Not disappointed but curious. Why BRZ's acceleration numbers are relatively slow?
 

Since we have had many reviews recently, I did notice that the reported acceleration numbers are pretty slow. Coming from 97 Accord, I feel that 0-60 in 7.3 sec is more than enough. :) However, I cannot help but wondering what is the cause of the relatively slow acceleration of BRZ?

Most reviews posted 0-60 ranges from 7.1-7.6 secs. For comparison,

Gen 1 RSX Type-S, 200hp, 2790lb has 0-60 being 6.4

Civic Si (K20A), 200hp, 2877lb has 0-60 being 6.3-6.7

Gen 1 S2000, 240hp, 2864lb, 0-60 being around 5.4.

RX-8, 232hp, 2900-3100lb, 0-60 being 5.7-6.5.

The latest comparison review with Miata mentions "these two cars are nearly equal in a drag race". But from the spec, Miata should be much slower in terms of straight line speed.


My understanding is that BRZ has stronger low-end torque when compared to any of the reference cars. Why the actual acceleration number is relatively slow?

Some possible causes I can think of are

(1) Gear ratio
(2) Less grippy tires
(3) The journalists did not want to abuse the car,
(4) Toyota/Subaru overrated the engine output.

However, none of the above makes perfect sense. The gear ratio should be quite tight since BRZ needs an extra shift before 60mph. I do not foresee 151lb/ft torque can overpower the stock tires. The journalists are unlike to "baby the car". The dyno results posted previously also showed strong numbers.

Any other thoughts/explanation?

2nd gear tops out at 59mph, requiring the driver to shift into 3rd to get up to 60. This extra shift adds about a half second to the 0 - 60 time. Also, Motor Trend reported a 0 - 60 of 6.4 seconds.

Delete thread. We really don't need another whiney "BRZ IS SLOW" post. If you don't like it then don't buy it. If all you care about is straight line speed this car is not for you.

I am sorry that I may not make my post clearer. I am quite happy as the way the car is, and I do not have any concern/dislike about the acceleration number.

However, it does seem an anomaly in terms of the actual acceleration number when compared to the reference cars. (I did not list those high-power cars, such as 370z, TT, etc.) I am just curious what could be the causes of the relative slow test numbers.

Don't get your panties in a knot. He isn't bashing the BRZ, just wants an explanation to justify the numbers.

I think that we should eliminate this BS 0-60 standard that was only marginally relevant 20+ years ago. I propose that from here on out all cars' acceleration are measured with an accelerometer and plotted on a graph vs. time. The usefullness of such a graph would be similar to a dyno chart. It would become invaluable in discussions like this. Why in this age of technology do we still rely on this magical 0-60 time? My phone has the capability to measure acceleration and plot a curve. Anyone can do this. I'll leave you all to debate this.

I don't know about getting that complex, but, being a car with motorsports in mind, autocrossers are only going to care about how fast it does 30-70, and track racers are only going to be concerned with 45-130ish. 0-60 is no real indication of the acceleration you would experience while racing. I would guess the FRS/BRZ would, with its still close 2nd-5th gears, perform very well against the aforementioned cars in these tests.

Thank you for the information. I did understand that the extra-shift will cause 0.3-0.4 sec (0.5s is when babying the car). However, even after subtracting 0.5 sec, the number is still relatively slow (again I am quite happy for any car that does 0-60 in the 7sec range). This seems like a puzzle to me, especially considering RSX and Si are all FWD, which should have slower acceleration numbers than a RWD with similar/better power-to-weight ratio.

Some other possible causes I could think of
(5) The reciprocating mass of a boxer is heavier than an inline 4,
(6) BRZ is optimized for fuel efficiency (longer stroke maybe?),
(7) The suspension set up,
(8) Weight distribution.

