New C&D production BRZ review... "Porsche-like Handling"

[JFC]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

Grr, I don't like how they say, "But, by all accounts, every mechanical part—the heart and soul of the car—is Subaru’s work."

That is simply not true. The transmission is Aisin, the driveshafts, LSD, and EPS is JTEKT, the brake pads are Advics - all of which are Toyota based and not used on normal Subarus. You also have the Bosch/Toyota based VSC system and of course the D4S which is Toyota/Denso's direct injection. Subaru will supposedly be making their own direct injection system soon. This is truly a Toyota/Subaru mechanical hybrid!

But I do like how they say, "The BRZ corners flatly, and the suspension is stiff and buttoned down; it lets you feel every bump without a hint of harshness. There’s a real purity of motion here, an unmediated connection between car and driver. In some ways, it’s like the world’s slowest superbike."

That's pretty much exactly how I like my cars to feel. Tons of feedback and responsiveness but no harshness.

All true but i read somewhere that Toyota and Yamaha engineers remoulded the block and heads, so they aren't Subaru either. That might of been another engine as well im not really sure.

Although the FA is based on a EJ/Subaru boxer design it possibly is not.

Pretty sure it would've been Toyota told Subaru what do too and FHI engineers did it.

Would love to see a more definitive breakdown!

[Deslock]

Thanks for posting this. I figured MT's 0-60 of 6.4 sec was going to be more indicative of what we'd see in most reviews. That caranddriver got 6.3 sec when second redlines at 58 MPH is quite good.

My favorite part of the specifications sheet:

UNDERSTEER ............................... NONE

A couple amusing quotes from the article:

our car sounds more like the offspring of a microwave oven and a vacuum cleaner

the ride is definitely Porsche-like. The BRZ corners flatly, and the suspension is stiff and buttoned down; it lets you feel every bump without a hint of harshness. There’s a real purity of motion here, an unmediated connection between car and driver. In some ways, it’s like the world’s slowest superbike.

The last paragraph sums up the car nicely:

Could the BRZ use more power? Sure, it could. And the Route Napoléon could use more switchbacks. Subaru has acknowledged that the BRZ’s engine is the basis for the next turbocharged powerplant in the Impreza WRX, so more power is probably on the way. But we’ve seen that movie before. In the ’90s, Japanese automakers increased performance and price until they lost touch with the *market they’d created. In its current state, the BRZ’s balance of attributes needs no tweaking. It offers razor-sharp handling with limits that let you exploit the car’s capabilities on the street, all at a sweet price. In that sense, the BRZ is the perfect everyday sports car, even if  you’re not driving on a perfect road.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

"Power oversteer is easy despite only 200hp." interesting that EVO said basically the opposite.

Auto vs manual.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Ericc B

Some very nice pictures with that report btw

They are beautifully shot - too bad they are wasted on a WRB.

[brillo]

wonder what the 0-58 time was if they needed three shifts to get to 60. Basically, this car is a boxer version of the RX8 in terms of straight line acceleration. I can live with that being an RX8 owner. .91g is pretty amazing considering the tires, me thinks the tires are likely to be my first modification.

[DarkSunrise]

Nicely written article, beautiful shots of the BRZ. Some thoughts:

- The 5-60mph time of 8.0 seconds is bad. That mid-range dip in the torque curve is doing this car no favors. By comparison, a GTI is over a second faster (6.7 s).
- The 30-50 and 50-70 numbers are also slow. You'll definitely have to downshift to pass on the highway (similar to small-displacement Hondas).
- Good to see Subaru's claimed CG has been verified. Impressive.
- The handling remarks are encouraging. Fairly neutral balance and flat cornering.

Overall, I'm looking forward to test driving (and possibly buying) one of these. This quote from the review told me everything I needed to hear:

"Overall, the car feels as trim, nimble, and athletic as the great sports coupes of the pre-bloat era."

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

- The 5-60mph time of 8.0 seconds is bad. That mid-range dip in the torque curve is doing this car no favors. By comparison, a GTI is over a second faster (6.7 s). The dip is not too bad really, you only lose 10% torque. The bigger problem is that going down to right off idle the torque plummets to ~50% peak, so I think that first 1000 rpm is going to be very laborious in a 5-60 test, at least without clutch kicking
- The 30-50 and 50-70 numbers are also slow. You'll definitely have to downshift to pass on the highway (similar to small-displacement Hondas). Well, if they're measuring 50-70 they're not in top gear anyways...having to downshift to pass on the highway is almost always a good thing for fuel economy anyhow, and you should be using the correct gear for acceleration anyways.

Responses in bold.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by brillo

wonder what the 0-58 time was if they needed three shifts to get to 60. Basically, this car is a boxer version of the RX8 in terms of straight line acceleration. I can live with that being an RX8 owner. .91g is pretty amazing considering the tires, me thinks the tires are likely to be my first modification.

Yeah the braking will DRASTICALLY improve with some of the great street tire options out there.

[Draco-REX]

I'm going to assume the 5-60 time was done in 2nd(with an upshift to 3rd).

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Responses in bold.

On the 5-60, agree it's mostly due to lack of torque off idle, but expected from a small NA engine. What I didn't expect was a 20 lb-ft hole in the mid-range, wtf! Definitely not helping the cause.

Also, I typically downshift to pass, but it's nice knowing you don't necessarily have to. I guess I've been spoiled by my last two cars.

Originally Posted by Draco-REX

I'm going to assume the 5-60 time was done in 2nd(with an upshift to 3rd).

What leads you to believe that?

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

On the 5-60, agree it's mostly due to lack of torque off idle, but expected from a small NA engine. What I didn't expect was a 20 lb-ft hole in the mid-range, wtf! Definitely not helping the cause.

Also, I typically downshift to pass, but it's nice knowing you don't necessarily have to. I guess I've been spoiled by my last two cars.


What leads you to believe that?

Because it was slower than the 0-60. You're giving the car a head start and eliminating the launch. I think it models a rolling stop and acceleration down an on-ramp. Most people don't downshift to 1st unless they are stationary.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Draco-REX

Because it was slower than the 0-60. You're giving the car a head start and eliminating the launch. I think it models a rolling stop and acceleration down an on-ramp. Most people don't downshift to 1st unless they are stationary.

5-60 should be slower than 0-60 because you're eliminating the launch (or brake-stand for automatics). Designed so a car like the BRZ doesn't get the benefit of taking off at 4000 rpm from the hole. But pretty sure it's still done in 1st.

[Grimlock]

Originally Posted by Draco-REX

Because it was slower than the 0-60. You're giving the car a head start and eliminating the launch. I think it models a rolling stop and acceleration down an on-ramp. Most people don't downshift to 1st unless they are stationary.

5-60 times are always slower than 0-60 times because they eliminate the launch. Dropping the clutch from 4,000 RPM's is the only way to get decent acceleration out of this car.

The 5-60 MPH test is more indicative of a "real world" start.

[Draco-REX]

I must just drive differently than the test is designed. The beauty of a clutch is that you can "launch" at any speed.