Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872058)

Grrrr. I had a long winded response all typed up and a computer error ruined it. Here's an MT article with the 2500 lb manufacturer prediction, which was when the car was actually a working prototype, and way later than most of these statements were made.


http://www.motortrend.com/news/2013-...e-first-drive/


Cliffs are official statements said 2500 lbs and WRX motor. Price point matches vehicles that come with the kind of power that these would make with F.I. Price speculation came from the rumor mill and market comparisons. The rest came from what the actual experts decided to publish.


We can't expect online self proclaimed engineering and business "experts" to know what they are talking about. However, actual experts missing the weight mark by hundreds of pounds and taking way too long to squash the F.I. rumors that the themselves helped create, isn't something that should be blamed on ignorance. I dare say that removing the early manufacturer's statements/teasers and bringing the exact same car to market would have resulted in a lot fewer people bitching.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 2872076)

I fail to see a single "official statement" about weight in there anyplace.


I really fail to see where you came up with the "WRX motor" thing.


"The Subaru 2.0-liter four is an all-new engine with a different block from that used in the 2012 Impreza, and features Toyota-sourced direct injection. It gets a unique FA designation within the Subaru engine family (the closely related 2012 Impreza engine is known as the FB, while the 2011 Impreza is the EJ), and though Subaru engineers were tight-lipped about the engine’s output, they didn’t disagree with our guess of about 200 hp and 170 lb-ft."

Originally Posted by Coaster (Post 2872129)

It does say,however




...I'm looking forward to them making a good car even better for gens2 .:burnrubber::burnrubber:

Originally Posted by Coaster (Post 2872129)

It does say,however

Originally Posted by strat61caster (Post 2872159)

No point in being butthurt about it now, my car on the scales last week was under 2,705 lbs and I haven't spent a dime on weight reduction.

:burnrubber:

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive (Post 2872161)

Spare tire removal, back seat delete, and almost no gas in the tank?

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 2872132)

Yes the Motortrend writer wrote that. They also wrote many many other things that were not accurate. They continue to write such things that people then take to be official statements.

A Target of 2,500 pounds does not mean "it will be" 2,500 pounds.

Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872523)

Except it doesn't say target anywhere. It says manufacturer estimate, which it turns out was grossly off. You guys aren't getting me on a technicality on this one. Since a Subaru/Toyota rep gave motortrend that estimate, it is not unreasonable to expect it to get published or for someone to believe it. It would be quite unreasonable to expect them not to publish it actually. You don't need an official statement to recognize that they were way off in their estimate so late into development.

As far as the engine goes, this was a later article where they had a running demo car. Years before, they were publishing "upcoming WRX motor" or similar. Again, from tidbits the manufacturer was feeding them. I said before I don't have time or care enough to hunt all of these old articles down so I found and posted one. Or maybe I didn't say that because it got lost in the post my computer ate.

Originally Posted by Cole (Post 2872529)

And since when does estimate mean "this is what the production car will weigh"

Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872536)

So you think being off as far as they were at the point where they even had a running test vehicle to consider is acceptable then? In what way is what they did there not over-promising and under-delivering?

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 2872076)

I fail to see a single "official statement" about weight in there anyplace.


I really fail to see where you came up with the "WRX motor" thing.


"The Subaru 2.0-liter four is an all-new engine with a different block from that used in the 2012 Impreza, and features Toyota-sourced direct injection. It gets a unique FA designation within the Subaru engine family (the closely related 2012 Impreza engine is known as the FB, while the 2011 Impreza is the EJ), and though Subaru engineers were tight-lipped about the engine’s output, they didn’t disagree with our guess of about 200 hp and 170 lb-ft."

Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872536)

So you think being off as far as they were at the point where they even had a running test vehicle to consider is acceptable then? In what way is what they did there not over-promising and under-delivering?

Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872523)

Except it doesn't say target anywhere. It says manufacturer estimate, which it turns out was grossly off. You guys aren't getting me on a technicality on this one. Since a Subaru/Toyota rep gave motortrend that estimate, it is not unreasonable to expect it to get published or for someone to believe it. It would be quite unreasonable to expect them not to publish it actually. You don't need an official statement to recognize that they were way off in their estimate so late into development.

