Is the BRZ doomed?!?!

[gily25]

Originally Posted by thill

Right but the FR-S and BRZ differences are mostly astehtic and if the companies split on the partnership, that means Toyota would have to tool their own factories and workers to make limited 2 door RWD production runs. And Subaru would have to cut back on production.

I think we will actually see more partnerships when it comes to sports cars to reduce R&D and manufacturing costs.

They don't have to stop manufacturing the cars for Toyota/Scion even if they split the original design partnership, it will simply be a new contract. Do people think that one day they make BRZ on the line and the next say switch to Scion? There are enough differences between the vehicles that each one is on a separate line with a separate crew already. Making changes to each model's engine, interior, or body isn't a stretch unless a specific machine is needed for the process the line will barely change at all.

As far as car companies teaming up, it isn't just for sports cars. GM and Nissan are teamed up for GM's new vans. I think once companies start teaming up (especially to deal with Cafe standards) they'll start to produce other projects that have been sitting b/c they needed something a competitor has already dreamed or owns production rights for.

[thill]

Originally Posted by gily25

They don't have to stop manufacturing the cars for Toyota/Scion even if they split the original design partnership, it will simply be a new contract. Do people think that one day they make BRZ on the line and the next say switch to Scion? There are enough differences between the vehicles that each one is on a separate line with a separate crew already. Making changes to each model's engine, interior, or body isn't a stretch unless a specific machine is needed for the process the line will barely change at all.

As far as car companies teaming up, it isn't just for sports cars. Ford and Mazda are teamed up for Ford's new vans. I think once companies start teaming up (especially to deal with Cafe standards) they'll start to produce other projects that have been sitting b/c they needed something a competitor has already dreamed or owns production rights for.

If Toyota's next FT86 platform is a drastically different car and shares not much in common with the current plaftorm (which is what Tada seemed to indicate), I don't see why Subaru would produce this car and why Toyota would want them to.

[a2cpc]

As far as we know, and we know nothing, Toyota may hold all the cards in the contract and might even be able to tell Subaru to stop producing them if they want to go another direction. Since they designed and built the prototypes they might own all the rights. Remember, Subaru had to be convinced to build the car so they might have gone for the money up front thinking the car wouldn't be as successful as it was.

[go2brz]

As far as we know, and we know nothing, Toyota may hold all the cards in the contract and might even be able to tell Subaru to stop producing them if they want to go another direction. Since they designed and built the prototypes they might own all the rights. Remember, Subaru had to be convinced to build the car so they might have gone for the money up front thinking the car wouldn't be as successful as it was.

If one truly understands the automobile industry today as it has morphed into a few behemoths and a few semi-independents (BMW mostly as no mega-corporation controls them and Subaru being the smallest of all mass producers that clings to independence) then it is clear that so many of these posts are sadly misdirected and misinformed.

Toyota did not produce a "prototype" for this car. They did not even produce a prototype for their first pitch to Subaru. They produced concepts on paper. Toyota has "produced" nothing on this car. They have helped to fund, support, seek a certain direction of purpose, design the body, and give technology to Subaru to make this car.

Subaru now has the right use Toyota's DI and Port injection technology on thier engines. In the future they can modify it to their purposes or use it in any means they want. This is the largest price Toyota paid to get this car produced. For Subaru this was "humongous". The cost of R&D for cutting edge technology like this takes enormous resources. You can thank the Japanese government for this as much as Toyota. They knew that with access to such technology Subaru (Fuji) could remain a growing player in the changing world auto industry. GM took technology and gave nothing when they owned the same percentage of Fuji that Toyota now owns today. I give a lot of credit to Toyota that they saw how Subaru could help them in ways that a small company can do, but that as a large corporate culture will usually take the lowest common demoninator according to the marketing and accounting dweebs.

Now that Subaru has a production line with all the die tools, robots and such paid for , the actual number of cars produced is less important. Also today's computer controlled car production lines allow for an amazing amount of variance in production of different models on the same line. They can make this car as long as they like, as long as it does not subtract from the bottom line of the company and serves as a dealer attraction. But the car industry is a fickle behemoth, and production capacity is the more likely culprit to stop this car, if the capacity is more valuable to use for other models.

Toyota makes a very high quality automobile. They don't "need" Subaru to exist at the top of the auto food chain. But they also are in the battle to become the worlds largest carmaker and seldom has the worlds largest car producer built any of the worlds most exciting or sports competitive cars. They have made some truly inspired efforts to make a "real" sports car from time to time over the last 30 years. Obviously they have made some models that will be etched in the minds of those who like to have an auto that they consider "special" But in the last twenty years if you look at the manufacturers who have made cars that have become lasting top performers and favorites on the amateur racing circuits of the SCCA and local car clubs then Toyota has come up shorter than several companies that are much smaller with much less resources to have the chance to succeed. When Toyota can just throw money at something to win, they do well at times (except F1 where they wasted hundreds of millions). They have the money to fund good TRD programs like the one in Cologne, Germany, and even the NASCAR stuff). They really do want to be a company which is thought of simultaneously as a quality company as well as a maker of fun and fast cars. Again, I give them credit for that effort. It is much more than GM could ever achieve in my lifetime.

