New Rumor: Subaru Developing Turbo 4 2.0T for BRZ

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

Seriously? FEATURES? You DO know that the BRZ/GT-86/FR-S are basically ANTI-features, correct? That's pretty much the point of these cars. If you want features, go enjoy every other RWD coupe available, but pay for it by having them handle crappier, being heavier and bigger.

What kind of human being cross-shops an Accord and a BRZ/FR-S? Either you enjoy driving or you don't.

Are half the people on this forum illiterate? No one is cross-shopping anything.

1) The thread started about having a turbo in the twins...which would increase the price into territory it "probably" shouldn't be.

2) The increased price brings up the older argument about the car possibly being slightly overpriced already, without a turbo.

3) That brings us to comparing it to what you get for similar money. Which wheels make the car move forward is IRRELEVANT. How many doors the car has is IRRELEVANT. How heavy the car is...is IRRELEVANT.

4) The point is simple, what do you get for $25k? All one has to do at this point is look at the two websites(Honda and Scion), click on each vehicle and read the list of standard equipment.

5) One of these vehicles clearly offers much more equipment for your dollar. Which brings us right back to the beginning of the argument, which is about how much vehicle you get for your money. It has and never had anything to do with the style of the vehicles in question, only the features you get for every dollar spent. The twins are basically spartan by comparison. That is a fact.

disclaimer: I'd prefer if the twins had roll-up windows to be perfectly honest. The less electronic crap the better. But that still has no bearing on which car offers more "stuff" for the same price or less. Really, was that so difficult to grasp?

[sho220]

Originally Posted by fistpoint

I stand by my original statement: the 2013 Accord offers significantly more features and creature comforts for every dollar spent.

Alert the media!!!!!!!!

[chanomatik]

Originally Posted by fistpoint

Are half the people on this forum illiterate? No one is cross-shopping anything.

disclaimer: I'd prefer if the twins had roll-up windows to be perfectly honest. The less electronic crap the better. But that still has no bearing on which car offers more "stuff" for the same price or less. Really, was that so difficult to grasp?

We're not illiterate. We're just trying to find subtle ways of telling you that your point is pointless.

Personally, I do appreciate your breakdown and effort, along with your patience and persistence. I just think you're thinking about it all the wrong way. Just because both cars have Japanese manufacturers and have four wheels doesn't mean you CAN or SHOULD compare them. It's just not kosher.

Someone stating that making these cars turbocharged would put them up against a 370z and other such vehicles is a fair comparison because at that point we're comparing a RWD car versus a RWD car. Sports car versus sports car. When we're talking about "sports cars" and someone throws in "Honda Accord", it's like an uppercut to the chin.

[Subie]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

Seriously? FEATURES? You DO know that the BRZ/GT-86/FR-S are basically ANTI-features, correct? That's pretty much the point of these cars. If you want features, go enjoy every other RWD coupe available, but pay for it by having them handle crappier, being heavier and bigger.

What kind of human being cross-shops an Accord and a BRZ/FR-S? Either you enjoy driving or you don't.

You've obviously never driven an Accord. Sure, it's no BRZ, but it's miles ahead of other "practical" cars when it comes to driving pleasure, like the Camry for example. If I needed a four-door car to supplement my one horse stable I'd be giving the new Accord a long, hard look.

[chanomatik]

That's my point. FOUR DOORS. Can't even compare. I'm sure it's a joy to drive, most of the reviews state so. I'm not knocking the Accord itself. I'm saying that it doesn't belong in this discussion.

And you're correct, but that has no bearing on the lack of logic being pursued here. Go into any other sports car coupe forum and try to compare a Honda Accord and see what happens.

I HAVE driven a Camry and I loved it. Still doesn't mean I would compare a BRZ and a Camry.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by fistpoint

I watched all of both videos(thanks for posting them), but there is nothing in them concerning features, it's all about the center of gravity and lowering the hood, suspension bragging, etc., etc.

I stand by my original statement: the 2013 Accord offers significantly more features and creature comforts for every dollar spent. The videos did nothing to challenge my point.

I guess it comes down to a definition of "features". To me, having:

- lowest cg in class
- horizontally-opposed boxer engine
- RWD
- limited-slip differential
- sport-tuned suspension
- high compression NA engine
- light weight
- neutral handling balance
- quick ratio steering
- good steering feel

...are all features you can't get in an Accord.

If you're making an argument about comfort features, what relevance does that have in a thread about a factory turbo?

[TheSt|G]

Originally Posted by Subie

You've obviously never driven an Accord. Sure, it's no BRZ, but it's miles ahead of other "practical" cars when it comes to driving pleasure, like the Camry for example. If I needed a four-door car to supplement my one horse stable I'd be giving the new Accord a long, hard look.

Or just get an E46 3 series in good condition and have something that blows both of them away. I can't imagine ever buying an Accord or Camry with the idea of "driving pleasure" on my mind. Simple A to B sure, but I'll never be in that market.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fistpoint

Are half the people on this forum illiterate? No one is cross-shopping anything.

1) The thread started about having a turbo in the twins...which would increase the price into territory it "probably" shouldn't be.

2) The increased price brings up the older argument about the car possibly being slightly overpriced already, without a turbo.

3) That brings us to comparing it to what you get for similar money. Which wheels make the car move forward is IRRELEVANT. How many doors the car has is IRRELEVANT. How heavy the car is...is IRRELEVANT.

