What you HATE the most on your FR-S/BRZ/GT86/FT86?

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by nalc

Are you serious? Name a hot hatch that doesn't have more power than the twins, especially in the 2000-3000 rpm band. You've got these turbo 4-cylinders that are making 200+ ft-lbs of torque starting at 2000 rpm. Those are cars you can mash the pedal at 2000 rpm without downshifting and they'll move. The FA20 isn't that powerful, and it's not making what torque it does make until relatively high in the RPM band. The fact that it still pulls OK from 55mph in top gear means that the gearing shorter than it needs to be. I don't believe that the FA20 isn't capable of maintaining the twins at 70mph at 2k RPM, just that you'd need to downshift to have any acceleration from that point, and I'm guessing that that may be a factor in gearing it such that 70mph is somewhere around 3k, so the car can accelerate without downshifting. I wouldn't mind having a higher gear ratio that required downshifting to pass at highway speeds if it meant less noise and better gas mileage.

As I said, apples to oranges. Comparing hot hatches to the Twins is like comparing high-end SUVs and supercars. They may be simliar pricewise, but thats it. The Twins are not marketed in competition with the hot hatches, not that I have seen. FWD is not the same as RWD.

Two out of three of the closest actual competition, based on car class, to these cars are not made anymore: The S2000 and RX-8. The Miata is the only car that I can say is technically in competition with the Twins that is still in production.

[DylanFRS]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

Two out of three of the closest actual competition, based on car class, to these cars are not made anymore: The S2000 and RX-8. The Miata is the only car that I can say is technically in competition with the Twins that is still in production.

Still don't get why the S2000 that was $35k brand new is considered to be a competitor to the $25k FRZ.

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by DylanFRS

Still don't get why the S2000 that was $35k brand new is considered to be a competitor to the $25k FRZ.

Ok, so the price is off--but the type of car is the same. Thank you for pointing that out.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by DylanFRS

Still don't get why the S2000 that was $35k brand new is considered to be a competitor to the $25k FRZ.

Because they're in the same price bracket NOW, when people are actually shopping for these products. It's one thing to say "I'm only comparing new cars" but to not even consider used cars (especially a vehicle for enthusiasts who typically don't view projects as problems) and say it's an invalid comparison is just dumb.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

As I said, apples to oranges. Comparing hot hatches to the Twins is like comparing high-end SUVs and supercars. They may be simliar pricewise, but thats it. The Twins are not marketed in competition with the hot hatches, not that I have seen. FWD is not the same as RWD.

The playing field is changing though as the best of the FWD hot hatches get increasingly closer to RWD sports cars in their handling capability. Just read the recent reviews of the new Fiesta ST and the LSD-equipped version of the just-released Mk 7 GTI - understeer essentially banished, RWD-style rotation possible, and a hoot to drive. A lot of driving enthusiasts will be cross-shopping these with the twins - I know I will be.

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

The playing field is changing though as the best of the FWD hot hatches get increasingly closer to RWD sports cars in their handling capability. Just read the recent reviews of the new Fiesta ST and the LSD-equipped version of the just-released Mk 7 GTI - understeer essentially banished, RWD-style rotation possible, and a hoot to drive. A lot of driving enthusiasts will be cross-shopping these with the twins - I know I will be.

This is a valid point. How this all fits into the whole "final gear should be taller" argument is beyond me at this point, though.

[Takuro]

This thread is starting to go on a tangent. But anyways, I dislike the stock high wheel gap on this car. Makes it look less "sporty" lol, but that can be fixed with coilovers. Although I do love being able to get up steep entrances/driveways and not scraping on speedbumps. I still think the car is pretty low even with the wheel gap.

[DylanFRS]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

The playing field is changing though as the best of the FWD hot hatches get increasingly closer to RWD sports cars in their handling capability. Just read the recent reviews of the new Fiesta ST and the LSD-equipped version of the just-released Mk 7 GTI - understeer essentially banished, RWD-style rotation possible, and a hoot to drive. A lot of driving enthusiasts will be cross-shopping these with the twins - I know I will be.

So why would anyone even buy the twins then if they are comparable to the long list of hot hatches? In a hot hatch for around the same price you can get more options, better interior, more practicality, and a faster car (both in a straight line and around a track)... People will "cross-shop" anything. There are people that don't know if they want to drop a wad of cash on a Range Rover or a 911, but that doesn't mean those two cars should be in a comparison...

