BRZ STi tS Confirmed. Teased on Official Website

[ST185RC]

About as exciting as Sc10n FR-S.... People who buy the tS will most likely change up all the stuff tacked on from the factory anyways.

I don't care about more power or torque, I care about making the car more responsive and drivable like smoothing out the torque curve from the factory, refining the engine so that it doesn't feel like fainting at idle, better throttle response etc. Ever blip the throttle to find that sometimes the car just says "But daaad, I'll rev up tomorrow"?

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

Did you get her number?

Seriously, though, I hate these comparisons to V6 motors. You're obviously doing it wrong. Watch her trail brake around the corner. If you can't get her at the corner, failure on your end, you don't deserve her numba.

Why is everyone about 0-60 times? You can't have it all. Enjoy a car that handles like an exotic, but at a fraction of the cost. Why is that not enough?

And I'm not denying anyone FI. I think FI guys are denying NA. THAT'S my problem. Having owned three turbocharged Subies and now two NA ones, I'm fine with NA. It's much more rewarding. That's where my high horse stance altitude comes from: Experience. Get some!

All I've ever owned are NA engines. Maybe my problem here is that the previous 3 were all Hondas. The FA20, given the technology these days, is not an impressive motor compared to the F22C from my S2000 or the B17A from my Integra.

[vividracing]

$40k? I'm gonna have to pass.

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

So a Rav4 handles as close to an exotic as the FT-86? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

No it doesn't, those sound like the words you're putting in his mouth. He's simply saying that the engine could easily be more than it is. Probably without the DI seal flaws, too. It's frustrating that a car with this much potential is underpowered and requires at bare minimum re-doing the intake, exhaust, and a tune to get to what most people would consider acceptable performance. They could have easily made headers or a better de-muffled exhaust (like SRT did) simply through engineering that would cost practically the same amount, or re-badge it as a performance model and we'd throw fistfuls of cash at them, but they didn't.

I have no problem with sports car models built for volume, with a better performance model available. It's why there are V6 pony cars.

If you love old MGs/Alfas/Miatas and lithe NA 4 bangers because that's your thing, I totally get that too. I love my BRZ, but there's no doubt it needs more oomph.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

All I've ever owned are NA engines. Maybe my problem here is that the previous 3 were all Hondas. The FA20, given the technology these days, is not an impressive motor compared to the F22C from my S2000 or the B17A from my Integra.

I think we forget, far too often, the average buying demographic of the FRS.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by AznBRZer

And what is the posted speed limit on this particular road? It's important info if you want someone to take your side unless it's more about your ego, which is heavily implied by what you posted.


Ummm...hyperbole much? No one is denying you that freedom here. You're absolutely free to drop a few stacks on FI if you want and so is everyone else if they choose to.

Last time I checked it wasn't up to some hick in a pickup truck to decide what speed I feel like traveling. Nobody's gonna scream bloody murder for me going 10 over (speed limit was 55). And me driving safely at 65 isn't nearly as reckless as that asshole trying to play chicken with me and possibly causing a head on collision.

As to the second comment, some of us actually get enjoyment from keeping a factory warranty on a brand new car.

:happy0180:

And finally, to whomever said that a $30k turbocharged BRZ is impractical, and then referenced the WRX & WRX STI...do you even know much about both of those cars? Because the base WRX (which yes, is $10k cheaper than the STI) is not comparable to the STI. The Limited, or at the least Premium WRX is more comparable to the STI. Now you're only looking at a $5-7k price difference.

So let's say $32k for a turbocharged BRZ. Well I really only bought my BRZ b/c I desperately wanted HIDs. If Scion/Toyota released a FI edition 86 then I would just swap over to that, as it would no doubt be cheaper than the Subaru version. And FI > HIDs

I get that people love this affordable lightweight RWD sports car. But there wasn't much stopping people (that are satisfied with this level of performance) from buying a RX8 or a Miata. Meanwhile I'm more interested in a poor man's Cayman with performance that exceeds an S2000. That's my ideal scenario (I'm not saying I thought the car was this before I bought it)

(i really wish we could multi-quote.)

