Toyota 86 to get power boost with 2015 refresh

[regal]

Originally Posted by mit_peid

You should consider a career in automotive journalism.

I'm no writer, not bitter just don't have my head in the clouds. The FRS for $25k is the best thing since the 240sx, I love my car. Personally could care less that it will take a huge depreciation hit when it gets a proper engine because its fast enough for me.

I do want to get rid of the torque dip as soon as warranty is up, anybody who like the dip is dipping their smoke wet.

[phloozy]

Originally Posted by regal

I agree it has "adequate" power but not for its price range. If you followed the history of the car prior to its release Subaru was saying this would be a 300hp car. It was never conceived to be a slow 15 second 2800lb car, it was meant to be a direct competitor to the Porsche Cayman for half the price.

If Subaru can sell the WRX for <$30k then they can sell this car with their FA20T and have no price increase, the wrx is a much more expensive car to build with more steel and AWD. The only reason we have an NA FA20 with D4-S is Toyota's corp. politics.

Subaru didn't want D4-S and have proved that the DI FA20T in their Japan Legacy is a better configuration.

When Subaru is cut loose with the BRZ, bye bye Toyota 86 and Scion FRS. Hence all the recent high hoping from him. They see the handwriting on the wall. The tough part to swallow is going to be the low trade-in for our cars when the turbo BRZ is released.

I highly doubt they will offer the same car with almost a 50% power increase and not change the price. The WRX is a turbo impreza and the impreza starts at 18k.... If the brz sells for 27k WITHOUT a turbo they are not going to waste all the extra R&D and cost to sell a turbo version for 27k. 32,999 starting is my prediction if it ever even happens.

[bestwheelbase]

Originally Posted by Aki

Once upon a time 200hp was considered a lot--you don't hear people with E30 M3s saying "needs boost." The whole point of a FR-S was that it's enjoyable while being (relatively) slow.

In fact, it is celebrated for the fact that it's a little buzzy and has character.

[DylanFRS]

Originally Posted by phloozy

I highly doubt they will offer the same car with almost a 50% power increase and not change the price. The WRX is a turbo impreza and the impreza starts at 18k.... If the brz sells for 27k WITHOUT a turbo they are not going to waste all the extra R&D and cost to sell a turbo version for 27k. 32,999 starting is my prediction if it ever even happens.

Agreed. People want to compare the price of the WRX to the FRZ not remembering that the reason the WRX is so cheap is because it rides off the the Impreza chassis. It costs a lot to design a standalone chassis from scratch. It's not just the cost of building the car. Manufacturers have to take the R&D to develop the car and divide it across the entire life-cycle of the car and then add that to the cost. The WRX has low R&D cost for them because the majority of it also gets divided across the entire Impreza line. I can't imagine the FRZ was cheap to develop.

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

knob gobblers ... to milk the everyman.

Wait, wait.. When are they doing this? I want that model.

[Sport-Tech]

If Subaru did bring out a 250 hp/220 torque BRZ for $32k, would there be a large enough market to support it? Without doing the market research nobody can know for sure, but it's highly likely. I see two main reasons:

First, there is the almost-universal perception that this car is close to ideal but needs a bit more power to achieve its full potential. If you venture into other car forums or blogs it's apparent there is a huge potential market out there - people like myself who have held back because they want the torque trough filled and another 20-25% or so more hp.

Second, there is the state of the competitive market - at that price point there is very very little out there that an augmented BRZ would have to compete with. The closest of course would be the Z car, but it's much heavier and handles relatively poorly by comparison - plus it's even less practical. The MX-5 is too small and convertible-only (the PRHT top is a joke). Other potential "competitors" are either wrong-wheel drive or much bigger and heavier. To find another true RWD sports car you have to get up into Corvette/Z4/Cayman pricing in the next tier which is far more expensive. With the demise of the RX8 they'd basically have the field to themselves.

[thill]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

If Subaru did bring out a 250 hp/220 torque BRZ for $32k, would there be a large enough market to support it? Without doing the market research nobody can know for sure, but it's highly likely. I see two main reasons:

First, there is the almost-universal perception that this car is close to ideal but needs a bit more power to achieve its full potential. If you venture into other car forums or blogs it's apparent there is a huge potential market out there - people like myself who have held back because they want the torque trough filled and another 15-20% or so more hp.

