Not so slow

[Demandred7]

Originally Posted by boxer 2.5

No, this car is slow. IN A STRAIGHT LINE. And above 2500ft elevation? The power is just anemic. This car is meant for curves, and pushing to the limit doing so. But a V6 minivan will destroy it in a straight line.

Destroy?! On par maybe. I own a Toyota Sienna SE and an FR-S and they are remarkably close in a straight line.

[boxer 2.5]

Originally Posted by horrorbiz

So if you use an automatic BRZ it would go about as fast as the Odyssey in a straight line. Quite different than destroying. Most enthusiasts who drive a BRZ would get the manual... and the manual would reach 60mph, 1.5 seconds before the Odyssey. That sounds a bit like "destroying."

I do admit I used the term "destroy" when it wasn't so applicable. Fact of the matter is, This car isn't amazing in a straight line. It wasn't meant to be. Agreed?

[Bonburner]

i dont understand why were ok comparing a flat 4 2l to a v6 3.5l engine .. i get it camry is an "eco" box but .. still theres a whole 75% More engine & 50% more cylinder ... not really surprising its faster ... :X
^of which is marginal .3 i guess, toss stickier tires making it impossible to wheel spin and im thinking frs is faster lol
the cost difference is worth it imo for the RWD and all the purposeful designing put into the weight distribution and just everything regarding the vehicle ...

[horrorbiz]

Originally Posted by boxer 2.5

I do admit I used the term "destroy" when it wasn't so applicable. Fact of the matter is, This car isn't amazing in a straight line. It wasn't meant to be. Agreed?

I totally agree. It's just annoying to hear people often exaggerate how "slow" it is. As you said, it's not a drag race car—but it's certainly not a slouch.

[djmm]

Previous comment about the car has no power worries me. Is it really that bad when you drive with 1 passenger? Or is it still more of less similar to Camry V6 with 1 passenger?

[Bonburner]

Originally Posted by djmm

Previous comment about the car has no power worries me. Is it really that bad when you drive with 1 passenger? Or is it still more of less similar to Camry V6 with 1 passenger?

I frequently drove for SB to OC (avg 2.75 hours at least legal speed) with 2-4 ppl in the car - its not that hard - mind you there were a few hill climbs and one rather exceptionally steep and I didn't struggle too much so iono why ppl complain so much
and one time 4 guys each weighing +170

[djmm]

Good to know. I think people over expects things on this car....

[italy7]

Originally Posted by Bonburner

i dont understand why were ok comparing a flat 4 2l to a v6 3.5l engine .. i get it camry is an "eco" box but .. still theres a whole 75% More engine & 50% more cylinder ... not really surprising its faster ... :X
^of which is marginal .3 i guess, toss stickier tires making it impossible to wheel spin and im thinking frs is faster lol
the cost difference is worth it imo for the RWD and all the purposeful designing put into the weight distribution and just everything regarding the vehicle ...

Agreed, major problem for me in the camry v6 is no M/T and no soul! Yes though, everything above is spot on which is why i am 'looking' at the 86.

[Trmx2]

I think the "fast/slow" argument is very subjective. I don't think the car is slow at all, also, if you learn how the car performs and behaves and where it's power band lies, and you drive within this power band, the car is FAST. I zip around most cars and if I drop into the right gear, the car shoots off like a bat out of hell. When you're loafing in 6th and you're doing 40mph and you step on the gas, the car doesn't move......then again, I don't know many high revving cars that will move when used in that fashion. The car is meant for high-rev's and flying around turns. This car has beaten nearly all of the competition on the track against cars with much more HP and much faster 0-60 times. It's not a weekend drag car....and it wasn't designed to be either. I guarantee that shaving some weight off the car....(and it's already really light) would make the car much faster off the line in STOCK format. A CF hood, trunk, light performance wheels, and nice tires, will really help this car. I love the car, and it's fast enough for me

[Trmx2]

Originally Posted by italy7

Agreed, major problem for me in the camry v6 is no M/T and no soul! Yes though, everything above is spot on which is why i am 'looking' at the 86.

The dealership tried to sell me a Camry fully loaded because he said I would pay less monthly than I would for the FRS...and I said "great, I didn't come here for a Camry...I came here for an FRS...."

I think our car would smoke a camry, because most people who drive a camry, don't know how to drive it, and are driving an A/T and yeah, just it wouldn't be faster....our car would burn it.

[tennisfreak]

My car feels fast enough and certainly not slow.

What makes the car feel bad is the damn torque dip.
So drivers who have no clue how to drive their car and keep it above the torque dip are going to say the car is slow.

Honestly once you get past the torque dip and keep the car between 5-7krpm its pretty nice.

[Trmx2]

Originally Posted by horrorbiz

It's 3 seconds faster to 60 than a 2013 Civic.
It's 1.5 seconds faster to 60 than a 2013 Accord.
It's .3 seconds slower to 60 than the 2013 V6 Accord (278hp).
It's 2 seconds faster to 60 than a 2013 Camry.
It's .3 seconds slower to 60 than the 2012 Camry V6 (268hp)

And temperatures, driving conditions, and driver would all play a part in this. Essentially if someone was better equipped at driving our car, we could beat the .3 seconds. I like how you put this out there, it really shows how QUICK our car actually is.

Someone in a V6 accord would most likely have the A/C blasting, be driving an A/T and not know how to drive....I think our car would smoke it.

[horrorbiz]

This is a sports car. Take it to a track with decent tires and it will out perform the WRX and MS3 (as proven in a magazine article I cannot remember at the moment). Both of those cars would embarrass the Camry. This is a pointless conversation. The 86 is also terrible at driving through mud in the woods.

[DarkSunrise]

The thing about 0-60 for this car is, you have to launch it at a high RPM to get those times. Times will suffer drastically if you don't.

Whereas a torquey car like a V6 Camry won't be affected as much without a proper launch. Nor will its driver have to shift perfectly, as it's an auto. I think a V6 Camry is a better car for the street racers out there.

Also Tennisfreak nailed it on the head. If you keep this car in its powerband (4500-7500 RPM), it is decently quick.