4) The point is simple, what do you get for $25k? All one has to do at this point is look at the two websites(Honda and Scion), click on each vehicle and read the list of standard equipment.

5) One of these vehicles clearly offers much more equipment for your dollar. Which brings us right back to the beginning of the argument, which is about how much vehicle you get for your money. It has and never had anything to do with the style of the vehicles in question, only the features you get for every dollar spent. The twins are basically spartan by comparison. That is a fact.

disclaimer: I'd prefer if the twins had roll-up windows to be perfectly honest. The less electronic crap the better. But that still has no bearing on which car offers more "stuff" for the same price or less. Really, was that so difficult to grasp?

If you care more for equipment per dollar... my SX4 came with navigation, Bluetooth, power doors/windows, 6-speed manual transmission or CVT auto, heated seats, steering wheel mounted controls, satellite radio-ready, mp3 playback, excellent visibility, stratospheric headroom, voluminous cargo space, a roof rack, *and* AWD all for $18k. It offers more "vehicle per dollar" than the Accord for a LOT less. By your argumentative reasoning, SX4>Accord>FR-S.

You can glorify the features of an Accord over an an FR-S all day. But that's like arguing that an apple will never be as orange colored as an orange. It's pointless and seems desperate. Does the Accord offer the same precision handling and balance engineered into the BRZ/FR-S? Not even close (as @DarkSunrise listed). Not by a longshot.

[TheSt|G]

Guys, Ferrari F40 is clearly a bad deal. Doesn't even come with interior carpeting let alone a sat nav.

[Justkiz]

What's going on here guys!

Please back to the topic!!

[Mango22]

This better not be true, or Subaru just lost a return customer. Who the Frack does this without letting the customer base know in advance. We were told no turbo, no turbo, no turbo and now, yes there will be a turbo within a year from now. This $hit pisses me off! Had I known I would have waited. effin Bastards!

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

I guess it comes down to a definition of "features". To me, having:

- lowest cg in class
- horizontally-opposed boxer engine
- RWD
- limited-slip differential
- sport-tuned suspension
- high compression NA engine
- light weight
- neutral handling balance
- quick ratio steering
- good steering feel

...are all features you can't get in an Accord.

If you're making an argument about comfort features, what relevance does that have in a thread about a factory turbo?

I'll try one last time:

The relevance was in regards to the initial cost of the car. The logical and mostly correct reasoning behind the price was the falling Japanese yen and how it relates to the also falling US dollar. What $25k gave to you in 2008 is no longer the same as it is in 2012, you get less now.

Still with me? Good.

Now that another vehicle(automobile) has come from another Japanese maker for the same price as the FR-S/BRZ, but offers significantly more stuff, features, whatever you want to call it(things that cost money to add), it most certainly can be directly compared.

You can add back up cameras to the FR-S/BRZ, but you're going to pay additional money for it. It comes standard on the "other" $25k vehicle. Keep doing that until you run out of standard features. The list is longer on one side than the other, yet the price is equal.

The FR-S/BRZ does not contain precious metals like titanium all over the place does it? what about carbon fiber? Those things would in fact make my argument moot, but it doesn't have these materials. The aluminum hood is the most "exotic" piece in this regard.

So in summary, it was never about which car to choose from, it was about why it cost $25k in the first place. The yen to dollar ratio which simply cannot explain all of the price is no longer the end all answer to that original argument.

I think the real answer is obvious, Accord will sell 250-300k a year just in the US alone and make less money for each vehicle sold, but sell 10x-20x as many and more than make up the profit difference in sheer volume. But that doesn't negate the fact that it offers more for your $25k, as I'm sure many other vehicles do for the same "volume sales" reasoning.

[industrial]

Originally Posted by fistpoint

I watched all of both videos(thanks for posting them), but there is nothing in them concerning features, it's all about the center of gravity and lowering the hood, suspension bragging, etc., etc.

I stand by my original statement: the 2013 Accord offers significantly more features and creature comforts for every dollar spent. The videos did nothing to challenge my point.

A Casio g-shock has way more features than a Rolex submariner, therefore, the Casio is superior.

Get the hell out of here.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by fistpoint

Are half the people on this forum illiterate? No one is cross-shopping anything.

1) The thread started about having a turbo in the twins...which would increase the price into territory it "probably" shouldn't be.

2) The increased price brings up the older argument about the car possibly being slightly overpriced already, without a turbo.

3) That brings us to comparing it to what you get for similar money. Which wheels make the car move forward is IRRELEVANT. How many doors the car has is IRRELEVANT. How heavy the car is...is IRRELEVANT.

4) The point is simple, what do you get for $25k? All one has to do at this point is look at the two websites(Honda and Scion), click on each vehicle and read the list of standard equipment.

5) One of these vehicles clearly offers much more equipment for your dollar. Which brings us right back to the beginning of the argument, which is about how much vehicle you get for your money. It has and never had anything to do with the style of the vehicles in question, only the features you get for every dollar spent. The twins are basically spartan by comparison. That is a fact.

disclaimer: I'd prefer if the twins had roll-up windows to be perfectly honest. The less electronic crap the better. But that still has no bearing on which car offers more "stuff" for the same price or less. Really, was that so difficult to grasp?

Just saw this. So if I'm understanding you correctly, your point is that to someone who doesn't give a lick about performance, adding a turbo to the BRZ won't do anything to sway him from buying another Accord? Well I think we can all agree with that, but I doubt Subaru is targeting 4-cylinder Accord shoppers by adding a turbo to a BRZ.