Maybe it is all of the above. I will appreciate any thought on possible causes. :)

I've been touting in-gear accelleration g measurements for some time now. Any time you add human interaction it leaves [plenty] of room for error or interpretation. The perfect example here is the methodologies between Inside Line and Motor Trend when testing the BRZ. Cautious versus aggressive yields very different results. The closest we get to this in current car mags are in-gear acceleration times, however rare that happens. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Autoblog's sensational headline garnered hundreds of comments when they usually get 12-ish.

To the OP: You can assume those 0-60 times you posted of other cars are "maximum" i.e. Motor Trend style. In that case, the BRZ is comparable. The S2k of course has better launching and more power, ditto the Rx-8. Suspension geometry plays a huge part in getting power to the ground, any reasonably seasoned drag racer will attest to that. A car like the BRZ that's built for balance, playfulness, and malleability at the limit will sacrifice some forward bite.

0-60 testing procedure will cause the times to vary by nearly a second. Some mags do huge clutch dumps, others start from idle, some do an SAE correction for air temp, humidity etc. The extra shift will really kill the time as well. Ill bet the 6.4 is at the top of second and the 7's are in 3rd. I agree the times do seem strangely lower than you would expect when comparing similar cars.

if the tires grip it doesn't matter if the car is fwd or rwd..

And even then, people have a hard time launching the S2K because of the rev happy nature of the engine.

When it first came out, and maybe still to this day, people would launch the S2K at 2,000RPM and say, "This car sucks!"

If a person has never driven a high strung engine before, they'll be in for a huge dissapointment.

And for the price, I don't think the car is that slow. 6.4-7.x is a wide range, but all signs point to the car being faster rather than slower.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if there was a nudge in the direction for the Scion to be a little quicker on average, when those reviews come out...just a hunch.

i for one, am disappointed. no there is no drag racing for me but who doesn't want something with more 'umf!' right?

Thank you all for sharing the insightful comments on suspension, test procedures, launch techniques, autocrossing experiences. :)

You're coming from a 333hp M3, though... I'm coming from a 333hp S4 and I'm not really bothered by it, but that's because before this I had a peaky 165hp MR2, lol


I think the big thing is that these are pre-production cars and the testers aren't allowed to beat on them quite as much. I'm sure 6.5 is more in line with what a proper ~4k rpm launch will net you. My 1990 Mazda RX-7 Turbo 0-60'd in 6.5, weighing 2900lbs and making 200hp and 182lb/ft. My 1989 MR2 Supercharged also did it in 6.5, weighing 2500lbs and making 145hp and 140lb/ft. (Test numbers, not my actual results)

i think its just the tires

the difference in the v6 mustang 0-60 times are almost a second to a second and a half apart if you do or dont get the pony package that has wider, stickier tires...

That is kind of like saying it is the tallest midget. It does have a relatively flat torque curve, but that said, it is still only 150 ft lb.

I personally don't care about the BRZs acceleration performance. One of the reasons I like the BRZ is the fact that 3 car manufacturers are selling the car and all of the third party tuners for those companies are going to be making aftermarket performance mods. You can easily make a car faster with bolt ons. Otherwise, I'm in it for the handling and from what I've heard the BRZ will rise above the rest.

Lets face it..0 to 60 is still important. Some people just want to overlook it. We all know 7.3 secs is slow and probably the slowest the BRZ will ever be. Something was wrong with this car. Low to mid 6 secs range will be the norm.

And believe it or not...people will drag race this car. They did it with the S2000, they will do it with this car.

Try this: 0-60 calculator

Enter 200BHP, 3000lb curb weigh(including driver), RWD, Manual. It says 6.372 which is close enough to what Motortrend got.

I can't help if you think that is too slow. It's really a pointless comparison anyway. Remember people only compare it for fun, it is really not an accurate measure of performance but an arbitrary metric of acceleration which is highly dependent on the driver.

I am reminded of times in the past where somebody would compare, say, a Porsche and a turbocharged Impreza, for instance, where the Impreza was faster in a straight line - and then ask why would anybody buy the Porsche?

Now, onto the question.

It's pretty simple in that there is two answers to the question.

