data). Those chassis fields do not differ between 2.4 AT and 2.4 MT.
Kerb and gross are the only size-related numbers that split:
- 2.4 MT: 1260 kg kerb, 1480 kg gross
- 2.4 AT: 1290 kg kerb, 1510 kg gross
The Automatic is 2.4% heavier at kerb (30 ÷ 1260). Clearance, tank, and brake/suspension labels do not buy a different car; they buy the same Coupe with a different gearbox mass.
Which version to choose
There is no generation-to-generation upgrade path. The catalogue is two RWD Coupes with the same 235 hp / 250 Nm / 2387 cc Gasoline Opposite-four.
Choose 2.4 MT when the numbers that move are weight and city mpg: 1260 kg, 12.5 / 6.9 / 8.3 L/100 km, CO2 193, 5.36 kg/hp, mixed range ≈602 km. Manual, 6 gears, RWD. Same 6.3 s to 100 as the Automatic.
Choose 2.4 AT when the requirement is Automatic, 6 gears, RWD, and you accept 1290 kg, 13.9 / 6.7 / 8.5 L/100 km, CO2 198, 5.49 kg/hp, mixed range ≈588 km. Highway consumption is 0.2 L/100 km lower than Manual. 0–100 stays 6.3 s. Top speed still not measured.
What the Automatic “buys” in this dataset: Automatic instead of Manual, +30 kg, +1.4 L/100 km in the city, −0.2 L/100 km on the highway, +0.2 L/100 km mixed, +5 CO2. It does not buy more hp, more Nm, more displacement, AWD, a different body, a different clearance, or a measured top speed.
If the decision is “same engine, pick the lighter, thirstier-in-city vs heavier, Automatic,” 2.4 MT is the spec-sheet driver’s car; 2.4 AT is the same 235 hp Coupe with Automatic. Prices are not in this dataset, so the comparison is mass, mpg, and gearbox only.