I know what you mean but I'm not so sure I will like it. For example, I remember when I drove an S2000, when I put the pedal to the floor I felt like I was going nowhere and it was boring but before I knew it, I was actually going way too fast! In comparison, my Eclipse pushes me back in the seat at nearly any RPM and it feels like I'm going very fast but it's really just moderate acceleration. People who ride with me without seeing the speedometer think I'm speeding but I'm only accelerating to around the speed limit.

So yeah, to me, what is fun is the feel of power without too much actual speed. And that is essentially torque. Another 30 lbs ft of torque in this thing would be perfect I think.

The comparisons are totally wrong. 370z has loads more power and costs significantly more. Not even in the same class, on multiple levels.

Also, there's a lot to be said about liking all of the other non-performance aspects of a car - the looks, the brand, etc.

That said, I'll certainly be keeping my eyes open for a TRD supercharger, or a 2-3 year model refresh with a power boost.

Same. I've been thinking that I might like to get the convertible version when it comes out in 2-3 years if they don't add too much weight, maybe it'll have a power boost by then.

Don't forget that EVO is a UK mag and uses UK prices. The BRZ should be north of £25k and they targeted sub £30k for the article.
That gets you every hot hatch, Lotus Elise, 125i M Sport, 370Z, Ginetta G40 (assuming they are genuinely selling them)... surely some others as well.

We're very fortunate in North America they have given it a much keener price :w00t:

As someone coming from the previous generation Renaultsport Megane it doesn't make pleasant reading. The group test participants are the obvious for the UK market with the only other possible car being the Elise 1.6.

Hot hatches are the default performance car over here and with the normal discounts you can get on a Renault you could have the 265 with the cup pack and the Recaros for under £25k leaving more than enough for a remap (taking it to ~315Bhp) a spare set of track wheels and tyres and a couple of track days for less than a GT86/BRZ.

The auto box is entire Subaru's mistake, especially as Evo are probalby the most driver orientated European car magazine (with the possible exception of Sport Auto). Hopefully the longer ratios were a big part of the difficulty in keeping in the zone but I doubt it.

I have a manual GT86 coming in June/July so I am a bit worried after putting down a large amount of money without driving one but with the tuning companies getting up to speed it will be fixable just at a cost.

I don't give a f***. The BRZ is best and its all. What are you going to do with a FWD car? Drive straight in to a tree? And what with an open top MX-5? What with the 370Z that is less sporty than a TT-S or Z4 35i? BRZ no doubt. And wait till the turbocahrgers and superchargers come, it will kill anything. It is always easier to add power than to substract weight.

According to that article, you will lap BRZs and have more fun than the BRZ driver as well...

It's your choice what you get, and who the hell I'm I to dictate what other people buy, but... Convertible? And ruin what inherently makes this car so desirable? I am cool with a power bump, as long as the increase in mass is within reason, but to buy a fundamentally flawed version of a perfectly good car seems wrong.

Then again, I have never owned a convertible. All those people who do own one may be onto something.

Can't say that I disagree with you ;)

In some ways, this review confirms the BRZ is what Subaru promised: a modestly powered, forgiving RWD track car that doesn't need sticky, expensive tires to be fun. Essentially it's a Miata coupe with more power and better-sorted handling.

Sadly, the addition of a fixed roof and higher limits makes it less engaging on the street than a topless Miata, but what can you do? That's the price you pay for a car that's better than the Miata on the track.

The fact that Subaru chose to send an automatic BRZ was the puzzling decision considering the above, but overall, the BRZ serves different purposes than the cars Evo tested it against so the result is understandable.

:thanks:

I'm a bit saddened since I was only wanting the automatic BRZ Limited that me and ZGrinch saw in Atlanta. I have to force myself to try the manual instead but I fear that won't make a big difference.

Exactly! This is a great problem to have. I would much prefer an extremely capable chassis that begs for more power than a flimsy chassis that needs tons of modifications and reinforcement to handle anything more than stock power. What I got from that article is that the BRZ will be incredible with more power and better tires. The aftermarket has their work cut out for them!

I just posted up an except of a Motortrend blog that had some praise for the BRZ I was not expecting! I think that people complaining about the power should lighten up as I'm excited in making my own mods to make this car what I want it to be, and with the power I want it to have.
:thumbup::burnrubber::thumbup:

That is your opinion right there. But I remember seeing the 370Z beating those other cars in testing all over the place especially in Top Gear when Jeremy said it was more fun to drive and involving than the Z4 35.

