2017 BRZ Owners Performance Thoughts
 

So I wanted to make a statement. This car is NOT slow LOL.

I would even dare say this car is amazingly quick.. Yea I own it I daily drive it and its QUICK. Roll on quick..off line QUICK. Can get you into TROUBLE FAST on local streets QUICK..

I don't know how the reviews were so "negative" speed inspiring.
So much so I almost passed on a purchase because my last car
was a 480 (560HP) tuned P-car 997TT.

I can make a real comparison on what acceleration "feels" like.

And the 2017 BRZ can accelerate. Can accelerate under 6 seconds with out mashing the throttle either. When I've timed the accelerator and clutch pedal perfectly I did it in 5 using a timer and off the line stop light.

I haven't even gone beyond 6K RPMs yet because I am just shy of 1000 miles break in.

If I allow the car to pull me at its own pace and rev match accordingly with throttle in stride it is one of the most amazing rides I have had since the 997TT.

No my friends. This car does NOT disappoint. Stock. Thanks..

:bow:

although I agree with you that our cars are not as slow as everyone claims it to be, but I can say that it is not "fast" either. it's an NA 2 liter engine, it is what it is. it's not a 6 cylinder turbo beast or a V8. maybe the new final drive on the 2017 gives you the impression that the car is faster, but I highly doubt that the car can get to 60 in 5 seconds. it's 200 hp. it's enough for the street but not comparable to other "high performance" cars.

disclaimer: this is all my opinion so please go easy on me

for experienced drivers, they will sense the speed of the car

for newbie mash the pedal drivers, they will feel that it is slow

verdict?

it'll make both happy if the vehicle had 40 more ponies

reality is, when you're on the highway, it'd be nice if 3rd gear did something.

Agreed - around town it tests out fine, but at 70 mph when you punch it to grab that opening on the freeway, it's just not there - the MX-5 is better in that respect.

This is why I have not yet pulled the trigger on a BRZ. I’m used to vehicles that force me back into my seat when I accelerate. Any test drives I’ve had in BRZ’s have left me wanting in this department.


No offense to the OP (2017-BRZ) but I too know what acceleration is. The 205 (rated H.P.) NA boxer four found in the, as delivered twins, isn’t producing enough of it for me!
If your happy with yours that’s great for you.

Headers, e85 and a tune. Problem solved. Hell even just e85 and a tune will do the job. Must say though, my 17 goes from 60-100 real quick. Car is next to stock. Did you keep the engine between 5k and redline at all while test driving? That's where the power is..

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

uhhh what???

OP is using alternative facts, it's okay.

Haha,
Well he also didn't say accelerate to what speed...
Maybe 0-60 KM/H
Or 20-60 MPH

Ahhh ok makes sense now. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

alternative facts ha ha..

93 octane 1/2 tank fuel..30 dgree F...6K shift
under 6 seconds... stock.

2017 owners welcomed to test and verify..

I can't lay claims for earlier model years.

Highway speed passing no problems either.:happyanim:

Rock chips... Now that's a problem.. I see a clear bra in my future.

I was not aware that the “Twins” were “Flex Fuel Vehicles” from the factory.


I know that many feel there is only an up side to ethanol fuels. However, ethanol laced fuels can and have caused problems with some vehicles. I speak from personal experience. There is more to making a FFV than adding a sensor, a new tune and e85.


FFVs are specially designed to run on regular unleaded or any ethanol fuel blend up to 85%. It is my understanding that any part of the vehicle which comes in contact with such blended fuel has to be upgraded to tolerate said fuel. Normally, these parts include an upgraded fuel tank, the fuel lines, fuel injectors, fuel pump components, etcetera with ethanol compatible parts as well as the aforementioned sensor and ECU tunes.


I’m not wanting to ignite another e85 debate, there are already plenty of those on this and other forums. I’m just stating my concern on using fuels that as yet are not recommended by the factory. It may well be that many of the components in the “Twins” are already ethanol compatible. But if that were the case why would the factories not advertise the fact?



