View Full Version : Edmunds Full-Test - 2013 Subaru BRZ RWD coupe


TriShield
03-23-2012, 01:47 PM
Worthy of the Hype

http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/brz/2013/ft/2013_subaru_brz_actf34_ft_315123_717.jpg
There's body roll, but it doesn't detract from the experience.

By Josh Jacquot, Senior Editor | Published Mar 23, 2012

Distill the comprehensive goodness of the 2013 Subaru BRZ down to a single desirable property and it is this: Profound control.

It is the rear-drive BRZ's competence in those pivotal split seconds as the limit of grip approaches and departs that gives it undeniably enticing character. Few cars in recent memory do it so well and those that do typically cost at least twice as much. Think Lotus Exige/Elise or Porsche 911 GT3. In other words, the BRZ offers a level of engagement that, until now, has been either too costly or too impractical for the average enthusiast.

That will change with the introduction of the BRZ to the U.S. First, with an estimated price in the mid-$20,000 range, it's not costly. Second, it's practical enough to be driven daily. And, finally, it fills a niche in the U.S. market that has remained conspicuously vacant for years.

Filling the Niche

http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/brz/2013/ft/2013_subaru_brz_actr34_ft_315123_717.jpg
Balancing the BRZ's steering and throttle is easy. And fun.

It's not just the BRZ's communication and control that's alluring, however. Its approachable limits are what make it a wholly engaging sports car. Go on the attack in a BRZ and you're not flirting with a $120,000 disaster. What's more, it's most rewarding at modest speeds found in 2nd and 3rd gear. In this regard it pulls from the same well of level-headed appeal that makes Mazda's MX-5 Miata so fun. But being a softly sprung convertible has always compromised the Miata's abilities and limited its appeal for those seeking a dedicated driver's car.

The BRZ's singularity of purpose doesn't come with the same space and structure compromises found in the Miata, either. Its trunk is big enough to handle more than just weekend trips, its structure makes no concessions to top-droppers and its suspension tuning strikes a perfect balance between date nights and track days.

Focus, Focus, Focus

http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/brz/2013/ft/2013_subaru_brz_actf34_ft_315121_717.jpg
Balance and communication through the slalom is superb.

In addition to its mid-speed capability, the BRZ encourages full-attack driving on unfamiliar roads well into triple digits. Its brakes don't fade, its gearbox doesn't balk and its chassis remains composed even when the road surface isn't. We hammered it for hours over rough roads with little regard for the hardware and never once bottomed the suspension or had a moment that made us reconsider our speed.

Steering, which is electrically assisted in a rapid 13.1:1 ratio, is immensely feelsome and exact, imparting the front tires' grip status precisely to its driver's brain stem. It is perhaps the best electric steering in any car, except, possibly, Mazda's nearly extinct RX-8.

Brake response, too, is immediate and confident. Thirty minutes driving well past rational limits did damp the middle pedal's hair-trigger response, but we never lost confidence in the pedal. Ironically, the BRZ's tires, which are the same used as in the Plus Performance Package on a Toyota Prius, seemed entirely able, exhibiting only insignificant wear after a full day of back-road insanity.

Like It Should Be, Mostly

http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/brz/2013/ft/2013_subaru_brz_actf34_ft_315125_717.jpg
Creeping up on oversteer is unintimidating in the BRZ.

The 2013 Subaru BRZ's five stability control modes three too many, if you ask us are needlessly complex. So much so, in fact, that even Subaru insiders struggle to adequately explain the purpose for so many choices. There's a "Sport" mode which will loosen the electronic reins enough to allow you to have fun while still metering out protection if needed. Fortunately, fully disabling the system is easy.

What's more, it's not really needed. Because it communicates so clearly, there's no sense of intimidation driving the BRZ to its limits. It's a textbook example of predictable rear-drive behavior, which is rewarding for both the advanced and novice driver alike.

Ignoring the BRZ's entirely modest arrangement of parts, the car is a stunning experience. Considering them, it's a machine you need to drive in its element to fully appreciate. When it comes to purity of purpose, you'll be hard-pressed to find a car that delivers this much speed and involvement under $50,000 Mitsubishi's Evo X being one possible exception. Repeat this kind of driving in an Evo, though, and you'll be buying tires and brake pads at double this rate.

Not About the Numbers

http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/brz/2013/ft/2013_subaru_brz_actprf_ft_315121_717.jpg
Braking in the BRZ is straight and true. Pedal feel is excellent.