Subaru sucks at fine tuning suspension.

I keep looking at it this way. I am looking to get the same feeling that my 85 BMW 318i gave me, and that was a poor beaten automatic with a bad cylinder that I couldn't rev over 4 grand or it would shake. It was huge amounts of fun!...well not up hills where tractor trailers would pass.

just checked it out and just got my issue of MT with the full article...(which I read on-line before but something fun about reading it on printed pages)
Also a line in Automobile Mag this month about the upcoming WRX that is intriguing in terms of future potential for the BRZ...and I quote

and here's where the news gets interesting: replacing the laggy, aging 2.5-liter flat four will be a turbocharged version of the 2.0-liter four-cylinder that made its first appearance in the rear-wheel-drive BRZ coupe. This engine is smaller, dimensionally, than the 2.0-liter in the regular Impreza, and the two engine families share almost no parts. A big difference here from the BRZ is that the WRX's engine will use Subaru's first in-house direct-injection system, whereas the coupe uses a Toyota system.

http://www.automobilemag.com/feature...ew_asian_cars/

That shouldn't be too shocking. It does mean the bottom end design isn't fundamentally lacking though.

FR-S reviews are going out late next week, hopefully we won't be disappointed.

But the thing is you can still probably get a BRZ cheaper than a FR-S...if people tend to like the FR-S better...

^ Highly doubtful - even if the FR-S handles a bit better, the additional amenities and buyer badge snobbery will favour the BRZ.

You know that the Subaru engineers designed this car with a convertible version in mind right? They are planning on making one, and I don't think it will change the character of the car.

You could be right. Well that is not my opinion, just the result a german reviews, and usuallly they are negative about japanese car. In fact I hat hate the Audi TT, even the TT-RS, and find the Z4 weighing 1600 kg way too heavy to be fun, all this because of its retractable hardtop.

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.

It's not that much lighter.

Can I have three reasons as to how this could happen? Max outputs are the same, gear ratio's are the same, and the driver makes up a bigger weight difference than the make he is in. In short it aint happening.

It amuses me how much weight some people seem to think a pair of ballasts and a gps head unit will add.

When Scion finally releases the official curb weight for the FR-S my guess is those same folks are going to find it is a lot closer to the BRZ than they hoped.

If people were going to nit pick over tiny differences I'd think more folks would be scrapping over the BRZ being .6 inches shorter! Oh my gosh now the BRZ is totally worth it!!

They're basically the same damn car aside from options, aesthetics, and price. The only real performance difference will likely be auto vs manual and the differences in suspension tuning.

Very interesting article. I assumed as much all along. In order to get this thing to shine you have to drive it like you would any car on a closed track, defeating it's purpose there as more powerful variants will win out each time. Having to keep it revved out on open roads to have the fun, that's not good, but expected due to the anemic powerplant they stuffed into there. So much for "I'd rather have a fun car you don't have to drive at it's limits to enjoy" arguments.

It's obvious at this point that the chassis is overbuilt and it has an vastly underpowered engine. The numbers this car pulls stock is incredible considering the horrible tires they have on it stock. Just a decent set of tires will make the numbers jump alone. But once again it all falls back on the main suspect of the car, it's motor, and it's not up to snuff.

I expect this car to be turbo/sc from the factory next year from the heat they're taking on the wheezing motor. If not, then it just shows how out of touch they are. Aftermarket will supply FI, no doubts, but when going to FI from a bleeding edged compression NA motor in which no one knows how well built it is, I wouldn't risk it. I think in many's best interests, they should wait for next year.

Lemme sum this up... auto transmission and prius tire fail. I am not worried a bit. I'll be throwing on some proper wheels/tires as soon as the car arrives. Let's not forget the possibility of adding extra power with an intake/exhaust and tune.

Its not going to happen. Subaru doesn't have a hybrid platform just yet and its average MPG across the brand is not that great. They have to go with 2.0L and 1.6L in most new smaller models and through a turbo on it to meet EPA requirements.

I'm glad BRZ escaped that route.

Certain aspects of what defines the BRZ's character, such as steering rack speed, more than likely will not change. On that level I agree with you.

Where I completely disagree with you is with your assertion that the character of the car (in this case meaning the overriding character traits of the BRZ) as defined by the BRZ's low weight and low Cg will not be altered. Even though you did not define the overall character as such, I think we can both agree those two attributes truly define the car, and all the other sub-traits fall from there.

