Inside Line - BRZ Full Test Review

[86fanatic]

Personally I couldn't get over the RX8 styling. It never looked right from any angle to me. That and the temperamental engine, horrible gas mileage, burning oil, higher maintenance, lack of a power band.

The car as a package was almost there, but too many deal breakers for me to take it seriously.

[Lost]

Originally Posted by 86fanatic

That and the temperamental engine, horrible gas mileage, burning oil, higher maintenance, lack of a power band.

Yeah, I was actually looking at RX-8's (who doesn't want to play with a 9000 rpm red line?) but it all those things really subtract from the package.

[OrbitalEllipses]

All the above RX-8 stuff is true, but this is a similar car. The RX-8 even at ~3064lbs has a better weight to power ratio at ~13.2lbs/hp. Here's what Edmunds thought of it:

Originally Posted by Edmunds

Although generally quick in the upper regions of the tachometer, the RX-8's acceleration is still below average for a sports car. In our tests, a manual-equipped RX-8 ran from zero to 60 mph in 7 seconds; the last Mustang V6 coupe we tested did it in 5.6 seconds.

[concept_cynic]

Originally Posted by Rampage

Every test use slighrly different criteria. Motor Trend, for ecample, does a 3 foot rollout...

I'm not doubting you but do you have a source for this info?

[ashtray]

I looked at buying a used RX8 - lots had new replacement engines. Scared me away.

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by Subaruwrxfan

Eh, I think of the BRZ as more of a lightweight than the RX8. The RX8 had the quirky back doors and was a bit heavier, at around 3,000 lbs. I always thought that car was underpowered. I think the BRZ will be different because it's significantly lighter, and doesn't have as high of a redline. The RX8 was an absolute dog until 7k.

The BRZ has a much more usable powerband and is more lean than an RX8.

Just my 2 cents.

How much wheel time do you have with the RX8? Mine was plenty fast and its engine was smooth and revved freely. It was not a dog below 7000 (but I did need to get the revs up above ~5500, which wasn't an issue since fuel cutoff wasn't until 9500). It weighed only ~150 pounds more than the BRZ Limited.

Overall the FT86 ought to have dynamics right in-between the MX5 and RX8. I expect the FT86 to be more fun than the RX8 because of its weight advantage and shorter wheelbase, but it'll be slower in a straight line.

[Lost]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Overall the FT86 ought to have dynamics right in-between the MX5 and RX8. I expect the FT86 to be more fun than the RX8 because of its weight advantage and shorter wheelbase, but it'll be slower in a straight line.

Yeah, that seems about right. I think the brz is closer to the original rx-7 than the 8.

[brillo]

Do we know the edmunds 0-59 time? I'd just use that
As a proxy for 0-60, screw the 3rd shift.

[brillo]

my rx8 weighs 2940lb, 80k miles, original engine, 17 city 23 hwy average for me. Been a good car, just looking for a bit better mileage and something different, hence the fr-s / br-z. I look at the br-z as a comparable car. The RX does a real world 0-60 in about 7 sec without a 7000rpm clutch dump.

[Subaruwrxfan]

Originally Posted by Deslock

How much wheel time do you have with the RX8? Mine was plenty fast and its engine was smooth and revved freely. It was not a dog below 7000 (but I did need to get the revs up above ~5500, which wasn't an issue since fuel cutoff wasn't until 9500). It weighed only ~150 pounds more than the BRZ Limited.

Overall the FT86 ought to have dynamics right in-between the MX5 and RX8. I expect the FT86 to be more fun than the RX8 because of its weight advantage and shorter wheelbase, but it'll be slower in a straight line.

I only drove one once for a few minutes, so I only got a taste. I might have grown to like it if I drove it more, but it didn't impress me as soon as I started driving it.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by tripjammer

Everybody gives a damn about 0-60 times, just like they give a damn about breathing clean air everyday. The BRZ\FRS is a sports car, you don't want to be embarrassed by a sienna mini van on the streets.

0 to 60 times are all over the place for this car...from 6.0 secs to 7.3 secs...it needs to average closer to 6.0...and i think it will. That is fast enough.

The 60 in 0-60 is an arbitrary figure, Toyota happened to say "let's not give a flipping shit about that benchmark time and gear it shorter" so it doesn't hit 60 in 2nd gear. The Sienna will not embarass it, the Sienna will trail behind until the FRS hits 59 and shifts.

I wonder how putting more weight in the back would affect it though, this is a somewhat front heavy FR, and a low center of gravity reduces weight transfer under acceleration.

[Xlr8]

Originally Posted by PSound

I have never felt the need or desire to race someone from a stoplight, regardless of what I was driving or they were driving.

Oh i have. I do it in my Corolla!

[Baldeagle]

As a daily driver, I’m a little worried this car won’t make the grade for me. Cranking almost 2,700 rpm at 60 mph (3,300+ at 75 mph) means it is not a good highway car and therefore not a good commuter car. Knowing that highway fuel economy and comfort are priorities for most drivers, I am surprised Toyota/Subaru chose such short 5th and 6th gears. They could have kept 1st through 4th gear the same, which would have taken the car well past 100 mph, and made 5th and 6th longer. That would have had absolutely no adverse effect on the car’s 0-60 time or quarter mile time and speed.

Also, the car is marketed as having a usable back seat but according to the reviews it may be more for looks. If the reviews are accurate, why build the back seat if it is not functional? It only adds unnecessary weight. In my situation, about 4-5 times per year I need to fit adults in my back seat for short trips. I’m worried. In all other respects this car seems so extraordinary.

[Xlr8]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

As a daily driver, I’m a little worried this car won’t make the grade for me. Cranking almost 2,700 rpm at 60 mph (3,300+ at 75 mph) means it is not a good highway car and therefore not a good commuter car. Knowing that highway fuel economy and comfort are priorities for most drivers, I am surprised Toyota/Subaru chose such short 5th and 6th gears. They could have kept 1st through 4th gear the same, which would have taken the car well past 100 mph, and made 5th and 6th longer. That would have had absolutely no adverse effect on the car’s 0-60 time or quarter mile time and speed.

Also, the car is marketed as having a usable back seat but according to the reviews it may be more for looks. If the reviews are accurate, why build the back seat if it is not functional? It only adds unnecessary weight. In my situation, about 4-5 times per year I need to fit adults in my back seat for short trips. I’m worried. In all other respects this car seems so extraordinary.

The gearing on the Auto is much better for a daily commuter. If you don't insist on a standard transmission then the auto will make a much better daily driver. As far as back seat passengers go that will just be your call. Some who have sat in it say people can fit back there for short trips.