If you're the kind of enthusiast whose car must be able to hammer down freeway on-ramps with its tires ablaze, the BRZ isn't your car.

At 7.3 seconds, its 0-60 time (7.0 seconds using a 1-foot rollout like on a drag strip) isn't going to win over many drag racers. But this time comes with an explanation. The rev limiter in 2nd gear kicks in at 59.2 mph, requiring a second shift to achieve the milestone and slowing the time considerably. The quarter-mile passes in 15.3 seconds at 92.1 mph. Judge the BRZ on its acceleration alone and you'll be disappointed. But it should surprise exactly no one that 200 horsepower pushing around 2,734 pounds isn't going to thrill John Force.

But you're not John Force, are you? Neither are we, which is why we realize that the BRZ's respectable 69.1-mph slalom speed and striking 0.92g on the skid pad are more definitive of its character than is its acceleration. Those numbers are better than both the 2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe (67.4 mph slalom, 0.89g skid pad) and the 2011 Ford Mustang GT (67.3 mph slalom, 0.91g skid pad).

Braking, too, is solid. The BRZ required 114 feet to stop from 60 and it did so consistently with a firm, confident pedal. The Genesis Coupe needed 116 feet to make it happen and the Mustang got the job done in only 109 feet.

TriShield
03-23-2012, 01:48 PM
What You Get

http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/brz/2013/ft/2013_subaru_brz_actr34_ft_315128_717.jpg
More gratuitous oversteer? Why not?

By now you know that the 2013 Subaru BRZ's 2.0-liter flat-4 combines port and direct fuel injection to produce the aforementioned 200 hp and 151 pound-feet of torque. A six-speed manual transmission is standard equipment and a six-speed automatic perhaps the only one ever well suited to this kind of car is optional and will cost about $1,200 if it follows traditional Subaru pricing strategies. Shift paddles offer full control over the gearbox and downshifts are perfectly rev-matched.

There are few distractions from the BRZ's driver focus inside, where the finish is spartan but not cheap. A center-mounted tachometer consumes most of the instrument panel real estate. To its left is a conventional speedometer, which is duplicated in digital form inside the tachometer itself. The cloth seats are comfortable and supportive enough for hard driving, while the steering wheel is small, thick and wrapped in leather.

Navigation, Bluetooth and a USB port are standard on Premium trim levels. Throw in the extra $2,000 or so for a Limited model and you'll get synthetic suede and leather seats, seat heaters, dual-zone climate control, keyless entry and start and a few other features like a spoiler.

Refreshing

http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/brz/2013/ft/2013_subaru_brz_fint_ft_315121_717.jpg
The BRZ's seats because of their material hold occupants in place effectively.

Subaru plans to sell 500 cars monthly in the U.S. beginning April 20. Exact pricing won't be announced for several weeks, but a Scion FR-S, which lacks the 2013 Subaru BRZ's navigation system will sticker at $24,930 including delivery. A base WRX sedan which also lacks navigation, but comes with a turbo, all-wheel drive and four doors can be had for $26,345 (including destination). The BRZ is considerably smaller and simpler than a WRX so we're putting our money on a base price with destination around $26,000.

Then consider the fact that Subaru's BRZ lacks adjustable dampers, throttle and steering calibrations. It has no complex electronic means of torque delivery and it can't be had with a sunroof or mercifully as a convertible. It is simple, relatively uncomplicated and wholly uncompromised. Despite this, it is one of the most rewarding cars we've ever driven.

Perhaps there's a lesson here. If this is all that's required to make a sports car with elegant control, engaging feedback and enlightening limits, we have only one question:

Why isn't every manufacturer doing it?

Track Test Results

http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/brz/2013/ft/2013_subaru_brz_eng_ft_315121_717.jpg

0-30 mph (sec.) 2.7
0-45 mph (sec.) 4.8
0-60 mph (sec.) 7.3
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 7.0
0-75 mph (sec.) 10.4
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 15.3 @ 92.1
30-0 mph (ft.) 28
60-0 mph (ft.) 114
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 69.1
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.92
MSRP $26,000

Test Driver Ratings & Comments

http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/subaru/brz/2013/ft/2013_subaru_brz_shifter_ft_315121_717.jpg

Acceleration Comments - Best launch rpm = 3,500-3,700. Rev limiter hits in 2nd gear at 59.2 mph, forcing the 2-3 shift just before the 60-mph milestone and significantly increasing the 0-60 time. This transmission hates aggressive 1-2 shifts. Missed 2nd gear multiple times as a result.