New no, used yes. Well as best I could with an antsy salesman sitting beside me. Still didn't feel like I wished it did.


A little better than my son-in-laws Impreza but nowhere near my tired old 2006 box stock STi.

OP having both a 16 BRZ and an 04 modded WRX I can understand both sides. The car is not slow its just NA. None of that surge of power from a turbo. If you really get used to that surge than you will miss it. Both are fun, but I have to admit to BRZ is more fun and playful and the steering is great. 250 HP stock would have been perfect for this car. For now I am stock on the warranty, but in the future I'll bump it up some. These cars are more fun in the twisties than any highway pulls.

Well in that case my mountain bike too can accelerate in under 6 seconds....

I had a turbo car.. a very good turbo car. VTG 997TT.
I know what acceleration is 0-60 in the 3's...

All I'm saying is power to weight ratio is often overlooked with HP numbers on paper and 0-60 times being the forefront only "BIG DEAL" of a great driving experience.

And for experienced drivers we know there is much more to it than this.
Get yourself a good set of tyres to put all the traction to the pavement and learn the driving habits of the car.

It's not about mashing the pedal..that wont get you best acceleration not at least until you arrive in the upper range revs of about 5K..

rev match consistently and utilize 4th gear efficiently..

It's simple. Most new cars are designed with a high ethanol tolerance now because E10 is so prevalent. The extra cost of the flex fuel sensor and tune simply isn't there, especially when Subaru doesn't have a single flex fuel vehicle in their lineup. You don't advertise that your car is only part way flex fuel capable, that's stupid...

These cars have been around long enough and for enough miles already to prove that E85 tunes are safe. The tune can only get so much out of it though, so true 85% ethanol isn't even needed, meaning that it's quite safe.

If you are worried about it, you can add the sensor and tune, and then it operates just the same as any other flex fuel car.

I'm going to have to agree with OP on this.

But a lot of this i find has to do with the new gear ratio.

My 2016 BRZ is boosted with the Edelbrock SC. It defiently has a lot of kick to it. However i recently test drove a new Series Yellow with PP. Honestly i almost enjoyed it more. If anything i think what "slows" this car down the most is the torque dip. And that can be easily remedied.

I enjoyed it so much that i'm going back to NA and i'll probably just end up making changes to my 2016 MY to replicate what is now stock in the 2017s

Ethanol content is 15-20% in some stations.. whether that's intentional or by accident, still.. Manufacturers have to account for that.

Also, when the 86 first came out, the official press release said the car won't have a turbo because "there is no room" for it LOL. Wished I framed that article.

Toyota/Subaru knew they were making a car that would be modded to hell by the aftermarket community.. the 86 is very FI and E85 friendly, it's part of the charm.

The closest e85 station if 45 minutes away from me. :(

I'll just keep rollin' with E0 fuel here in Iowa, which is ironically the land of ethanol. It's funny, but awesome, that just about all the gas stations in Central Iowa I've been to, have 3 types of gasoline: Regular (non-ethanol), Plus/Super/Whatever (same 87 octane but WITH ethanol and cheaper), and Premium (non-ethanol and 91 or 93 octane). 2 out of the 3 pumps will say "NO ALCOHOL" above them. It's peculiar compared to everywhere else in the US and Canada I've been to...

Bought my used 2013 BRZL on January 18th. Had Zach at Delicious Tuning install a stage one tune on Jan 24th. Very noticeable upgrade, smoothed out the throttle and dissipated the flat spot in the torque curve. Then I installed one of their E85 kits and had him re-tweak the map on Feb 14th. Wow... what a difference! Enough to warrant the $1300? I think so... And just enough to hold me over until I come up with the scratch for an Edelbrock!!! :drool:

But as is, the car is no slouch. Dialing in suspension, wheels/tires, and exhaust along with a tune also helped... I am still finding myself going on drives for no reason! :burnrubber:

Let me know when that day comes, I will be more than happy to take the Edelbrock off your hands for you! :thumbup:

Man... I wish we had E85.... or 93 octane.... or 91 octane... 90 is the best we get up here, unless you have a stash of Torco.

