Jah1mon, phenoyz, spin9k, and Giccin: Is this is the quote you're referring to?
Quote:
|
The power from the boxer engine felt adequate, but the car strained a bit up hills.
|
I don't equate "strained a bit" to struggling. And color me unconcerned. Even though it's a somewhat light car, with this engine output it will not accelerate impressively speeding up a hill without downshifting. Remember, roadandtrack's core audience is lazy Americans that just want to mash the pedal at 3000 RPM. To anyone who happens to be in that demographic, I mean no offense, but this car isn't for you.
It's all about expectations: I remember watching a Best Motoring battle in which they commented on how a 350 hp RX7 couldn't keep up with 550 hp R34 up hill. Didn't make me think I need 550 hp in a daily driver.
Anyway, thanks for posting the photos SonnyBRZ.
The BRZ concept's tail looks better (sans the silly wing). Interesting that this back-end has identical body-work as the Toyota (the only difference seems to be the light assembly). My first thought was "photochop?", but I don't remember seeing any photos at exactly that angle.
I also don't recall seeing anything previously about three drive settings (Normal, Sport, and Snow).
In addition to getting the height wrong, what they wrote about peak power RPM doesn't add up:
Quote:
"The BRZ is powered by a naturally aspirated and direct-injected 2.0-liter flat-4 engine with 200 bhp and 151 lb.-ft. of torque"
{snip}
"And although power peaked at around 6500 RPM, the redline is set to a lofty 7400."
|
At 6500 RPM:
162 lbf*ft ~ 200 hp
159 lbf*ft ~ 197 hp
At 151 lbf*ft:
200 hp ~ 6950 RPM
197 hp ~ 6850 RPM
(both power levels listed as it's unclear which we're getting)
To be fair to roadandtrack, that's not *that* far from 6500 which was obviously just an impression from their drive of the pre-production model, but I would've expected them to notice the contradiction in their article.