Braking Comments - Solid, consistent effectiveness point throughout test. Brake pedal feels reliable in this kind of test.

Handling Comments - Slalom: Excellent feedback. Feels narrow and slithers through cones respectably quickly. Steering feel and effort better than any car at this price. Yes, any car. Skid pad: Balance, balance, balance. Easy to walk up to limit and beyond with ample control and feedback. Driving near the limit of grip is truly this car's strength. It balances steering vs. throttle better than just about anything else. Fun.

http://support.edmunds.com/images/logo-insideline-big.png (http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-subaru-brz-full-test-and-video.html)

justin455
03-23-2012, 05:36 PM
God help me, but I like it. I would never buy one, but I like it.

NW-99SS
03-23-2012, 05:50 PM
So they praise the hell out of it, including the transmission - then add a comment at the end... "This transmission hates aggressive 1-2 shifts. Missed 2nd gear multiple times as a result."

As engaging as a bone stock 92 CRX IMO = FAIL. I would never buy a car that pretends to be fast just because it "feels" great. The truly great cars both "feel great" and are fast at the same time.

redbadss
03-23-2012, 07:25 PM
I like this little car, I wish more manufacturers used this formula for current cars. Glad to see Subaru decided to join Mazda in the real sport car segment.

Tainted
03-23-2012, 09:20 PM
Now turbo it and give it ohh say 265hp

JHL88
03-23-2012, 09:21 PM
that thing needs a bump of at least 75HP for real

TransAmWS.6
03-23-2012, 11:01 PM
that thing needs a bump of at least 75HP for real

That's how I feel, the car is very slow but it does look quite fun to drive for what it is. I bet the automatic kind of sucks though, in these types of cars you really need a manual.

TriShield
03-24-2012, 04:16 PM
That's how I feel, the car is very slow but it does look quite fun to drive for what it is. I bet the automatic kind of sucks though, in these types of cars you really need a manual.

There's a saying, it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow.

This isn't a big boat that needs a V8 like the American muscle cars and it's built to fit the driver like a glove and feel great when hustling.

That sounds pretty satisfying to me.

It's also very affordable and easy on the gas.

Latch
03-24-2012, 07:10 PM
Last time I talked about this car on here I got into some huge shit with some people... but I still feel the same way. I don't care how well it 'feels' going around a corner. If it can't do anything on the straights, I'm not interested. Seriously, 7.3 seconds to 60? 15 second quarter? For a performance car in 2012, this is unacceptable.

Maybe they're just putting this out before they offer a turbo version. THEN we're talking.

KameleonTransAm
03-24-2012, 07:22 PM
I sat in one of these, and was impressed. I liked the feel of everything. Only issue I saw, was there is less legroom in the back than a 4th Gen. (Of course I understand they're a few feet shorter in overall length.)

7998
03-24-2012, 08:05 PM
I get it, as a person who has owned a MGB, a TR6, and a Miata I get the light weight flickable fun to drive thing. But damn that is so ugly. I mean there is no redeeming angle. Maybe the silhouette but only because it is copied from the Hyundai Genesis. Speaking of I think I would rather have a Genesis than that.
For $24,000 I would rather have a used 350z or 370z. For that money I if I was shopping for a light fun to drive fast new car I would rather have a Mazda Speed3 or even a WRX. There is no one alive that can say the BRZ is a good looking car and not lie.



It's also very affordable and easy on the gas .
I've never owned a Flat four that was good on gas, have you?

TransAmWS.6
03-24-2012, 10:12 PM
There's a saying, it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow.

This isn't a big boat that needs a V8 like the American muscle cars and it's built to fit the driver like a glove and feel great when hustling.

That sounds pretty satisfying to me.

It's also very affordable and easy on the gas.

Yup, I agree and that's why people love these types of cars. Not my cup of tea whatsoever, but I can appreciate it for what it is.

projectX
03-24-2012, 11:01 PM
It's slow but Subaru makes pretty solid rides.

justin455
03-25-2012, 01:44 AM
I get it, as a person who has owned a MGB, a TR6, and a Miata I get the light weight flickable fun to drive thing. But damn that is so ugly. I mean there is no redeeming angle. Maybe the silhouette but only because it is copied from the Hyundai Genesis. Speaking of I think I would rather have a Genesis than that.
For $24,000 I would rather have a used 350z or 370z. For that money I if I was shopping for a light fun to drive fast new car I would rather have a Mazda Speed3 or even a WRX. There is no one alive that can say the BRZ is a good looking car and not lie.