Toyota went to Subaru and offered a concept for a car to sold together and produced by Subaru. The fact is clearly documented that Subaru said no to that concept. Subaru then "skunk" worked their own concept and showed it to Toyota who responded positively as it provided the basic idea of what they were looking for. A sports car that would appeal to the street modifier and amateur racer and actually be a sports car that these people would want and would buy. (Sorry, but as a long time SCCA member, autocrosser and track amateur, there are not many successful Toyota's that you see in that arena. The most successful of the Japanese companies and the most numerous are Mazda and Subaru. So i find it amusing that so many posters feel that Toyota could have built this car themselves and it could have hit the mark just as directly as the this FT-86/FR-S/BRZ model has. If so, why have they not done it themselves? What model have they made that struck such a strong chord with pure auto enthusiasts in a long time? I feel that this match between Toyota and Subaru is a symbiotic relation that is helping each company tremendously to earn credit and approval from the core of the enthusiast market. But neither could have done it on their own.

Toyota has the resources and ability to make more sports models and to fill in thier overall lineup with better sport models (BMW will help as well). But to read someone who thinks that Toyota is about to throw away this joint project because they can "improve upon it" by themselves makes me laugh. There is no Toyota engine in production or planned that could improve upon the basic premise and design success of this car. They could do many things to differentiate this car more from the Subaru model, but putting an upright 4 cylinder or v-6 is not going to improve it. This car is a boxer, and the only way to improve it is to find a way to get more power out of the same flat, low center of gravity, balanced engine layout. Toyota will have to produce their own car on their own line if they want a different engine in this car as Subaru will not be building it anymore at that point. (You can have a production line that can put different engines in the same car, but it is another mater when the engine installed requires the chassis to be different. And then the chances rise that it comes out no better than the last Celica or Scion tc on the highly desired inexpensive sports car list. This is not an anti-Toyota or pro-Subaru rant. Toyota has the ability and money to do lots of interesting things on the automotive front. I have tried to use facts, history and the reality of what today's car industry is about to bring a realistic understanding of how and why this car exists and to dispel some of the speculation about the future of this car. No doubt I will get lots of comments, disagreements and a few snide remarks from some who totally miss the point and some heartfelt responses from those who have strong feelings about one company or another.

[alan.chalkley]

Toyota has a long history of enlisting help with their cars.
For many years yamaha helped with the celica , gmh helped with the lexen.
Now subaru with 86/scion frs.
And speculation that bmw will help with the future supra.
Toyota are great at building reliably boring camrys , but to build excitement they need help.
I am still a toyota fan because 3 of my four cars are reliable toyotas.

[a2cpc]

Originally Posted by go2brz

Toyota did not produce a "prototype" for this car. They did not even produce a prototype for their first pitch to Subaru. They produced concepts on paper. Toyota has "produced" nothing on this car. They have helped to fund, support, seek a certain direction of purpose, design the body, and give technology to Subaru to make this car..

Originally Posted by go2brz

Toyota went to Subaru and offered a concept for a car to sold together and produced by Subaru. The fact is clearly documented that Subaru said no to that concept. Subaru then "skunk" worked their own concept and showed it to Toyota who responded positively as it provided the basic idea of what they were looking for.and Subaru is a symbiotic relation that is helping each company tremendously to earn credit and approval from the core of the enthusiast market. But neither could have done it on their own..

So you have seen the contract? Also, why is the man who was in charge at Toyota on video saying the opposite?

[skye67]

With everything that has been said about this car. And not come true. I call BS. This much work between Toyota and Subaru just to scrap it. I do not think so.

[a2cpc]

I am not saying it will happen. I just made up my mind a few weeks ago to possibly purchase one in the spring. All I am saying is none of us know the details of the contract, so anything can happen. I don't believe Subaru can sustain this car on its own merits, especially if Toyota brings a couple of new cars into the fight.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Suberman

????

What DYI were you thinking of?

All you can really do on these modern engines is change the oil and the air filter. Both of these tasks are super simple on these new gen Subie engines.

Plugs no longer need changing very often.

Anything else?

Long term ownership will require more DIY maintenance. Compression check, spark plugs, fuel injectors, fuel rails. Have you ever had a mis-shift in an I4 car? the head has to come off and new valves dropped in ect... Simple on something like a Honda but on this... But for the general person who won't be doing most stuff for themselves or just the basics, then yes it's not that bad. I'm speaking from my experience with racing, track days and fixing the things you broke on your own or as close to it as you can.

