I got sick from reading this discussion about the Twins

[DohcTor]

Originally Posted by kidgogeta

i completely agree with you, even nissan did the 2+2 lightweight coupe 20 years ago with more power. i love my FRS it offers something on the market that hasn't been there for years but the fanboys for this car are ridiculous

Thanks mate

Glad to see there are still some open minded people in this world.

A few people replied to me saying the 86 is an overall better package than the s2000. No arguments here. I'm not an s2000 fanboy per se, I just love lightweight RWD sports cars and honda produced one of the best ever made.

The s2000 is exciting because the engine and transmission have been tuned just right. The 86 on the other hand is riddled with torque dips and lack of hp. This is a huge deal to anyone who uses their engine while driving. (Wink wink )

I recommend you all watch the s2000 v 86 v rx8 review on YouTube. It will help you to understand the difference.

[thill]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Even if Toyota offered a turbo, I wouldn't buy it. 10% more money for a car that doesn't add too much more in the real world. OMG, it might be .8sec quicker to 60!


Sent from Tandy 400

Go look at the dollar to yen conversion rate since the twins have come out. There is no reason why they could not offer a turbo/supercharger at this point for under $30K.

I am in the camp that the base engine is fine for many folks but why not offer a more powerful version to the people who want it stock from the factory and are willing to pay more?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by thill

Go look at the dollar to yen conversion rate since the twins have come out. There is no reason why they could not offer a turbo/supercharger at this point for under $30K.

I am in the camp that the base engine is fine for many folks but why not offer a more powerful version to the people who want it stock from the factory and are willing to pay more?

Or at least an official TRD add on that could be done at the port or dealer level.
This would allow for more HP without voiding the warranty. It also would not conflict with the various government emissions requirements as the car would enter the country meeting "stock" ratings.
The add on could be bought by anybody wanting that extra umfff to those that want/need it without driving up the price of the base models.

I am a "stock engine is fine" guy as well!
I am not trying to shave a 100th of a second off my 2 hour commute and the micro second that the torque dips take to pass do not effect my acceleration from a dead stop to the bumper of the car in front of me in city traffic.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by thill

Go look at the dollar to yen conversion rate since the twins have come out. There is no reason why they could not offer a turbo/supercharger at this point for under $30K.

I am in the camp that the base engine is fine for many folks but why not offer a more powerful version to the people who want it stock from the factory and are willing to pay more?

I think it would be right at $29k. (10% more than $25k would actually be $28k per my original post.)

They don't offer a high performance version because there likely isn't/wasn't a business case for it. They'd probably only boost overall sales by 10%~15% because they would cannibalize a certain number of the base model sales and get a certain number of new sales. The net gain wouldn't be huge. If the costs to develop and support (manufacturing, suppliers, logistics, etc) is more than the additional profit from the additional model, there is no reason to offer it. The other thing to consider is that Subaru would have built in more overlap in their performance models with a turbo BRZ. You'd now have the BRZ-T and FRS-T cannibalizing WRX and STI sales. The final factor is capacity. I don't think Subaru has enough capacity to increase sales much more of the vehicles coming out of the Gunma plant. They probably make a lot more money off the Crosstrek than the BRZ (and definitely more than they make selling a car for Toyota). They are going to fill the remaining capacity with more profitable, easy to sell cars. They probably view the BRZ as a little halo that needs to sell in a minimum volume to stay viable.

I'm an automotive engineer that does manufacturing planning. Model mix, variations, and logistics are a HUGE cost. Adding more capacity isn't cheap. So, the manufacturer needs to maximize their profit based on what they can build. My guess is that the BRZ/FR-S make practically no money for either manufacturer. Toyota needed a sporty car for image reasons not profit. Them doing a joint venture with Subaru for that image booster should tell you everything you need to know about how viable the twins are on their own. You don't make a vehicle with suspect viability more viable by making it overlap with other models and making the development of it more expensive. Just like the WRX losing the hatch variation, I very much think the choice of engine was a "one or the other" situation. The non-turbo, cheaper BRZ/FR-S likely had a better business case per their numbers.


Sent from Tandy 400

[Quentin]

I do agree with @Tcoat that a TRD Supercharger should be under consideration by Toyota. The business case for that has to be pretty decent since it would be a dealer add on and not require all the emissions and safety certifications that a factory version would. It would be a simple (sell price - cost)*units > r&d cost for justification. They have been working on a TRD Supercharger for the new 1GR since 2010 and it keeps failing carb certification, though.


