BRZ comes last in EVO group test

[86'd]

Originally Posted by Racecomp Engineering

First I agree on all the comments about the auto being partially to blame. I don't think the car will be "bad" with an auto, but it's going to take a bit of a hit in the low and mid-range with the change in gearing having a large effect.

For the track test, a manual BRZ with equal tires would have been within reach of the Renault. Probably not ahead, but a lot closer than they made it seem.

The Renault is a beast of a car, but....French and we don't get it. I'd love to drive one.

The BRZ is a LOT of fun on the street and I think it would still be a lot of fun with the auto. Slower, yes, but still a blast. I don't need to hang the ass end out every corner or reach 10/10ths on the street to have fun. It's still awesome at normal speeds. The steering, brakes, and feedback from the whole chassis just make it a very unique experience compared to other cars out there. Totally stock it's an awesome drive. I think the BRZ would benefit from stickier tires more than the FRS for what it's worth based on the minor suspension differences.

Either way...a few suspension upgrades could always help.

- Andrew

BFE.

This is what is hardest to communicate to people. Some of us want a car that is an extension of the driver, and I think the FRS/BRZ is that car.

This is what makes the car fun, not a big turbo.

As a lot of people have said there could be a lot of reasons why EVO decided to give the BRZ only 3.5 stars.

But I'll bet that the BRZ or FRS will be plenty of fun for any regular enthusiast on the road, no drifting necessary.

[Racecomp Engineering]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

It's also worth noting the 370Z only gets 18/26 mpg vs. the BRZ 22/30 (both require premium). Sounds to me like they thought it could use more torque.

Since they compared it to the auto, the numbers are a bit higher for the BRZ (34 mpg highway).

And yeah, a little more torque would feel nice. But I still can't wait for the car.

- Andrew

[Capt Canuck]

^ I thought it was the autobox numbers that were higher than the manual actually?

[Draco-REX]

What I find funny is that I kind of saw this coming.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4997

It's a little surreal seeing a mag I really trust finding the same speedbump I foresee. Having a chassis good enough to put it into rarified handling territory shouldn't be a reason for a mediocre score though.

It makes me wonder, if the chassis wasn't as good, would it have received a higher score?

[Capt Canuck]

Originally Posted by Draco-REX

It makes me wonder, if the suspension wasn't as good, would it have received a higher score?

Nope. Then the article would have asked how they couldn't have setup the chassis perfect, having so many years to work on it

Really, they will get a manual BRZ and GT86 for another piece and readjust their rating. The BRZ gets 4, the GT86 gets 4.5.

Then when a more powerful engine becomes available they will hail them as the cars they always should have been: BRZ gets a 4.5 and GT85 gets 5. For those that care about such things all will be right with the world.

EVO makes for a nice read while at the airport or on the train or having an afternoon pint, the ratings are largely meaningless and wholly bias.

[Rabble]

I wonder if the guy even turned off traction control (3-sec hold)...

[Jordo!]

Honestly, the negative reviews boil down to "needs more torque" and "tires suck for track use", neither of which are shocking.

The degree of tail-happiness was never a real selling point for me -- nice to know the chassis is as composed as promised.

So, as I had already concluded, it will need a blower and better tires.

[JohnnyR]

Originally Posted by Racecomp Engineering

The chassis is too good?

This thing has so much potential and honestly some very minor upgrades will make it an absolute beast....a Renault slaying beast.

And uh, from what I hear...it's not too difficult to kick out the rear in a low speed corner with the manual car.

That's the thing. To me it sounds like the chassis is way over-engineered compared to the motor, and exact opposite to what we're used to most of the time, if not all the time. They know the chassis is great, they know what it's capable of, and they know if this car had the power expected from a car in 2012+ it would be perhaps an enthusiast's wet dream.

I assure you this, if this car was turbo/sc, and produced around 280-300hp, there would be no question that my money would be in Subaru's pocket right now. I can live with a mundane, sparse interior, I drive an Evo 8. I can't live with the motor. Suspensions are a lot less worrisome to mess with IMHO, and cheaper, to get some better handling from it, and getting it to respond more like you'd like it to. But when it comes to power, you can't put a cap on it like they have with this.

I/E + Tune is not going to yield game changing numbers. It's a 2.0L, high-comp engine. Without significant, worrisome internal work, or just as scary aftermarket FI kits, I doubt this car is going to get the numbers I'd want it to have to balance out the chassis. Motor swaps too, within thoughts, while interesting (seeing a 2JZ in there was funny), can become a money-pitted nightmare.

[Brian S]

Originally Posted by Subaruwrxfan

There's no moonroof because adding glass to the roof would have made the handling worse and the car heavier. Having no roof and a lighter fabric top stowed in the trunk can only help the car's handling, as long as they did engineer the car to be as rigid as they say it is.

Convertibles are always heavier than non-convertibles usually by atleast a couple of hundred pounds. Between the linkages, motors and sensors added to the convertible there will be additional weight.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Brian S

Convertibles are always heavier than non-convertibles usually by atleast a couple of hundred pounds. Between the linkages, motors and sensors added to the convertible there will be additional weight.

Almost always, but not always.

The Z4 was designed as a convertible/roadster and the roadster version is lighter than the coupe, in both non-M and M versions.

[Capt Canuck]

Originally Posted by JohnnyR

I assure you this, if this car was turbo/sc, and produced around 280-300hp, there would be no question that my money would be in Subaru's pocket right now.

At what premium? That won't be coming at £25k/$25k.

They have released this affordable 200bhp car and now have their 'affordable' baseline price. Say they add $5k for a 260bhp model, will people still sell their gran to get one?

[JohnnyR]

Originally Posted by Capt Canuck

At what premium? That won't be coming at £25k/$25k.

They have released this affordable 200bhp car and now have their 'affordable' baseline price. Say they add $5k for a 260bhp model, will people still sell their gran to get one?

I believe the average priced financed car in the US now is 31k. No selling of grans required. But like I said, they can have their "affordable" NA version, and have a higher-end FI version. Trust me, nobody would be upset, at all. And if they are, there's something wrong with them.

[Capt Canuck]

^Sure, but there has been so much hand wringing over the prices of these two cars, that I can imagine the FI versions going through the exact same thing. Hopefully when the time comes they get it right.

And there is no evidence to say there isn't a bunch of poor ol grandmas sitting somewhere while their kids drive around in new $31k cars ;-)

[Gardus@Supersprint]

I seel all the time Minis and A1s specced to up and more than 30k €.
I FI with 260-300 hp should be € 40k. It would still undercut most of the performance cars of the same class.