I don't like how thin the paint and clear coat it is. I can rub a microfiber towel across my car and get scratches in the clearcoat (stupid black)

[nalc]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

This is a valid point. How this all fits into the whole "final gear should be taller" argument is beyond me at this point, though.

Because those turbocharged hot hatches have low-end torque. Twins do not. Thus, twins have a short 6th gear. I shouldn't be able to mash the pedal at 55mph in 6th gear with an engine with as little torque as the FA20 and have it pull hard, like it does now. Thus, it is MY opinion that 6th gear is too short. I'd be willing to trade that "mash the pedal without downshifting and have it go" if it meant a couple MPG more efficient and a couple dB quieter on the highway, which I think having a taller 6th gear would do. 2500rpm at only 57 mph (checked on my way home) in 6th is too short of gearing. I should be doing 65-70mph at that rpm in that gear. Instead, I'm cruising above 3k on the highway, with power to spare. My speculation is that part of the design decision for that gearing may have related to the fact that in a turbocharged hot hatch that starts making big torque numbers lower in the RPM range will allow you to pass on the highway without downshifting, so maybe that's why the twins are geared to allow passing without downshifting. When you've got a high displacement or turbocharged motor that makes 200 ft-lbs of torque at 2000rpm, you can mash the pedal at 55mph and pull hard to 75mph. When you've got a FA20 that makes some 60 ft-lbs of torque at 2000rpm, you shouldn't be able to, unless 6th gear is too short, which it is. I'm perfectly fine having 60 ft-lbs of torque push me along the highway and needing to downshift to pass, because I'm using less gas and making less noise. I guess most people aren't, so the twins are geared short to have more torque available at highway cruising RPMs, so that you don't need to downshift to accelerate. It's telling that the automatic twins have a 0.582 ratio in 6th versus our 0.767 ratio, because the automatic will downshift for you if you need to pass. That reinforces my theory that the MT twins 6th gear is designed to appeal to lazy drivers or drivers who are used to turbocharged or high displacement engines with big torque down low that negates the need to downshift to accelerate. I'd rather have the gear ratios the AT does, where it's the same ratios as most 5 speeds with an extra ultra-overdrive 6th, instead of our silly transmission that has a shorter 6th gear than most cars' 5th gears, just so we can have a "third and a half" gear (I'm talking about 4th gear, which is somewhere between where 3rd and 4th are normally on a 5-speed)

[WolfpackS2k]

I shouldn't be able to mash the pedal at 55mph in 6th gear with an engine with as little torque as the FA20 and have it pull hard, like it does now.

Say whaaaaaaaaaat now? I think most people would disagree with that description. As to 6th gear itself...its a sports car not an economy car. Some people might want to use 6th gear at the race track.

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

The playing field is changing though as the best of the FWD hot hatches get increasingly closer to RWD sports cars in their handling capability. Just read the recent reviews of the new Fiesta ST and the LSD-equipped version of the just-released Mk 7 GTI - understeer essentially banished, RWD-style rotation possible, and a hoot to drive. A lot of driving enthusiasts will be cross-shopping these with the twins - I know I will be.

You can't defeat the laws of physics. You take that "hot hatch" to the track and the front tires are going to melt away in front of you in a blazing glory of understeer after several laps. You can only do so much when 64% of the car's weight is over the front wheels (nevermind the engine is in front of the axle).