Second, there is the state of the competitive market - at that price point there is very very little out there that an augmented BRZ would have to compete with. The closest of course would be the Z car, but it's much heavier and handles relatively poorly by comparison - plus it's even less practical. Other potential "competitors" are either wrong-wheel drive or much bigger and heavier. To find another true RWD sports car you have to get up into Corvette/Z4/Cayman pricing in the next tier which is far more expensive. With the demise of the RX8 they'd basically have the field to themselves.

For lightweight RWD sports coupes, yes. There is not much else out there. That said, for RWD coupes, there is lots of competition and most of the competition will see refreshed models within the next couple of years. I think the price point will be key. Maybe a stripped down turbo FR-S for $29-30K and a BRZ with more features for $32-33K would be my guess. I would pay it.

And I agree with you, there is noting else out there under 3K pounds that is RWD that would have the handling, power/torque, etc in this space for $32K and below. Subaru and Toyota would most likely limit the number of turbo models to under 5K and that alone would ensure demand for years.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

If Subaru did bring out a 250 hp/220 torque BRZ for $32k, would there be a large enough market to support it? Without doing the market research nobody can know for sure, but it's highly likely..

Given, based on recent reports in the news, the average price of a car purchase in the US has risen to around $31.2K it would seem reasonable that there is a market for a car in that price range.

[thill]

Originally Posted by regal

Well in a couple years when a turbo BRZ is on the lot for $27k MSRP and we can't get $10k trade-in for our 2013's things will start sounding valid.

If Subaru can sell a WRX for that today with its turbo, AWD and bigger more expensive to manufacture chassis well its just common sense what's in store.

Right now we already see new BRZ limiteds selling for FRS prices. Subaru has the upper hand with this car they just have to pay back the capital investment from Toyota.

There is no way you will see a turbo BRZ for $27K. You won't even see a stripped down turbo FR-S for $27K.

A base Forester starts at $22,800 MSRP. A Forester XT with the same turbo engine you keep talking about Subaru using in the BRZ starts at $28,800 and goes up to $33,800 if you want the Touring model. That is a $6K price increase if you go from the base 2.5 to the base XT turbo.

BRZ premium starts at $26,265 MSRP. $6K turbo option (which would likely include suspension, wheels, etc) would be in the $32K range, and I expect with options would push up to $34K range.

When you say things like the current car today being worth $10K in two years it makes you sound like someone who is bitter and irrational. A 4 year old Civic SI with just under 50K miles sells for $15-17K now. A four year old BRZ with under 50K miles would most likely sell for even more.

Face it, for majority of people buying a sports car they almost always opt for the slower cheaper option. V6 Mustang, V6 Camaro, V6 Dodge, etc.

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by Aki

Nobody is arguing that weight gain can't be offset from a stronger engine. The key issue is offsetting weight gain costs $$$. A FR-S can always be lighter if it had a carbon fiber monocoque shell, carbon ceramic brakes, titanium exhaust, etc. Losing weight isn't the issue--losing it while still keeping it affordable, is. If they listened to all the forum people wanting turbo + better brakes + the kitchen sink, you're looking at a $32,000+ car.

I'd prefer a similar route to the MMC of the S2000, a minor increase in displacement (say 2.0 to 2.2) with a better torque curve.

If anything that's bolstering the argument that the FA20 is a boring engine. 7k and up is what makes the Si engine (8th-gen K20Z3) fun. That hiccup in horsepower/torque was intentionally programmed into the ECU to make the cam profile switch more noticeable, and it works.

I've said it before, but the FA20 has adequate power. The problem is the *sensation* of the power. That torque dead spot from 4-5k is what's irksome. And I'm tired of the knee-jerk, "needs boost" line. Once upon a time 200hp was considered a lot--you don't hear people with E30 M3s saying "needs boost." The whole point of a FR-S was that it's enjoyable while being (relatively) slow. There are lots of nice, fast RWD options, like a 370Z, or 135is.