I've never owned a Flat four that was good on gas, have you?

I think it looks pretty good...but I believe styling to be subjective.

LS1LT1
03-25-2012, 02:27 AM
For $24,000 I would rather have a used 350z or 370z.Last time I talked about this car on here I got into some huge shit with some people... but I still feel the same way. I don't care how well it 'feels' going around a corner. If it can't do anything on the straights, I'm not interested. Seriously, 7.3 seconds to 60? 15 second quarter? For a performance car in 2012, this is unacceptable.I agree.
They did manage to keep the pricing under $25k so I have to commend them for delivering what seems like it could be a fun little car, but I also agree that a little more 'oomph' might be welcomed as well.

djsanchez2
03-25-2012, 04:25 AM
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-scion-fr-s-first-drive-review

Here is the test drive for the FR-S

Tainted
03-25-2012, 10:42 AM
I've never owned a Flat four that was good on gas, have you?

My wrx did fairly well and was super fun. Got about 27mpg with it

NW-99SS
03-25-2012, 12:01 PM
My wrx did fairly well and was super fun. Got about 27mpg with it

27mpg with a turbo 4 good? :barf:

My SC Cobalt SS would get mid to high 30s @ 80mph set on cruise. I would say, that boxer 4's are NOT known for respectable mpg - maybe it's the AWD that eats up the fuel? (That way this car may be better?)

Johnnystock
03-25-2012, 02:07 PM
Fun car, but too slow.

TriShield
03-26-2012, 08:49 PM
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Toyota-GT-86-2.0/261979/

But what you might not realise is how perfectly these elements gel to deliver a driving experience that is addictive, to put it mildly. Because, after all, nothing can prepare you for just how pure the GT 86 is to drive; how sweetly it steers, how well balanced its chassis is near the limit, how crisply its brakes respond, or how incisive it feels when snapping from one direction to another.

And at that precise moment, you may even begin to believe that the car you are sitting in could be one of the most important machines of the past 10 years. Because on one level the GT 86 is simply a great little car to drive, one with such a fantastic level of chassis composure that it actually encourages the driver to play around with it where circumstances permit. And that’s a bright enough realisation in itself.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/26/2013-subaru-brz-first-drive-review-video/

Long story short – and to all doubters who have only numbers on paper or computer to go by – the Subaru BRZ is one hell of a real sports car and, on roads like these, will beat the tar out of all legitimate comers selling for anywhere near the Subie's estimated $25,500, and many selling on up to $45,000.

The excitement around this trio of light and tight 2+2s from Japan is warranted. Every single ingredient of the BRZ's feature set, price point, lack of availability and performance will work together to cause an abundance of well-deserved hype, and perhaps more than a bit of dealer price gouging if Subaru isn't careful.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577293812942708538.html

Add it all up: The nap-of-the-earth seating position and long hood; the shouty engine and exhaust; the triggerfish steering response and twitch-twitch of the manual gearbox; the merry tail-swinging and the chirpy tires. The BRZ thus perpetrates a splendid and useful fraud on its buyers: a not-so-fast sport coupe that is an absolute riot to drive.


http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-subaru-brz-full-test-and-video.html

Perhaps there's a lesson here. If this is all that's required to make a sports car with elegant control, engaging feedback and enlightening limits, we have only one question:

Why isn't every manufacturer doing it?

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1203_2013_subaru_brz_limited_first_test/

And the BRZ is undeniably superb. For the money, its grin-getting straight-line quickness, 22/30 mpg city/highway fuel economy (25/34 with the six-speed automatic), seemingly extrasensory chassis response, seven-airbag passive safety suite, and straightforward, aesthetically pleasing cabin -- offering nearly as much front headroom as the 4.4-inch-taller Honda Civic Si and enough cargo room with the rear seats folded to swallow a toolbox, a helmet, and a full set of wheels/tires -- make Subaru's most creative creation a force to be reckoned with. For pure, unadulterated driving delight, the BRZ packs a knockout punch.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1203_2013_subaru_brz_limited_first_test/viewall.html#ixzz1qGiNf7i6

How can anyone who calls themselves an enthusiast not love this car?

Latch
03-26-2012, 09:04 PM
How can anyone who calls themselves an enthusiast not love this car?

Because it'll get smoked by this:

http://www.autodic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/2011-Ford-F-150-EcoBoost-Front-Rear-Picture.jpg

TransAmWS.6
03-26-2012, 09:14 PM
^^^The car is not in any way designed for straight line speed, that means 0 to the type of enthusiasts who are going to be buying this car. Why is this such a difficult concept for some to grasp?

