BRZ comes last in EVO group test

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

If the FR-S can pull a 6.0 secs 0 to 60...it's over for the BRZ...people will gravitate towards the FR-S over the BRZ. Even though I think the BRZ is the better deal.

Badge snobbery over Scion vs Subaru is made up. People will get over it if the car is good. The FR-S will either make or break Scion.

I really doubt the 15lbs or so difference in weight (afaik a curb weight for the fr-s hasn't been released yet?) isn't going to cut .4 seconds off the 0-60.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Scoobtothenoog

I think the auto trans is a big down fall here. As all the other reviews seem to back up. And as for the understeer I think a simple in-expensive upgrade to a larger rear sway bar with cure that completely. I had a 00 Type R. Loved it and to this day I wish I had kept it. I am hoping this car will remind me somewhat of a RWD version of it.

Yeah I'm planning on a larger RSB as well.

And too bad you sold the ITR

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Yeah I'm planning on a larger RSB as well.

And too bad you sold the ITR

If you're planning on springs and/or coilovers, I'd do those first before deciding on sways. (opposite of what I usually recommend for Subarus.) We've seen in the comparison videos how much springs and dampers chance the behavior of this car. I think doing a RSB first and then springs might be too much. It will depend on how the company that made the springs tuned them.

[Gardus@Supersprint]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

Agreed. I had to work to get my S2000 to to power oversteer (I never did understand how many owners get them to snap oversteer randomly, my car never did that, but maybe driving style differences were the reason there).

The car was never less fun beating on it because it wasn't sideways all the time.

On the street the S2000 wasn't all that fun though because the limits were too high. Evo points to the same problem with the BRZ but as has been said their goal was power oversteer, and that's not the sole definition of "fun to drive" in my mind.

The fact is this car is more a "momentum" car than a "powerdrift" one so you end up going sideways at very high speeds.
With a CL63 AMG you can do sideways pretty much everywhere with that amount of torque...or you can do THIS:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPh90yNX-mY"]The Mercedes C63 AMG Experiment - Chris Harris ON CARS - YouTube[/ame]

Guess you could do the same on the 86!

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Draco-REX

If you're planning on springs and/or coilovers, I'd do those first before deciding on sways. (opposite of what I usually recommend for Subarus.) We've seen in the comparison videos how much springs and dampers chance the behavior of this car. I think doing a RSB first and then springs might be too much. It will depend on how the company that made the springs tuned them.

A larger RSB will also be autox legal for stock class as long as you only change one.

Also, I do custom rate setups for my cars and have rarely ever done OTS so whatever I do for suspension down the road will be designed for my needs and based on my plans for the car. Which means I'll either change back to the stock sway bar (I never sell stock parts either) and run higher rates in the rear or leave the bigger rsb and run lower rates.

I like my RWD cars to dance. My S2000 was setup that way and it was perfect for autocross, although other drivers couldn't match my times in my car since it was setup for my driving style specifically :P I think it's due to my history/experience with setting up fast FWD cars, changed the way I want cars to feel at the limits.

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

A larger RSB will also be autox legal for stock class as long as you only change one.

Also, I do custom rate setups for my cars and have rarely ever done OTS so whatever I do for suspension down the road will be designed for my needs and based on my plans for the car. Which means I'll either change back to the stock sway bar (I never sell stock parts either) and run higher rates in the rear or leave the bigger rsb and run lower rates.

I like my RWD cars to dance. My S2000 was setup that way and it was perfect for autocross, although other drivers couldn't match my times in my car since it was setup for my driving style specifically :P I think it's due to my history/experience with setting up fast FWD cars, changed the way I want cars to feel at the limits.

Ok, you have a plan, good.

My cars tend to be set up kind of odd as well. Lift-throttle over with power under is what usually works for me. Seems I might make a good 911 driver if I were to ever drive one.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Gardus

The fact is this car is more a "momentum" car than a "powerdrift" one so you end up going sideways at very high speeds.
With a CL63 AMG you can do sideways pretty much everywhere with that amount of torque...or you can do THIS:

Guess you could do the same on the 86!

LOL I would never do that. Momentum doesn't mean hard to oversteer. A car that is THAT hard (according to EVO) to get the tail out means it's not neutral either. I have never considered this car a drift car nor would I ever try to make it one (especially since I have zero interest in drifting).

I do however want to be able to get the car to oversteer when I want it to, but only when I want it to. Balance doesn't mean the extreme

[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

[JACK 8URT0N]

Originally Posted by Scoobtothenoog

I had a 00 Type R. Loved it and to this day I wish I had kept it. I am hoping this car will remind me somewhat of a RWD version of it.

Same here. :happy0180:

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by Racecomp Engineering

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.

Thanks for the sanity check. Do you feel that EVO [keeping in mind it was Jethro Bovington heading up the comparison, and all his biases] perhaps over-reacted with their conclusion in giving the car only 3.5 stars? With the extreme hype-machine this car has been subjected to, I find it very likely that even upstanding rags like EVO can succumb to an emotional over-reaction and downplay the car because there's no way it can live up to the super-hype.

There are many rather gushingly positive comments in the review; "...steering is beautifully weighted", the "underlying rightness", the "instant and well-judged throttle response", and liken the car more to a Cayman than anything else. More things like "the sense of agility is imprinted on my fingertips" and "The brake feel is truly incredible. Like the steering, the brakes require a firm, positive input but then stream back information." seem to portray an experience that is special.

