Also, I have no idea why Subaru would give seasoned road testers an automatic BRZ. Especially for comparison tests. They were setting up for failure from the start.

ouch those reviews hurt but ok with me since I have not preordered one. I agree with the automatic complaints, based on the differences in the EPA gas mileages the slushy is geared badly for performance.

Anyways my wallet is happy with it, more confirmation that I made the right decision in buying something for the nearterm and have the luxury to wait to test drive one and see if a STI/higher horsepower version comes out.

^Reminds me of Hyundai sending an auto Gen Coupe to Lightning Laps a couple years back. If the auto is set up ratio wise, similar enough to the manual fair enough, but if it doesn't maybe so fair enough then.

If anything this makes me want to get a FR-S now.

It sucks getting the hype deflated but we all know this car isn't for everyone, much like the S2000 it's going to cater to certain people. It's how everything comes together.

Now I know why Honda didn't really update the S2000 too much, and only gained a slight bit of TQ in 2004.

I hope that Subaru does the same, and doesn't go crazy trying to appeal to a minority that won't ever buy this car anyway.

Eh, we were bound to have somewhat negative review eventually. Every review is somewhat subjective as well, so if I've read/seen 40 great reviews and 1 Not So Good one, then I'm still thinking this is a great car.

Also, they need to test a Manual...

It is only a handful of peoples' opinion on one car in one variant over a few days. Not everyone is going to love it and no one should be changing their well-informed opinions of it, solely on this basis.

Test drives for all first! :-)

Because
a) automatic
b) why on earth would anyone compare lap times to a sporty car with more power and way better tires? I'll go several seconds a lap faster than BRZ in my legacy wearing starspecs.

a - does the automatic come with different brakes, steering, chassis setup than the manual? No, impressions on those aspects of the car are still valid.

b - is you legacy equipped as standard and is it a new current model year car? The BRZ and Reno were both tested with standard equipment.

I said it before and I'll say it again. This car needs a 2.5L engine.

This just reaffirms my plans to supercharge the car and put stickier tires on. All of the problems mentioned in the article will be solved!

Not sure if Chris Harris was part of this test group or not but I suspect he wasn't.

If he was, I'm sure he would have told them the GT86 is a better car for "oversteer/drifting" fun. Again, I'm sure that these guys would have had a different opinion if the car was an GT86 and a manual.

If anyone has seen his review on Youtubes Drive Channel, I'm sure you'll agree with me. He loved the 86 so much he actually said "BUY ONE!!"

bneale

a) it's slower, geared differently and AT affects weight/distribution.

b) What's your point? To me lap comparisons are meaningless unless it's a race car. Otherwise it says nothing to me, cause too many variable affect end-result.

I can buy lap time comparisons for cars in the same class with similar power (say, FF hot hatches) and category of tires. Comparing FF and FR car of vastly different specs is meaningless not only because of specs but also because different tracks favor different layouts. Like I said - waste of journal space.

The only remotely useful bit in that article - is that tires seem not to take trail-braking too well. But then again, the rest of info (for example - tires losing grip to abruptly) goes against what most other reviewers said which at the moment works against EVO's word and makes me discount the trail-braking info too.

Lol I'm thinking the exact opposite. If they say it's hard to get it to oversteer, I my try to fit some 205 tires on the car! lol

Their biggest complaint (really their only compaint) was the power delivery. The auto has longer gears and a torque converter. I think the review would've been a lot different if they had a manual.

You're better off getting a set of coilovers that you can tune for oversteer. They also said the car felt unstable under braking so going with smaller tires is prob not a good idea. I would prefer 225/45/17 with 17x7.5 in. wheels so you can fit Brembo brake calipers and have a little more sidewall for comfort and grip. but I'm against changing the stock sizes - especially going taller since they will negatively effect the acceleration.

3.5 stars is a tough pill to swallow. I'm shocked at the negativity of the track review, however in this situation they're actually trying to get a solid lap time instead of hooning the car sideways, and this will be where the Primacy tires falter in a big way. On the street, I'm pleased to hear they love the steering, but I'm not surprised to read they find the torque lacking, especially considering the tall gearing of the automatic.

I think I understand their perspective on the chassis feeling aloof despite being communicative and capable. IMO it's the ultimate compliment to how sorted the suspension is, however I also agree that it doesn't force the car to be fun. Satisfying for sure, but not fun.