As far as the engine goes, this was a later article where they had a running demo car. Years before, they were publishing "upcoming WRX motor" or similar. Again, from tidbits the manufacturer was feeding them. I said before I don't have time or care enough to hunt all of these old articles down so I found and posted one. Or maybe I didn't say that because it got lost in the post my computer ate.

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise (Post 2872559)

Yeah I can't believe people saw that article and assumed the Twins were getting the WRX turbo engine. The 170 lbs-ft torque estimate is a dead giveaway.

Originally Posted by Yardjass (Post 2872523)

Except it doesn't say target anywhere. It says manufacturer estimate, which it turns out was grossly off. You guys aren't getting me on a technicality on this one. Since a Subaru/Toyota rep gave motortrend that estimate, it is not unreasonable to expect it to get published or for someone to believe it. It would be quite unreasonable to expect them not to publish it actually. You don't need an official statement to recognize that they were way off in their estimate so late into development.

As far as the engine goes, this was a later article where they had a running demo car. Years before, they were publishing "upcoming WRX motor" or similar. Again, from tidbits the manufacturer was feeding them. I said before I don't have time or care enough to hunt all of these old articles down so I found and posted one. Or maybe I didn't say that because it got lost in the post my computer ate.

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise (Post 2872559)

Yeah I can't believe people saw that article and assumed the Twins were getting the WRX turbo engine. The 170 lbs-ft torque estimate is a dead giveaway.

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 2872571)

We have no clue where they got that "estimate" from. They could have pulled it out of their ass like about 98% of the rest of their "insider" info. Even if a true quote (we will never know) at that point in time it was a target not a promise.

Originally Posted by Cole (Post 2872542)

What part of the word estimate do you not understand? It's not about over promising and under delivering. It's about making an estimate, which in no way, shape or form constitutes a promise.

estimate
[verb es-tuh-meyt; noun es-tuh-mit, -meyt]
verb (used with object), estimated, estimating.
1.
to form an approximate judgment or opinion regarding the worth, amount, size, weight, etc., of; calculate approximately:
to estimate the cost of a college education.
2.
to form an opinion of; judge.
verb (used without object), estimated, estimating.
3.
to make an estimate.
noun
4.
an approximate judgment or calculation, as of the value, amount, time, size, or weight of something.
5.
a judgment or opinion, as of the qualities of a person or thing.
6.
a statement of the approximate charge for work to be done, submitted by a person or business firm ready to undertake the work.

Jesus. No fucking wonder so many people got their panties in a knot. But even funnier than those who got all caught up in development "promises" being made by Motoring.Au still bought the car in all it's disappointing glory.

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 WolfpackS2k (Post 2872610)

Also, I always thought there would be a TRD dealer option for a supercharger. I mean FFS they offered one for the tC and a few other models, why the hell not the FT86?! :mad0259::brokenheart:

Originally Posted by Rampage (Post 2872620)

This thread is still going so I keep coming here to see if someone actually found some information on a new MR2 but nooooooooooo.............

Originally Posted by Tcoat (Post 2872618)

But that is just it and it certainly is up for debate. Doesn't matter what is said the websites will edit it or just plain make things up. If they said "we are targeting 2,500" and it was written "it is estimated to be 2,500" those are two totally different statements. Show me something on Toyota or Subaru news releases that says it not what some clickbait autosite fiction writer says they said. The same applies to the engine. I do not recall reading anything that said a "next gen WRX engine". They said from the get go that they would be developing an engine specifically for the car. If people assumed that was the same engine that would go into the WRX that is their problem. Because many people fell for the wording does not make it fact.
This is what happens when people put way to much trust in shoddy internet reporting on concept/development cars. The reality gets buried in the bullshit and people will just pick and chose what "facts" they want to hear.

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.

Originally Posted by Cole (Post 2872845)

Lies. What about the tq dip?

Originally Posted by D_Thissen (Post 2872854)

A front pipe will fix that.

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.

Originally Posted by Cole (Post 2872845)

Lies. What about the tq dip?