It seems the primary point EVO seems to be harping about is summed up nicely [as always] by Harry Catchpole: "And the chassis...well, it's very special in some respects but getting access to it with so little torque isn't easy."

It seems that more than anything, making the car dance isn't easy unless you're at 10/10ths on a racetrack....unless you add power or reduce grip even more.

[Rabble]

The main thing I got from the article was "wah wah this car isn't as powerful as a car with 100 more HP." What was he expecting?

I don't think I've seen any reviews say that the BRZ had more than enough power. I think the general feeling in the auto industry is that it has "enough" power. The fact that he can't keep up with a 370z, well, duh.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by Rabble

The main thing I got from the article was "wah wah this car isn't as powerful as a car with 100 more HP." What was he expecting?

I don't think I've seen any reviews say that the BRZ had more than enough power. I think the general feeling in the auto industry is that it has "enough" power. The fact that he can't keep up with a 370z, well, duh.

I think you're either projecting or misreading the article. At no time did they complain that it wasn't as powerful as the 370Z. They did point out how obvious the transition is going between the cars, but like you said "well, duh." Keep in mind, they never complained the Miata wasn't powerful enough. In fact, they appreciated the Miata for its balance and accessibility to fun, whereas the primary complaint was the BRZ seemed reluctant to give up the smiles per miles because there's an imbalance between chassis grip and mid-range engine torque.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm just pointing out their exact rationale.

[Spaceywilly]

It's also worth noting the 370Z only gets 18/26 mpg vs. the BRZ 22/30 (both require premium). This probably means nothing to magazine reviewers but to people who drive the car every day it means real savings at the pump, on top of the BRZ being about $5000 cheaper comparing base model to base model. So that extra power comes at a significant cost.

Originally Posted by Ryephile

I think you're either projecting or misreading the article. At no time did they complain that it wasn't as powerful as the 370Z. They did point out how obvious the transition is going between the cars, but like you said "well, duh." Keep in mind, they never complained the Miata wasn't powerful enough. In fact, they appreciated the Miata for its balance and accessibility to fun, whereas the primary complaint was the BRZ seemed reluctant to give up the smiles per miles because there's an imbalance between chassis grip and mid-range engine torque.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm just pointing out their exact rationale.

They had positive things to say about every aspect of the car except the lack of torque and the tires.

"And the chassis...well, it's very special in some respects but getting access to it with so little torque isn't easy."

"However, they're fleeting moments and the frustration of the lack of torque combined wiht the sheer composure of the thing makes it less accessible than we'd all expected."

"...But as the road starts to drop away and retracts into blind hairpins or sequences of tight left-right combinations, the lack of torque once again frustrates and the brilliant composure can feel rather like an uninterested attitude."

"I hate to say it but the BRZ feels like it needs more power or a wet surface to fulfil its obvious and tantalising potential."

"The tires might be very ordinary and not very wide but they're not much troubled by the piffling torque..."

Sounds to me like they thought it could use more torque.

[Racecomp Engineering]

I think they overreacted. Many of the quotes you posted point to a 4.5 star car (save the 5 stars for one with 50 more hp) so I'm still scratching my head over why they weren't happy. Maybe 4 stars for the auto version but there should be an asterisk.

The chassis is too good? Too balanced and composed? Brakes and steering are perfect? Yeah that sounds awesome actually. The "underlying rightness" of this car is what has stuck with me and is the reason I haven't stopped thinking about it for a couple months. It's just an amazingly pure driver's car with tons of feedback to tell you what's happening and connect you to the road in the best way.

You can push it safely and enjoy doing it. You can just drive it a decent clip and have a blast on normal roads. Going to the store on boring suburban roads is enjoyable. It's firm but not overly harsh...fine for long trips IMO.

Absolutely no reason to need to hang the ass out on every corner to have fun. If that's what someone is looking for, a Mustang is a good buy (and honestly a very good car too).

Also, tons of grip on average 215 width tires on stock suspension and alignment just makes me so happy. This thing has so much potential and honestly some very minor upgrades will make it an absolute beast....a Renault slaying beast.

I can see being disappointed in the automatic transmission (haven't driven that) and having that detract from the overall fun of the car. But not enough to complain like this.

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.

- drew

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Thanks for the sanity check. Do you feel that EVO [keeping in mind it was Jethro Bovington heading up the comparison, and all his biases] perhaps over-reacted with their conclusion in giving the car only 3.5 stars? With the extreme hype-machine this car has been subjected to, I find it very likely that even upstanding rags like EVO can succumb to an emotional over-reaction and downplay the car because there's no way it can live up to the super-hype.

There are many rather gushingly positive comments in the review; "...steering is beautifully weighted", the "underlying rightness", the "instant and well-judged throttle response", and liken the car more to a Cayman than anything else. More things like "the sense of agility is imprinted on my fingertips" and "The brake feel is truly incredible. Like the steering, the brakes require a firm, positive input but then stream back information." seem to portray an experience that is special.

It seems the primary point EVO seems to be harping about is summed up nicely [as always] by Harry Catchpole: "And the chassis...well, it's very special in some respects but getting access to it with so little torque isn't easy."

It seems that more than anything, making the car dance isn't easy unless you're at 10/10ths on a racetrack....unless you add power or reduce grip even more.