[chanomatik]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayJesus

No it doesn't, those sound like the words you're putting in his mouth. He's simply saying that the engine could easily be more than it is. Probably without the DI seal flaws, too. It's frustrating that a car with this much potential is underpowered and requires at bare minimum re-doing the intake, exhaust, and a tune to get to what most people would consider acceptable performance. They could have easily made headers or a better de-muffled exhaust (like SRT did) simply through engineering that would cost practically the same amount, or re-badge it as a performance model and we'd throw fistfuls of cash at them, but they didn't.

I have no problem with sports car models built for volume, with a better performance model available. It's why there are V6 pony cars.

If you love old MGs/Alfas/Miatas and lithe NA 4 bangers because that's your thing, I totally get that too. I love my BRZ, but there's no doubt it needs more oomph.

Sorry. I must've just misread it then.

Honestly, though, this is how everyone feels about EVERY performance car that comes out. "It needs more of this. It need less of that." What's a manufacturer to do? There's a reason an affordable, RWD sports car hasn't been popular in a while. People are far too demanding.

If power is everything, then you have choices. If handling is everything... you have very, very few choices.

[DoomsdayJesus]

Also, by strengthened driveshaft do they mean better metal/CF and less rotational mass? Because a heavier one would be a crime. A CF driveshaft is high on my list of to-dos.

Originally Posted by chanomatik

Honestly, though, this is how everyone feels about EVERY performance car that comes out. "It needs more of this. It need less of that." What's a manufacturer to do? There's a reason an affordable, RWD sports car hasn't been popular in a while. People are far too demanding.

If power is everything, then you have choices. If handling is everything... you have very, very few choices.

After decades of everyone ripping out intakes, exhausts, and headers you'd think they'd get the point and just design them better. It's only engineering, it would still be made from the same amount of metal, if not less. That's just one of the frustrating things about risk-averse manufacturing that pretty much dominates affordable cars.

[chanomatik]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

I've put down faster laps in 100% bone stock Rav4 at the track than I have in a 100% bone stock FRS/BRZ. Sure the FRS/BRZ handles better, but not enough to overcome a power deficiency.

Absolutely serious.

For the record, the Rav4 is faster than the CRV and Ford Escape on track.


The car suffers from a viscous cycle of not having enough power. It doesn't have enough power, so they put skinny tires on it, which compromises handling.

Imagine having a 300hp 300tq turbo version for $37k. All the sudden, you have the attention of all the 370Z/Mustang/Camaro buyers as well.

I've driven the V6 Rav4 and it was a hoot! However, I'm not trying to impress American muscle cars on a track. Go play with a Miata since that's more up the BRZ's alley.

[kuhlka]

Originally Posted by Zoti

Why not put a 2.5L in it with 250HP? No turbo etc.

Because fuel economy.

Originally Posted by DantKR

It's funny that people actually don't even want an option for more power from the factory. /shrug.

Back when the tC first came out Scion was really talking up how they were going to have a supercharger kit for it. I'm glad I didn't buy the tC because they never released the supercharger as a factory option, just a LOT of BS. I went with the STI instead and don't regret that decision.

Most of the big non-exotic manufacturers don't offer induction options to be installed on a stock vehicle because it means they have to trust their frequently half-assed dealer network to do a proper install. If it doesn't come boosted from the factory, good luck getting an optional package.

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

This only applies when your competition doesn't know how to turn...

A BRZ will not turn faster than a Corvette, with equally talented drivers.

Corvettes are in a totally different class, so your point is moot. However, I've seen 86s putting down similar lap times on AutoX circuits. Vettes might leave the BRZ behind on a full racetrack, but around an AutoX circuit, the 86 will offer up a lot more bang per buck than a vette considering their ludicrous pricetag. Granted, if you're comparing a time attack modified vette (and a fast driver) vs 86, goodbye 86, but most people who go to the track aren't dumping tens of thousands of dollars into their vehicle to compete on an amateur or even professional level.