The press are driving pre-production, and most probably hand-built cars, of which there's likely only 5-6 actual examples for them to drive. From day one, they are not being "broken in" properly, instead they are being driven like the press stole it. Which the press does, and I know, I've been there. So these cars are, by the time they get down to the testing, just a bit tired.

And then these pre-production, beat down, run hard cars are then being compared to the absolute best times from other production cars that have been tested for several years.

That's the first answer - it's basically not a very fair comparison at this time. Wait till actual production vehicles are out there, and there's been some time with the vehicles.


Second answer, which has already been answered. The gearing is not optimized towards armchair magazine racing. Given the plethora of positive reviews, I'd say the manufacturer took the brave step of matching the gearing up with the engine instead of matching it up with magazine numbers. There's a lot of cars that can reach 60mph at the end of 2nd gear, and that has little to do with optimal gearing, and a lot to do with looking good in the magazines.

And, tbh, that's not even the magazines fault. I spent several years as a auto journalist, and nobody was really that concerned about 0-60 numbers. How it feels, how it drives, how it looks was it for us. It's the readers that are so worried about what they can say to their friends about their car.

Regards,

Paul Hansen
www.avoturboworld.com
www.facebook.com/BRZSportsCarClub

A reflash to a 7600 rpm limit, would probably knock of a few 10ths off 0-60, but basically nothing off 'real' acceleration, so who cares?

Motor trend got 6.4. The other testers are obviously lame....

They must have gotten there in 2nd.

ECU, headers, exhaust, intake, lighter rims and grippy tires, and this car will be fast. The time is not good, but not bad either, because there is potential.

meh

http://i40.tinypic.com/2v823ys.jpg

I too am baffled at why this car would be slower than a comparable car with comparable power and weight. For some odd reason this car is like half a second slower than every other similarly powered/weight cars.

You found the wrong assumption, but gave an incorrect replacement statement. The FA20 has extremely pathetic low end torque because it is a single phased cam. Its peak torque is fine for a 2L engine, not great, but fine. The problem is you only get >200Nm for an instant around 3000, and above 4800 ish, everywhere else the torque falls a lot.

This car's engine is truly high rpm focused.

Yeah I'm not sure why the mags are saying it requires a 3rd gear shift. The auto EASILY does over 60 in second, and the manual hits 60 at 7,300-7,400rpm based on the tire size/gearing.

Why is 30 and 50 red on the speedometer?

Typical school zone and city driving speed limits maybe?
So they highlight them. Total guess obviously.

My guess is they're short shifting. The auto I could understand if it does it automatically but there's no excuse in the manual.

Now the real question is, does it make any difference if it's really a mid 6 second car?

Have there been any vids/testing of the 6AT for the 0 - 60?

Like Dimman said, reflash itself can improve the power. Maybe Toyota/Subaru programmed the engine to perform a lot lower than what it can, who knows?

No red ticks on the USA-spec cluster speedo:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7192/6...67ef7646_b.jpg
RYE_3937.jpg by Ryephile, on Flickr

I just meant raise the rev limit so it would hit 60 in 2nd. Time saved would just be the shift. They get a better number for the mags but acceleration overall doesn't change.

My gearing spreadsheet has 60.4 mph @ 7400 rpm in 2nd gear though...

Are they short-shifting to not bang against the limiter (they said it's at 7450) maybe?

IIRC, I read some time ago about a review of the FRS/BRZ and the author stated that power drops off right at or a tiny bit below 7k. So maybe they didn't see the need to bounce the rev limiter???

Power drops off right after 7k

Racing with friends in slow cars is tons of fun. The races last forever and you can really have a good time.

You guys going on about the 7.3 second sprint to 60, should not let it gnaw at the back of your heads. Inside Line has been known to not get the most out of their standing start acceleration tests. What we should be focusing in on is the lateral acceleration (0.9+ g), and slalom speed (69.1 mph!!). On freaking Prius tires for crap's sake! This car is going to kick ass!