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by nalc

Because those turbocharged hot hatches have low-end torque. Twins do not. Thus, twins have a short 6th gear. I shouldn't be able to mash the pedal at 55mph in 6th gear with an engine with as little torque as the FA20 and have it pull hard, like it does now. Thus, it is MY opinion that 6th gear is too short. I'd be willing to trade that "mash the pedal without downshifting and have it go" if it meant a couple MPG more efficient and a couple dB quieter on the highway, which I think having a taller 6th gear would do. 2500rpm at only 57 mph (checked on my way home) in 6th is too short of gearing. I should be doing 65-70mph at that rpm in that gear. Instead, I'm cruising above 3k on the highway, with power to spare. My speculation is that part of the design decision for that gearing may have related to the fact that in a turbocharged hot hatch that starts making big torque numbers lower in the RPM range will allow you to pass on the highway without downshifting, so maybe that's why the twins are geared to allow passing without downshifting. When you've got a high displacement or turbocharged motor that makes 200 ft-lbs of torque at 2000rpm, you can mash the pedal at 55mph and pull hard to 75mph. When you've got a FA20 that makes some 60 ft-lbs of torque at 2000rpm, you shouldn't be able to, unless 6th gear is too short, which it is. I'm perfectly fine having 60 ft-lbs of torque push me along the highway and needing to downshift to pass, because I'm using less gas and making less noise. I guess most people aren't, so the twins are geared short to have more torque available at highway cruising RPMs, so that you don't need to downshift to accelerate. It's telling that the automatic twins have a 0.582 ratio in 6th versus our 0.767 ratio, because the automatic will downshift for you if you need to pass. That reinforces my theory that the MT twins 6th gear is designed to appeal to lazy drivers or drivers who are used to turbocharged or high displacement engines with big torque down low that negates the need to downshift to accelerate. I'd rather have the gear ratios the AT does, where it's the same ratios as most 5 speeds with an extra ultra-overdrive 6th, instead of our silly transmission that has a shorter 6th gear than most cars' 5th gears, just so we can have a "third and a half" gear (I'm talking about 4th gear, which is somewhere between where 3rd and 4th are normally on a 5-speed)

To my credit, I actually read through all of that. I see your point, though I think you could have been less wordy about it . I also agree that a taller 6th would get better MPG....but how much is debatable, let alone not even remotely tested yet. Does the A/T (since you cited it) get massively better mpg? As I recall it, no. It seems like there would have to be a pretty drastic change in that gearing to provide a worthwhile result. Take into account that the shifting that this would necessitate would also wear the clutch that much more quickly as well.

Also, the engine spinning at that observed RPM does not necessarily mean that the MPGs are always lower. There isn't always the same amount of fuel per cylinder flowing when at highway speeds since the ECU is compensating for the load required and metering out the fuel as appropriate.

Well, I guess I got pretty wordy there too

[nalc]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

To my credit, I actually read through all of that. I see your point, though I think you could have been less wordy about it . I also agree that a taller 6th would get better MPG....but how much is debatable, let alone not even remotely tested yet. Does the A/T (since you cited it) get massively better mpg? As I recall it, no. It seems like there would have to be a pretty drastic change in that gearing to provide a worthwhile result. Take into account that the shifting that this would necessitate would also wear the clutch that much more quickly as well.

Also, the engine spinning at that observed RPM does not necessarily mean that the MPGs are always lower. There isn't always the same amount of fuel per cylinder flowing when at highway speeds since the ECU is compensating for the load required and metering out the fuel as appropriate.

Well, I guess I got pretty wordy there too

EPA estimate is 30mpg highway for the MT, 34mpg highway for the AT, so I'm thinking that at least a good portion of that difference is due to the ultra-tall 6th in the AT. But you're right - as I said, I'm not sure exactly how much of a correlation there is between engine RPM and fuel consumption, but again, it's my belief that if the AT has a .582 6th gear, and gets 4mpg better highway, the MT would get better highway gas mileage with a taller 6th gear, at the expense of needing to downshift to accelerate when going 50-70mph. Although it is kinda fun being lazy and forgetting I'm driving a MT when I'm on the highway (I used to have a Maxima with gobs more torque and it was the same way, once you were at 55mph you hardly ever needed to downshift to 4th). The LGT I had in between was some 650 lbs heavier than my BRZ, and had AWD, and a less powerful EJ251, and that car you really needed to downshift to 4th every time you wanted to pass someone on the highway. More work, but the MPG gains might be worth it.

[Dazza]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

^huh? I just stated several instances of cars (Hondas) that had 100hp/liter outputs for less than the BRZ.

Sorry was that when they were new (and in 2013 equivalent $$)?

In Australia there hasn't been anything close to the money doing 100bhp/litre until very recently, 2nd hand yes but not new.

[DIF]

The paint is the least satisfying issue with the car. Mine's in firestorm. The roof and hood are ok but the doors, rear panels, and trunk all have some minimal orange peal to some degree. Every FRS I have compared it to seems to have some as well so it seems to be systemic to the line. I don't mind a lot because from a distance you really can't see it, but it's not the quality paint job I would have hoped for. I've clayed it put on a coat of mothers pure carnauba wax and 10 feet away she glows, so.....