IMO, the 86 is a road-going car first and foremost, and a track-ready car second. I've seen 86s running similar times to the Evos, STIs, Miatas, and other stupid-fast guys by just swapping tires and throwing on a swaybar. I think the drivers were of similar skill levels, but the 86 is much easier to throw around and steer through slides.

If the 86 were intended for the track, they would have put bigger brakes on it, not used Prius tires, and gone with an unequal length header to eliminate that stupid torque dip. I have to assume it was Toyota's idea to put an equal length header on the car.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

This car doesn't handle anything CLOSE to an exotic. Don't let the videos of a fast driver in a slow car on track fool you because they're passing slow drivers in fast cars.

What's wrong with comparing to a V6? Cost is cost. Lets turn the tables. Why cant Subaru make a 4 cylinder that makes as much horsepower as the naturally aspirated 4 cylinders of Nissan/Toyota/Honda in the past?

My Toyota 3S-GE made 200hp out of 2 liters. 15 years ago.

Everyone is so defensive of their 200 horsepower.

As for experience... I definitely need more.

Emissions bro. It's that simple. That engine is dead because of emissions and that's again, why 100hp/L is still a good metric. Yes, your 7L V8 with carbs made 600hp 50-60 years ago, but now we're making almost that power with better emissions.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

Sorry. I must've just misread it then.

Honestly, though, this is how everyone feels about EVERY performance car that comes out. "It needs more of this. It need less of that." What's a manufacturer to do? There's a reason an affordable, RWD sports car hasn't been popular in a while. People are far too demanding.

If power is everything, then you have choices. If handling is everything... you have very, very few choices.

Here are my thoughts.

The aerodynamics of this car are spectacular. It's what provides the edge over the older cars (s2000/MR-S/Miata in particular). The suspension hacks are brilliant, and mitigate the limitations of a strut front.

My fears are lack of overhead for power (already proven), and what happens when you start replacing suspension components and delete the factory hacks (going down this road now...)

Why in god's name couldn't they have put in a (more expensive) double wishbone in the front? Oh, boxer. Why couldn't they have more power in the car? Oh, Toyota.

It's a brilliant chassis with potential that is unrealized. The car uses tires with relentless efficiency.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by chanomatik

Sorry. I must've just misread it then.

Honestly, though, this is how everyone feels about EVERY performance car that comes out. "It needs more of this. It need less of that." What's a manufacturer to do? There's a reason an affordable, RWD sports car hasn't been popular in a while. People are far too demanding.

If power is everything, then you have choices. If handling is everything... you have very, very few choices.

Power isn't everything, and no I think you're making false assumptions. 200 hp and just 151 ft-lbs leaves a lot to be desired, especially when its coming from an engine with a low (comparatively) redline and unremarkable engine sounds.

In a perfect world (avoiding FI) the BRZ would have weighed 200lbs less, or came with a 2.5L engine (at the current price, for both scenarios). If that was the case, would I still want more power? Yeah maybe a little, but nothing that bolt-ons couldn't solve. Meanwhile to get what I want from the car as it exists in this world I need to go FI, which isn't as desirable due to the increased cost and potential for reduced reliability, nevermind loss of vehicle warranty.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by kuhlka

IMO, the 86 is a road-going car first and foremost, and a track-ready car second. I've seen 86s running similar times to the Evos, STIs, Miatas, and other stupid-fast guys by just swapping tires and throwing on a swaybar. I think the drivers were of similar skill levels, but the 86 is much easier to throw around and steer through slides.

If the 86 were intended for the track, they would have put bigger brakes on it, not used Prius tires, and gone with an unequal length header to eliminate that stupid torque dip. I have to assume it was Toyota's idea to put an equal length header on the car.

The brakes are pretty damn big for the power/weight of the car...

I can assure you that the 86 driver was far more skilled than the EVO/STI drivers. Have them swap cars, and watch the time differential skyrocket...

The Evo is, quite literally, a mini-GT-R in its price category.