BRZ vs FRS - The Debate

[Hanakuso]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

how about this. the FRS weights 2758. the brz limited weights 2762..
a wooping 4lb difference or .15% weight difference.

this 4 lb wont make a noticeable difference on the driving experience unless you take the car to the extrime.

4 pounds is still 4 pounds of "unnecessary" weight. I'm not trying to say FRS>BRZ because quite frankly, it's probably not even noticeable to 99% of us. When he mentioned creature comforts do not degrade driving performance, I thought to myself they definitely can. (Ex: A/C, luxury items, etc)

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

actually the difference is 2.2% or $540.

You're looking at it with the FRS plus shipping vs the BRZ without shipping. Plus for myself I got the FRS with a $1000 rebate, while BRZ was extremely hard to get and mark ups were everywhere.

[Wise]

The Japanese stripper model makes the FR-S and the BRZ look like fat pigs.

I bought the Toyota 86 GTS (In 6-Speed Manual) which is essentially the FR-S with the BRZ Limited's Nav unit, heated leather seats, HID headlights, fog lamps etc, etc.

The main reason I bought it was the interior looked brilliant. I can't stand cheap interiors and the 86 GT spec is really really low rent. The digital speedo, leather/alacantra and HID headlamps were what really swayed me. The Nav unit was just a bonus and will be helpfful for countryside weekend getaways.

I enquired about having the seat warmers removed from my model, but alas it can't be done. I don't really want them there to begin with and agree that they're completely pointless.

[Kire]

the frs is not anymore "back to basics" than the brz. both are essentially the same car. yeah, so the brz has a few more features, but so what? there are stuff in the frs that don't add to the driving experience. for example, it's got AC, cruise control, power steering, power windows and door locks, traction/stability control, useless backseats, etc. all these stuff not only do not add to the driving experience, but they also add weight. the bottom line is that the frs/brz are road cars with amenities that does not serve solely the purpose of enhancing the driving experience. it's designed not only to provide you with pleasure behind the wheels, but also to get you from point A to point B in relative comfort in a package that's relatively convenient and practical for day to day automotive needs. the whole "back to basics" and "pure driver's car" labels are nothing but marketing. the frs/brz is not a lotus elise/exige. it's a compromised car. imo, the frs lack features not because scion is trying to make the car more of a driver's car. instead, its goal is to try to keep the price tag under $25K because that is what the demographic scion is trying to attract is willing or able to pay. choosing between the frs and brz is pretty much akin to choosing between a civic DX and EX--one has slightly more features, but they are both essentially civics and at the end of the day, it all boils down to "are you willing to pay X dollars more for X amount more features?"

[Wise]

If you want an unfettered 100% pure driving experience, buy a Caterham or an Ariel Atom.

If you want a brilliant sports car that you can drive to work every day in the winter rain and blistering hot summer days get an FR-S/BRZ/86

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

actually the difference is 2.2% or $540.

Actually it's a $1310 difference, you neglected to add the destination fee for the Subaru while keeping it intact for the Scion.

FR-S(dest fee $755):
invoice - $22990
MSRP - $24200
w/dest - $24955

BRZ(dest fee $770):
invoice - $24327
MSRP - $25495
w/dest - $26265

And depending on your region, there may be an additional fee of $50-$100.

[TheSt|G]

Originally Posted by Zadkiel

Says the guy with an automatic. Your logic is flawed. Nav, HIDs, e.t.c. don't degrade driving performance. They're creature comforts. An automatic however, does degrade the driving of the car. Buying the auto is like buying a brand new HDTV and watching VHS tapes with it. This isn't some high end, dual clutch unit like in modern supercars.

If the BRZ/FR-S are strictly driver's cars then an automatic goes against your whole "back to basics" approach. The BRZ's extras are like buying a gourmet steak and having them put some crumbled blue cheese on it. It isn't strictly needed, but adds to the experience.

I'm not saying buying the FR-S is a dumb choice. For those looking for a basic car that they're going to modify anyway, it's a good start. I just decided for that little bit more, why not get it from the factory in a wrapper that is more appealing for me?

Bingo.

Plus, as anyone who has had Alcantara seats before knows, they hold you in place much better. Push start, keyless access, HIDs, and heated seats are all just icing on the cake. Also got the BRZ at invoice thanks to the glut of them in the northeast.

And if nothing else, the orange/red gauges make it worth it. White is terrible for your night vision.

The Pioneer nav you can keep though.

[dem00n]

I find it odd how some say the Automatic gearbox offers less than the MT, in a sense it offers a lot more. First you have automatic mode and its settings, traction on/off and sport. Then you have two ways to change gears, using the paddles or pushing the shifter up and down. Then you have use of using sport and traction on/off. I find driving in sport with pure automatic to be quite different then driving in automatic with sport off, same as i do finding using the paddles with sport on and sport off. I think i got the bargain for getting such a nice automatic trans for under 30k. If you ask me, i'm having more fun playing around with this niffy transmission then i did in my old 5 speed and dare i say more in the manual 6 speed.

Oh and you wanna discuss the performance between manual and automatic? Barley matters in this car, its 200 HP and none of us are going to be really time racing against each other. The small difference on the track between an FRS automatic and FRS manual would only truly matter with whos driving it if you ask me.

The 2nd best part is that after driving around with this transmission for over 3 months; i'm still learning more about it every week. Its really something to behold, if you get the MT or the AT on either the FRS/BRZ then you simply have made a great choice. There is no wrong with either cars or either ways of transmission. Its maaaaaad!
Ha...i'm done for the day.