LS1LT1
03-26-2012, 09:36 PM
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Toyota-GT-86-2.0/261979/





http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/26/2013-subaru-brz-first-drive-review-video/





http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577293812942708538.html



http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/2013/2013-subaru-brz-full-test-and-video.html



http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1203_2013_subaru_brz_limited_first_test/



How can anyone who calls themselves an enthusiast not love this car?I get it, it's that whole 'tossable, being able to explore/enjoy the upper limits' thing. It's the ability to use almost all of what the car has without getting oneself into too much trouble.
The 1983/1984 VW GTI had it.
The Miata had (has?) it.
The Ford Focus SVT had it.
The base Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky might've even had it.
Even the Honda Civic Si.

Fun, razor sharp, but no matter how ya slice it, still just plain slow.

Cars like those often stemmed/developed out of necessity. The result of a fuel crisis or a government regulation/taxation of some sort.
There were very few truly fast cars back when the 'hot hatchback' (with the VW GTI often being accredited for 'inventing') segment first became popular so offering a car that could run 0-60 in under 10 seconds, haul around 4 adults and their groceries and still attack a slow speed slalom course very well was a smart move.
A little fun on a budget.
But in an era where there are other relatively inexpensive sports cars/sports coupes with some balls I don't know if a car like the FT-86 twins is quite as relevant, but maybe.
Personally, I'd probably sooner scrimp, save and borrow just a little bit more and be in a 332hp (and STILL very tossable/solid handling) 370Z long before committing myself to a "sports car" with less torque than a base Chevrolet Cobalt LOL. ;)

TransAmWS.6
03-26-2012, 09:47 PM
^^Good points and I agree 1000% with everything you mentioned. However, like I said, at the end of the day, the enthusiasts for these types of cars really don't care exactly how fast the car is compared to the other stuff out there, it's just no what it's meant for. It's all about the "driving experience" so to speak, and cars like these are very good for that kind of thing. It's all a matter of preference really, that's why they make more than one kind of car, some like cars like this FT86, some don't. I sure wouldn't buy one but I can understand and appreciate why people would.

7998
03-26-2012, 10:08 PM
How can anyone who calls themselves an enthusiast not love this car?

I've owned the following,
MGB
TR6
Miata
320i
GTI
GTI VR6
Jetta
325i
92 Civic si
97Civic EX
Beetle w/1776 dual Webers
Just to name a few.
I get it fun to drive, light weight. But it is just god awful looking to the point of offensive. It is way over hyped and over priced.
They built a 1990's Nissan 240sx, except I would rather have the 240, it's cheaper and better looking.
It's not like it's beautiful to look at and evokes emotion or passion. It would be a fun car to own until the 1st payment comes along and you realize "oh shit I'm stuck with this thing for 5 years".
An S2000 this is not.
This a 2nd Gen MR-S.





I get it, it's that whole 'tossable, being able to explore/enjoy the upper limits' thing. It's the ability to use almost all of what the car has without getting oneself into too much trouble.
The 1983/1984 VW GTI had it.
The Miata had (has?) it.
The Ford Focus SVT had it.
The base Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky might've even had it.
Even the Honda Civic Si.

Fun, razor sharp, but no matter how ya slice it, still just plain slow.

Cars like those often stemmed/developed out of necessity. The result of a fuel crisis or a government regulation/taxation of some sort.
There were very few truly fast cars back when the 'hot hatchback' (with the VW GTI often being accredited for 'inventing') segment first became popular so offering a car that could run 0-60 in under 10 seconds, haul around 4 adults and their groceries and still attack a slow speed slalom course very well was a smart move.
A little fun on a budget.
But in an era where there are other relatively inexpensive sports cars/sports coupes with some balls I don't know if a car like the FT-86 twins is quite as relevant, but maybe.
Personally, I'd probably sooner scrimp, save and borrow just a little bit more and be in a 332hp (and STILL very tossable/solid handling) 370Z long before committing myself to a "sports car" with less torque than a base Chevrolet Cobalt LOL. ;)

Well said:cheers:

TheHitman
03-26-2012, 10:22 PM
So many people complaining about power. This car isn't about power. And I believe that the pre order list for this car shows that there are many people who don't care about power.

