2017 BRZ Owners Performance Thoughts

[~el~jefe~]

Originally Posted by imnotsureaboutbrz

Man... I wish we had E85.... or 93 octane.... or 91 octane... 90 is the best we get up here, unless you have a stash of Torco.

ironic. As the USA and the world strip Alaska for it's oil, and they give the citizens there low grade gasoline.

[~el~jefe~]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Not sure what it feels like from the driver's seat (haven't driven it yet), but in measured tests the new Miata is actually significantly slower above 60 mph. Over 1 second slower 60-100 and over 3 seconds slower 60-120.

60-100 mph
2013 FR-S: 10.2 sec
2016 Miata: 11.5 sec

60-120 mph
2013 FR-S: 20.0 sec
2016 Miata: 23.7 sec

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...fr-s-specs.pdf
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...rm-test-review



LOL that was my first thought when OP said his car was sub 6 seconds.



Yeah I recently switched to a header that makes less peak HP but completely fills in the torque dip. It's surprising how it can change the feel of the car for street driving. Why swap out your SC though? Seems odd (no offense).

Miata has a crap drag coefficient. I hate convertibles. However.... the RF (so sexy make me hawny) version of the car has very good aerodynamics and attempts to fix this issue.

My perfect world I would have a Miata RF machine metal with brembos and limited slip differential, and a 2017 brz limited with pp. I at least am getting the 2nd car in April

[imnotsureaboutbrz]

Originally Posted by ~el~jefe~

ironic. As the USA and the world strip Alaska for it's oil, and they give the citizens there low grade gasoline.

truth.

[ktulu7]

Originally Posted by ~el~jefe~

ironic. As the USA and the world strip Alaska for it's oil, and they give the citizens there low grade gasoline.

Yup, and ironically Iowa here provides tons of ethanol for everyone, and yet Iowans don't use much of it. haha

[JohnnieBoy]

Corn juice!

[Da Brz]

Originally Posted by ktulu7

Yup, and ironically Iowa here provides tons of ethanol for everyone, and yet Iowans don't use much of it. haha

You probably have too many farmers up there who know better than to let ethanol sit in their equipment between seasons.

I know people who will drive about 40 miles or so just to get ethanol free gas.

[Da Brz]

Originally Posted by 2017-BRZ

So I wanted to make a statement. This car is NOT slow LOL.

I would even dare say this car is amazingly quick.. Yea I own it I daily drive it and its QUICK. Roll on quick..off line QUICK. Can get you into TROUBLE FAST on local streets QUICK..

I don't know how the reviews were so "negative" speed inspiring.
So much so I almost passed on a purchase because my last car
was a 480 (560HP) tuned P-car 997TT.

I can make a real comparison on what acceleration "feels" like.

And the 2017 BRZ can accelerate. Can accelerate under 6 seconds with out mashing the throttle either. When I've timed the accelerator and clutch pedal perfectly I did it in 5 using a timer and off the line stop light.

I haven't even gone beyond 6K RPMs yet because I am just shy of 1000 miles break in.

If I allow the car to pull me at its own pace and rev match accordingly with throttle in stride it is one of the most amazing rides I have had since the 997TT.

No my friends. This car does NOT disappoint. Stock. Thanks..

Originally Posted by 2017-BRZ

alternative facts ha ha..

93 octane 1/2 tank fuel..30 dgree F...6K shift
under 6 seconds... stock.

2017 owners welcomed to test and verify..

I can't lay claims for earlier model years.

Highway speed passing no problems either.

And this is the silliest shit I've ever heard.

0-60 in 5 seconds before break-in, GET that shit outta here!

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by ~el~jefe~

Miata has a crap drag coefficient. I hate convertibles. However.... the RF (so sexy make me hawny) version of the car has very good aerodynamics and attempts to fix this issue.

My perfect world I would have a Miata RF machine metal with brembos and limited slip differential, and a 2017 brz limited with pp. I at least am getting the 2nd car in April

Nice taste in cars. Would love to add an ND to my garage (or even an NA/NB).

Yeah at those speeds I think it's the Twins' aero and 50 hp advantage that makes them faster than the ND. Are you sure the aero on the RF is that much better than the ragtop though? I saw a test recently where the RF was about the same or maybe slightly slower from 60-100.

[STV3]

Originally Posted by krayzie

With or without mashing the pedals?

Just feathering them bitches.... Didn't even get past 8th gear. Have to break in my new cassette.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Not sure what it feels like from the driver's seat (haven't driven it yet), but in measured tests the new Miata is actually significantly slower above 60 mph. Over 1 second slower 60-100 and over 3 seconds slower 60-120.

60-100 mph
2013 FR-S: 10.2 sec
2016 Miata: 11.5 sec

60-120 mph
2013 FR-S: 20.0 sec
2016 Miata: 23.7 sec

Two points here: first, on my test drives I was testing acceleration in both from about 40 or 50 to a max of 80 mph (had salesmen with me) - and it's almost certain that most of the deficit in the MX-5's 60-100 run vs. the twins is incurred above 80 (as it's appreciably faster to 60 than the twins, and aero drag goes up proportional to the vehicle's speed squared, so the liabilities of the convertible configuration will have a greater impact at the top end).

Secondly, the lower driving position, smaller body, greater wind noise, and lower hood and cowl of the Miata conspire to give a greater subjective impression of speed vs. the twins at any given MPH, which heightens one's subjective sense of the vehicle's acceleration.

With an added 113 lbs the RF is about .1-.2 sec slower to 60 than the soft top but I think I read in one review that it has a higher top speed due to its better aero. It's also got a stiffer suspension setup with a bit less body roll and better body control when the rear bump stops are hit.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Secondly, the lower driving position, smaller body, greater wind noise, and lower hood and cowl of the Miata

Humm pretty sure the BRZ at its lowest seating position is lower than the ND, the hoodline on the BRZ is also a tad lower if you don't count the side cowls since I've sat in both. However subjective neither car is old Honda kind of low.

I'm also pretty sure the RF comes with Bilstein shocks standard after some Googling, I was gonna get down on the ground to check at the autoshow but there were too much people around.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by krayzie

Humm pretty sure the BRZ at its lowest seating position is lower than the ND, the hoodline on the BRZ is also a tad lower if you don't count the side cowls since I've sat in both. However subjective neither car is old Honda kind of low.

That was my impression too when I sat in the ND at the auto show. Its cowl and hood felt higher than the Twins. Not sure about actual seating height off the ground though, I think it'd really close b/n the two. If I remember correctly, the ND seat moves up as you adjust it forward so it'd also depend how far back the seat was positioned.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

That was my impression too when I sat in the ND at the auto show. Its cowl and hood felt higher than the Twins. Not sure about actual seating height off the ground though, I think it'd really close b/n the two. If I remember correctly, the ND seat moves up as you adjust it forward so it'd also depend how far back the seat was positioned.

Yes I think you are right and I already had the ND seat almost all the way to the back (I'm 5'11"). I sat in the RF for a full 5 mins at the autoshow just to make sure lol!

Mazda has done a good job giving the impression that the car sits low, I think they made the belt line as low as possible to give this sense.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by krayzie

Yes I think you are right and I already had the ND seat almost all the way to the back (I'm 5'11"). I sat in the RF for a full 5 mins at the autoshow just to make sure lol!

Mazda has done a good job giving the impression that the car sits low, I think they made the belt line as low as possible to give this sense.

It's funny - Mazda also paints the top of the door the same color as the exterior to give the impression of a lower beltline. I thought it was pure marketing at first but when I sat in the car, turns out that gimmick actually works on me