[TheRipler]

Originally Posted by Kire

the frs is not anymore "back to basics" than the brz. both are essentially the same car. yeah, so the brz has a few more features, but so what? there are stuff in the frs that don't add to the driving experience. for example, it's got AC, cruise control, power steering, power windows and door locks, traction/stability control, useless backseats, etc. all these stuff not only do not add to the driving experience, but they also add weight. the bottom line is that the frs/brz are road cars with amenities that does not serve solely the purpose of enhancing the driving experience. it's designed not only to provide you with pleasure behind the wheels, but also to get you from point A to point B in relative comfort in a package that's relatively convenient and practical for day to day automotive needs. the whole "back to basics" and "pure driver's car" labels are nothing but marketing. the frs/brz is not a lotus elise/exige. it's a compromised car. imo, the frs lack features not because scion is trying to make the car more of a driver's car. instead, its goal is to try to keep the price tag under $25K because that is what the demographic scion is trying to attract is willing or able to pay. choosing between the frs and brz is pretty much akin to choosing between a civic DX and EX--one has slightly more features, but they are both essentially civics and at the end of the day, it all boils down to "are you willing to pay X dollars more for X amount more features?"

As long as everyone is being pedantic; there is no reason cruise control would add any weight with a DBW throttle.

[TheSt|G]

Originally Posted by dem00n

I find it odd how some say the Automatic gearbox offers less than the MT, in a sense it offers a lot more.

Not in a driver connection sense, which is what the discussion was about.

[Zadkiel]

Originally Posted by dem00n

I find it odd how some say the Automatic gearbox offers less than the MT, in a sense it offers a lot more. First you have automatic mode and its settings, traction on/off and sport. Then you have two ways to change gears, using the paddles or pushing the shifter up and down. Then you have use of using sport and traction on/off. I find driving in sport with pure automatic to be quite different then driving in automatic with sport off, same as i do finding using the paddles with sport on and sport off. I think i got the bargain for getting such a nice automatic trans for under 30k. If you ask me, i'm having more fun playing around with this niffy transmission then i did in my old 5 speed and dare i say more in the manual 6 speed.

Oh and you wanna discuss the performance between manual and automatic? Barley matters in this car, its 200 HP and none of us are going to be really time racing against each other. The small difference on the track between an FRS automatic and FRS manual would only truly matter with whos driving it if you ask me.

The 2nd best part is that after driving around with this transmission for over 3 months; i'm still learning more about it every week. Its really something to behold, if you get the MT or the AT on either the FRS/BRZ then you simply have made a great choice. There is no wrong with either cars or either ways of transmission. Its maaaaaad!
Ha...i'm done for the day.

More transmission functions does not equal more fun/ a better car. The MT requires you to be a better driver to extract the full potential i.e. heel/toe, shift points, e.t.c. The manual is the choice for those who want to extract the full potential of a true "driver's car" and want to become a better driver in the process.

[dem00n]

Originally Posted by Zadkiel

More transmission functions does not equal more fun/ a better car. The MT requires you to be a better driver to extract the full potential i.e. heel/toe, shift points, e.t.c. The manual is the choice for those who want to extract the full potential of a true "driver's car" and want to become a better driver in the process.

Then why am i having more fun? What full potential is there for a car like this? Your talking mere milliseconds. This is a simple machine made to do well on corners and holding drifts, not go on into corners breaking from 200MPH like a race car. I think you guys are simply over looking the whole driving experience. Its not simply how many techniques you use to achieve your shifts but more so on it all feels and connects, which this car has on either transmissions. We cannot simply base the whole driving experience on engaging and disengaging a clutch, that like saying sex was no fun because you didn't do oral.

"extract the full potential of a true "driver's car"" I'm sorry but am i the only one here seeing that as pure bullshit?
What full potential? What drivers car? What makes this a drivers car? I could call a Honda Accord a drivers car if i bought it in MT, thats what your turning it off as.

What about all the cars without a clutch, all those modern automated transmission, are they not driver cars?

[Zadkiel]

Originally Posted by dem00n

Then why am i having more fun? What full potential is there for a car like this? Your talking mere milliseconds. This is a simple machine made to do well on corners and holding drifts, not go on into corners breaking from 200MPH like a race car. I think you guys are simply over looking the whole driving experience. Its not simply how many techniques you use to achieve your shifts but more so on it all feels and connects, which this car has on either transmissions. We cannot simply base the whole driving experience on engaging and disengaging a clutch, that like saying sex was no fun because you didn't do oral.

"extract the full potential of a true "driver's car"" I'm sorry but am i the only one here seeing that as pure bullshit?
What full potential? What drivers car? What makes this a drivers car? I could call a Honda Accord a drivers car if i bought it in MT, thats what your turning it off as.

What about all the cars without a clutch, all those modern automated transmission, are they not driver cars?

Considering there's always been an emphasis on managing all aspects of the vehicle to extract the full potential of it, I'd say it's a driver's car. You don't buy a MT Accord as a performance vehicle do you? The Twins were always marketed as a return to a lightweight, RWD sports car.

There's quite a large difference between a $25000 sports car and a $300000 Ferrari with a dual clutch unit. While the Twins' auto isn't bad, the car was truly made with the MT experience in mind. If you refuse to see that the MT is the true enthusiasts choice, then the point of this car is lost to you. Considering you're comparing it to an Accord, I'd say it already is.

[whataboutbob]

I like the AT, I also like being able to put it in Manual Mode AND not having to deal with a clutch in stop and go traffic. The MT would be better for doing burnouts though...

[itisthumper]

I'll never probably never think AT is nearly as engaging as MT but that's just me. The purpose of the car is giving the driver the maximum amount of control with providing great experience; I think paddle shifters feel too artificial and I never use them when driving autos.

If you prefer the AT though, good for you. It's your car and it shouldnt matter how others feel. This will allow others to get the MT. I believe they are still producing more AT than MT.