PistonHeads production review
 

http://www.pistonheads.com/roadtests...p?c=47&i=25430

Thorough and interesting - worth a read. Be sure to check out the drool-inspiring video of the BRZ being thrashed rally-style up mountain switchbacks.
Liked this line:

The auto is a terrible choice to get in this car it seems.

First time I've seen a time quoted for the auto transmission. Half a second slower to 62. Wonder if that's because of rough/slow shifts or long gearing. Every review I've read seems to imply long gearing. Can't wait to test drive both back to back.

MPG: 36.2mpg (combined)


:eyebulge: could this be true?! If it is then it's way beyond what we've seen tested up to now.

Also, I'm a bit dissapointed about the performance of the AT in this car. I'm going to wait till they do a CONUS review of the AT. Let's hope it's better than this review.

Could that be 36 mpg (imperial gallons) which is equal to 30 mpg (US gallons).

Probably is. I mean it can't be that much off of what they've been claiming right?

That sucks. They should have offered a seven speed auto or closer gearing then. There's just no good excuse for that.

Good review! It seems to capture the meaning and purpose of this car :)

Pitty about the video... 19 seconds of terrible driving :(

:word:

Anytime you pair a N/A 4 cylinder with an auto its a disaster it seems.

Yeah, well, again there was no need for that.

What would a seven speed have added in price per unit or weight? It would have been worth it.

There is NO point in offering an AT if it can't keep up (or outdo) the MT -- period. The tech exists and it is cheap. They REALLY dropped the ball here. Hopefully a boosted (or TRD/Sti) version will compensate.

Disappointed... :cry:

I think I owe someone (you?) a beer or 5 bucks or something. Crap.

Jordo I think the issue may be that a 7 speed doesn't cost much more, but Toyota doesn't have a 7 speed and they'd need to build a new one. So they just took an off the shelf 6 speed, made it shift a bit faster and rougher, and threw it in without changing the gear ratios. They could've used one of the newer 8 speed units but those are probably more expensive and overkill for a wimpy 200hp motor.

The story sounds about the same for the manual too really, they didn't bother revising gear ratios either.

I guess if it helps bring the cost down, okay :(

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4630

well, it shifts pretty fast from what I tell. Then again... <_< I think anything can beat my old accord so I'm the wrong person to ask.

Damn 8.2 secs to 62 MPH? WOW! Ok note to self, go with the 6 speed manual...Car does sound good though...

Hmm. Well, guess I'll wait and see more acceleration times and also whether or not a re-tune of the shift speed helps.

Also, I thought it had a different setting, stock, for sportier (i.e., faster) shifts.

Could be the test driver didn't have that engaged. If not, that could easily account for at least half of the difference, and a re-tune could get rid of the remaining slop.

Also, I'm guessing they didn't do a decent brake-stand launch, which could have shaved another 10th or more easily.

Well... guess we'll see...

Optimism.

Gets me out bed each day :D