Haha i already have a buyer lined up but if he decides to not go for it i'll let you know!

Those four words truly and totally represent the spirit of the 86.

Period.

I don't care whether you assidentally swerved into it, or my genius shamelessly coopted it, but it is irrefutable truth.

With or without mashing the pedals?

Not sure what it feels like from the driver's seat (haven't driven it yet), but in measured tests the new Miata is actually significantly slower above 60 mph. Over 1 second slower 60-100 and over 3 seconds slower 60-120.

60-100 mph
2013 FR-S: 10.2 sec
2016 Miata: 11.5 sec

60-120 mph
2013 FR-S: 20.0 sec
2016 Miata: 23.7 sec

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...fr-s-specs.pdf
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...rm-test-review

LOL that was my first thought when OP said his car was sub 6 seconds.

Yeah I recently switched to a header that makes less peak HP but completely fills in the torque dip. It's surprising how it can change the feel of the car for street driving. Why swap out your SC though? Seems odd (no offense).

ironic. As the USA and the world strip Alaska for it's oil, and they give the citizens there low grade gasoline.

Miata has a crap drag coefficient. I hate convertibles. However.... the RF (so sexy make me hawny) version of the car has very good aerodynamics and attempts to fix this issue.

My perfect world I would have a Miata RF machine metal with brembos and limited slip differential, and a 2017 brz limited with pp. I at least am getting the 2nd car in April :)

truth.

Yup, and ironically Iowa here provides tons of ethanol for everyone, and yet Iowans don't use much of it. haha

Corn juice! :burnrubber:

You probably have too many farmers up there who know better than to let ethanol sit in their equipment between seasons.

I know people who will drive about 40 miles or so just to get ethanol free gas.

And this is the silliest shit I've ever heard.

0-60 in 5 seconds before break-in, GET that shit outta here!

Nice taste in cars. Would love to add an ND to my garage (or even an NA/NB).

Yeah at those speeds I think it's the Twins' aero and 50 hp advantage that makes them faster than the ND. Are you sure the aero on the RF is that much better than the ragtop though? I saw a test recently where the RF was about the same or maybe slightly slower from 60-100.

Just feathering them bitches.... Didn't even get past 8th gear. Have to break in my new cassette.

Two points here: first, on my test drives I was testing acceleration in both from about 40 or 50 to a max of 80 mph (had salesmen with me) - and it's almost certain that most of the deficit in the MX-5's 60-100 run vs. the twins is incurred above 80 (as it's appreciably faster to 60 than the twins, and aero drag goes up proportional to the vehicle's speed squared, so the liabilities of the convertible configuration will have a greater impact at the top end).

Secondly, the lower driving position, smaller body, greater wind noise, and lower hood and cowl of the Miata conspire to give a greater subjective impression of speed vs. the twins at any given MPH, which heightens one's subjective sense of the vehicle's acceleration.

With an added 113 lbs the RF is about .1-.2 sec slower to 60 than the soft top but I think I read in one review that it has a higher top speed due to its better aero. It's also got a stiffer suspension setup with a bit less body roll and better body control when the rear bump stops are hit.

Humm pretty sure the BRZ at its lowest seating position is lower than the ND, the hoodline on the BRZ is also a tad lower if you don't count the side cowls since I've sat in both. However subjective neither car is old Honda kind of low.

I'm also pretty sure the RF comes with Bilstein shocks standard after some Googling, I was gonna get down on the ground to check at the autoshow but there were too much people around.

That was my impression too when I sat in the ND at the auto show. Its cowl and hood felt higher than the Twins. Not sure about actual seating height off the ground though, I think it'd really close b/n the two. If I remember correctly, the ND seat moves up as you adjust it forward so it'd also depend how far back the seat was positioned.