It sounds like my test drive [whenever that is] will be the ultimate litmus test.

I wouldn't worry too much guys. The way I read it, they are constantly complaining about the lack of torque because they want the car to be sideways in the dry and it just doesn't have the torque to do it and especially with an auto transmission. But why does a car always have to be sideways? Is that a measure of how good a car is? Maybe I don't want the car to be sideways. I'm actually sick of seeing this car sideways. I want a track car with good grips. I don't recall any other reviews complaining that the car lacks power.

That's essentially what this review highlighted for me. Needs boost.

I was already considered about the low torque output, this doesn't put my mind at ease at all.

Certainly do not disagree to that and wasn't implying there couldn't be a different verdict :)
My response was to the other guy's hyperbolic statement on the waste of spacefullness of the article.

The manual, with it's shorter gears, does actually change the way the car handles. More torque generally helps oversteer.

To me this review is like them testing a BRZ against the WRX or a Mitsu Evo. One is a new comer and the other is pretty much in a class by itself. Let's not even mention the turbo motor. We all know that a properly set up FWD car can do just as well as a RWD car. So let's just call that moot. So it really was a duel between a turbo motor and a NA 2.0, so I think the BRZ went into the ring undergun'd, IMO. In either case, it doesn't change my mind about the car one bit.

Not concerned.

Big thing here is everyone wanting power oversteer. Why?

Response and predictability are fine.

My concern is not power oversteer but power band. I don't want to be rocking my head back and forth when it drops below 6500 rpm like they're saying you need to... LOL

I'm getting a manual car, and am pretty sure a lot of that complaint is the auto's gearing/converter.

Chris Harris tested the car on a racetrack in Spain. In fact, all the early reviews were conducted on racetracks which tend to be smooth and represent a controlled enviorment. Journalist and high performance drivers were encouragaed to drive the car at its limits. Now the car is being released to the real world and the honeymoon seems to be somewhat over. It was just plain unrealistic to think that this car could be everything that Toyota and Subaru hype said it was. But that does not mean it is a bad car or that it cannot revive the Japanese tuner market. If anything this type of article will make enthusiast buyers more determined to tune the car to their personal liking.

If there are lessons here at all they are:

1. Do not believe the advertising department hype of any car manufacturerer, They are in the business to make money, period.

2. Toyota and Subaru overpriced the car and therefore put it within comparison range of some very good performance machines.

3. RWD is not the coming of the performance car messiah. For lower power cars FWD is not inferior to RWD on the racetrack or the street.

4. You should never test an automatic against manual shift cars in a low end sports car test like this one.

Again, Evo drivers are not your typical enthusiasts, they are quasi-racing pros. I'll be more interested to see what more "mainstream" reviewers find in a comparison - guys who drive and experience things more like real-world drivers, even when going fast.

Not sure how this follows from this or any other reviews we saw so far.
Please name a few of those "very good performance machines" you can get new.

Hmmm I'm just reading this quote: "It reminds me not of a junior M3 or slightly more grown up MX-5, but a Porsche Cayman. Similar unshakeable composure and poise."

I'm very unlikely to use the care to go sideways or on a track, so most of the points seem more negligible to me. But isn't it good to have that feeling of composure?

If you trust John Barker on the track, then I'm afraid that EVO got it right.

When Motor Trend drove a preproduction BRZ on the track in Japan they wrote:

"That is not to say push is entirely absent. Apparently, for safety reasons, understeer is the default condition when you get sloppy. It's easy to induce through early turn-in, which causes the front outside tire to roll over and howl unhappily as the nose plows."

Eerily similar reporting from two different publications, testing on two tracks on opposite sides of the world.

There's enough bad news from enough credible testers to make me wait to drive both cars before I buy, and wait for head-to-head Subaru/Toyota comparisons.

For now, my money's in my wallet where it belongs.

Chris Harris no longer writes/reviews for EVO, and that's a big reason why EVO scooped up Tiff Needell.