Sent from Tandy 400

[totopo]

I think the reason there isn't a higher hp version is because it would completely change the car, and be really expensive. I don't think they can sell a production car with the same drivetrain with more torque. They probably would have to put in beefier everything for the reliability expected of a production car. This would probably make the weight and cost unacceptably high, and there's a ton of higher hp higher weight sports cars to compete with at that point. The cost would be exorbitantly high.

If they also kept it balanced similar to currently, kids everywhere will wrap the car around trees and the insurance rates will go through the roof.

[ZionsWrath]

I think the bottom line consensus of us "fan boys" is this:

Would the car be better with more power? Sure.
Do I want to pay for it? No.

Subaru already demonstrates they can offer more power for the same price. WRX. It's all about give and take with budget cars.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by Quentin

I think it would be right at $29k. (10% more than $25k would actually be $28k per my original post.)

They don't offer a high performance version because there likely isn't/wasn't a business case for it. They'd probably only boost overall sales by 10%~15% because they would cannibalize a certain number of the base model sales and get a certain number of new sales. The net gain wouldn't be huge. If the costs to develop and support (manufacturing, suppliers, logistics, etc) is more than the additional profit from the additional model, there is no reason to offer it. The other thing to consider is that Subaru would have built in more overlap in their performance models with a turbo BRZ. You'd now have the BRZ-T and FRS-T cannibalizing WRX and STI sales. The final factor is capacity. I don't think Subaru has enough capacity to increase sales much more of the vehicles coming out of the Gunma plant. They probably make a lot more money off the Crosstrek than the BRZ (and definitely more than they make selling a car for Toyota). They are going to fill the remaining capacity with more profitable, easy to sell cars. They probably view the BRZ as a little halo that needs to sell in a minimum volume to stay viable.

I'm an automotive engineer that does manufacturing planning. Model mix, variations, and logistics are a HUGE cost. Adding more capacity isn't cheap. So, the manufacturer needs to maximize their profit based on what they can build. My guess is that the BRZ/FR-S make practically no money for either manufacturer. Toyota needed a sporty car for image reasons not profit. Them doing a joint venture with Subaru for that image booster should tell you everything you need to know about how viable the twins are on their own. You don't make a vehicle with suspect viability more viable by making it overlap with other models and making the development of it more expensive. Just like the WRX losing the hatch variation, I very much think the choice of engine was a "one or the other" situation. The non-turbo, cheaper BRZ/FR-S likely had a better business case per their numbers.


Sent from Tandy 400

Thank you for your insight. You're sharing a perspective that will be helpful to those wanting to understand the logic behind not only our car's parents, but auto firms in general

[thill]

Originally Posted by Quentin

I think it would be right at $29k. (10% more than $25k would actually be $28k per my original post.)

They don't offer a high performance version because there likely isn't/wasn't a business case for it. They'd probably only boost overall sales by 10%~15% because they would cannibalize a certain number of the base model sales and get a certain number of new sales. The net gain wouldn't be huge. If the costs to develop and support (manufacturing, suppliers, logistics, etc) is more than the additional profit from the additional model, there is no reason to offer it. The other thing to consider is that Subaru would have built in more overlap in their performance models with a turbo BRZ. You'd now have the BRZ-T and FRS-T cannibalizing WRX and STI sales. The final factor is capacity. I don't think Subaru has enough capacity to increase sales much more of the vehicles coming out of the Gunma plant. They probably make a lot more money off the Crosstrek than the BRZ (and definitely more than they make selling a car for Toyota). They are going to fill the remaining capacity with more profitable, easy to sell cars. They probably view the BRZ as a little halo that needs to sell in a minimum volume to stay viable.

I'm an automotive engineer that does manufacturing planning. Model mix, variations, and logistics are a HUGE cost. Adding more capacity isn't cheap. So, the manufacturer needs to maximize their profit based on what they can build. My guess is that the BRZ/FR-S make practically no money for either manufacturer. Toyota needed a sporty car for image reasons not profit. Them doing a joint venture with Subaru for that image booster should tell you everything you need to know about how viable the twins are on their own. You don't make a vehicle with suspect viability more viable by making it overlap with other models and making the development of it more expensive. Just like the WRX losing the hatch variation, I very much think the choice of engine was a "one or the other" situation. The non-turbo, cheaper BRZ/FR-S likely had a better business case per their numbers.