I totally agree. All it needs is a little displacement increase (2.2-2.5L) and a smoothed out torque band. That will give it the much needed "sensation" of power in the mid-range and a little bit of extra speed without increasing much cost or weight and lowering reliability or fuel economy.

I wish they would have just done this from the start. I know Japan loves 2.0 liters and they try to make it under that tax bracket but to heck with all that - it definitely needs more displacement to be a properly fun car! Let's just hope that's what they do for next year.

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

I totally agree. All it needs is a little displacement increase (2.2-2.5L) and a smoothed out torque band. That will give it the much needed "sensation" of power in the mid-range and a little bit of extra speed without increasing much cost or weight and lowering reliability or fuel economy.

I wish they would have just done this from the start. I know Japan loves 2.0 liters and they try to make it under that tax bracket but to heck with all that - it definitely needs more displacement to be a properly fun car! Let's just hope that's what they do for next year.

The FA20's power output and torque curve is already much better than what you and alot of people think it is. And bumping the displacement always bring the gas consumption up, larger pumping loss and more displacement requires more fuel to get a correct stoic - air/fuel remains at cruise speed.

A gasoline engine has always compromises. When's the last time we saw a high reving 4 banger with tons of torque NA? It's either one or the other.

The way things are going, we're going to see alot of sub 2.0 engine with high boost turbos, Ford's and chevy's already on the ball in the states talking of that. They give the best of both world with the fuel prices.

And let's not forget this is a successor of the AE86, which had around 100-130 HP. Seems like everyone wants a cheap supra.

[mwjcyber]

Originally Posted by Rayme

The FA20's power output and torque curve is already much better than what you and alot of people think it is. And bumping the displacement always bring the gas consumption up, larger pumping loss and more displacement requires more fuel to get a correct stoic - air/fuel remains at cruise speed.

The way things are going, we're going to see alot of sub 2.0 engine with high boost turbos, Ford's and chevy's already on the ball in the states talking of that. They give the best of both world with the fuel prices.

^Exactly.

In the news today:
"The BMW i8 comes to the U.S. next spring as a plug-in hybrid with a carbon-fiber body and electric/gas powerplant that will allow it to rocket from zero to 62 miles per hour in 4.4 seconds. Its performance is accomplished with only a wall plug or use of a 1.5-liter, three-cylinder engine producing 231 horsepower. With the addition of its electric motors powered by its lithium-ion batteries, it has 362 total horsepower, BMW says."

[nycfl123]

if a brz turbo is 27k I'd trade the frs for 10k in a heartbeat.

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by Rayme

The FA20's power output and torque curve is already much better than what you and alot of people think it is. And bumping the displacement always bring the gas consumption up, larger pumping loss and more displacement requires more fuel to get a correct stoic - air/fuel remains at cruise speed.

A gasoline engine has always compromises. When's the last time we saw a high reving 4 banger with tons of torque NA? It's either one or the other.

The way things are going, we're going to see alot of sub 2.0 engine with high boost turbos, Ford's and chevy's already on the ball in the states talking of that. They give the best of both world with the fuel prices.

And let's not forget this is a successor of the AE86, which had around 100-130 HP. Seems like everyone wants a cheap supra.

All I know is that on my several test drives of this car, it feels like it stops accelerating around 3-5k RPM. Something has to be done about that for me to buy one. And aftermarket modding is out of the question as I want to keep the factory warranty.

Adding a little bit of displacement is not going to effect the fuel economy that much. Of course, the more power you get, the more fuel you burn but I feel that they are still slightly economy biased with this engine and can afford to give it a little more power. Honda went to 2.2L with their S2000 and it still revved high. And there are many 2.4 or 2.5 liter engines out there now that still have 7k redlines. I am confident that it will only give it a more fun and predictable feel and only minimally limit rev-ability.

And turbos are out of the question for me with this car. I have driven many turbo cars for years including my daily driver, the Eclipse GSX, which has a tiny Garrett turbo. But they are always going to be harder to predict/modulate due to the lag/boost creep. Yes, you can minimize it but it will always still be there to some extent. Not to mention the added weight and potential reliability issues.