I'm just saying that prior to the first car being sold and prior to actually driving the car without big brother looking over their shoulder it is way too early to claim they have duplicated the magic of the miata.

I would expect a more powerful version to cost more money. don't think I ever said they should deliver more power for the same 25k. if it hangs with an sti that would be great and they could charge sti money for it. this car is different enough from a wrx that they could sell both even if they have similar straight line performance numbers.

...people.
Some folks do not like having to do anything then put their foot down and for those people they may indeed not like the FRS/BRZ.
Those are probably the same people that like flying away from people on motorway onramps and talking numbers down the pub.
If people cannot get their head around what the initial version of the FRS/BRZ provides, that is not the manufacturers fault.

First of all, a properly designed street going car does not have a lot of passing power in the highest gear. The whole point of a gearbox is so you can shift down to get more power, shift up when you don't need it. Exception would be supercars which have enough power to use more than 6 gears and so much displacement they can't be geared efficiently.

Second of all, a Camry V6 does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, which the FRS/BRZ can possibly beat. An Accord Hybrid, the most powerful Accord, similarly does 6.5 seconds. Normal Accord V6s are 7 seconds or so. Aka, no Honda produced in the last several years besides the S2000 can outaccelerate this car, no Toyota produced recently (non-Lexus) can outaccelerate this car.

Third of all, I have seen maybe 2 Accord Hybrids ever, and while I do spot Camry V6s sometimes, on a typical day I don't see one.

A 3.5L engine is ludicrously big for a family car, it's pretty good already that this car is likely faster than said cars.

But it takes 7.6 seconds to get to 60 in a German-spec BRZ/GT/86!

Where did you see that? Everything I've seen is under 7.

Yea I just saw, I think it may have to do with an extra shift getting to 100kph rather than 60mph, which should be reached in 2nd. Most magazines are saying it should be hitting 60 in under 7 seconds. I bet having the engine revved a little and dropping the clutch would drop it a lot since the engine is extremely weak below 2500.

I don't disagree. I get it. This is a great "my first sports car." I'm just fighting the assertion that this is all the power you should ever have or can use because it's just enough. Having driven far more powerful cars daily, it's less power than I want for anything other than a daily driver. However, that's not the point of this car.

And, to be quite honest, I don't consider a 370Z on its stock tires (and a shit ton of oil coolers) "life threatening" as a tool for teaching drivers how to drive competently. Monticello uses 556hp CTS-Vs for their track instruction cars. Bondurant uses Camaro SSs and Corvettes. Spring Mountain uses Corvettes. Skip Barber uses a mix of MX5 Cup cars and Open wheel formula cars.

I think what you're trying to say is that this low power and low grip combination will allow people to hoon around on the street and wreck without killing themselves. Things happen slower so they'll learn to drive their cars. I agree with you, but I'm just saying that there are a LOT of people out there who don't fit this profile, and know how to use more than 200hp going through the rear wheels.

I'm not saying this car needs more power. I'm saying that the idea that this is all the power you could ever want, need, or can use (in any car) is plain wrong.

That would be ome awfully poor engineering on subarus part to need an extra gear shift to hit a benchmark acceleration figure. Its only a 2mph difference.

Motor trend clocked 6.5 seconds for the 2012 camry hybrid. Hybrid! As in maximum economy vehicle. A mazda 6 and a nissan altima are also in the low to mid 6 range. A mt accord coupe can hit 60 in 5.9 seconds.

The Camry Hybrid has a 105kW electric motor, nothing to scoff at!

And let's not forget Motortrend said this car was estimated 6.2s. Has anyone actually been able to time this car?

What do you mean awfully poor engineering? The benchmark itself is stupid. It's already been calculated that the car can't hit 62 in 2nd gear I'm pretty sure.

Want sure, need no. Unless you are towing/hauling something there is no need for a big capacity engine.
I sure would like a 997 911 GT3 RS. Do I need that power, no, not in the least.
The FRS/BRZ does not need more power to get people from point A to B to C and down to Z.

You like alotta oomph. Great, we all like different things. But to make out like driving is a tedious, endless slog without a large capacity engine in a car is plain wrong.

Check the ratio of 2nd gear and use the 4.1 rear end to calculate speed: 95KPH at 7500RPM. This is with 215/24/17 tires.

Multiple times.

I asked this question to my friend a few weeks ago:

How fast, percentage wise (out of all of the cars/trucks on the road), is say, my Civic SI, 0-60?

Now I know the time is mid to low 7s. So what, 90% faster than all of the cars on the road? 70% 95%? 60%?

Then I found this:

http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadte...tion-graph.jpg

It's all of the cars motortrend has tested in the past 5 years. The average age of cars on the road today is 10.8 years, moving that meaty part of the curve over a bit to the right.

Meaning, (I don't know the exact percentage, I'd still like to know) 6.5 is plenty fast especially vs all the cars on the road.

But truth be told if I wanted to maximize my fun I would obviously buy an Accord Hybrid. . .

Can't use that graph, because although relatively few models of cars are slower than the mode, the slower cars are by far the most common on the road. Don't worry about it, I'd say 95% of the cars I see on the road are basic Camry/Accord/Civic/Corolla/Focus/minivans/trucks, which are all slow.