Sent from Tandy 400

You bring up some great points and I would assume based on existing sales data Subaru and Toyota were comfortable with the sales goals and targets. I mentioned the yen here because it is important. The original rumors were that the base FT86 was going to be priced lower than price that was eventually announced officially. If you look at the yen at the time the FT86 came out it was at a historic high vs foreign currencies. Since then the conversion has dropped considerably and the yen is much more favorable and we have seen price reductions in some regions outside the US for the car. In other words Toyota and Subaru are making a lot more money on each sale. I suspect Subaru could release a more powerful version of this car and still come in under $30K (with more options it would cost more, but that could be a base price).

Subaru capacity is very tight, you are absolutely correct and the BRZ and even the WRX/STI is not their priority (Crosstrek, Legacy, Forester are). But sales are trending down for the FT86 YOY, and we are not talking huge numbers to sell an STI type version of the FT86. To your point, it really comes down to whether or note Subaru and Toyota are willing to do it for the enthusiasts who want it. I doubt the FT86 has really been much of a moneymaker anyway, it was more of a halo project and an effort to get more youth and enthusiasm to their brands.

As for WRX/STI sales creep, I don't see it. WRX sales for the prior generation were extremely strong after the FT86 debut and, in fact, 2013 (previous gen WRX) saw some of the best WRX sales numbers in 10 years. Having owned a BRZ and now a WRX I can say the cars are so different that I am not sure if a turbo BRZ would really affect WRX/STI sales. People buy a WRX because they need four doors, a useable backseat and want AWD. For me it was the only motivation to get a WRX (family).

Toyota has hinted several times about adding a more powerful FT86. I don't know if it will ever happen. But I think the case could be made for it. We can argue all day that the current car is powerful enough (and in many cases I don't disagree) but clearly many people have complained about the power and surely there have been lost sales because of it.

[ZionsWrath]

Originally Posted by thill

You bring up some great points and I would assume based on existing sales data Subaru and Toyota were comfortable with the sales goals and targets. I mentioned the yen here because it is important. The original rumors were that the base FT86 was going to be priced lower than price that was eventually announced officially. If you look at the yen at the time the FT86 came out it was at a historic high vs foreign currencies. Since then the conversion has dropped considerably and the yen is much more favorable and we have seen price reductions in some regions outside the US for the car. In other words Toyota and Subaru are making a lot more money on each sale. I suspect Subaru could release a more powerful version of this car and still come in under $30K (with more options it would cost more, but that could be a base price).

Subaru capacity is very tight, you are absolutely correct and the BRZ and even the WRX/STI is not their priority (Crosstrek, Legacy, Forester are). But sales are trending down for the FT86 YOY, and we are not talking huge numbers to sell an STI type version of the FT86. To your point, it really comes down to whether or note Subaru and Toyota are willing to do it for the enthusiasts who want it. I doubt the FT86 has really been much of a moneymaker anyway, it was more of a halo project and an effort to get more youth and enthusiasm to their brands.

As for WRX/STI sales creep, I don't see it. WRX sales for the prior generation were extremely strong after the FT86 debut and, in fact, 2013 (previous gen WRX) saw some of the best WRX sales numbers in 10 years. Having owned a BRZ and now a WRX I can say the cars are so different that I am not sure if a turbo BRZ would really affect WRX/STI sales. People buy a WRX because they need four doors, a useable backseat and want AWD. For me it was the only motivation to get a WRX (family).

Toyota has hinted several times about adding a more powerful FT86. I don't know if it will ever happen. But I think the case could be made for it. We can argue all day that the current car is powerful enough (and in many cases I don't disagree) but clearly many people have complained about the power and surely there have been lost sales because of it.

I will agree it was a ploy to get a young/enthusiast demographic into their brand (both subaru and toyota). Toyota has only been offering eco boxes and subaru AWD eco boxes plus the WRX/STI. This car is radically different for both brands. But what are they going to offer for us youths to step up in the future?

They need to pull through with the FT1 project to keep it in the brand. If in 5-10 years when us young enthusiasts are better off they have nothing better to offer...