As far as I know, he know contributes to PistonHeads, as well as his own show on the Drive YouTube network.

i think the issue is that it seems that the car needs to be pushed in order to wake up. the m3, cayman and miata are all good cars imo but the miata is the car that is fun to run errands or just be stuck in traffic.

i appreciate being fun at 100% but in reality we spend most of our time on the street where im more likely at a much lower fraction of my abilities. the miata is fun as fast as it goes (which isnt very fast) but it is remarkable because it is fun at much more pedestrian speeds too. sounds like the brz fails in that dept

The Megane doesn't come in an automatic at all... heh.

At the same time, isn't it bad to feel fun at 100% of the time? Lol, I hate to say it, but humans are incredibly adaptive and you tend to tune things out (hell, look at any new shiny toy >_> tends to be less awesome three months down the road). But no, you may be right that the miata is more fun. From my perspective, I'm thinking that stability and confidence is always a good thing so that's why I'm having a disconnect. Dunno, I don't see Evo's review as bad. Not stellar, but not bad? Dunno.

I choose to interpret this way. With top quality rubber this thing will be a grip monster.With some suspension tuning, even more so.

And having massive mechanical grip will allow it to handle a significant power bump in the future.

Plus with the safe tuning keep in mind what could happen to a Subaru driver coming from a pushy awd WRX/STI to a responsive, loose rwd BRZ...

I like EVO magazine and I found the article pretty interesting actually...the car that they noted as technically the best handling on road was labeled the worst because it wasn't as fun as the others (subjective views) or specifically as powerful as the Megane (which is basically in between a 2012 WRX and 2012 STi for torque level and @ 3000rpm too!)...interesting. This article even more solidifies my desire to get one (a Scion FR-S though) because looking at what they actually say about its handling, it seems to be exactly what I was wanting - a surefooted, communicative and responsive chassis that stays absolutely planted until you surpass the tires limits, which are comparatively high. If I want sideways fun at low speed I have my Tacoma...it's nearly as fun as a miata and way more practical.

I'm used to and actually prefer 'gutless' cars that you have to rev to get going and that 80mph feels 'fast'... an powerful car would just get me into trouble. I have enough conscious effort spent trying to keep my Tacoma at sane speeds as it is, I'm even running with all season low-grip tires and removed all the anti-roll bars on purpose. Even so it has no issue taking cloverleafs at above highway speeds or decreasing radius elevated highway bypass ramps @ well over interstate speeds. Not even considering power upgrades for the FR-S other than intake/exhaust (more for throttle response purposes than power concerns) - the 'wimpy' 2.0L base powerplant is more than adequate to accelerate to triple digits on on-ramps... which I really do not want to be doing!

all this interpretation and analysis of the the evo review and other reviews is pointless if you ask me. Yes those reviews should be considered, but in the end you are the one driving the car everyday. Go test drive the brz/frs yourself. Then go test drive the comparable cars that you are considering. Whichever you think drives the best and fits your needs and can put the smile on your face like the 86 did on Chris Harris' is the car that you should get imo.

I still cant wait to get mine. I plan on it being a grip machine anyway.

AD08, star specs or RE11, dial in some negative camber up front.

Later on.... Rotrex SC

A chassis that is wanting of power is not the end of the world folks. I've got a Civic Si, most of my peers spend great sums of money into giving the thing more power, beyond what the car can reasonably handle. The BRZ should comfortably grow into power increases, and because it is so light, those increase won't have to be particularly great to start having effects.

Would substantially more power from the factory be nice, sure, but the BRZ would likely end priced above the other cars in this article. Let's face it, that is not Subaru's market. Subaru wants people to draw comparisons with the Cayman not compete against it in the market.

Add to the fact that since this is the latest inexpensive RWD tuner car marketed toward young buyers, many future owners will be migrating from FWD and AWD platforms. Taking it easy on the power for the first year or so isn't terrible.

The car is relatively inexpensive and seems to be shaping up to be a good platform for modification. Given this thing is being sold in near identical form in almost every region across the world, aftermarket support should not only be strong but also diverse.

I'm not worried, it will be my first RWD car and indications are it will grow with me for quite a while, longer than the Civic that's for sure. :thumbsup:

i love how they cornered at the same speed brz wearing low friction eco tires and the other wearing race tires... :D says a lot about mechanical grip to me :D

Yea mate what I got from the article is that the BRZ isnt a bad car at all. They were wanting/hoping for more power. Makes the second and third waves of the twins more desirable imo.