Edmunds Full-Test - 2013 Subaru BRZ RWD coupe
03-26-2012, 07:49 PM
#21
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...86-2.0/261979/
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/26/2...-review-video/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...942708538.html
http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz...and-video.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ed_first_test/
How can anyone who calls themselves an enthusiast not love this car?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Why isn't every manufacturer doing it?
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/...#ixzz1qGiNf7i6
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1qGiNf7i6
03-26-2012, 08:14 PM
#23
TECH Fanatic
^^^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?
03-26-2012, 08:36 PM
#24
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...86-2.0/261979/
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/26/2...-review-video/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...942708538.html
http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz...and-video.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ed_first_test/
How can anyone who calls themselves an enthusiast not love this car?
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/26/2...-review-video/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...942708538.html
http://www.insideline.com/subaru/brz...and-video.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ed_first_test/
How can anyone who calls themselves an enthusiast not love this car?
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 ***** 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.
03-26-2012, 08:47 PM
#25
TECH Fanatic
^^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.
03-26-2012, 09:08 PM
#26
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 **** I'm stuck with this thing for 5 years".
An S2000 this is not.
This a 2nd Gen MR-S.
Well said
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 **** 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 ***** 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.
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 ***** 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.
03-26-2012, 09:22 PM
#27
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waffle Land
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
03-26-2012, 09:37 PM
#28
^^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.
It's certainly not for me either, but not too bad of an overall package for that price.
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.
Last edited by LS1LT1; 03-26-2012 at 09:47 PM.
03-26-2012, 09:42 PM
#29
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?
03-26-2012, 09:51 PM
#30
Then 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?
Agreed.
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 **** I'm stuck with this thing for 5 years".
An S2000 this is not.
This a 2nd Gen MR-S.
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 **** I'm stuck with this thing for 5 years".
An S2000 this is not.
This a 2nd Gen MR-S.
03-26-2012, 09:55 PM
#31
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pickup truck isn't meant for straight line speed either. Doesn't mean it has to be slow as *****.
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?
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?
03-26-2012, 10:02 PM
#32
TECH Fanatic
A pickup truck isn't meant for straight line speed either. Doesn't mean it has to be slow as *****.
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?
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?
03-26-2012, 10:58 PM
#34
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).
Could lead to some dealer gouging too unfortunately.
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).
Could lead to some dealer gouging too unfortunately.
03-26-2012, 11:54 PM
#36
03-27-2012, 10:38 AM
#37
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
03-27-2012, 10:40 AM
#38
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pickup truck isn't meant for straight line speed either. Doesn't mean it has to be slow as *****.
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.
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.
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.
03-27-2012, 01:23 PM
#40
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.
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.
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