Besides adding a nice panaramic view of the environment, convertible tops (hard or soft) do two things to a cars: add complexity, and add weight relatively high on the car. Convertible top cars also suffer from reduced rigidity, especially when compared to solid roofed counterparts. To overcome this, convertibles require additional material added to the frame in the form of structural members in order to gain back some measure of lost rigidity. Without belaboring the point, all these factors contribute towards undermining the two major attributes that make the BRZ a, well... a BRZ.

I have a feeling I am not saying anything new to you, or most other members on the BRZ side of the house (the kids on the FR-S side might be a different story ;)). Basically even if Subaru designed this car from the get-go to also support a convertible top variant, unless they extensively employ exotic materials throughout the top's construction, I do not see how the driving experience and performance of the base car will not be negatively affected. Then again... I suspect people who buy convertibles generally do not car all that much about the performance.

Boxster S. Amazing performance. Though...I'd probably get a Cayman R instead.

Lol I'm well aware of what goes in to constructing a convertible version of a car. What I'm saying is that Subaru engineered this car from the beginning with a convertible version in mind (there are many articles with quotes from the engineers saying this).

Because they are planning to make one, this car already has extreme rigidity and I think it will require very few modifications to the frame of the car, if any at all. It's hardly complex, custom shops do it all the time. Hack the roof off and put a soft top on it instead, add some motors for the roof, and place a little more bracing in the car (if needed). I actually think this car could be BETTER as a convertible. If they did engineer it with that extra rigidity like the engineers have claimed, then there will be minimal weight added to the frame, plus you are losing lots of weight up top (because of the lack of a roof!)

I think the convertible version could be lighter than the hardtop (look at the miata), have better handling and even less body roll (if that's even possible, lol) because of all the weight of the car being lower.

Your last comment about people who buy convertibles don't care about performance made me laugh, as you're insulting every single Miata and S2000 owner out there, among other cars. The only thing more glorious than carving up back roads is carving them up in the open air while being able to hear your exhaust twice as good as you could with the windows down in a hardtop. Viva la convertible! :thumbup:

If the body is already that strong so that a convertible would not require 1-2 hundred pounds of reinforcement - why there's no moon/sunroof option?
I think the chances of a convertible gt86 weighing less then coupe are very slim; most likely it will be fatter and less rigid.

There's no moonroof because adding glass to the roof would have made the handling worse and the car heavier. Having no roof and a lighter fabric top stowed in the trunk can only help the car's handling, as long as they did engineer the car to be as rigid as they say it is.

The 370z roadster is 200lbs heavier than the coupe in the same trim. For cars that are designed to have a hard top (as opposed to being designed as a convertible and then having the top stuck on) there is no weight penalty for having a roof, and the added rigidity of the hard top will always be better for handling. Even on the Miata and S2000, which were both designed to be convertibles like you say the BRZ/FRS was, people add the hard top to stiffen the chassis. Unless there's a carbon fibre monocoque they have been keeping secret from us, cutting the roof off the car is not going to help the handling.

I wouldn't expect car dynamic changing gains from an I/E/T. It's a high strung, high-comp, NA engine.

It will lose rigidity regardless going to the convertible top. The vast majority of cars do this, even cars designed as a droptop from the start. The 86's profile isn't so sleek to not impact it as much as other cars.

Er, what? Make it plastic. It's not the weight, it's the fact that it compromises chassis rigidity. Same reason there's no sunroof in 5door STI.

And reports of convertible only surfaced few months ago. Before that there was nothing about it, sometimes mixed with 'no way'. It makes zero sense to design a light weight-coupe with all the extra rigidity in the 'base' and the top doing nothing (so that the hypothetical convertible could be lighter) and not selling it as a convertible from the get-go.

It also would reduce headroom, which is already on the low end

I'm not saying they loaded the hardtop up with extra rigidity, I said they engineered the car with a convertible version in mind. That means I expect there to be very little needed to regain the small amount of rigidity that is lost when the roof is gone. And having no roof swinging above you when you dive into a corner, the car will handle better. If it does gain any weight, I think the weight they would save with the lighter fabric roof could cancel it out. Worst case scenario, the convertible top will add 100 lbs. to the car. In that case, a manual convertible would be barely heavier than an automatic hardtop.