LS1LT1
03-26-2012, 10:37 PM
^^Good points and I agree 1000% with everything you mentioned. However, like I said, at the end of the day, the enthusiasts for these types of cars really don't care exactly how fast the car is compared to the other stuff out there, it's just no what it's meant for. It's all about the "driving experience" so to speak, and cars like these are very good for that kind of thing. It's all a matter of preference really, that's why they make more than one kind of car, some like cars like this FT86, some don't. I sure wouldn't buy one but I can understand and appreciate why people would.Agreed. At least it did come in at the more reasonable 'under $25k' range instead of the nearly $30k that it looked like it could've been (after calculating the exchange rates of the previously released European pricing) a few months back. Still not exactly dirt cheap either though.
It's certainly not for me either, but not too bad of an overall package for that price. :nod:





So many people complaining about power. This car isn't about power. And I believe that the pre order list for this car shows that there are many people who don't care about power.True.
Just makes me wonder why the Miata (a fun/tossable/lightweight sports car that's also not about the power, and it's even got that whole roadster/convertible thing going on to boot) isn't quite as big of a 'hit' as it used to be.

I really wish that the Pontiac Solstice coupe was still in production. :nod:

http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/attachments/f114/15031d1243775104-new-owner-coupe-0199-solstice-smaller.jpg

Latch
03-26-2012, 10:42 PM
^^^The car is not in any way designed for straight line speed, that means 0 to the type of enthusiasts who are going to be buying this car. Why is this such a difficult concept for some to grasp?

A pickup truck isn't meant for straight line speed either. Doesn't mean it has to be slow as balls.

If this car is not meant for straight line speed, then what could it possibly be good for besides maybe autocross? Not good on a road course, not good on a dragstrip, not fun on the street.

I'm not saying I don't care how a car handles. I wish my Camaro handled better... but half the fun of a performance car is the acceleration, and you don't need to sacrifice speed for cornering anymore. This isn't the 1960s, there's ways to make horsepower these days without resorting to hanging a heavy iron block V8 over the front axle of a car and ruining the handling.

I don't understand the excuses for the lack of power from this thing... as if there was no way to make power without spoiling the handling. Why not have both?

LS1LT1
03-26-2012, 10:51 PM
The car is not in any way designed for straight line speedThen why give it even 200hp, if straight line speed means absolutely NOTHING to the BRZ/FR-S buyer then why not just give it 100hp and save even more money?:huh: ;)





I get it fun to drive, light weight. But it is just god awful looking to the point of offensive. It is way over hyped and over priced. They built a 1990's Nissan 240sx, except I would rather have the 240, it's cheaper and better looking.
It's not like it's beautiful to look at and evokes emotion or passion. It would be a fun car to own until the 1st payment comes along and you realize "oh shit I'm stuck with this thing for 5 years".
An S2000 this is not.
This a 2nd Gen MR-S.Agreed. :nod:

Irunelevens
03-26-2012, 10:55 PM
A pickup truck isn't meant for straight line speed either. Doesn't mean it has to be slow as balls.

If this car is not meant for straight line speed, then what could it possibly be good for besides maybe autocross? Not good on a road course, not good on a dragstrip, not fun on the street.

I'm not saying I don't care how a car handles. I wish my Camaro handled better... but half the fun of a performance car is the acceleration, and you don't need to sacrifice speed for cornering anymore. This isn't the 1960s, there's ways to make horsepower these days without resorting to hanging a heavy iron block V8 over the front axle of a car and ruining the handling.

I don't understand the excuses for the lack of power from this thing... as if there was no way to make power without spoiling the handling. Why not have both?

Like I said before, you don't understand this type of car. Which is fine, they aren't building a high-volume car here. They are building a particular type of car for a particular niche segment. And they'll have no problem selling every one they make. I can't wait to drive one. :drive:

TransAmWS.6
03-26-2012, 11:02 PM
A pickup truck isn't meant for straight line speed either. Doesn't mean it has to be slow as balls.

If this car is not meant for straight line speed, then what could it possibly be good for besides maybe autocross? Not good on a road course, not good on a dragstrip, not fun on the street.

I'm not saying I don't care how a car handles. I wish my Camaro handled better... but half the fun of a performance car is the acceleration, and you don't need to sacrifice speed for cornering anymore. This isn't the 1960s, there's ways to make horsepower these days without resorting to hanging a heavy iron block V8 over the front axle of a car and ruining the handling.

I don't understand the excuses for the lack of power from this thing... as if there was no way to make power without spoiling the handling. Why not have both?

