Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872655)

No. If a company rep delivers a running test car and also provides them a company weight estimate, which the publication then identifies as company provided in their article, that is not heresay.

Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872655)

No. If a company rep delivers a running test car and also provides them a company weight estimate, which the publication then identifies as company provided in their article, that is not heresay. The company is responsible for what they do and do not tell these publications, and a degree of truth in what they provide must be assumed. Just the same, the publications are usually pretty open about what is company provided information vs. what they infer from reviewing patents, hearing rumors, etc.


The engine one is a little more open to interpretation. I would however, challenge anyone on here to find an early article circa 2010-2011ish timeframe that contradicts anything I am saying.

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k (Post 2872739)

Hey man, the FT86 concept car in GT5 only weighs 1000 kg.

That's concrete enough for us, no?:bellyroll:

Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872606)

This article came out years after the initial ones. Earlier articles stated no specific power outputs. "next gen WRX engine" was what they were given from the manufacturer at that time.










I'm not sure you two are grasping the fact that "over-promise and under-deliver" is a figure of speech, and posting a bunch of dictionary definitions is not relevant.


It is a fact not open to debate that a representative from the manufacture gave motortrend that estimate, and knew when doing so that it was all but certain to end up in an article that the general public would see. A company rep that had already accessed a running test car stating 2500 lbs and ending up with 2700-2800 lbs is a little too far off to be considered a reasonable estimate. So once again, they would have been better off keeping their mouth closed.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 2872677)

You put far too much trust in the integrity and accuracy of what the car sites write! It just takes one site to make some shit up for the rest to use it as an actual company statement.
I counter your challenge with a request to show me one single OFFCIAL statement for 2010-11 where they said the car would be 2,500 pounds and have a WRX engine. Quotes by car sites do not count as official.

Originally Posted by D_Thissen (Post 2872763)

He is probably using half ass websites for his sources. Definitely none with any credentials.

EDIT: Although, you could say the FRS/WRX do share the same engine. One just happens to be boosted :lol:

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 2872744)

Probably a more reliable a source than most clickbait sites!


They still lie though since my car doesn't respawn on the road if I crash it. Or does it? Maybe I should try.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 2872677)

You put far too much trust in the integrity and accuracy of what the car sites write! It just takes one site to make some shit up for the rest to use it as an actual company statement.
I counter your challenge with a request to show me one single OFFCIAL statement for 2010-11 where they said the car would be 2,500 pounds and have a WRX engine. Quotes by car sites do not count as official.

Originally Posted by D_Thissen (Post 2872763)

He is probably using half ass websites for his sources. Definitely none with any credentials.

EDIT: Although, you could say the FRS/WRX do share the same engine. One just happens to be boosted :lol:

Originally Posted by Cole (Post 2872746)

So you still don't know what an estimate means? Jesus fuck, you are either a better troll that I, or you're just dense as hell.

EDIT: RE: Next gen WRX engine in the twins, does the "new" WRX engine not have the engine code of FA20? So there was some truth to the statement, just misleading

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k (Post 2872800)

The GT5 & GT6 versions of the BRZ have 8,000 rpm redlines as well. Could you please verify that as well?:bonk:

Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872806)

Nope. A statement from a company rep to a publication is accurate enough to go off of. It is not a quote by a car site. It is a referral by the site cited as sourced directly from the manufacturer. You are wrong, which I'll admit doesn't happen often. Not everything that can be reasonably believed has to come out direct and on company letterhead.



Didn't realize motortrend was a half assed website, or that you're apparently incapable of reading and clicking the link.






Please, try and explain to me how being that far off of an estimate from the manufacturer rep at that stage in the game is possible. We're a talking a potential double digit percentage of error, and a weight difference greater than a lot of major components, including a transmission.


The only reasonable explanation is either someone messed up big time or the rep just didn't know what they were talking about and should have kept it shut. If there's actually a good excuse out there, feel free to point it out.

Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872806)

Please, try and explain to me how being that far off of an estimate from the manufacturer rep at that stage in the game is possible. We're a talking a potential double digit percentage of error, and a weight difference greater than a lot of major components, including a transmission.


The only reasonable explanation is either someone messed up big time or the rep just didn't know what they were talking about and should have kept it shut. If there's actually a good excuse out there, feel free to point it out.

Originally Posted by D_Thissen (Post 2872843)

'Though relatively low on torque, the FA20 is quick to rev and pulls the 2800-pound chassis around with no real flat spots in acceleration. ' - Motor trend 2011.