[go2brz]

So you have seen the contract? Also, why is the man who was in charge at Toyota on video saying the opposite?

So you know that a "contract" exists........Have you seen a contract? Or do you just like to ask questions that you do not know the answer to? Large joint projects like this involve technology transfers. No contract can totally reverse that.....

Facts say that the car is built on a "Subaru" assembly line. The die tools and robot programming exists and is "in a factory" in Japan that belongs to Subaru. I am just stating the obvious it would seem. Toyota gave all this to Subaru to build this car. The new Forester FA20 Turbo is the same engine as the BRZ with DI, but a modified ECU to deal with the turbo on Subaru's engine team's terms. This DI technology was part of the deal. Subaru "got" Toyota's DI technology as it applies to their boxer engines. If you think that there is some "contract" that takes this away from Subaru in the future then you simply do not understand how corporations makes such deals. (Which is fine, as most people don't know and don't really care).

Mr. Tada can say whatever he wants about the future of Toyota and where he wants to take them. That does not change what Subaru has gained from this joint project. I commend him on wanting to take Toyota into automotive regions that they have made strong efforts at but not yet truly succeeded in the market. Toyota could sell their 20 percent to anyone (even Hyundai) and Subaru still has the technology to make their boxer engines with DI technology that Toyota gave them. That was the deal. Not a revocable contract, but a negotiated trading of technology for chassis design and production of cars. This is how these deals work or no company would enter them, if on a whim or change of management, something of value that they negotiated for could simply be taken away. It is OK for any of us on these boards to love Toyota, and hate Subaru, or vice versa, or love them both. But this is simple business. Toyota leaves this project at their loss, not Subaru. I personally don't believe that Toyota is very "unhappy" with their joint project but rather are very proud that they have an inexpensive "pure" sports car to offer to the public, regardless of how it came about.

[SeanBlader]

Originally Posted by Nothing

Have you ever had a mis-shift in an I4 car? the head has to come off and new valves dropped in ect...

For arguments sake, I'm going to assume you're referring to the misshifting issue in the 7th generation Celica. I had one and was fortunate to not have that problem, but I knew a couple people who did. I have however misshifted a Toyota with an I4 motor and what happens in a RWD car is a little different than the Celica. When a misshift occurs, the engine tries to rapidly speed up, and the vehicle tries to rapidly slow down. On the Celica that transfers the vehicle weight to the drive wheels allowing them to improve their traction, thereby putting all the car's momentum into the motor. In a RWD car that rapid decrease in vehicle speed will also load the front wheels with grip, allowing the drive wheels to suddenly offload a proportional amount of grip, and they quickly lose traction and lock up before the motor can overrev. Ironically I did that very thing in a car with far better rear grip than the 86, it was an MR2. It never got over 6k RPMs before the rear wheels just chirped as they got dragged along.

I'm not saying I'm going to go out and try this, but the Celica was also Toyota's first foray into 6 speed transmissions, and the centering springs were VERY loose on those early models, making it very easy to go from redline of 3rd to 2nd. You will likely not see that happen with these cars.
-Sean

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by SeanBlader

For arguments sake, I'm going to assume you're referring to the misshifting issue in the 7th generation Celica. I had one and was fortunate to not have that problem, but I knew a couple people who did. I have however misshifted a Toyota with an I4 motor and what happens in a RWD car is a little different than the Celica. When a misshift occurs, the engine tries to rapidly speed up, and the vehicle tries to rapidly slow down. On the Celica that transfers the vehicle weight to the drive wheels allowing them to improve their traction, thereby putting all the car's momentum into the motor. In a RWD car that rapid decrease in vehicle speed will also load the front wheels with grip, allowing the drive wheels to suddenly offload a proportional amount of grip, and they quickly lose traction and lock up before the motor can overrev. Ironically I did that very thing in a car with far better rear grip than the 86, it was an MR2. It never got over 6k RPMs before the rear wheels just chirped as they got dragged along.

I'm not saying I'm going to go out and try this, but the Celica was also Toyota's first foray into 6 speed transmissions, and the centering springs were VERY loose on those early models, making it very easy to go from redline of 3rd to 2nd. You will likely not see that happen with these cars.
-Sean

I did have a 7th gen Celica but didn't misshift that car. I did it in a 5th gen Prelude. The tranny on those cars was notchy as they aged. But I would still rather have a RWD I4 set up like the S2K, 240sx or Miata.

[alan.chalkley]

If Subaru have the idea that the BRZ is just a bridge to the new WRX , then they need to make a better WRX/STI .
Orders for the new WRX are few and far between here down under in Aus.
The BRZ is still selling out fast.

[Exhaust]

That special hybrid he mentioned is the KERS engine.