I see your point, but I don't think you understand the overall concept of the car. It's a "drivers car", they are not meant for being top competitors around a road course, or a drag strip, or the auto-x, or anything like that. I group this car in the same category as Miata's, S2000's, Solstice's, MR2's, stuff like that. Are they balls out fast in a straight line? No. Are they top, world-class handlers? No. However, you still have a dedicated following for these cars, and those are the types of enthusiasts who would be interested in the FT86. Speed is not a priority, it's all about the sheer enjoyment in driving for those guys and like I said, these cars are all about that. Power does not mean too much when it comes to cars like the FT86.

Latch
03-26-2012, 11:45 PM
I guess I'll just never understand. :burn:

LS1LT1
03-26-2012, 11:58 PM
they aren't building a high-volume car here. Oh they are (both the Subaru and the Scion/Toyota) going to be limited production?
I agree that if they're not going to make as many as they can and only build as many as they get orders for then not too many will ever sit on dealer lots (like the more 'mass produced' Miata sometimes does). :nod:
Could lead to some dealer gouging too unfortunately.

Irunelevens
03-27-2012, 12:39 AM
The article said they were planning on 500/month.

LS1LT1
03-27-2012, 12:54 AM
The article said they were planning on 500/month.Oh wow, that is definitely limited.
That's just the Subaru version of course, there will likely be more Scions I'm sure, but it's probably going to be roughly the same total number for those as well.

TriShield
03-27-2012, 11:38 AM
Ironic that a site full of people who complain about weight also complain about one of the lightest cars in production, one that costs $25,000, yet pilot big boat cars in comparison themselves.

TriShield
03-27-2012, 11:40 AM
A pickup truck isn't meant for straight line speed either. Doesn't mean it has to be slow as balls.

If this car is not meant for straight line speed, then what could it possibly be good for besides maybe autocross? Not good on a road course, not good on a dragstrip, not fun on the street.


Giant fat pig cars are fun on the street?

Acceleration in a car like that one doesn't feel slow, many of them feel downright fast and without the explosive fat dynamics of a typical heavy muscle car whose hood you can't see the end of.

I can't think of a situation that a truly lightweight car isn't good and fun in but I can think of quite a few a muscle car isn't good or fun in.

2002_Z28_Six_Speed
03-27-2012, 01:17 PM
I am not impressed with the price point. I could deal with the low hp if the price reflected the abilities and features that the car lacks.

Latch
03-27-2012, 02:23 PM
Giant fat pig cars are fun on the street?

Acceleration in a car like that one doesn't feel slow, many of them feel downright fast and without the explosive fat dynamics of a typical heavy muscle car whose hood you can't see the end of.

I can't think of a situation that a truly lightweight car isn't good and fun in but I can think of quite a few a muscle car isn't good or fun in.

Since when are 4th gens heavy? Last time I weighed mine it was right around 3,400 lbs. Let's see how some other cars compare...

Lamborghini Murcielago 3,638 lbs
Ferrari 599 3,721 lbs
Aston Martin DBS 3,740 lbs
McLaren SLR 3,900 lbs

So these ultra expensive supercars all weigh in at hundreds of pounds more than a 4th gen F-body. They all happen to have a LOT more power, so I guess the F-body is the "driver's car" in this comparison because it's so much lighter? That makes no sense at all.

Lightness =/= driver's car
Lightness =/= fast
Lightness =/= fun

bah321
03-27-2012, 02:32 PM
So much love/hate with this car....I can't decide if I like it or not.

I can guarantee one thing thou, the owners of this car will be annoying. I am talking circa 2003-2005 350Z owner annoying.

TriShield
03-27-2012, 03:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWcHJ_nr2Zs

The exhaust tone sounds quite good here.

TransAmWS.6
03-27-2012, 10:16 PM
That looks pretty badass in that video, I do like these cars for the money. Still probably wouldn't buy one for myself however.

Latch
03-27-2012, 10:22 PM
It actually looks pretty good in black... if only it had a real motor...

beerwhiskeyjoe
03-27-2012, 11:00 PM
Ironic that a site full of people who complain about weight also complain about one of the lightest cars in production, one that costs $25,000, yet pilot big boat cars in comparison themselves.

Its not that, I'm sure most here including me would love this thing if they slapped a turbo on it. Even 300hp at that weight would be absolutely, brilliantly fun combined with the rest of the car. And considering the base price, they could do it for around $30-32K...

And yes I drive a 5200lb boat, thank you very much.

LS1LT1
03-28-2012, 02:28 AM
I am not impressed with the price point. I could deal with the low hp if the price reflected the abilities and features that the car lacks.Agreed.





