Why would more power ruin the car??

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

It's because they have a squad of mechanics that make sure they are maintained, but yes the condition would vary depending on the storage mechanisms. Even just starting up a car that has been sitting with fuel in it's tank (which spoils) for a few years will cause havoc if not treated or maintained properly before the car is started up.



Yep, pretty much what I was saying.

Exactly what you were saying.

I have done 2 of my own classic car full frame off restorations, helped with another 4 and rebuilt at least 10 old engines from the ground up. I will say with 100% confidence that I would much rather work on an engine with 500,000 continuous use miles on it over a 5,000 mile one that has sat untouched for more than about 2 years. Gaskets dry out, rings seize to cylinder walls, valves stick light they were welded, bearings and bushing become solid, linkages gum up and refuse to move, and so on. Instead of just swapping out some worn parts you have to start replacing so much that it is almost not even worth rebuilding.

[soundman98]

not to mention, 500,000 miles is like mother earth approving of you boring the motor out 30 over!

[Will BRZ]

Originally Posted by Spuds

So you are saying you ruined it then? You have less time to enjoy the acceleration and therefore it is less fun.

Probably my favorite thing anybody has said about anything ever

[mrhayes1]

To say that more power would ruin the car is idiotic. I don't believe that anymore than a farmer telling me vegetables sprayed with pesticides is perfectly healthy. There is an element of truth to the power thing, but it is very misleading. First of all, more power often times means more cost to the consumer through an initial higher price of a car, more fuel consumption, more R&D, turbo parts, etc. So there's that. Many people want to see this car with more power but the fact of the matter is we are a minority and a dying breed. We live in a world dominated by crossovers and SUVs. Sure Toyota could have put a turbo motor in this car but the amount of people who would then spend 30-40k on the car then would be very low. When you buy cars at a 35-40k price point, consumers then expect a whole flurry of luxury components and amenities. I suspect the current power configuration was a way to keep insurance cheap for the owner, keep cost of car low ,and not outcompete the Subaru WRX, etc. I adamantly believe the car needs more power but not much. If you add a hundred horsepower the manufacturer is railroading themselves into having to upgrade a lot of components on the car to match that (think big brake kit, better suspension, tires, etc.). You cant sell a 300 horsepower RWD car that weighs 2800 pounds and comes with Prius tires; that is a litigation nightmare. Not to mention that it would then probably cost $40,000. I firmly believe the car could use another ~50 horsepower more and another 75 foot pounds of torque. You would get much more performance all while still being able to play around with the car and wring it out without it killing you. Further, Toyota could probably get away without upgrading most of the mechanical components aside from of course ensuring reliability, etc. (think bigger radiator, etc., stuff like that).

[Adam_L]

Speaking of insurance, this car isn't exactly inexpensive to insure , whether your 25 yrs old, or 45 yrs old. For what it is, it's slightly on the high side from the sounds of it (reading other posters here talking insurance, and my own experience). I haven't compared it against ALL cars in the market place, but it seems 10-15% higher then what it should be (cost of insurance, full coverage )

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Adam_L

Speaking of insurance, this car isn't exactly inexpensive to insure , whether your 25 yrs old, or 45 yrs old. For what it is, it's slightly on the high side from the sounds of it (reading other posters here talking insurance, and my own experience). I haven't compared it against ALL cars in the market place, but it seems 10-15% higher then what it should be (cost of insurance, full coverage )

This car is, by far, my most expensive car to insure.

It costs quite a bit more than my 650HP Camaro. About 60% more.

Both of my MR2s are paid in full for 1 year in less than *3 months* of BRZ insurance. Slightly different story there (collector car) but still.

These cars are, IMO, stupidly expensive to insure. It's a big reason why I'm selling my street one and just keeping one to tow to the track.

[Th3rdSun]

Originally Posted by Adam_L

Speaking of insurance, this car isn't exactly inexpensive to insure , whether your 25 yrs old, or 45 yrs old. For what it is, it's slightly on the high side from the sounds of it (reading other posters here talking insurance, and my own experience). I haven't compared it against ALL cars in the market place, but it seems 10-15% higher then what it should be (cost of insurance, full coverage )

It totally depends on your driving record,where you live,your age,what kind of coverage,who your insurance company is,ect. My full coverage isn't very much more than the '98 200SX that I had with only liability.

Generally,there isn't a one size fits all for insurance coverage.There's just too many factors to take into account.

[mrhayes1]

an FRS more expensive to insure than a 650 horsepower camaro? what year is the camaro? and most importantly, does your insurance company know it has 650 horsepower? lol. If its an older camaro that is modded, that makes sense why its cheap..