I don't know how long I'll keep my car but I totally agree, the decision to buy it was as an entry level car. I want to learn to drive, and am new to RWD. When I'm ready to "graduate" right now my choices are FI or another brand car.

Hopefully they can release the next level before that happens.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ZionsWrath

I will agree it was a ploy to get a young/enthusiast demographic into their brand (both subaru and toyota). Toyota has only been offering eco boxes and subaru AWD eco boxes plus the WRX/STI. This car is radically different for both brands. But what are they going to offer for us youths to step up in the future?

They need to pull through with the FT1 project to keep it in the brand. If in 5-10 years when us young enthusiasts are better off they have nothing better to offer...

I don't know how long I'll keep my car but I totally agree, the decision to buy it was as an entry level car. I want to learn to drive, and am new to RWD. When I'm ready to "graduate" right now my choices are FI or another brand car.

Hopefully they can release the next level before that happens.

Not sure that they will make the car to grow with the younger market as they likely want you hooked on their brand so when the "younger" guys become the "middle" guys and their needs change they will stick with them and pick up a nice Corolla or Forester.
From the "old guy" point of view I am not so sure they expected the turn out from our demographic that they got on the FRS. There is little doubt that the BRZ was targeted more in our direction but from what I have seen on here (not a true representative group I know) the older crowd has embraced the RFS.
I don't think I am alone in my thinking that the FRS/BRZ made the perfect DD for me at the price point it is at.
Could I afford a Porsche? Sure not a problem.
Would it be faster, more powerful and more high profile than a FRS? Without a doubt.
Would I want to spend that sort of my hard earned money on a car that I drive for 4000 miles a month as a DD? Not a hope.
Would I have bought a FRS with more horse power? Maybe
Would I do it if it was pushing the price of a Porsche? Nope I would be in an Evo X, WRX or slightly used Cayman before that would happen.
Will I change cars when I retire and don't need a reasonably priced yet still fun DD to rack up huge miles in? Probably (thinking Jag F type at this point)

There is certainly a market for a higher HP FRS?BRZ but it can not happen at the expense of an affordable model that fills a niche almost perfectly as is.

[thill]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Not sure that they will make the car to grow with the younger market as they likely want you hooked on their brand so when the "younger" guys become the "middle" guys and their needs change they will stick with them and pick up a nice Corolla or Forester.
From the "old guy" point of view I am not so sure they expected the turn out from our demographic that they got on the FRS. There is little doubt that the BRZ was targeted more in our direction but from what I have seen on here (not a true representative group I know) the older crowd has embraced the RFS.
I don't think I am alone in my thinking that the FRS/BRZ made the perfect DD for me at the price point it is at.
Could I afford a Porsche? Sure not a problem.
Would it be faster, more powerful and more high profile than a FRS? Without a doubt.
Would I want to spend that sort of my hard earned money on a car that I drive for 4000 miles a month as a DD? Not a hope.
Would I have bought a FRS with more horse power? Maybe
Would I do it if it was pushing the price of a Porsche? Nope I would be in an Evo X, WRX or slightly used Cayman before that would happen.
Will I change cars when I retire and don't need a reasonably priced yet still fun DD to rack up huge miles in? Probably (thinking Jag F type at this point)

There is certainly a market for a higher HP FRS?BRZ but it can not happen at the expense of an affordable model that fills a niche almost perfectly as is.

Agreed, they would either need to bump up the engine to something that is more powerful and not raise the price, or offer an STI version that costs more but they still offer the cheaper base car.

Base model for these cars needs to stay near $25K or you will lose the target audience.

[Jond63]

Originally Posted by Quentin

I do agree with @Tcoat that a TRD Supercharger should be under consideration by Toyota. The business case for that has to be pretty decent since it would be a dealer add on and not require all the emissions and safety certifications that a factory version would. It would be a simple (sell price - cost)*units > r&d cost for justification. They have been working on a TRD Supercharger for the new 1GR since 2010 and it keeps failing carb certification, though.


Sent from Tandy 400

Seriously -- they should just repackage the Jackson supercharger kit and allow dealers to do the installs.

[Jond63]

I'm starting to wonder how many of the people complaining about this car are in fact vendors trying to sell us on products to make the car "better." Why so adamant to try and make others unhappy with their purchase?