Since when are 4th gens heavy? Last time I weighed mine it was right around 3,400 lbs. Let's see how some other cars compare...

Lamborghini Murcielago 3,638 lbs
Ferrari 599 3,721 lbs
Aston Martin DBS 3,740 lbs
McLaren SLR 3,900 lbs

So these ultra expensive supercars all weigh in at hundreds of pounds more than a 4th gen F-body. They all happen to have a LOT more power, so I guess the F-body is the "driver's car" in this comparison because it's so much lighter? That makes no sense at all.Good points. :nod:

CaptainDirtymax
03-28-2012, 12:31 PM
It actually looks pretty good in black... if only it had a real motor...

the STi version is supposed to be even lighter and hopped up to around 250bhp from that flat 4:secret2:

LS1LT1
03-28-2012, 12:55 PM
the STi version is supposed to be even lighter and hopped up to around 250bhp from that flat 4:secret2:No no no, :nono: this car isn't about power at all, no one will buy that version because they'd all rather just go slow, weren't you reading above?:huh: :lol: :D ;)

But in all seriousness, this car with even less weight and 50+ more horsepower/torque would be quite a serious all around performer. Never mind what the aftermarket could turn it into. :nod:

Latch
03-28-2012, 01:59 PM
This car + LS1 swap = win

LS1LT1
03-28-2012, 03:25 PM
This car + LS1 swap = win:D :cool:

TheHitman
03-28-2012, 03:29 PM
this car + ls1 swap = win

+1. Qft

JeremyKrauss
04-01-2012, 07:43 AM
Can't believe it took until the third page for somebody to say ls1 swap lol that's the first thing I thought when I saw it. Looks like a fun little car, but I'm not about to spend money getting one any time soon.

D3VIL
04-02-2012, 01:59 AM
+1. Qft

You beat me to it lol

This is a Muscle car forum, better yet this is a V8 Country. Where bigger is better and we need 4100lb+ muscle cars to be able to sit our not-so-tiny people in it. I'm really really not surprised of how many people have bashed on this car's 200hp.

The problem is that the 4th gen looks like an Elise compared to the 5gen as far as weight goes, and were satisfied with it. But sit in a 2500lb car and you'll quickly notice the nimbleness and that 900lb difference is A LOT! And 200hp goes very far to make this car feel quick(not fast), which is what they're aiming for.

I've driven a SRT8 Charger and a 5th get SS and compared to my stock 4th gen they were quicker(though by not much) off the line, but the weight of the car never gave me(the driver) confident to push the car to it's limits. A 2500lb car give confident to the driver and they'll push it to it's limit, which is where all the fun come in!

BanditTA
04-02-2012, 11:54 AM
I can guarantee one thing thou, the owners of this car will be annoying. I am talking circa 2003-2005 350Z owner annoying.

My thoughts exactly.

They could have at least made an attempt at trying to make it look somewhat appealing. All it does is handle well, that means two shits to me.

2002_Z28_Six_Speed
04-02-2012, 04:50 PM
The problem is that the 4th gen looks like an Elise compared to the 5gen as far as weight goes, and were satisfied with it. But sit in a 2500lb car and you'll quickly notice the nimbleness and that 900lb difference is A LOT! And 200hp goes very far to make this car feel quick(not fast), which is what they're aiming for.


I agree. My DD is more about 3100 lbs and 180 HP. HP does go alot farther w/o all that weight but in this case the scales just aren't balanced enough. We don't need 420 HP but 50-80 more and I would be running to the bank. Especially if it has room to grow reliably.

mac62989
04-02-2012, 06:24 PM
the STi version is supposed to be even lighter and hopped up to around 250bhp from that flat 4:secret2:

Info on this please!

djsanchez2
04-02-2012, 06:56 PM
This car + LS1 swap = win

Now that is something to look forward to :D

CaptainDirtymax
04-03-2012, 12:28 PM
Info on this please!

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/281035/subaru_brz_sti_planned.html#ixzz1qQk0vsr2

TheHitman
04-03-2012, 01:12 PM
Looks like the STi BRZ might turn out pretty well:

http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz/power-brokers-the-future-of-the-subaru-brz-and-scion-fr-s.html

djsanchez2
04-03-2012, 01:56 PM
I still like the Toyota version better. The red one with the vented CF hood looks really good :drool:

http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/toyota/ft-86/2013/fe/2013_toyota_ft-86_f34_fe_327124_717.jpg

mac62989
04-03-2012, 06:09 PM
One article says NA engine and the other talks about boost. :huh: